Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Freeman Dyson What You Will
Famous for his work in math, astronomy, nuclear engineering, and theoretical physics, Freeman Dyson has left his mark on almost every scientific discipline. He's won countless awards, and written numerous books on a wide range of topics both scientific and philosophical. One of his biggest contributions to science was the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics invented by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga. 10 years after moving to the U.S. he started working on the Orion Project, which sought to create a spacecraft with a nuclear propulsion system. STNG exposed the idea of a Dyson sphere to the masses, and his hypothetical plan for making a comet habitable with the help of genetically-engineered plants is a personal favorite. Mr. Dyson has graciously agreed give us a bit of his time in order to answer your questions. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
When weighted against population, it appears that there are fewer "Renaissance men/women" than there have been historically. I've heard many regular people opine about how fields require more depth and learning to make progress in them but, as a polymath yourself, what is your opinion on it?
My work here is dung.
Why did you take a fellowship at Cornell and stay in the United States? There's plenty of world renowned institutions in the United Kingdom and you were a pilot in the RAF -- what appealed to you about the United States? Do you have any comments or opinions on H1-Bs and the United States' current stance on immigration?
My work here is dung.
In the past you've been cited as a noted skeptic of man-made global warming. Has any of the recent events made you change your mind? Events such as the Arctic becoming completely free of ice, or Britain having snow-free winters?
Okay those events haven't actually happened yet, but eminent climate scientists have ran computer models and they say these things will happen very soon. Are you alarmed enough to change your stance on global warming?
How has your education helped or hindered you? You are the "ideal" educated man. In our (American) culture, we don;t seem to be producing people devoted to learning, discovering, thinking, inventing, etc. What in your opinion can an educational system do to foster what you've become?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
A crowbar, or a gravity gun?
I notice that you've long had an interest in climate studies and have proposed novel ideas for removing carbon dioxide. Are there any good texts on the current state of engineering solutions to the symptoms of the problem of anthropogenic global warming? Also, in regards to engineering fast growing plants to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, wouldn't these be a scourge on the land and interfere with crops and food sources much like algal blooms and kudzu?
My work here is dung.
Are you saddened by the fact that fears in the general populace prohibit the use of nuclear technologies for space exploration?
is all truth, even the speed of light, relative? (maybe light was faster after the BigBang, and is gradually slowing)
Given that we finally seem to have a vital and growing private space industry, what do you think the likeliest successful target for long term space industrialization/exploitation/habitation is? The Moon, near earth asteroids, Mars?
What scientific theory do you believe despite the lack of evidence?
I don't know if you are familiar with Louise B. Young's book The Unfinished Universe, or the convention of capitalizing the term Form as biologists once capitalized Life, but could you speak to the notion that "life" in cosmic contexts is often speculated about in terms of being "seeded", i.e., that the Earth was set on its path of evolution by an asterioid, and not a phenomenon that might be spontaneous and by terms yet discovered, such as organisms attending smokers on a sea floor?
Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
Elon Musk seems to be someone with big dreams who then makes them happen. But the biggest and most difficult dream seems to be his desire to colonize Mars. In what realm of possibility would you put his goal of a self-sustaining Mars colony starting with 10 and scaling to 80,000 people?
Professor Dyson
I had the pleasure of listening to you speak at Caltech in the 1980s about the Nuclear Freeze Movement. You were a supporter even though you indicated that since the number of nuclear weapons was decreasing (at that time), keeping the current number of nuclear weapons was not desirable.
Thirty years have passed. Do you think this movement accomplished any of their goals?
Thank you.
What are your thoughts on social engineering as it applies to near future changes in human relationships.
In your considerable opinion, does this allow for species change in a positive or negative fashion when relating to extra planetary exploration?
I loved you in Terminator 2 and your vacuum cleaners are second to none
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Do you view orbital launch loops as a viable method for reaching (low) orbits? I've read some studies suggesting they are physically possible without exotic materials but I rarely hear the idea discussed.
Consciousness is unlike anything I've encountered in any of the sciences. How should we direct our efforts in explaining this glaringly evident fact in the world?
Your book The Sun, the Genome and the Internet was published in 1999. In the past 15 years, what specific progresses have been made towards your vision of a future in this book? Have we taken any divergent roads? Have there been any unexpected blockers that have arisen in that time? Are you still that optimistic about our future?
My work here is dung.
I like the idea of this question but I think we need to reword it. Dyson is not a skeptic of global warming – he does believe we are having an impact. IIRC he holds the following views:
You can drive a mac truck though the holes in current models – but that is o.k. because Climatology is a young science and is still developing. What it does mean is that the error bars should be set way further apart and the long term impacts are uncertain.
Because the models are poor, it is hard to come up with specific advice and course of actions. For example, should biomass be encouraged as a energy source? The fuel itself is carbon naturel but production often takes places on marginal lands – where farming could increase greenhouse gases.
So, current plans are huge, expensive, and of unknown value to solve for a future problem with unknown costs.
The future will offer better models that will give better specific advice. Future technology will lower the cost of implanting a fix.
Balance that against current problems with known impact and known costs to cure – for example – world poverty (poor education, unclean water, etc.)
The answer therefore is to wait (If I understand what Dyson has been saying I agree with most of what he says – expect that I think that the future costs will grow faster than the advance of future technology so we should start now – but I am not an optimist).
In my understanding, the concepts of nuclear pulse propulsion that were investigated in the Orion Project had the highest real potential for generating enormous energies required for "faster" travel in space than anything we have, even today. I have always felt that it is a tragedy that this research couldn't be taken further into our modern realities of exploration.
Today, we have NASA exploring the potential (on a very small scale) of faster than light (FTL) travel using ideas such as the Alcubierre drive. In common discussion, we now hear about things such as: dark matter, quantum teleportation, FTL particles in the form of cosmic rays, the likely discovery of the Higgs Boson, spacetime, etc. These appear, to the layman like myself, to be serious discussions, with new realities and new possibilities being discovered every day.
The entirety of the NASA space program as we know it has developed within the last 60 years.
Given the advances in technology we have made in such a short time, the laws of physics, and the realities of the politics of our world, do you think it is feasible that we will develop the ability for very fast, near or faster-than-light travel in the next 60 years, and which direction seems the most feasible to you?
Thank you for your contributions to science, I am humbled to be able to ask this question of you!
Perhaps this has been asked already (throughout the various interviews, engagements, etc that you have had hitherto), but what are your general thoughts on the Singularity movement, transhumanism, and Ray Kurzweil's overall philosophy on human progress? Are these folks realistic, optimistic, or pessimistic? What are your beliefs about the current state of human advancement, and what we must work on as we careen toward the future?
Ok, in a country that is smaller than some PARKS we have in the US, HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW your own cousins?
NASA has a small research project going looking at some fundamental aspects of a warp drive based on the theories of Miguel Alcubierre. Many people openly deride such an effort, others are merely skeptical, a smaller number curious, and even fewer cautiously optimistic.
Where to do fall in this spectrum and why?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Do you think (at least some) of Dark Matter could be well camouflaged Dyson spheres populated by shy, advanced civilizations?
It always seemed to me that you were positive about our future prospects and chances of surviving even during the darkest days of the cold war. Were you, and are you still? If you changed your point of view, what caused it to change?
What do you view as the most realistic way for humanity to get its space legs (in a permanent fashion)? Drag an asteroid into orbit and use it to build cyclers? One-way Mars settlement missions? Something else?
I've heard a lot of cool ideas about things we could do once we're in space (Dyson spheres, etc) but we lack anything more than a toehold on the lowest rung of a long, long ladder and it seems like a chicken-and-egg problem.
You've seen technology shift dramatically in your lifetime. Humanity had barely launched its first rockets when you were born, and you got to see humans walk on another planet (or at least, moon). What do you think I will be able to see before I die?
The fringes of science are filled with all sorts of disreputable, crackpot ideas. Most are worthless, but every now and then one turns out to be true (e.g. Wegener's continental drift). Are there any such "cocktail party theories" that you intrigue you, and that you believe might deserve further investigation?
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Given technological advancements such as this lightweight carbon structure, how long could it be before a Dyson ring could be constructed using statites?
Is there hope for humanity?
Freeman Dyson is one of the greatest minds of our generation. You have just proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant minds of our generation.
Science does not have a political compass, yet some demand that it does. That only shames human development.
There's this theory floating around that the universe is a simulation on a computer, and that computer could be in a universe that is also a simulation, etc. A never ending series of Matryoshka doll universes.
So at first I thought it was just Will Wright saying this, and that he was off his rocker, but some actual scientific work is going to try and prove it.
What are your thoughts? Wagers? Derisive laughter perhaps?
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Project Orion. Your view why it was stopped? Do you think Orion should be continued? If so how to restart Orion?
What do you see as the ultimate destiny of the human species? Where do you think will we be in a million years?
Why do your vacuum cleaners only work as well as a Hoover, but cost 4 times as much?
Thanks
Do you think that science (perhaps the scientific method) will have to change in order to explore the phenomenon of consciousness? If so, do you have any ideas about what those changes might entail?
-David
In your article The Question of Global Warming, you make the point that the Earth's vegetation acts as a big carbon sink, and suggest that genetically engineered plants might do an even better job -- thus becoming the first person in history to make environmentalists angry by suggesting that top soil management is important. I have a few questions about this: (1) you mention the fanciful-sounding notion of "carbon-eating trees", but aren't there technologies that already exist that might do the job? There are claims that "no till" agriculture via the dreaded "roundup ready" plants reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially. (2) A big part of the argument against immediate reductions in CO2 emissions is economic. Do the analyses you've seen really make an effort to capture all the costs and benefits associated with a move like banning coal burning completely? The annual deaths estimated from coal pollution seem big enough to make it worth doing even before you put global warming on the table.
Looking back over your career throught most of the 20th centruy and into the 21st, have you ever observed certain knowladge, techniques or disiplines fade away over time?
Are there ways of doing or thinking about physics and mathematics which were prevalent in the past, but which are no longer common knowladge? How do you compare the abilities and backgrounds of modern professors and graduates to those of the past?
May the Maths Be with you!
The development of human society, understanding and technology has generally been to improve over the past several thousand years. However, with each new step we find ourselves farther from the conditions our ancestors evolved for, forced to wrap our cave man brains around increasingly complex and (to us) counterintuitive problems, at an accelerating rate. What do you think are the most serious risks faced by human progress in the foreseeable future?
What was your impression of the relatve abilities of Bethe and
What was your impression of the relative abilities of Bethe and Feynman?
While space travel is important for human survival in the long term, the more I think about it, the more it seems that developing a human style, scalable, artificial intelligence has for more potential to provide humans with rapid access to a much larger set of useful answers in the general domain of practical, solvable problems.
The investment should be, relatively speaking, trivial, and we already have 7 billion or so working models, so I think it's fairly certain that this can be done.
Given a choice, would you advocate more resources be allocated to space travel, or AI?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I heard him give a talk a few years back and he struck me as pretty skeptical. He did not say that more atmospheric CO2 would not increase temperatures, but the gist of his talk was that the extra CO2 that we were putting into the atmosphere should be pretty easily absorbed by green plants and oceans, so we did not need to worry about warming. I doubt that he would give the same talk today.
What do you see as our greatest threat and conversely our greatest hope?
Inside of this question, there's a poorly defined question space, and it's dancing around something like "Do you see the technology and the thinking that gave us technology as the source or our current woes?, the solution to our current woes?, both? and what should we be paying attention to that we aren't paying attention to inside of the charging juggernaut that our technology has become.
What is your impression of this theory?
What is your one guilty pleasure that make us all speechless?
You're embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 since you posted that using your registered username by mistake (instead of your usual anonymous coward submissions by the 100's the past 2-3 months now on slashdot) giving away it's you spamming this forums almost constantly, just as you have in the post I just replied to.
(So, the above question got me to thinking on how science is communicated, and since only a single question is allowed per post.)
Often society is faced with technically complex, nuanced issues. In cases where the evidence is incomplete, technical experts have yet to reach a consensus, yet broad public support is needed. Is there any practical course of action you would like to see? Better science education? Depolarizing the issues by delegating authority to blue ribbon panels staffed by experts?
I am asking because I see your view on climate change being simplified to the point of distortion. You also experienced J. Robert Oppenheimer, security hearing in 1954, where there is speculation that the inquire was triggered not because of security concerns but by rival scientist.
As I watch all the disparate technologies competing for the emergence of a new kind of sentience, what do you see as the probable winner, inorganic (current digital technologies) or organic (biotech - synthetic biology.) As we have begun to tinker with our own genome, how long do you think it will be before we break out of the strict barriers of our special limitations?
Can you try to summarize in a paragraph what QED tells us about the world?
REcently you extolled the wonderful ability our science is developing to restore extinct species to this planet. You presented several poignant stories of cute animals that should be brought back because we humans have been careless. Why should we do this? But this is not my question. You already provided some innuendo as to an answer - we feel guilty at wholesale extermination of 'innocent species',or because we are pruning the genetic diversity of our planet. Or perhaps it is a 'fear argument'. That less scrupulous nations will use this technology for less altruistic purposes (hybridizing chimps, humans and dogs to create a dim witted and willing servant class?). The proposal to pursue this technology reminds me of humanity's headlong pursuit of atomic research. We needed to develop that technology out of fear- the fear that someone else would have it first and then we might see nuclear Pearl Harbors. But look at how much trouble we have at containing the nuclear genie. One might argue that we are in Afghanistan just to have proximity to the Pakistani nukes so we can get on top of any situation that might develop there. Your rebuttal of course will run along the lines of 'guns dont kill, people do'. And of course you might add that if we do not do this, then some other poorer, more desperate, and equally intelligent nation will develop this tech and leapfrog us. But what if we restore an animal that happens to be an excellent intermediate host to a flu strain and enables it to become a human lethal pandemic producing strain? This kind of decision will come upon us again and again. More genies will come bursting out of the tech-no-logical bottle. My question is: Is the only way to control 'dangerous' tech to lead in it? How can we sandbox our research and at the same time encourage it? allow it only to be done on the moon or a different planet? Or perhaps every involved researcher, engineer, student and professor should go online and post their thoughts on twitter, wikipedia and slashdot. These intellects are the agents who are leading us into the maze. Should they be held personally accountable for misuse of their discoveries? Or should the wise old men of science and who direct these efforts and the business men who finance them be held accountable. Aren't they the ones who are angling for financial rewards? Please forgive these outrageous suggestions. Even when life was easier, when exploration meant getting into a boat and sailing away to find new lands, we still made unknowing mistakes and decimated populations simply by visiting them. If we resurrect the extinct, we might visit upon ourselves an irreversible extinction.
Does it bother you, to be questioned by Samzenpus, a guy who doesn't know shit and can't use a camera much less a microphone but insists on posting videos?
As someone who has made major contributions to multiple areas of knowledge, which has been your favorite, and why?
PS - I thought "Disturbing the Universe" and "From Eros to Gaia" were magnificent - thank you!
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
sure, http://xkcd.com/605/
Why are you pretending that you have expertise in an area you provably do not- climatology- and making dramatic pronouncements which are directly counter to what people who DO have the requisite educational and research specialization are making? It's great that you have cultivated an impish, child-like , authority-resistant public persona, but science is not really interested in any of that. Science is science and this is a branch of science over which you have no legitimate claim of expertise. So are you planning on at least just stopping talking about climate change?
We're all familiar with the problems our civilization would encounter trying to roll out a Dyson sphere structure into the clean vacuum of space (giving us more room to live), but I'm curious about a Dyson vacuum with a rolling sphere to give our living rooms more clean space.
In 1993 you participated in the dutch VPRO television series 'Een schitterend ongeluk' ('A glorious accident'), with a very long, interesting and openhearted interview and an encounter with 6 top scientists of different disciplines. I recently watched the series again, and it totally lived up to the fond memories I had from 20 years ago. I can't remember any other non-fiction television making such an impression on me!
What recollections do you have from the interview and the encounter? Did it have some impact on your (scientific) views?
Thank you
Right, and your Methuselahan UID is prior to the advent of numerals.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Anybody get it? You know, Rosalind, Phoebe, OK Shakespeare, definitely an AC kind of post.
You can either complete a piece of scientific work that will benefit all of mankind for eternity, or, you can use your final hours to be with your loved ones. These two choices are mutually exclusive. What say you?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The early to mid 20th century was one of the most dynamic times to ever happen in physics, with massive shifts in thinking and incredible applications of science that led to some of the greatest achievements of mankind. For a variety of reasons, it seems as though progress recently has been more incremental, collective, and focused on confirming the big ideas of previous thinkers. What attribute do you think is most needed in the upcoming generation of physicists to usher in the next era of scientific progress?
What do you think of Penrose's "objective reduction" interpretation of quantum dynamics as opposed to, say the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum dynamics or other interpretations?
What are your thoughts on the next stage of computers? By that I mean that the silicon era is almost over, and are starting to see more focus on DNA/Molecular computing and quantum computing, while passing through a stage of increased parallelism. Also as a follow-up question: Do you think we need to change architectures? (Is the Von-Neumann architecture good enough for future information-management systems or do we need to try other types of designs)
- A math/cs student
Would you view the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a fundamental law or a statistical law. Might deterministic nano machines be able to violate it?
What is your educated guess on whether NP=P, or not.
NASA is currently conducting experiments to see if they can make microscopic warps in space-time sufficient to be detected by an interferometer. What technologies do you see expediting interstellar travel a few centuries from now, and what technologies do you see as being dead ends.
Before my question, I'd like to express some gratitude for the influence of your work on my life. My first experience of your ideas was through your book Infinite In All Directions which I purchased when it was newly published (circa 1990). On the front cover my edition there is a blurb from the Washington Post Book World which reads:
That's not how I experienced it. I experienced it as having taken a delightfully straight-forward day trip on a paved highway away from my mundane reality in the metropolis of small minds where discourse obeys speed limits seemingly devised to protect muddled adults from clear-minded children. I wanted to crawl into the Maytag and live there.
The blurb finishes:
This came across most strongly for me in the chapter Quick is Beautiful and your discussion of space butterflies. I was still too callow to appreciate how much an educated person must unlearn to return to plain language. I became angry that so many other books are written less well. From your example, it didn't seem so hard. Looking back, that ease seems to derive from a mental rigour in attending your point of departure and keeping it clearly in view: it's not so much a clarity of language (though this is present), as a clarity of frame.
That exact moment, finishing your book on that porch on that June afternoon I still recall so clearly, and then flipping it closed to contemplate that exact blurb, remains with me as the first conscious seed of my own "geek manifesto", reminding me always that there is the hard word of having an idea, and the harder work of not having an idea (but pretending you do). Thank you so much.
Continuing in that vein for a moment longer, I was also deeply struck by a passage early in the book about the Shotgun Seminars and the anecdote about Jan Oort.
I loved that passage. Upon reading that passage I had the first clearly articulated moment of regret of my adult life. Why didn't someone tell me this when I was fourteen and still in school so that I could have at least enjoyed a clear notion of what the entire system was shirking? This has remained my private useful definition for the phrase "doing your homework" ever since; that other loathsome scholastic busywork formerly known as such shall remain nameless, having been donated to a better cause.
The associated anecdote from your book is that Jan Oort at the age of eighty-two drops in unexpectedly and pronounces himself fit to participate "on the stability of stars revolving around the center of galaxy" on no advance preparation whatsoever, saying "no problem, I stay" and though he doesn't become the speaker, he does give the most lucid recap. This was inspiring to me at the time, and it s
There is nothing that can exceed the speed of light. The speed of light may be 299,792,458 meters per second but that is a profoundly, profoundly misleading soundbite, because if you could travel at the speed of light you could go anywhere in the universe without aging even a microsecond. Light speed is actually instantaneous travel... from the traveler's point of view. The *problem* is the rest of the universe, including your point of departure and your destination, will have aged quite a bit. So when people talk about FTL what they really mean is "traveling really fast without that pesky time dilation getting in the way." Which is a fancy way of saying "time travel". If you can travel that fast without the time dilation then you can also travel backwards in time. There's nothing wrong with asking about time travel, it may yet be entirely feasible, but the very persistence of the term "FTL" betrays very profound ignorance of special relativity that persists even 108 years later.
I've heard different explanations of the Alcubierre drive but if wikipedia's current description is to be believed, it is essentially a form of time travel. If you possess exotic matter then you are able to go back to yesterday just as easy as you are able to travel Alpha Centari in fifteen minutes (not just fifteen minutes for you but fifteen minutes for us here on earth and the aliens waiting for you there.) Exotic matter is fascinating but has never been experimentally verified beyond the still controversial and misunderstood Casimir Effect.
There's also no such thing as a FTL cosmic rays to my knowledge. What you are describing are tachyons, which have never been experimentally detected and the vast majority of physicists dismiss as a mathematical artifact. Some references to "faster than light" particles in the popular press are either misrepresentations of what is actually occurring (the leading edge of the waveform isn't traveling faster than light) or experiments that have been later disproven (such as the six sigma FTL neutrino.)
We already have "near light speed" technology; you just get a huge tank of fuel and keep firing that (possibly nuclear) rocket until you're going fast enough.
Anyway, to reiterate: going fast has never been the issue (except for the expense involved and political unpopularity in transporting nuclear materials to space.) Near-lightspeed has never been impossible and has always been more than fast enough for the traveler. What is problematic and possibly unsolvable is going fast without everyone and everything back on Earth aging--from the traveler's point of view--at an accelerated rate.
In any 'branch of science' the people working in those fields use techniques from other branches of science. For example, experimental physicists crunch data and analyze them using statistics. Some physicists don't do statistics well, making statisticians cringe. But other physicists DO know their statistics. In climatology there is a lot of data being analyzed, and to make one's conclusions relevant one must be honest with one's methods and not end up biasing one conclusion over another. A scientist like Dyson may have the requisite skills to analyze climatology studies by looking at the methods, no?
Which option do you believe should be researched first: gas core reactor rocket engines or thermonuclear rocket engines?
While the gas core technology is simpler and would allow practical interplanetary flight within the Solar System, shouldn't we (the Humankind) research first the thermonuclear rocket engines technology that would make interstellar flight feasible?
Thanks in advance!
Dear Dr. Dyson,
You're obviously a person who knows how entice yourself into doing something - even when that something has become boring and routine
Would you mind sharing with us in what way you encourage yourself to carry on in what you have been doing, and in overcoming fears of the unknown when you are about to do things that you have never done before (facing new challenges) ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I've always had a harsh relationship with terminology that subtly obscures. As such, I hated the term "junk DNA" from the moment I first encountered it long ago, instinctively reading it as "when sequenced, consumes huge amounts of grant money for results I can't publish". It struck me as ludicrous on its face that a combinatorial system engaged in adaptive "tuning" would eschew linearity where it could inject some on the cheap. We now know that much of the noncoding DNA is under heavy selection pressure. How anyone expected for a microsecond not to find mechanism there is beyond me.
Similarly, I've never been terribly pleased with "random mutation". It strikes me that if adaptation is adaptive (and therefore under selection pressure) that "random" must in some deep sense also be under selection pressure to become something not entirely or precisely captured by the word "random". "Random" turned out to be a deep word taking us down the path of Von Neumann, Shannon, Knuth, Chaitin, Kolmogorov, and recently into the terrain of Jurgen Schmidhuber.
This leads one to contemplate higher orders of viability, where say some branch of the evolutionary tree accumulates useful variation more quickly than another, due to some mutation having biased the "randomness" of mutation into a more productive or exploratory sub-space, and then this evolutionary branch inexorably out-competes other evolutionary branches less nimble in the adaptation arms race. Unfortunately, this notion perhaps reeks a bit of "group selection" as taken to task by Steven Pinker in one of his pieces at Edge. (In that piece he does mention that "random" is better read as "blind to outcome" but I still think that falls slightly short, as if mutations are only ever tasted once.)
Is there a sensible way to discuss or formulate selection pressure against the nature of the adaptive system itself? Are we sacrificing an important intuition by hiding this process, whatever it might look like, behind the customary word "random"? Just how necessarily blind must the genetic system remain? Obviously not completely blind because modern humans (obtained via evolution) are now capable (in theory) of designing evolutionary systems optimized to evolve more vigorously per an internal representation of viable evolutionary pathways as defined in some mathematical sense. But could this have bent back upon itself far sooner in evolutionary history without the detour through an "intelligence" phenotype?
An example: Most biology shares the same genetic code (assignment of codons to amino acids). There seems to be a lock-in aspect, despite the genetic code as established perhaps being less than optimal as an error shuffling substrate, for some not terribly proximal notion of optimal (which is problematic). We could change that now, if we wished, to produce an organism much like ourselves, with a very different adaptation profile into the future. Welcome homo mutabilis.
Assuming that, as constituted, the human mind is incapable of understand the universe in its entirety, would you support the re-engineering of the human mind, either to incorporate cognitive prostheses or to interface the mind to unbounded external artificial intelligence?
So are you planning on at least just stopping talking about climate change?
Why do I only ever hear this asked of certain non-climate-experts? It seems there's a correlation between opinions on climate change and worthiness to discuss the topic. For example, Tim Flannery is a biologist and Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer yet I never hear people ask them to stop talking about climate because of their lack of expertise.
You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
Could you speak about the origins of the Dyson-Maleev transformation?
I am of the opinion that without economical fusion, humanity will not last more than a few thousand years. I am also of the opinion that most fusion research funding is targeted at projects with little or no application to economical fusion (I see no evidence that tokamaks or inertial confinement will ever be economical. In fact, all evidence seems to suggest they will never be economical). What are your views on the current state of fusion research? Is funding misplaced? Disproportionately allocated?
Thanks! I 'man aspiring scientist, and you're one of my personal hero's, so it's quite incredible to have the chance to ask you a question (even if it only has a small chance of being answered).
How can the U.S. eliminate its nuclear arsenal without becoming militarily inferior to other countries, even to minor powers who possess (or may someday possess) nuclear weapons (e.g. Iran/North Korea)?
Professor Dyson,
what is your opinion of eugenics?
Professor Dyson, you have been an actor and a witness of the huge expansion of hard sciences into everyday life. Thanks to scientific progress, particularly in the understanding of the basic physical laws, we have been able to improve our way of life almost beyond belief: energy, transport, and even exploration, now going beyond our planet all have been hugely transformed in the last 100 years.
However in the last few decades, our understanding of physics has become good enough for "most" things, and physics seems stuck. It looks like string theory is mostly sterile, with no useful or even testable prediction in spite of huge efforts, with nothing to really replace it. Also, the standard model is too good. We found the Higgs almost exactly where it was expected. On the one hand do not have a working theory of quantum gravity, and on the other we seem unable to produce a useful fusion reactor in spite of foreseeable dire needs in safe energy consumption. We already know that other efforts including solar, sea and wind energy will not be sufficient to guarantee our children a safe future.
At the same time we witness a resurgence of religious beliefs at home and abroad that is causing societal and international concerns. According to some recent polls, many people do no longer "believe" in science, or even maths. We are seemingly stuck in a hard recession, pollution is a problem finally hitting planet-wide proportions. This is not looking too good.
What do we do? How do we restore the public's confidence in progress? How do we go forward? These are huge questions and it would be nice to have a perspective on this from your point of view.
What, in your opinion, will be the effect on humankind if we do not develop economical, effective space travel? How do you think the species will evolve?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
You once wrote that "Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion". I originally resisted this notion, but I've come to think that you are correct. Where did you first hear about this idea? (I've since noticed that there are whole books on the subject, say by Robert Nelson.) Does this help explain why skepticism is such a heresy? After all, one of the biggest religious sins is the sin of disbelief.
You're daughter Esther is one of the most incredibly inspiring women role models alive today. Do you have any parenting advice for those of out here with kids of our own who would like them to become similarly active, positive, and brilliant adults?
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
You need to review Dyson's bio a little more closely. He was one of the first physicists to work on global warming at all, and I would venture to say that a lot of the experimental work that's been taken place in the last 20 years has happened because of his prompting.
If you'd like to know why he said what he said, you might start by reading his argument: The Question of Global Warming.
Actually, Dyson disagrees with you on this point, he's argued that there's a need for scientific heretics. Ane previously, he's had a book published on this subject: The Scientist as Rebel
Interestingly enough, this book did not provoke any great controversy. We all like the idea of intellectual rebels and heretics in principle, but when they go up against one of our own beliefs, then they're just incredibly arrogant for going against the authorities.
(By the way... speaking of arrogance, it takes some balls to lecture Freeman Dyson about science... but whatever.)
If you want to attack Dyson's policy recommendation on global warming, by the way, I suggest going after him on the economics. I guarantee you that he knows more about climate science than you or I do, but on a subject like the costs of imposing heavy carbon taxes he's got to defer to economists, and they've got they're own problems with objectivity.
Helmholtz observed long ago that “similar light produces, under like conditions, a like sensation of color.” color is, of course, one of the “secondary qualities” of Locke, which he thought had only a mental existence. Why, then, discuss color in a scientific forum? Well, because color is simply the wavelength of light, right? Well, no, contrary to what “everyone knows,” it is not. We can both broaden and tighten his observation from with a little help from Heisenberg, and say that the same state vector [psi], acted upon by the same operators A, B, C, produces the same spectrum of secondary qualities. That is, the new state vector [phi] has an entirely predictable spectrum of these properties. Looking ahead a bit, recall that spectral analysis is all to do with matrices. What has been gained from casting the observation from Helmholtz in the language of Heisenberg? Perhaps a great deal, for as the mathematician Steen reminds us, early on in the history of quantum theory, the “mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics became that of spectral analysis.” A slightly subtler but fundamentally significant consideration attends the symmetries embodied by the vectors and (matrix) operators — symmetries manifest in the secondary qualities — for here the subject opens out into geometry, the action principle, gauge theory, Noether's theorem, and the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of the equations of motion — and so all of physics and much of mathematics. A foundational question arises: Do the “secondary” symmetries contribute to the action, thus making them plausible candidates for supplying the values of “hidden” variables? Hearkening back to Maxwell on the absolute simplicity of these sensations, it seems clear enough that, in some sense, the secondaries are "elements" of reality. In adopting Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, we need only enlarge the number of dimensions needed to incorporate these readily observed “elements of reality,” but these days we are quite accustomed to dealing with additional dimensions. At a glance, it seems as though our use of matrices might find a simple, intuitive interpretation in M(atrix) theory.
When?
Why are your vacuum cleaners so bleeding expensive? And what's this "digital motor" BS? I mean, come on!
How do we sack our current lot of politicians and put in place people like you to kick start a renewed focus on research and development in civilian physics that has progressed mankind so much in the past?
Unlike other posters who say you're theories haven't been used in SciFi, I know that Larry Niven wrote several books starting with "Ring World" based on your Dyson sphere theory. My question is; Have you read it/them, and, what did you think of them?
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
Since I'm studying physics I'm all for research that is non application specific. Reading /. and walking through the physics building at my university I realize quite often that I have no idea what practical applications research could yield. Derivative applications like improved imaging algorithms and filtering stemming from telescopes are somewhat obvious. However I have idea for instance what things like ever more precise measurements of the Neutrino mass or Quantum chromodynamics research for instance could yield for practical application.
I'm hoping your horizon extends further than mine in that you can see future applications for research done today.
While space travel is important for human survival in the long term, the more I think about it, the more it seems that developing a human style, scalable, artificial intelligence has for more potential to provide humans with rapid access to a much larger set of useful answers in the general domain of practical, solvable problems.
The investment should be, relatively speaking, trivial, and we already have 7 billion or so working models, so I think it's fairly certain that this can be done.
Given a choice, would you advocate more resources be allocated to space travel, or AI?
I hear there's this computer called Deep Thought... programmed by a bunch of mice.
or did he bolt when he saw the ridiculosity of the questions?
You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.
Hello owski... we meet again.
remember me?
Just making a small, albeit offtopic and belated troll here.
What are you talking about, NetWare isn't even remotely related to Unix.
Observe the truth... and not just the truth that you're an ignoramus!
wiki
source
You don't know everything, owski, but not infrequently you speak as though you do, even confabulating while spreading misinformation. Leave your geek card on your way out, kthxbai.
Professor Dyson,
In accepting the Templeton Prize for "an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works", you are marked for having a spiritual / religious side at a level of excellence/standing that is internationally recognised. What has this recognition meant to you, compared to your scientific achievements or insights?
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
Do you have any opinion on Larry Niven's Ringworld concept? It does seem to have the dual advantage of requiring less exotic techniques such as not requiring gravity generators, (although formidable enginerring problems remain), and seems overall less claustrophobic.
Did your son ever write a sequel to The Starship and the Canoe?
Fast spetcrum breeder type reactors hold the promise of providing millenia of carbon free power, perhaps much longer if the Uranium in seawater is used. There are significant economic and political challenges to this technology, but what are some of the significant technical challenges?
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)