IN his fascinating foreword to the autobiographical tome: The Barons 500: Leaders For The New Century, Copyright 2000 Barons Who's Who, ISSN 1059-5392, Editorial Director John L. Pellam, Irvine, California, that lists the invited autobiographies of 500 of the most influential persons for the 21st Century and that lists Bill Gates on page 47 (see File) with whom I share the same sheet on page 48, Sir Arthur C. Clarke (Chancellor: International Space University & University of Moratuwa), mulls on the odds of appearing in this volume: one in twelve million.
Clark predicts that "...around 2020 machine intelligence (A.I.) will match that H. Sapiens -- will begin then to surpass it. There is also a good chance that during the coming century we may contact with other intelligent beings, either by radio or even through 'close encounters'.
Prediction is in tension with free and is seduced by the cutting edge of knowledge (BMJ 306, Saturday 1 May 1993, p. 1216, J Iam Morrison reviewing L Howe, A Wain--Predicting The Future, Cambridge University Press).
The aliens (ET) is a fascinating and overwhelming concept for the US of A and its enlightened and supposedly avant-garde citizens. The US Constitution / Immigration refers to all non-USA residents as aliens. Movies of aliens emerging from the USA reflect the mood and the ethos of their populace. Do we have any European movies eulogizing the ET? The Yeti? Space Invaders?
When science moves beyond rationality (as with cortical spreading depression in migraine research), it exacts a heavy price in terms of lost opportunity and tax-payer funds.
Future potential: "We cannot predict the new forces, powers and discoveries that will be disclosed to us when we reach other planets and set up new laboratories in Space. They are as much beyond our vision as fire or electricity would be to a fish" -- Arthur C. Clarke.
The miseries of planet Earth are unending. What "forces and powers and discoveries" would reverse the well-entrenched tendency of the human to misuse every power or discovery.
Perhaps we would achieve gun control on Mars and other planets. Perhaps we could dump our garbage and electronic wastes on other planets.
Perhaps we could also abolish, on other planets and stars, prostitution and the below-the belt testosterone-fuelled human proclivities that both sustain life on Earth and give it some of its greatest obstacles, such as HIV. Or would we mine minerals of the solar system and other Universes to sell them back on Earth as the next phase of colonialism?
I predict that A.I. can never match the full spectrum of the wonderous marvel that we call the human brain. I also predict that ET is but a figment of imagination wrapped in a mystery inside a riddle, to paraphrase Winston Churchill. These are oversold concepts that pander to a select band of scientists seeking glory and to a large segment of the human population in countries that wish to possess the infinite.
Sure, the search for intelligence is open to rational scientific inquiry. The issue is that so much of the study of extra-terrestrial anything is closely related to public, Hollywood, and religious beliefs. Insofar as they can be separated, people who do work in exo-biology have quite well founded opinions most of the time.
It is useful to keep in mind that we can also use our own scientific knowledge to constrain our understanding as well, as I wrote in this paper many years ago (one I would definitely revise haha) Conference Paper The Von Däniken Hypothesis: Furthering Our Understanding of ...
Let's say that the search for Life in our Solar System is well under way and is of course a serious scientific field of inquiry. That is different than searching for intelligent civilizations by making assumptions and reading into the art and culture of ancient civilizations here on Earth. The search for extraterrestrial communications is also a well established scientific project and you may learn more about it from the SETI Institute.
The search for Life is called "Exoplanet Exploration" and is a big part of NASA "Origins" research program, including several well known robotic missions to Mars, designed to search for water and analyze the soil in order to find Martian microbes. The wider scientific field of study is "AstroBiology" and you can find out more at this NASA website:
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/putting-together-a-community-strategy-to-search-for-extraterrestrial-life/
Science without logic is like a ship without a rudder. Perhaps, you would like to share the logic with us. What others are doing should not cloud your own vision.
According to the Cambridge University Dictionary, logic is a "particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment. On the other hand, "Mathematical Logic" is often divided into the fields of set theory, model theory, recursion theory, and proof theory. These areas share basic results on logic, particularly first-order logic, and definability. In practical terms it just means "good judgement" and it probably means to think about problems using the scientific method and keeping a clear mind.
From a "DNA computational" scientific point of view, it is necessary to formulate a falsifiable theory to explain the substantial anomalies that we observe, in for example DNA complexity and genetic bio-diversity on Earth, especially with regard to the origins of consciousness and intelligent life.
The "computational complexity" of life on this planet either means that Life is such an extraordinary occurence, since it is so remotely improbable to have coincidentally encountered all of the exactly right conditions, so that there is a low probability for Life to exist anywhere else, since it is such a unique "miracle" and there are no other examples of the same creative process in the Universe...
Or on the other hand, we take a more highly probable view of Life arising somewhere else in the Universe, given our new understanding and recent observations of very large (practially every star has planets) number of exo-solar planets within the habitable "goldilocks zone." Currently we estimate the probablity for life by calculating the "Drake Equation" and, as it turns out the probably is very close to 1 or 100% there is intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe, since all of the complex conditions can occur given the immense number of exo-planets orbiting around other Stars. This is the new view, that ET must exist out there given our calculations of all of the factors that could account for Life.
However, as Fermi cleverly suggested, where are they? Therefore, there may still be much debate and speculation, hopefully grounded on a sincere spirit of discovery and using a logical analsys to falsify the hypothesis that Life exists only on Planet Earth.
The NASA "origins" missions and the many robotic probes orbiting and traversing the surface of Mars, as well as orbiting other Solar planets, are seeking scientifically, logically to observe and collect data that could prove the possibility that this process of "Intelligent Life" started somewhere else in the Universe, as much as it did also on Earth. That is what we mean by the Search for Extra-terrestrial Life. It is indeed Science and a most definitely rational field of study.
@ Floren
From your enlightening response as above, I gather that the basis of search for ET / SETI is an outright notion that is purely mathematical in origin.
Is the logic of mathematics complete by itself? Is life on Earth an exercise of mathematics? Can the magnificence that is life, ever be encompassed wholly or even partially by mathematics? If life is biological, even if silicone based, how does mathematics creep into the equation except through statistics?
Mr Kumar Gupta,
SETI or the "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence" is based on our own human, never-ending search for meaning and significance. It is an essential part of our "cosmological" structure and an unavoidable question for any sensible, thoughtful person who examines our place in the Universe.
Your questions are probably better answered from the point of view of the Philosophy of Mathematics; however, there is very little agreement as to what is actually meant by "mathematics" itself and despite the irony of being the most exact science in terms of quantified calculation, it is also misunderstood and very different definitions lead to different meanings. Language and the qualified, abstract and localized dimensions of meaning are usually the reasons why we cannot reach true understanding among people. Therefore, in order to dive deeper into your questions, we probably have to visit the issue from the perspective of Semiotics and the theory of Language and Meaning by Professor Noam Chomsky.
Your questions brought this passage to mind from Chomsky's "On Nature and Language" as your Socratic series of questions are a bit reminiscent of the same question you posit as "Can the magnificence that is life, ever be encompassed wholly or partially by Mathematics? for which I quote:
"… [T]he conception of the perfection of nature remains a vital component of contemporary inquiry into organic nature, at least in its simpler aspects: the poly-hedral shells of viruses, cell-division into spheres, the appearance of the Fibonacci series in many phenomena of nature, and other aspects of the biological world."
"How far this goes is a matter of speculation and debate. Very recently, these issues have come to the fore in the study of language. It has become possible to pose in a productive way the questions of “perfection of language”: specifically, to ask how closely human language approaches an optimal solution to design conditions that the system must meet to be usable at all. To the extent that the question receives a positive answer, we will have found that nature has—in Galileo’s words—“employed the least elaborate, the simplest and easiest of means,” but in a domain where this would hardly be expected: a very recent and apparently isolated product of evolution, a central component of the most complex organic object known, a component that is surely at the core of our mental nature, cultural achievement, and curious history."
Chomsky, N. On Nature and Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 55-58
Finally, as very eloquently argued by that always refreshing and all-encompassing democratic exercise in collective thinking called Wikipedia puts it at the end of the definitions about the "Philosophy of Mathematics:"
"When philosophy discovers something wrong with science, sometimes science has to be changed—Russell's paradox comes to mind, as does Berkeley's attack on the actual infinitesimal—but more often it is philosophy that has to be changed. I do not think that the difficulties that philosophy finds with classical mathematics today are genuine difficulties; and I think that the philosophical interpretations of mathematics that we are being offered on every hand are wrong, and that "philosophical interpretation" is just what mathematics doesn't need."
On a personal note, I am of the school of thought created by the Nobel Laureate Dr Richard Feynman, who was probably one of the greatest mathematical minds, capable of miraculous powers of abstraction and graphical simplification of immensely complex Standard Model Hamiltonian equations into the beautiful "Feynman Diagrams" in order to describe the most precisely calculated description of the interactions between light and matter... in his Theory Quantum Electro Dynamics. In the words of Feynman, speaking about Mathematics:
“To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.”
― Richard Feynman
@ Floren
A simple question has put you in a tizzy. I see that you never stay on track but indulge in intellectual waffle and wiggle.
That Language or Semantics can prise or comprise or propel science is an entirely hollow entire misleading concept. I invite you to prove me wrong by quoting a single such instance,
Quoting an authority means nothing as all authorities are in time eventually subject to searing tear-down research, with very very few surviving the test of time.
When a science becomes abstract, it forms laws that are immutable.--VK Gupta
I again repeat my question, that you have deftly parried. You seems to have missed the question altogether. All you want is to put forward your own elaborate view crystallized through some references.
Is the logic of mathematics complete by itself? Is life on Earth an exercise of mathematics? Can the magnificence that is life, ever be encompassed wholly or even partially by mathematics? If life is biological, even if silicone based, how does mathematics creep into the equation except through statistics?
Let it not come to a rest that you are a semantic expert only.
Are you always this rude or this is a special occasion? The language of the Universe is the language of Mathematics. Period. You did not get it?
By the way, the language of your question is poorly constructed and meaningless, asking "...how does mathematics creep (sic) into the equation except through statistics." It demonstrates that you have basically no knowledge about Physics or much less about Quantum Mechanics or QED. So, save yourself the embarrassment.
Maybe someone in this Academic community may appreciate the point that the languague of Mathematics is the language of the Universe. Thanks for asking, but in the future remember the most important thing is to respect People and to learn from everyone.
I suggest you go back and read Kant and the Metaphysics of Morals.
@Ales
Thank you for a more balanced answer.
Every researcher has to consider the strengths and weaknesses of her/his tool.
Are evolutionary computations purely mathematical, largely mathematical, or non-mathematical?
Quoting one or two authorities does not rest the matter.
Kurt Friedrich Gödel is considered along with Aristotle, Alfred Tarski and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history. Gödel made an immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century. Even Einstein was in awe of Gödel, who proved that the logic of mathematics was incomplete (incomplete theorems, 1931).
Many years ago I read a book by the famous astrophysicist Iosif Shklovsky
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Shklovsky )
"His 1962 book, Вселенная, жизнь, разум (Universe, Life, Intelligence), was expanded upon and reissued in 1966 with American astronomer Carl Sagan as co-author under the title Intelligent Life in the Universe (1966). This was the first comprehensive discussion of this field. Discussing the biological as well as astronomical issues of the subject, its unique format, alternating paragraphs written by Shklovsky and Sagan, demonstrated the deep mutual regard between the two and allowed them to express their views without compromise."
I remember that one of the key conclusions was extremely law probability of expecting SETI similar or exciding humans' civilization due to biological complexity and unique astrophysical conditions sufficient for its genesis. Nevertheless, he was one of the first who initiated serious scientific discussions on those matters.
In the September 1965, Iosif Shklovsky made the following statement regarding prospects for the future of humanity:
"Profound crises lie in wait for a developing civilization and one of them may well prove fatal. We are already familiar with several such critical (situations):
(a) Self-destruction as a result of a thermonuclear catastrophe or some other discovery which may have unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences. (b) Genetic danger.
(c) Overproduction of information.
(d) Restricted capacity of the individual's brain which can lead to excessive specialization, with consequent dangers of degeneration.
(e) A crisis precipitated by the creation of artificial intelligent beings."
It was more than a half of a century ago. Amazing prediction that to a large extent remains valid up to now. I think, SETI search is an interesting and quite unpredictable field of science in a sense of chances to find it, as well as the consequences and ramifications, if reaching indeed positive results. This uncertainty makes it difficult to plan SETI research and focus serious resources around it.
I believe, the main focus should be on the close and then farther space colonization by the human civilization through its exploration and exploitation. Our key goal is a survival of our civilization. The life on the planet Earth is beautiful but has a number of vulnerabilities of high gravity.
Threat analyses show a dangerous dynamics of some of them over time. Certain critical risk factors may become a deadly danger for our civilization and a plan B is to be intensively studied scientifically and technologically. That's where the bulk of available to allocate resources should be applied. It should be a very key goal for centuries (or may be millenniums) ahead.
I praise Len for another well-balanced response.
The room for doubt is never eliminated.
Doubt gives rise to redoubtable advances for humankind. The key goal for survival of humankind and plan B is well-taken.
Perhaps we do not as yet have the vocabulary or the principles to move what we consider as forward.
There is some room for caution. We have mountains of garbage of all kinds on Earth. Will be shifting that to other planets, mining the minerals on other planets and selling them back on Earth as a new form of colonial entrepreneurship, or be able to live in peace with other beings after classifying them according to the colour of their skins? On Earth, our history of living in peace is abysmal (I wish I had a stronger word). Will we divide other planets and rule them as we do on Earth?
Do we have justice on Earth that we will dispense beyond Earth?
It is easy to get carried away with excitement. The biological hen-egg puzzle on Earth still exists.
Your original question was about the validity of the search for extraterrestrial life, whether it is a valid "scientific subject?" A question for which I provided a direct and simple answer, together with references to the NASA programs that are relevant. Yes is it scientific and yes it is rational.
Then you went on to ask a multi-part question: "Is the logic of mathematics complete by itself? Is life on Earth an exercise of mathematics? Can the magnificence that is life, ever be encompassed wholly or even partially by mathematics? If life is biological, even if silicone based, how does mathematics creep into the equation except through statistics? "
I simply responded that yes, Mathematics is the language of the Universe and yes, for some it is possible to describe in mathematical terms, even by the Philosophy of Mathematics or by the "semiotic logic of language," the "magnificence" of life that you repeat in your multi-part question. So, why do I get such a nasty scolding? For some Minds, it is possible to conceive how Life is "encompassed wholly or even partially" by mathematics... essentially that is what Physics and Science is about, describing the Universe mathematically. The rest is for poets, writers, philosophers and sincere seekers who may answer symbolically.
Being that I am not one easily pushed aside nor bullied, then what is it that you dislike about my answers? Thoughtful and honest answers for which I took the time and care to provide in good faith and as part of this community. On a jocular note, I venture to imagine that perhaps the reason that Aliens do not want to make contact is precisely to avoid the dangers of dealing with such nasty humans?
I have escalated your particularly offensive answer above, since I don't accept this kind of pretentious bullying and rudeness, so that it is worth pursuing this matter with the Admin to keep this Research Gate community free of such harassment!
@Floren
I am sure you wrote in good faith. You gave me much to think about, for which I remain grateful. We are not opponents but trying to grasp something that is nebulous yet. Perhaps our methods are different, that is all.
I am also confident that your thoughts will eventually crystallise further into a comprehensive outlook on this issue.
I look forward to further exchanges of views with you.
Best.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence