Thanks for your post. As usual, whenever a discussion ensues re "evolution" or "creation", most folks have very little knowledge, but lots of opinions and passion. I was having a hard time simply perusing all this. Having once taught anthro and evolution and human evolution in the universities, it was driving me to complete frustration. I kept wanting to answer them, to "set them straight", and correct them, but really don't have the time, or real inclination, as almost none of these folks have any idea what evolution is (nor creationism, for that matter). They think they do, but... at least you hit the high points.
The example of the macaque walking bipedally as an adjustment to disease/injury has nothing to do with evolution. And the idea that an incident such as this is what led to our (H. sapiens) species...
I'm sorry, but if you stand a macaque (even in a bipedal stance) beside a human, you will notice very little in common, and stance/locomotion is among the least important issues. The differences, in anatomical, functional, developmental, mental and cultural traits between the two species are almost countless, and surely involve a few million genes, each of which had to mutate once, twice, or more times, survive the vagaries of chance and natural selection, and await all the others to come along and run the gamut and create the systematic integrated life form (phenotype) that is us, and the systematic form that is the modern macaque.
Bipedalism does play a part in what we are (or have become), but I doubt it was a necessary part, merely a helpful part. Tools, intellect, social and cultural behavior are our major advantages (and differences) that differentiate us, and all those are things we could possess at the same or higher capacity even if we were less than completely bipedal. Surely you can imagine a creature more resembling an ape (a movie series did!) with all those more interesting traits!
Full bipedalism is less a behavior than a very complex skeletal, anatomical, behavioral complex, and if one macaque took it up, and even led a group of others to do the same (though why they should want to is another big question since it is not a good fit in any way to how they are built, or the ecological niche they are already very well adapted into), that would hardly lead to "evolution" (THAT is Lamarkism at the extreme), because (1) the many genetic changes that would still have to come about are so unlikely (probably less than one chance in a trillion trillion), and (2) they rely on the mechanism of mutation, a totally chaotic, non-directional and happenstance process that cannot be influenced (for good or bad) by behavior or environment,.... Oh well, this could go on endlessly, which is exactly why I want to stay out of it... just want to give you a pat on the back for the best (and almost only correct) comment in the thread!
Good debate, here. But two problems, that I can see.
First, I question the idea that there are two kinds (or more) of "belief". "Belief" is essentially a matter of confidence in the accuracy of your perceptions, and/or conclusions about the world (or "reality") outside of your mind. It is not much different than the "confidence level" we commonly use in statistical analysis in scientific work. Which leads to the second problem: the idea that science involves a qualitatively different kind of "belief". That's simply not true. Same brains, same perceptual apparatus, same cognitive functions. Difference is, "science" is a methodology we've developed to improve on the use of our perceptual and cognitive organs and processes in our attempt to discern "reality" and assign a confidence level to our perceptions and conclusions about it.
Science is only a more systematized approach to observation and forming conclusions about our shared reality, generally relying upon mathematics and accurate measurement. What we call the "scientific method" is not much more than a protocol for such observations and measurements, and for drawing conclusions. Most, but not all, people in the world now generally accept the scientific method as more accurate and reliable, and tend to "believe" in scientific conclusions and statements about reality than other methodologies or personal informal methods.
An under current in this discussion seems to be that "religious beliefs" are somehow different, or less reasonable. That, I think, is simply a misunderstanding of what "belief" is, or simple prejudice. Everyone, even scientists, build their beliefs on a worldview which may be pre-formed or influenced by religion, cultural inheritances, and personal experience. Modern western science, and its most recent cosmology and beliefs about the physical world, is just one such belief system.
Einstein would not likely have developed his theories of relativity had he not already held a Judeo-Christian worldview about the universality of the physical universe throughout time and space. A belief, any belief, depends upon a large number of factors, and must be contextually coherent or consistent with the larger universe of a person's other beliefs. Ward Hunt Goodenough, a cultural anthropologist, used to liken the changing of one idea like flipping a light switch that was connected to hundreds of others that also had to change or be at least neutralized for that first change to occur.
If a person's beliefs include spirits, ghosts, and shamanism, such things will totally influence their behavior, even to the point of becoming weapons against enemies, or the cause of their own death. Can you say that your reality is more "real" or effective than that? If a person believes in the Christian way, and that the Bible is perfectly, or nearly, 100% true, and scientists admit they cannot prove them wrong, is that set of beliefs "wrong" or inferior? You might "believe" so, but cannot prove it however much you might be able to persuade yourself or your friends.
Similarly, if one scientist believes in the Big Bang cosmology, and another believes in a "brane" cosmology, and another believes in a (Christian God) "Creationist" cosmology, which is better or inferior? All are beyond observation, or proof, and none can disprove the other. Each scientist has a lot of "evidence" and supporting beliefs to sustain his/her own theory/theology, and can even take the latest in scientific evidence and interpret it to support their own cosmology.
Here's my point: belief is not fact, but a decision as to what is fact, and the strength of one's belief is a measure of his/her confidence in that decision. Everyone acquires their beliefs in the same way, just not by the same method or from the same experiences and observations.
You sure got that right! I've been reading along just amazed at those "assertions" (or "assumptions"). Checked out this thread a bit curious about the original point, but sidetracked into this rabbit trail... and kept on just wondering where these folks were going to go, and if anyone would ever realise the unreality of it all...
By the way, you might add the assertion that icons aren't a language in themselves that must be learned. For example, the icon of a printer on my task bar... will only mean something to me if I know all about my computer, paper, printing, what a "printer" is, and have enough experience to recognize that generic image, etc... The primary advantage of an icon is its multi-lingual, or cross-cultural currency. Rather similar to the way North American Indians (or native americans, to be "pc") could use "sign language" to effect some rudimentary communication between folks who couldn't understand a word they said.
We do. Science and politics is the deadliest of potions. Chernobyl was a lousy technology, bought and paid for by a corrupt political bureaucracy. That happens here. But the technological failure accounted for only a small fraction of the death and disaster. Far more was caused by the politicians who refused to accept what was happening, who sent all the heroic rescuers to the center of all the radioactivity (a bit like our rescue folks who were being assured the air was OK at the twin tower site), and the hundreds of thousands who were NOT evacuated, and the world which was lied to.
About half my own weblog is about this sort of thing, and more. I just finished a series on global warming, which is another, ultimately even more disastrous elixer of science and politics.
I love science, and am something of a political junkie (got my BA in Pol Sci !), but I hate the poisonous mix of the two. When the search for truth becomes the tool of power, and the wonders of technology are sold to the Machiavelli's of the world, we are always the losers.
Thanks Michael... great topic, memorable website. I'm putting a link to it on my site, in a feature I call the "Dishonor Role", generally intended to bring recognition to singularly BAD scientists, etc. In this case, the names of those responsible are just too many... and that young lady deserves a memorial.
I must admit, it does amaze me, even disgusts me, to read some of the comments, here, about her. I think she's hauntingly truthful, and so "Russianly" frank. I think some have missed the point... If her site was made into a 30 minute documentary, what a film that would be... she almost made that, a cinema verite, in what she posted!
Serious Question indeed!
String theory is more metaphysics, more science fiction than science theory. It is essentially a story written in mathematics (much like prose creates a novel), but about things totally beyond any possible observation. I think we do play rather loose with the rules when we call it a "theory" (But then, there are so many others even more "sci-fi", like brane theory, multi-universes, etc..., also being graced by the name of theory).
Does that mean it's not useful in science, or even "testable" in the sense we might hold various observations or data against it to see if it's similar (a "fit")? Not at all. But remember, a play by Shakespeare, or a story on TV, however much disclaimed by "this story and the characters portrayed are fictional...", is also expected to imitate life and model certain realities. If it doesn't, we hardly want to bother reading or watching, but the ones we do watch, and call "good", are those that are useful and at least vaguely "testable" representations or "paradigms" of our reality. Same goes for a lot of scientific "theories", nowadays. Including String Theory.
Although I am quite religious, I don't see religion as being a scientific endeavour for this very reason. That says nothing about its validity, but it does say a LOT about its usefulness in terms of scientific understanding.
But... I do see science as a religious endeavor. For some folks, it is their religion. For others, it leads them to, or affirms their chosen religion, like atheism or Evolutionism (evolution as creator, etc) or whatever.
For me, I began an atheist and scientist, and am now a Christian. I find science more and more affirms my theology, and the biblical account of creation (though I am not talking about the story you are used to, but the account I found when I re-translated the Hebrew).
And I do find some very good leads re cosmology. Among them, an alternative to Big Bang (looks very similar, but is what I consider a better picture), and another concept of the nature of spacetime and the reason the for the cosmological constant (which is just an attempt to account for what we don't understand about the nature of the vacuum/fabric of spacetime and the apparent expansion of the universe). It is, btw, compatible with String Theory, and most of the evidence that supports the Big Bang, but it doesn't need all the "tweaks" the Big Bang model does, or have any problems with the latest data on the MWB, etc. It is also OK with relativity, and will be equally supported the same kinds of research now being designed to verify relativity, like gravitational frame dragging, etc.
First, how can he be sure that the strings in question hold the same information as did the strings that existed before collapsing into a black hole?
First, remember "strings" are a theory, not reality. In fact, we will never know if they are "real", but only if the theory is helpful, and contribute to a useful paradigm. Secondly, why is information being preserved considered a good thing?
"Good" is a value, and that's your choice... the issues of physics are not about whether something is "good" or not. I would think, from the perspective of human free will, that we would want information to be creatable and destroyable.
What we want, regarding "free will", is not our choice, nor up to physics or a theory about the nature of existence. "Free will" is up to the Creator, not the created. However, Otherwise we're stuck with determinism running the universe. And no, quantum randomness DOES NOT allow for free will.
is not true. In fact, the theory of relativity is all about "determinism", and quantum theory is all about indeterminism. One exists within the other.
But your "metaquestion" is not physics. It's theology. And I don't find a problem there either.
For instance: if God says he "knows the end from the beginning", and testifies to that with prophecies that come true, whether in human affairs (history), or the movement and fate of planets and galaxies, God is saying He is in control. He determines, He is "running the universe", right? That's pretty much what Relativity talks about.
But suppose God also tells you that you, yourself, have free will. You, yourself, can do what you want, line up with, or oppose what He intends (determines). Is that a contradiction? Only if quantum theory is a contradiction of relativity. But it's not, because they deal with two different levels of reality.
Individual atoms, according to quantum theory, are quite free, individually. But in the aggregate (the macro scale, where relativity applies) they will "statistically" (in the aggregate) go where, be where, do as relativity says. Same for you. Free as a bird, but within the whole flock, you will migrate to South America (or get swallowed up by the black hole of death, and no longer matter to the species (macro) plan?). As a human, you are free to be with or outside God's plan, but you simply can't overrule it at the macro (relativity) level, where reality is deterministic.
I think your concepts of energy and the "vacuum" are problematic, however.
(1) Negative energy does not have negative mass.
(2) To "yank energy out of the vacuum" is consistent with an Einsteinian (hence, relativistic) concept of spacetime, and his infamous (and now-resurrected, by some theorists) Lambda. But Mathur is working within a string-theory paradigm, where a "particle" is a particular arrangement or configuration of string(s)... that is not the same as "yanking energy out of a vacuum", but imposing some order to the spacetime (temporary - unless the virtual particle or anti-particle escapes, then permanent) which, in Mathur's paradigm, is made up of strings.
In that case, there is information "escaping", not mass. And because one "created" the other (as an exact "anti"), by virtue of being a pair (whether encrypted or not) that information is available to the "outside", to the rest of the universe. And in that case, I think Mathur's ideas (whether "true" or not - which bears on whether he has won the bet) hold water (or those strings configured as the information we read as "water":)
Seriously, I rather agree with both sides: Most human beings have limits to what they can stand, and deserve some protection against being exposed to things beyond them - Maybe that's why we clean up the carnage of accidents and homicide bombings; Some human beings don't have the ability or desire to limit what they say or do or see, so we preserve "freedom of expression" for them.
Answer: One more domain type (like ".sex", ".org", etc.), such as ".sick". At least you'd know. Build on that a "parental" (or "self" control that, just as we can filter ".sex" from our browser, we can filter ".sick" as well. Caveat: Sicko's (and poenos and smut peddlers) protect and honor their freedom by respecting mine: don't cheat and peddle porn or cannibalism outside the zone. No porn on ".com" etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your post. As usual, whenever a discussion ensues re "evolution" or "creation", most folks have very little knowledge, but lots of opinions and passion. I was having a hard time simply perusing all this. Having once taught anthro and evolution and human evolution in the universities, it was driving me to complete frustration. I kept wanting to answer them, to "set them straight", and correct them, but really don't have the time, or real inclination, as almost none of these folks have any idea what evolution is (nor creationism, for that matter). They think they do, but ... at least you hit the high points.
.... Oh well, this could go on endlessly, which is exactly why I want to stay out of it... just want to give you a pat on the back for the best (and almost only correct) comment in the thread!
The example of the macaque walking bipedally as an adjustment to disease/injury has nothing to do with evolution. And the idea that an incident such as this is what led to our (H. sapiens) species...
I'm sorry, but if you stand a macaque (even in a bipedal stance) beside a human, you will notice very little in common, and stance/locomotion is among the least important issues. The differences, in anatomical, functional, developmental, mental and cultural traits between the two species are almost countless, and surely involve a few million genes, each of which had to mutate once, twice, or more times, survive the vagaries of chance and natural selection, and await all the others to come along and run the gamut and create the systematic integrated life form (phenotype) that is us, and the systematic form that is the modern macaque.
Bipedalism does play a part in what we are (or have become), but I doubt it was a necessary part, merely a helpful part. Tools, intellect, social and cultural behavior are our major advantages (and differences) that differentiate us, and all those are things we could possess at the same or higher capacity even if we were less than completely bipedal. Surely you can imagine a creature more resembling an ape (a movie series did!) with all those more interesting traits!
Full bipedalism is less a behavior than a very complex skeletal, anatomical, behavioral complex, and if one macaque took it up, and even led a group of others to do the same (though why they should want to is another big question since it is not a good fit in any way to how they are built, or the ecological niche they are already very well adapted into), that would hardly lead to "evolution" (THAT is Lamarkism at the extreme), because (1) the many genetic changes that would still have to come about are so unlikely (probably less than one chance in a trillion trillion), and (2) they rely on the mechanism of mutation, a totally chaotic, non-directional and happenstance process that cannot be influenced (for good or bad) by behavior or environment,
Good debate, here. But two problems, that I can see.
First, I question the idea that there are two kinds (or more) of "belief". "Belief" is essentially a matter of confidence in the accuracy of your perceptions, and/or conclusions about the world (or "reality") outside of your mind. It is not much different than the "confidence level" we commonly use in statistical analysis in scientific work. Which leads to the second problem: the idea that science involves a qualitatively different kind of "belief". That's simply not true. Same brains, same perceptual apparatus, same cognitive functions. Difference is, "science" is a methodology we've developed to improve on the use of our perceptual and cognitive organs and processes in our attempt to discern "reality" and assign a confidence level to our perceptions and conclusions about it.
Science is only a more systematized approach to observation and forming conclusions about our shared reality, generally relying upon mathematics and accurate measurement. What we call the "scientific method" is not much more than a protocol for such observations and measurements, and for drawing conclusions. Most, but not all, people in the world now generally accept the scientific method as more accurate and reliable, and tend to "believe" in scientific conclusions and statements about reality than other methodologies or personal informal methods.
An under current in this discussion seems to be that "religious beliefs" are somehow different, or less reasonable. That, I think, is simply a misunderstanding of what "belief" is, or simple prejudice. Everyone, even scientists, build their beliefs on a worldview which may be pre-formed or influenced by religion, cultural inheritances, and personal experience. Modern western science, and its most recent cosmology and beliefs about the physical world, is just one such belief system.
Einstein would not likely have developed his theories of relativity had he not already held a Judeo-Christian worldview about the universality of the physical universe throughout time and space. A belief, any belief, depends upon a large number of factors, and must be contextually coherent or consistent with the larger universe of a person's other beliefs. Ward Hunt Goodenough, a cultural anthropologist, used to liken the changing of one idea like flipping a light switch that was connected to hundreds of others that also had to change or be at least neutralized for that first change to occur.
If a person's beliefs include spirits, ghosts, and shamanism, such things will totally influence their behavior, even to the point of becoming weapons against enemies, or the cause of their own death. Can you say that your reality is more "real" or effective than that? If a person believes in the Christian way, and that the Bible is perfectly, or nearly, 100% true, and scientists admit they cannot prove them wrong, is that set of beliefs "wrong" or inferior? You might "believe" so, but cannot prove it however much you might be able to persuade yourself or your friends.
Similarly, if one scientist believes in the Big Bang cosmology, and another believes in a "brane" cosmology, and another believes in a (Christian God) "Creationist" cosmology, which is better or inferior? All are beyond observation, or proof, and none can disprove the other. Each scientist has a lot of "evidence" and supporting beliefs to sustain his/her own theory/theology, and can even take the latest in scientific evidence and interpret it to support their own cosmology.
Here's my point: belief is not fact, but a decision as to what is fact, and the strength of one's belief is a measure of his/her confidence in that decision. Everyone acquires their beliefs in the same way, just not by the same method or from the same experiences and observations.
You sure got that right! I've been reading along just amazed at those "assertions" (or "assumptions"). Checked out this thread a bit curious about the original point, but sidetracked into this rabbit trail... and kept on just wondering where these folks were going to go, and if anyone would ever realise the unreality of it all... By the way, you might add the assertion that icons aren't a language in themselves that must be learned. For example, the icon of a printer on my task bar... will only mean something to me if I know all about my computer, paper, printing, what a "printer" is, and have enough experience to recognize that generic image, etc... The primary advantage of an icon is its multi-lingual, or cross-cultural currency. Rather similar to the way North American Indians (or native americans, to be "pc") could use "sign language" to effect some rudimentary communication between folks who couldn't understand a word they said.
We do.
Science and politics is the deadliest of potions. Chernobyl was a lousy technology, bought and paid for by a corrupt political bureaucracy. That happens here. But the technological failure accounted for only a small fraction of the death and disaster. Far more was caused by the politicians who refused to accept what was happening, who sent all the heroic rescuers to the center of all the radioactivity (a bit like our rescue folks who were being assured the air was OK at the twin tower site), and the hundreds of thousands who were NOT evacuated, and the world which was lied to.
About half my own weblog is about this sort of thing, and more. I just finished a series on global warming, which is another, ultimately even more disastrous elixer of science and politics.
I love science, and am something of a political junkie (got my BA in Pol Sci !), but I hate the poisonous mix of the two. When the search for truth becomes the tool of power, and the wonders of technology are sold to the Machiavelli's of the world, we are always the losers.
Thanks Michael... great topic, memorable website. I'm putting a link to it on my site, in a feature I call the "Dishonor Role", generally intended to bring recognition to singularly BAD scientists, etc. In this case, the names of those responsible are just too many... and that young lady deserves a memorial.
I must admit, it does amaze me, even disgusts me, to read some of the comments, here, about her. I think she's hauntingly truthful, and so "Russianly" frank. I think some have missed the point... If her site was made into a 30 minute documentary, what a film that would be... she almost made that, a cinema verite, in what she posted!
Serious Question indeed!
String theory is more metaphysics, more science fiction than science theory. It is essentially a story written in mathematics (much like prose creates a novel), but about things totally beyond any possible observation. I think we do play rather loose with the rules when we call it a "theory" (But then, there are so many others even more "sci-fi", like brane theory, multi-universes, etc..., also being graced by the name of theory).
Does that mean it's not useful in science, or even "testable" in the sense we might hold various observations or data against it to see if it's similar (a "fit")? Not at all. But remember, a play by Shakespeare, or a story on TV, however much disclaimed by "this story and the characters portrayed are fictional...", is also expected to imitate life and model certain realities. If it doesn't, we hardly want to bother reading or watching, but the ones we do watch, and call "good", are those that are useful and at least vaguely "testable" representations or "paradigms" of our reality. Same goes for a lot of scientific "theories", nowadays. Including String Theory.
Although I am quite religious, I don't see religion as being a scientific endeavour for this very reason. That says nothing about its validity, but it does say a LOT about its usefulness in terms of scientific understanding.
But... I do see science as a religious endeavor. For some folks, it is their religion. For others, it leads them to, or affirms their chosen religion, like atheism or Evolutionism (evolution as creator, etc) or whatever.
For me, I began an atheist and scientist, and am now a Christian. I find science more and more affirms my theology, and the biblical account of creation (though I am not talking about the story you are used to, but the account I found when I re-translated the Hebrew).
And I do find some very good leads re cosmology. Among them, an alternative to Big Bang (looks very similar, but is what I consider a better picture), and another concept of the nature of spacetime and the reason the for the cosmological constant (which is just an attempt to account for what we don't understand about the nature of the vacuum/fabric of spacetime and the apparent expansion of the universe). It is, btw, compatible with String Theory, and most of the evidence that supports the Big Bang, but it doesn't need all the "tweaks" the Big Bang model does, or have any problems with the latest data on the MWB, etc. It is also OK with relativity, and will be equally supported the same kinds of research now being designed to verify relativity, like gravitational frame dragging, etc.
First, how can he be sure that the strings in question hold the same information as did the strings that existed before collapsing into a black hole?
First, remember "strings" are a theory, not reality. In fact, we will never know if they are "real", but only if the theory is helpful, and contribute to a useful paradigm.
Secondly, why is information being preserved considered a good thing?
"Good" is a value, and that's your choice... the issues of physics are not about whether something is "good" or not.
I would think, from the perspective of human free will, that we would want information to be creatable and destroyable.
What we want, regarding "free will", is not our choice, nor up to physics or a theory about the nature of existence. "Free will" is up to the Creator, not the created. However,
Otherwise we're stuck with determinism running the universe. And no, quantum randomness DOES NOT allow for free will.
is not true. In fact, the theory of relativity is all about "determinism", and quantum theory is all about indeterminism. One exists within the other.
But your "metaquestion" is not physics. It's theology. And I don't find a problem there either.
For instance: if God says he "knows the end from the beginning", and testifies to that with prophecies that come true, whether in human affairs (history), or the movement and fate of planets and galaxies, God is saying He is in control. He determines, He is "running the universe", right? That's pretty much what Relativity talks about.
But suppose God also tells you that you, yourself, have free will. You, yourself, can do what you want, line up with, or oppose what He intends (determines). Is that a contradiction? Only if quantum theory is a contradiction of relativity. But it's not, because they deal with two different levels of reality.
Individual atoms, according to quantum theory, are quite free, individually. But in the aggregate (the macro scale, where relativity applies) they will "statistically" (in the aggregate) go where, be where, do as relativity says. Same for you. Free as a bird, but within the whole flock, you will migrate to South America (or get swallowed up by the black hole of death, and no longer matter to the species (macro) plan?). As a human, you are free to be with or outside God's plan, but you simply can't overrule it at the macro (relativity) level, where reality is deterministic.
I think your concepts of energy and the "vacuum" are problematic, however. :)
(1) Negative energy does not have negative mass.
(2) To "yank energy out of the vacuum" is consistent with an Einsteinian (hence, relativistic) concept of spacetime, and his infamous (and now-resurrected, by some theorists) Lambda. But Mathur is working within a string-theory paradigm, where a "particle" is a particular arrangement or configuration of string(s)... that is not the same as "yanking energy out of a vacuum", but imposing some order to the spacetime (temporary - unless the virtual particle or anti-particle escapes, then permanent) which, in Mathur's paradigm, is made up of strings.
In that case, there is information "escaping", not mass. And because one "created" the other (as an exact "anti"), by virtue of being a pair (whether encrypted or not) that information is available to the "outside", to the rest of the universe. And in that case, I think Mathur's ideas (whether "true" or not - which bears on whether he has won the bet) hold water (or those strings configured as the information we read as "water"
Seriously, I rather agree with both sides: Most human beings have limits to what they can stand, and deserve some protection against being exposed to things beyond them - Maybe that's why we clean up the carnage of accidents and homicide bombings; Some human beings don't have the ability or desire to limit what they say or do or see, so we preserve "freedom of expression" for them.
Answer: One more domain type (like ".sex", ".org", etc.), such as ".sick". At least you'd know. Build on that a "parental" (or "self" control that, just as we can filter ".sex" from our browser, we can filter ".sick" as well. Caveat: Sicko's (and poenos and smut peddlers) protect and honor their freedom by respecting mine: don't cheat and peddle porn or cannibalism outside the zone. No porn on ".com" etc.