Some years back I was shortlisted for a job and gave a seminar, doing my best to leave a good impression. In the questions following my talk, somebody asked if I think the process of science is one of discovery or one of invention. "Both," I said, leaving everyone in the audience, including myself, somewhat confused.
In more detail, the question is the following. In the process of science, we accumulate knowledge. That's observations, that's applications, that's theories. But this knowledge, does it exist before we have made it our own and it is just up to us to discover it? Or is this knowledge genuinely new, and does only come into existence once we are thinking about and working with it?
If one goes down this slope it can becomes somewhat slippery, and you might end up at the question whether all of science is a human construct, tainted by the biases of our consciousness and social effects (invention) - or if science in its essence, ideally, is pure and objective, without human baggage (discovery). You don't have to slide down the slope though, because going there neglects that either way we're doing our best to make science as useful for our purposes as possible, trying to reduce biases and social effects.
Take for example quantum field theory. If you believe that mathematics has an existence independent of human consciousness, you would argue that quantum field theory existed before we knew of it, and we discovered and then used it. If you don't believe that Plato's world of ideas is real, then you'd instead call it an invention of the human mind. Or take some application like for example the LASER (that just celebrated its 50th birthday). Was the construction of such an instrument always a possibility that existed, and it was just discovered by humans? Or is it an invention, a possibility that only came into existence thanks to our ingenuity?
This admittedly philosophical question, that is eventually one about the meaning of creativity, has a correspondence in the arts. In interviews, I've sometimes found painters or writers saying that the "idea" for their work was waiting for them, they were just the ones who brought it to paper or canvas, they are the discoverer and the medium to bring it into our attention, but not the inventor. Some even speak of a mental "place" that they visit to find their ideas, a place they apparently believe is not a creation of their own mind. Others however describe the creative process as entirely self-made, often including trial and error, many studies and improvements, the making of something genuinely novel that has never existed before, an invention.
I, as many physicists I think, believe that reality exists independent from us. It is thus out there for us to discover. Reality doesn't care about the quirks of the human brain or or problems of our societies. So that would put me on the side of the discoverers. However, it is not that simple. Whatever we do, our discoveries are shaded by human perception. Whatever we observe, we observe it with human senses or human instruments. And the theories we write down, they are stories that humans tell which are meant to describe the real world, rather than actually being the real world. To illustrate that, let me recycle an image I used in my earlier post on Models and Theories, see left. You first need to discover. But once you measure it, once you write it down, and make it suitable for human use, you're creating an - necessarily imperfect - image, may that be a collection of data points or a theory. And that's the part of the process which is an invention.
I would argue for example that while we have discovered quantum mechanical effects which exist somewhere in "the real world out there," the theory we have to explain them is a human construct, it's an invention. It uses variables and language that are specific to our species, it carries the history of particle-wave duality, it is suitable to describe the data that we have measured with our devices. An alien civilization might discover the same effects, but they might invent a different story to explain them, a theory that explains their data in possible entirely different ways.
I don't even think that mathematics itself is free of human baggage, or that it will remain the best way to describe Nature if you could fast forward some hundred thousand years. We just think today it is because we cannot possibly imagine anything else that would work better. But I think we should always keep in mind the Principle of Finite Imagination: Human imagination has limits set by our cognitive abilities. Excluding a possibility because we cannot today imagine it neglects that time may bring significant changes to our cognition or species.
I didn't get the job. I doubt it had anything to do with my inability to explain my reply to this particular question. But still, I wished I had been able to express myself better back then.
I always take the overnight flight from Toronto to Frankfurt. I hate overnight flights because I never manage to sleep on planes, but the flight has a bonus: It lands in Germany in around sunrise, so one gets a spectacularly beautiful top-down view on clouds bathed in orange to pink colors. This morning, we passed through several thin layers of clouds before we landed in a grey and foggy typically German Spring morning. It's still grey and foggy now, and my inner clock is wondering if it's morning or evening and if I've had breakfast or if the airline muffin at 4am doesn't count. Coffee, I think. Coffee is always a good idea.
In any case, gazing on the planet from above always makes me think about how fragile our life-enabling environment is. How thin the layer of gas that we breathe. How lucky we are to be in the right distance to the sun. How amazing the sheer number of lifeforms that came about in all their diversity, now crammed on the planet's surface in a not always peaceful coexistence. And of course there's the question did this happen elsewhere? So here's a weekend poll. I'm a believer. I think there's intelligent life out there, and sooner or later we'll find it. Or it will find us. What do you think?
The other day we were discussing how unfortunate it is that the "quantum gravity" group at Perimeter Institute is called quantum gravity, even though it excludes string theory, which is another group. However, I couldn't really come up with a better name. The actual problem seems to me that string theory is part of quantum gravity, condensed matter, particle physics, and mathematical physics, so maybe it's them who shouldn't be name-givers for a group? What do you think?
After last month's poll "What's typically American" lead to results that were as amusing as to the point, I am curious now what you think is typically German? Name five things, no names, no places. I will update the following list and count what's been repeated. Since most of our readers are not German, feel free to add an explanation if you think it necessary.
Here are my five items:
Limits no longer apply (Ende aller Streckenverbote): A streetsign signaling the end of all speed- and other limits, announcing Autobahn freedom. The greatest thing about Germany whatsoever.
Garden dwarfs (Gartenzwerge): Are little figures of clay (or plastic) one finds between tomatoes or primroses, typically in front gardens and allotments. The little guys, usually wearing red caps and engaging in some sort of outdoor work like digging or sowing seeds, are the highlights of German neatness.
Fachwerk: If you've seen any pictures from Germany you've seen Fachwerk. It's a way of constructing houses in which a skeleton of wooden beams is later filled in with bricks or some sort of bond. It was very popular until the 19th century. Most old city centers in Germany still feature these houses.
Bread with a hard crust: Even after more than five years it's a mystery how somebody can eat, not to mention make, these wiggly wobbly bakeries one finds in the rest of the world.
Mechanical engineering,Well-built car (& plane) engines, Technology: 4
Rules, Norms and regulations: 3
Autobahn, no speed limits, speeding: 3
Physics discoveries, Quantum Mechanics: 3
Punctuality: 3
Fachwerk,Housing: 2
Forest: 2
Train system, good trains: 2
Cars and trucks (MB, BMW): 2
Bandwurmwörter: 2
Fussball, Soccer: 2
Romanticism: In music, literature and philosophy
Black Bread
Expressionism
Unheimlichen und ratselhaften Charakter (uncanny, enigmatic character)
Apparent order
Disgusting coffee
Leica
Close and open face-to-face social life among 600 year old buildings
Missing the Deutschemark
Fairy Tales
Unions
Going on vacation
Capitalized Nouns
Leopard tanks
Potatoes
Hyper-low levels of nationalism
Pollution
The villain
Techno
Conviction
Perfectionists
Science
Fiercely Independent
Second World War
Competence (whataver the nature of the activity involved)
Seriousness
Zukunftsangst: looking fearfully into the future especially in times when everything is going smoothly, but feeling the better the harder it gets.
Resilience: the ability to withstand catastrophes on a national level and come out of it better than before.
Compulsive efficiency: (at least in old school professionals) - if you want to torture a German, just make him look at a complete moron messing around with something he could do way better.
Winning on penalties
Nur mit Parkschein
Kaffee und Kuchen (and Konditorei, where the rite is celebrated)
Burgers, Hamburgers, Cheeseburgers: 5 Political Correctness: 4 SUV's, Big Cars: 4 Christian Fundamentalism, Creationism: 4 Teeth Whitening: 3 Baseball: 3 Wastefulness: 3 Stars and Stripes/Patriotism: 3 Space Exploration, NASA, Spaceshuttle: 3 Obesity: 2 Filmindustry: 2 Guns: 2 Intense competitiveness, Winner/looser: 2 Drive Thrus, No Sidewalks, Driving everywhere, Long commutes Consumerism, Shopping Malls, Shopping network channels, Strip Malls Small Talk, Forthright openness, "Friendliness", Helpfulness, Politeness Brownies, Peanut butter Fast Food Chains, Supersized portions Writing checks Refusing to use the metric system Shaved pubic hair Air conditioning run amock (walk-in fridges) Democracy Exceptionalism, National Interest, Nabelschau (navel gazing), Pride, Absence of International News Great Landscapes Reality Shows Democrazy Believe in own propaganda Daylight saving time Country Music, Jazz, Hip-Hop Religious tolerance Fast and cheap but with low quality Anti-intellectualism, Math phobia Terrorism, War, Nuclear Weapons, Military Ivy League QED Native Americans Iced tea with sugar Root beer floats Freedom Simplicity Ingenuity Stubbornness Puritanism Rugged individualism Love of family Distrust of bigshots Extreme need for privacy Wheat Ipods Size (Big, Bigger, American), Big cups, Big screen TVs Starbucks Bailout "Oh my God!" screams College/University T-shirts Satire Scientology Televangelists
PS: You don't have to come up with items that are not already on the list. I count how many times they were named, I just didn't want to use a standard poll because this way you can suggest items yourself.
I am currently driving a rental car, a Ford, which to my horror has a tag 'Powered by Microsoft' next to the gearshift, no kidding:
So here is a question of believe, a yes or no, a good or evil, black or white kind of question; I want no nuances, no ifs or depends-ons: Would you buy that car? As for me, I clearly wouldn't. I wouldn't buy a car with an automatic transmission to begin with.
I meant for some while to write a post about the black hole information loss paradox, but despite my best intentions I haven't yet come around to doing so. As a warm up, for you and me, here is a poll:
Btw, here are the results of our last poll "Does the past and the future exist in the same way as the present?" From 153 votes, 41.2% decided for "Past, present and future exist in the same sense," 29.6% for "It is only the now that exists, but neither the past nor the future." And, surprising for me, only 15% voted for "The past exists as does the present moment, but the future doesn't.". The remainder chose "Other".
I will be in Germany the coming two weeks, so you're facing a slow time on this blog, especially while I'm stuck in transit and jetlag. I seriously hate flying. The only thing I like about it is disconnecting, and watching the clouds from above. The past some thousand miles behind, and the future as far ahead, and all of that some kilometers below, tiny and more or less irrelevant. Though the disconnection is bound to become history in the soon future given that some airlines are now allowing cell-phone use etc. The possibly worst thing about flying is the feeling it's a moment that simply lasts forever, and just doesn't want to pass.
Anyway, so while I will spend some hours staring at a sign saying 'Your seat cushion can be used as a floating device', here is a poll for you addressing one of my more permanent confusions. That being the question whether or not the past does exist the same way as does the present, as does the future. Having been taught time is a dimension since I was ten or so, combined with my disliking of the measurement process in quantum mechanics, I tend to believe the past, present, and future 'exist' equally, and our perception of a 'now' is an illusion that comes with consciousness. However, I then recently came across this article Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?, which starts with saying
"If one can talk about a widely (explicitly or implicitly) accepted view on reality it is presentism - the view that it is only the present (the three-dimensional world at the moment `now') that exists. This common-sense view, which reflects the way we perceive the world, has two defining features: (i) the world exists only at the constantly changing present moment (past and future do not exist) and (ii) the world is three-dimensional."
Which left me wondering how widely accepted this view really is, and how far I'm a victim of my education. So what do you think? I know the question is somewhat fuzzy given that I don't explain what I mean with 'exist'. Let me put it like this: I guess most people would agree that the present moment 'exists' in some way. So without explaining in exactly which way it exists, let me ask whether the past and future exist that same way.
PS: The results from our last poll on the Photic Sneeze Reflex are here. There were 321 people who voted. About 62% of men (56% of women) said they do sneeze when looking into bright sunlight after having adapted to the dark. I didn't realize this was so common! The ratio of men to women who voted is about 6.5.
Yeah, me too, but it's actually bullshit. One of the more useful side effects of the internet is the busting of urban legends. Though it's useful only if one actually looks for it: Googling 'Eskimo Words for Snow'gives you easily several references that explain not only where the myth comes from, but also what's wrong about it.
The brief explanation is that besides there being several 'Eskimo languages' these are polysynthetic, meaning one can put several nouns with describing adjectives together into one word -- which gives a new word. I.e. there is snow, there is frozen-snow, frozen-and-dirty-snow, frozen-and-dirty-snow-with-a-crust-that-breaks-if-one-steps-on-it, and then there is snow-on-my-outside-chair-waiting-for-springtime.
Reference: Laura Martin, American Anthropologist, Vol. 88, No. 2 (Jun., 1986), pp. 418-423
"Eskimo words are the product of extremely synthetic morphology in which all word building is accomplished by multiple suffixation [...] Furthermore, precisely identical "whole" words are unlikely to recur because the particular combination of suffixes used with a "snow" root, or any other, varies by speaker and situation as well as by syntactic role."
The paper is actually quite entertaining in the way she clarifies earlier claims ("A minimal knowledge of Eskimo grammar would have confirmed the relevance of these facts to the central hypotheses [...]" Ouch.)
Either way, I was shocked to see that the above publication is from '86, since I must have read about it repeatedly, and definitely after '86.
The interesting question is much longer will that story to survive? So, take the poll below and answer the question whether you had heard of the story that the Eskimo's have so-and-so-many words for the one English word 'snow' (the precise number of words doesn't matter)
Do you have to sneeze when looking into bright sunlight? Involuntary sneezing when being exposed to bright light after adapting to the dark is called the photic sneeze reflex. The syndrome was first described in 1978, and seems to be much more common than has been generally recognized. It is believed to be inherited, but identification of the specific genes involved has not been made yet. If you want to sneeze for science, you can do so at UCSF.
