OFF: SETI, ETs

[Guido Vacano]

Paul sez--

> A very interesting book I read a couple of months ago concerned itself
> with "the reductionist nightmare."  One of its conclusions is that a
> "theory of everything" (the physicists Holy Grail) is pretty useless in
> terms of understanding because you couldn't use it to predict any
> phenomena beyond the very minute scale upon which it focuses.

Certainly. A molecular biologist does not REALLY need to know a great
deal about "macro" biology (i.e., anatomy, physiology, ecology,
population genetics, etc) to study the regulation of a particular gene.
Similarly, "micro" biological studies will not explain "macro"
biological phenomena. I would think the disparity in physics is even
greater. BTW, I've met biophysicists who have only a minimal understanding
of molecular biology, and almost no understanding of other branches of biology.

> Worse
> still, its "language" is not that which would provide a coherent
> explanation of large-scale phenomena in terms we understand in the domain
> of the phenomena.  (Try and map the interactions of massive numbers of
> elementary particles comprising a cat and a bowl of food to the concept
> "the cat is eating because it is hungry"---not that you could simulate
> such a huge conglomeration of particles, anyway.)

There are scientists who seem to think that they can discover
biological laws that will explain all biological phenomena (ala physics). I
can't see that happening in my lifetime . . .

> One of the main thrusts of the book is that it is very easy to produce
> complexity, and that the real question is why does there exist any
> simplicity at all?  They derive two notions: simplexity and complicity,
> and stress the important role that *context* and interaction play in the
> universe---something often ignored in the reductionist approach.

A good example of this is newtonian versus quantum physics. You don't use
quantum physics to explain how a pulley works. Similarly, newtonian
physics is inadequate for explaining subatomic phenomena.

> The book is called _The Collapse of Chaos_, by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart
> (Penguin, 1994).  Cohen is a reproductive biologist and Stewart a
> mathematician (and author of _Does God Play Dice?_).

I confess that I'm not quite sure what a "reproductive" biologist is.

> The first half is a
> kind of primer about what is known and orthodox about many fields, and the
> latter half is the authors' spin on things, in which they turn quite a bit
> of the first half on its head (e.g. they argue that Dawkins' "selfish
> gene" should actually be termed the "slavish gene").

What about selfish prions, viruses, ribozymes, and transposable elements?
:-)

> I found it highly interesting and
> informative.  I recommend you try and chase down a copy in your local
> library.

May have to check it out. A great book which confronts this inadequacy of
western philosophy is _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence_ by
Robert Pirsig.

> > I'm having a lot of difficulty not seeing the Universe as some kind of
> > finite automata simulation lately.
>
> Or cellular automata...

I'll stick with the Tao, or the Hindu concept of Brahma (see the
Upanishads). :-)

Guido

--
If nothing is done, then all will be well.  -- Lao Tse