Posted on 01/07/2002 8:19:37 AM PST by dead
...........
As scientist extraordinaire and author of an empire of science-fiction books, Arthur C. Clarke is one of the farthest-seeing visionaries of our time. His pithy quotations tug harder than those of most futurists on our collective psyches for their insights into humanity and our unique place in the cosmos. And none do so more than his famous Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This observation stimulated me to think about the impact the discovery of an extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) would have on science and religion. To that end, I would like to immodestly propose Shermer's Last Law (I don't believe in naming laws after oneself, so as the good book says, the last shall be first and the first shall be last): "Any sufficiently advanced ETI is indistinguishable from God."
God is typically described by Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent. Because we are far from possessing these traits, how can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us? We can't. But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI!
Consider that biological evolution operates at a snail's pace compared with technological evolution (the former is Darwinian and requires generations of differential reproductive success; the latter is Lamarckian and can be accomplished within a single generation). Then, too, the cosmos is very big and very empty. Voyager 1, our most distant spacecraft, hurtling along at more than 38,000 miles per hour, will not reach the distance of even our sun's nearest neighbor, the Alpha Centauri system (which it is not headed toward), for more than 75,000 years.
Ergo, the probability that an ETI only slightly more advanced than we are will make contact is virtually nil. If we ever do find an ETI, it will be as though a million-year-old Homo erectus were dropped into the 21st century, given a computer and cell phone and instructed to communicate with us. The ETI would be to us as we would be to this early hominid--godlike.
Because of science and technology, our world has changed more in the past century than in the previous 100 centuries. It took 10,000 years to get from the dawn of civilization to the airplane but just 66 years to get from powered flight to a lunar landing.
Moore's Law of computer power doubling every 18 months or so is now approaching a year. Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, calculates that there have been 32 doublings since World War II and that the singularity point--the point at which total computational power will rise to levels so far beyond anything that we can imagine that it will appear nearly infinite and thus be indistinguishable from omniscience--may be upon us as early as 2050.
When that happens, the decade that follows will put the 100,000 years before it to shame. Extrapolate out about a million years (just a blink on an evolutionary timescale and therefore a realistic estimate of how far advanced ETIs will be), and we get a gut-wrenching, mind-warping feel for how godlike these creatures would seem. In Clarke's 1953 novel, called Childhood's End, humanity reaches something like a singularity and must then make the transition to a higher state of consciousness. One character early in the story opines that "science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor, but they have few followers now."
Although science has not even remotely destroyed religion, Shermer's Last Law predicts that the relation between the two will be profoundly affected by contact with an ETI. To find out how, we must follow Clarke's Second Law: "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible." Ad astra!
Michael Shermer is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Borderlands of Science.
Religeon and science are distinct ways of looking at the world. They have nothing to do with one another. One confusion results from what I believe is an erroneous view that science can tell us something about the ultimate nature of reality. That scientific theories tell us what some aspect of the world is like "in reality", while in fact, they only provide an imperfect and incomplete model of that aspect of the world.
True. But,...
The difference between God and created beings is, to God 1+1=1.
I can imagine, since you seem to have failed to grasp the logic that proves that the statement "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God" cannot be false.
If you were to present an ETI that CAN be distinguished from God, the author can dissmiss it, because your ETI is clearly not "sufficiently advanced," so his original assertion does (and must) remain true.
I'm afraid I don't follow.
Whereas religion gives us a perfect and complete view of the world???
Which is why, perhaps, that members of various competing religions have been killing each other throught history???
Chickens are how eggs make other eggs.
God is the egg and reality is the chicken, this is a bit better than the smoke ring analogy, but what I'm implying with both is that God is 'inside out' right now, IN or UNDER reality not OUTSIDE it.
Its like when your genes build your body and brain, they get all the benefits of evolution to tell them HOW to build it, but once it is ALIVE and LIVING and CONCIOUS its basically hands off from the genetic level, like a programmer is hands off with his chess program once it is running.
So reality is God either cloning or transmuting Himself.
Also, I see a Reuters article quoted on USENET dated January 5, 2002, saying that Clarke has just turned 84, which would seem to imply that he's alive. It's certainly possible he's died in the past two days, but I'd think there'd be some word of it on the net.
I'm sure this statement will stimulate that usual anti-God crap but check it out at Seth
I may be wrong, but I would doubt that "1 + 1 = 2" is a proposition in Principia Mathematica.
I also thought to goof on Fermat's "Last" Theorem, but can't manage the HTML. Oh, well....
I would argue that historically this is not the order of these two events. It is only recently that a few obscure areas of mathematics have been shown to have physical "manifestations". For instance, I read recently about an example involving the Banach-Tarski paradox.
Actually, I don't think he would.
He'd recognize it as a very impressive machine. But certainly not 'magic'.
Indeed, I have always disagreed with Arthur C. Clarke's "second law". The only people who mistake a phenomona for 'magic' are those who believe in magic. The others will always look for an explanation and try to figure out how it works.
You left out the part about the models being replaced with better ones as time goes on. This is a major advantage of science over religion.
As for Fermat's last theorem, God, of course, could have checked that out case by case. You don't have to check it for all powers, only for 4 and the primes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.