The problem I have with something like this is that it almost certainly doesn't mean what it seems to mean. For example, this:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jonathan Sherwood < [email protected]> wrote: > “This means that the histories of the Universe depend on what is being > measured,” Hawking wrote in a recent paper, “contrary to the usual idea that > the Universe has an objective, observer-independent history.” ... can be cosntrued as meaning that our actions cause the universe to be what it is. I can guarantee you that there are people out there who will construe this as meaning that there's no independent reality -- that we all make our own reality and our own universes. I see this kind of interpretation of cosmology every day. This is what I would describe as religious scientism. How I read what follows, though, is that this simply means that all actions anywhere in any universe -- which include observations made by humans in this universe -- have an impact on the nature of reality. That's a very different thing. But since it means more or less the opposite ("we are exceedingly tiny parts of the whole" rather than "we are the determinants of the nature of the universe"), people aren't likely to make that interpretation. In fact, SF is rife of late with stories about individual actors altering the nature of the universe. In many cases (e.g. Greg Egan) it's clear he doesn't really believe the idea (one can be less sure about Rudy Rucker, but I get the impression he likes things that way). I know that a lot of people take this as more than metaphor. (I know it because they've told me so.) They love the idea that you can fundamentally change the universe if you trip out in just exactly the right way, or do just exactly the right (or wrong) kind of math. It's basically Shamanism in Cosmologic drag. But even if it's just a metaphor, I wonder what it means that the metaphor of being able to think your way out of your reality in a very fundamental and reality-dodging way is so strongly ascendant right now. It goes beyond SF; it's of a piece with the Rovian Lysenkoism behind dismissing the "reality based community." I keep coming back to something that a guy said to me some years back. We were sitting in the third floor of a brownstone in Troy, talking about the social construction of reality (in which this guy was a staunch believer). But then he said, in effect: 'Let's understand what we're talking about, here. If you jump out that window and fall to the sidewalk below, you *will *die.' So, it may well be *real *that our puny human research has some small role in defining the actual nature of the universe. But if we fly into the sun, we still fry. > This idea could cut through some long-standing scientific mysteries. One > debate now roiling the physics community concerns string theory, currently > the leading candidate for a so-called theory of everything. String theory > holds that all the particles and forces in the universe can be explained as > arising from the vibrations of vanishingly small strands of energy. But it > has one huge problem: Its fundamental equations have a near-infinite number > of solutions, each corresponding to a unique universe. Hawking’s idea > provides a natural context for string theory. All those universes might > simply represent different possible histories of our universe. This notion > is as daring and exotic as anything Hawking has ever proposed. Even better, > it just might be testable. > > If Hawking is right, the alternative quantum histories of the universe (the > ones we have not observed) may have left a subtle imprint on the cosmic > microwave background, the faint radiation left from the hot glow of the Big > Bang. Physicists believe that the slight temperature variations in the > microwave background were caused by quantum fluctuations in the early > universe. Hawking suspects that if other quantum histories really do exist, > they may have made their own measurable contribution to the background > radiation. Over the next few years, the European Space Agency’s new Planck > spacecraft may be able to detect the sort of microwave patterns that Hawking > is predicting. > > -- > Jonathan Sherwood > Sr. Science & Technology Press Officer > University of Rochester > 585-273-4726 > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Eric Scoles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Well, where's the science in it? >> >> I mean, there's plenty of *scientism*: big words, equations, logical >> calculus, even some experimental results. But what is there about 'our >> actions determine the nature of the universe' that's testable? Or >> falsifiable, for that matter? >> >> And in any case, are any of these theories really implied by the physics >> -- or are they instead implied by the metaphors around the physics? >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Jonathan Sherwood < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Well, I don't know if I could say it's theology masquerading as science, >>> but yes, everything you just said would be a natural implication of that >>> idea. Which brings about questions of what do we mean by "the universe", >>> "reality", and "everything." >>> -- >>> Jonathan Sherwood >>> Sr. Science & Technology Press Officer >>> University of Rochester >>> 585-273-4726 >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Eric Scoles <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, this is mind blowing. But let's take a moment to clearly articulate >>>> what this means: >>>> It would mean that the actions of humans determines the nature of the >>>> universe. Not only that there is no objective reality apart from our >>>> thinking about it, but also that we determine reality. >>>> It would mean that there is a God, and we are It. >>>> >>>> This is, flatly, religion. >>>> >>>> And of course it's fundamentally not science, since it can't be >>>> falsified. >>>> >>>> It's really just theology masquerading as science. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Sherwood < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hawking had a mind-blowing idea recently. He said that it may be that >>>>> the origin of the universe has not yet been determined, but that the >>>>> observations we are currently making will determine what the origin was, >>>>> retroactively. >>>>> Since quantum mechanics completely thwarts our intuition, I think it's >>>>> natural for us to be fascinated with it. There's a lot of data to suggest >>>>> QM >>>>> does mess with time, at least in the way we understand time. You could >>>>> view >>>>> entanglement as an event in the future making sure an event in the past >>>>> happens a certain way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jonathan Sherwood >>>>> Sr. Science & Technology Press Officer >>>>> University of Rochester >>>>> 585-273-4726 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Eric Scoles <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, but it probably wouldn't be very good. Unless the Higgs God (or >>>>>> is it the Higgs Demiurge? Anti-Higgs God?) intervened to make it wildly >>>>>> successful as a means of stopping the LHC once and for all.... >>>>>> >>>>>> I do find this fascination with stories about quantum theory to be ... >>>>>> fascinating. Meta-fascinating, I guess. It seems to me that people are >>>>>> fascinated with something quite other than what the theory's actually >>>>>> about. >>>>>> All these personifications of the concepts involved -- doesn't that make >>>>>> anyone uncomfortable? It makes my freaking head spin. We might as well be >>>>>> talking about angels -- I suspect it would have as much bearing on the >>>>>> actual physics involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Sherwood < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This just has "fodder for a science fiction story" plastered all over >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Jonathan Sherwood >>>>>>> Sr. Science & Technology Press Officer >>>>>>> University of Rochester >>>>>>> 585-273-4726 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> eric scoles ([email protected]) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> eric scoles ([email protected]) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> eric scoles ([email protected]) >> >> >> > > > > -- eric scoles ([email protected]) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
