The Fine Art of Not Knowing
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
<< Carl Sagan: Four Billion Years of Evolution
|
Carl Sagan ft Stephen Hawking: A Glorious Dawn, Cosmos Remixed >>
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, S. James Gates, Jr., and Freeman Dyson discusses science, human knowledge and the unknown.
Dec 27, 2009 8:39 AM
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
Wow, that last statement is pretty, pretty bold.
Even if science is not about knowing, taking a stab at the nature of free will and how it relates to the universe based on our lack of understanding of some phenomenon seems sort of rash to me. But maybe that's just because I am lacking in factual knowledge..
Even if science is not about knowing, taking a stab at the nature of free will and how it relates to the universe based on our lack of understanding of some phenomenon seems sort of rash to me. But maybe that's just because I am lacking in factual knowledge..
By: wadadde
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
The key to Dyson's comment is the word 'conjecture'. Look at Feynman's comment, I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."
Conjecture ("possible belief") is essential to scientific progress, just as much as not being absolutely sure of anything.
Conjecture ("possible belief") is essential to scientific progress, just as much as not being absolutely sure of anything.
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
I didn't really challenge the value of conjecture in general. Isn't it ok to challenge a particular conjecture for being too far out there? Not 'far out' as in totally against the grain, but 'far out' as in (stubbornly) based on virtually nothing so that the grand 'claims' you make have virtually no chance of being even close to the mark (compounded by the fact that we're not really talking about science in action here, but rather a public announcement to people who are approximately as ignorant, in the grand scheme of things, as I am). The crucial point is that I really don't see how he could possibly make this particular connection. Maybe he defines free will as something which is rather narrow/simple, though I don't know what that would be.. just something which allows for a kind of randomness perhaps? Free will in living organisms (atm the only 'free will' in the universe) really is a rather tricky to define and it's always driven by purpose (evolution). Free will in humans is a completely different pair of bbqd vanity mittons altogether, because we've got this thing called reflection goin' on ( I'm not claiming that we're the only ones). Publically (!) proclaiming that a particle might have 'free will' based on observed unpredictability alone seems pretty wild to me. Is such a conjecture really the most plausible one? Why would the particle have free will? Isn't it much more likely that we're just missing something and that that something doesn't conform to that which allows for the brand of 'free will' in organisms/humans?
So many questions.. Now I'll have to go buy some book of his.
By the way, I knew someone would jump on the conjecture thing, but I am slightly (not at all) ashamed to say that I didn't cover my ass cheeks because I didn't know how to use the word 'conjecture' in the sentence I wanted to write (English isn't my first language). Apparently I can't be bothered to look it up.
So many questions.. Now I'll have to go buy some book of his.
By the way, I knew someone would jump on the conjecture thing, but I am slightly (not at all) ashamed to say that I didn't cover my ass cheeks because I didn't know how to use the word 'conjecture' in the sentence I wanted to write (English isn't my first language). Apparently I can't be bothered to look it up.
By: wadadde
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
"Maybe he defines free will as something which is rather narrow/simple, though I don't know what that would be. just something which allows for a kind of randomness perhaps?"
My guess is that randomness in the universe doesn't necessarily translate into being simple. Randomness is probably just MORE simple than the alternative (non-randomness/structure). Also, if our large universe operates mostly on randomness then I would think that pockets of non-randomness exist. Atleast until the next random event obliterates the structure.
My guess is that randomness in the universe doesn't necessarily translate into being simple. Randomness is probably just MORE simple than the alternative (non-randomness/structure). Also, if our large universe operates mostly on randomness then I would think that pockets of non-randomness exist. Atleast until the next random event obliterates the structure.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
Or maybe randomness is just some term quantum mechanics scientists lazily throw at something when they don't understand the reason why it happens. When they say "random", it sounds like they've given up trying to understand why. Haven't these scientists ever considered that we just don't fully understand how things on the quantum level work at the present time?
By: KeyserSosay
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
I don't understand your previous comment here, but regarding this part I would like to state that I really don't think that quantum theorists are lazy! :)
By: wadadde
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
It's true that quantum mechanics says nothing about the mechanism of the randomness at the heart of the theory. It's just there, but no-one yet knows why. The probability functions are verified experimentally, and the measurements match the theory more closely than any other theory in all of science. But we don't have an explanation for the why of it all.
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
I think Dyson's main point is that he suspects some sort of connection between free will among humans and the fundamental randomness at the quantum scale. When he says, "as far as we know it is a free choice" [for an atom to decide when to undergo radioactive decay], that is a bit of a stretch. I'll give him a break and call it metaphor, but it's actually literally true if you parse the words, "as far as we know". As far as we know, it's invisible fairies or God that does it too.
But I'm with him on the main point. If true randomness is a fundamental feature of the universe, it is possible to have surprises, and nothing on any scale is purely deterministic. I'm not sure how much the randomness of the quantum contributes to the phenomenon of free will, or whether we actually have free will. But one thing is clear, if the universe were perfectly deterministic, free will would be impossible.
But I'm with him on the main point. If true randomness is a fundamental feature of the universe, it is possible to have surprises, and nothing on any scale is purely deterministic. I'm not sure how much the randomness of the quantum contributes to the phenomenon of free will, or whether we actually have free will. But one thing is clear, if the universe were perfectly deterministic, free will would be impossible.
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
The illusion of free will would still be possible, right? Or wouldn't it? Until we're a little farther along in our understanding of 'everything' even that statement might be premature. It's a little dizzying to actually realize how little we can really know at this point.. or ever. It's probably also overwhelming to realize how much we do already sort-of know, but I've never had the latter dawn on me.. I find it utterly unimaginable for some reason.
By: wadadde
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
The probability equations and apparently random behavior of sub-atomic particles are little more than observations. We don't really know at all how the universe works below a certain scale.
Hawking Radiation seems to be a similar matter. It's big-deal science dealing with the very razor edge of the void, the abyss of our ignorance. It's both intimidating and disappointing, that our most brilliant minds are able to make such incredible intuitive leaps AND drag humanity collectively towards a greater fundamental understanding of the universe we live in, and then stop suddenly short , the full scale of their accomplishments dwarfed by the exponentially larger next step.
When you consider that so few of us have even a basic grasp of the true complexity of the subject, when you consider that we have to basically take the word of a few special people that the things they say are true and that they can prove it, you're already putting an almost religious faith in the work and minds of mortal humans. Taking the conjecture of those same men seriously is not that strange, contextually. It's more forgivable than, say, kissing the Pope's ring, but not much more so from the objective stand-point.
You see how our belief structures dictate our behavior? Not a great argument for the idea of Free Will.
Hawking Radiation seems to be a similar matter. It's big-deal science dealing with the very razor edge of the void, the abyss of our ignorance. It's both intimidating and disappointing, that our most brilliant minds are able to make such incredible intuitive leaps AND drag humanity collectively towards a greater fundamental understanding of the universe we live in, and then stop suddenly short , the full scale of their accomplishments dwarfed by the exponentially larger next step.
When you consider that so few of us have even a basic grasp of the true complexity of the subject, when you consider that we have to basically take the word of a few special people that the things they say are true and that they can prove it, you're already putting an almost religious faith in the work and minds of mortal humans. Taking the conjecture of those same men seriously is not that strange, contextually. It's more forgivable than, say, kissing the Pope's ring, but not much more so from the objective stand-point.
You see how our belief structures dictate our behavior? Not a great argument for the idea of Free Will.
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
I can't help thinking the vocal track would make a great mashup against the backdrop of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon"
By: Dubularity
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
Ave Maria and discussion of not knowing, the irony. Kudos for darkside.
By: imkoan
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
What an excellent video for my inaugural comment on MilkandCookies. I should say something like "long time listener, first time caller" or something. I've been enjoying just this type of dialogue for many a year. Thought it was time to get into the fray. Because of this video? No, I'm afraid. I finally got a computer i don't have to share with ANYONE!!! (insert a deep 'mwaahahaha!' here in your heads for evil laughter) So hello, all, and I look forward to argueing with you all very soon.
By: iwrotegenesis
Re: The Fine Art of Not Knowing
Beautiful, isn't she. ave Maria? there are so many artworks dedicated to Maria, The music it was created by Bach or Schubert??? imagine having to bear and keep foremost, the one thing you will loose, thinking replaced by KNOWING, the sacrifice. Ave Maria is dedicated to Mary the mother of son who will be tortured and will die early, why?i do not get it, i think another 40 -50 years would have been helpful. Imagine knowing it, from the beginning.
Oh, yeah back to science, so much is theoretical, much will be replaced today's science is guessing??? that is what the article was about the guessing of science, and being replaced by knowing, it will expire to become something else, to be defined latter on, sacrificed, fully knowing, but yet started with the best of scientific intentions, Hence the irony.
Oh, yeah back to science, so much is theoretical, much will be replaced today's science is guessing??? that is what the article was about the guessing of science, and being replaced by knowing, it will expire to become something else, to be defined latter on, sacrificed, fully knowing, but yet started with the best of scientific intentions, Hence the irony.
By: imkoan
