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.
Late one night a policeman spots a slightly tipsy man bent over under a street light, looking for something. The policeman says "Have you lost something, sir ?" The man says "Yes, I lost my keys." The policeman say "Are you sure you lost them here?" The man says, "No, I lost them over there, (pointing into the dark) but the light is here."
Especially if it turned out to be coconut tree worshipers in the South Pacific.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
I'm not sure about any point with B-T. It was an example, (in your favor) of a well-established mathematical fact which you would never expect to describe a physical phenomenon, but, in fact may. And, yes, the sets involved are not Lebesgue-measureable, but if (and that's a big if), there is a physical process that is modeled this way, well that's pretty funky if you ask me...
Ohmy. This could take years. And lots of lab space, too.
Shall we apply for a grant?
We'll have to. I would like to devote all my waking hours to this project...
and all of my sleeping hours, now that I think about it.
It would be interesting to study the effects of your working hypothesis on a sleeping subject.
There couldn't be a better lab partner than you, Tiger.
Well, if that were the case the scientists and liberal media would be all over it before you could make your last margarita!
Speaking of labs....there are too many physicists and theologians here. Let's be respectful and move to the biology lab. Besides, someone might point out that I was ignoring something and you know what that does to my scientific rigor. ; )
So we'll be able to pick up a copy of God v2.1 at Curcuit City for 44.95 plus tax? Will God get viruses?
Hell. Total computational power rose beyond anything I can comprehend 20 years ago but I do not worship my PC. We don't need to 'comprehend it' to use it.
Slick, do you have any insight (or reference literature) here?
[tq]So how come we first "invent" an area of mathematics and only subsequently "discover" that it describers Nature?
[mud]You are correct sir, e.g., tensor analysis for general relativity, and functional analysis for quantum mechanics.
If you go back through a few posts you'll see that TopQuark, in particular, would argue (i think) that most physical phenomena are explained in terms of existing mathematics. I naively suggested he might have it backwards, that usually the mathematics are constructed to explain the physical process, but I think he may have a point. The example of Newton and his version of calculus clouded my vision at first...
I think the real problem would be not enough coconuts for 6 billion people.
Green's Theorem is the simplest extension to more than one dimension of Newton's fundamental theorem of calculus, e.g., the value of an integral can be computed by calculating the antiderivative at the boundary. In Green's case, the value of a 2-dimensional integral in 2-space equals a certain line integral about the boundary.
The classical Stokes' Theorem equates a surface integral in 3-space to a line integral on the boundary.
These classical theorems have been generalized to a modern Stokes' theorem which equates n-dimensional integrals to (n-1)-dimensional integrals on the boundary.
That would work. We have a few of those people around.
Someday, people will be able to distinguish between semantics and truth.
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.