What we believe but cannot prove Today's leading thinkers on science in the age of certainty

Book - 2006

Saved in:

2nd Floor Show me where

500/What
1 / 1 copies available
Location Call Number   Status
2nd Floor 500/What Checked In
Subjects
Published
New York : Harper Perennial c2006.
Language
English
Other Authors
John Brockman, 1941- (-)
Edition
1st ed
Item Description
"With an introduction by Ian McEwan"--Cover.
Physical Description
xvii, 252 p. ; 21 cm
ISBN
9780060841812
  • Preface: The Edge Question
  • Introduction
  • Contributors
  • Martin Rees
  • Ray Kurzweil
  • Douglas Rushkoff
  • Richard Dawkins
  • Chris Anderson
  • Stephen Petranek
  • Carolyn Porco
  • Paul C. W. Davies
  • Kenneth W. Ford
  • Karl Sabbagh
  • J. Craig Venter
  • Leon Lederman
  • Maria Spiropulu
  • Philip W. Anderson
  • Robert M. Sapolsky
  • Jesse Bering
  • Ian McEwan
  • Michael Shermer
  • Susan Blackmore
  • Randolph M. Nesse, M.D.
  • Tor Norretranders
  • Scott Atran
  • David G. Myers
  • Jonathan Haidt
  • Sam Harris
  • David Buss
  • Seth Lloyd
  • Denis Dutton
  • Jared Diamond
  • Timothy Taylor
  • Judith Rich Harris
  • John H. McWhorter
  • Elizabeth Spelke
  • Stephen H. Schneider
  • Bruce Sterling
  • Robert Trivers
  • Verena Huber-Dyson
  • Keith Devlin
  • Freeman Dyson
  • Rebecca Goldstein
  • Stuart A. Kauffman
  • Leonard Susskind
  • Donald D. Hoffman
  • Terrence Sejnowski
  • John Horgan
  • Arnold Trehub
  • Ned Block
  • Janna Levin
  • Daniel Gilbert
  • Todd E. Feinberg, M.D.
  • Clifford Pickover
  • Nicholas Humphrey
  • Pamela McCorduck
  • Charles Simonyi
  • Alan Kay
  • Steven Pinker
  • Christine Finn
  • Daniel C. Dennett
  • Alun Anderson
  • Joseph LeDoux
  • George Dyson
  • Alison Gopnik
  • Paul Bloom
  • William H. Calvin
  • Robert R. Provine
  • Stanislas Dehaene
  • Stephen Kosslyn
  • Alex Pentland
  • Irene Pepperberg
  • Howard Gardner
  • David Gelernter
  • Marc D. Hauser
  • Gary Marcus
  • Brian Goodwin
  • Leo M. Chalupa
  • Margaret Wertheim
  • Gino Segre
  • Haim Harari
  • Donald I. Williamson
  • Ian Wilmut
  • Daniel Goleman
  • Esther Dyson
  • James J. O'Donnell
  • Jean Paul Schmetz
  • Nassim Nicholas Taleb
  • Simon Baron-Cohen
  • Kevin Kelly
  • Martin Nowak
  • Tom Standage
  • Steven Giddings
  • Alexander Vilenkin
  • Lawrence M. Krauss
  • John D. Barrow
  • Paul J. Steinhardt
  • Lee Smolin
  • Anton Zeilinger
  • Gregory Benford
  • Rudy Rucker
  • Carlo Rovelli
  • Jeffrey Epstein
  • Howard Rheingold
  • Jaron Lanier
  • Marti Hearst
  • Kai Krause
  • Oliver Morton
  • W. Daniel Hillis
  • Martin E. P. Seligman
  • Neil Gershenfeld
  • Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
Review by Booklist Review

In this informative and often surprising book, more than 100 notable scientists and scholars answer the question, What do you believe even though you cannot prove it? The responses range from the thought-provoking to seemingly trivial (or just plain silly). Professor of cosmology and astrophysics Martin Rees, for example, admits that he believes intelligent life is unique to our world (in sharp contrast to many of his fellow contributors). Alun Anderson, senior consultant to New Scientist magazine, believes cockroaches are conscious. Mathematician and science-fiction novelist Rudy Rucker believes in a multiplicity of universes. Susan Blackmore, who has written widely on the subject of consciousness, appears to believe that she doesn't exist. The contributors touch on a broad spectrum of subjects, from religion to science and many points in between. Although some of the responses are arrogant or nitpicky, the majority are thoughtful, honest, and revelatory of the contributors' own intellectual and philosophical biases. And the book certainly gets us thinking about our own deeply held, if entirely unprovable, beliefs. --David Pitt Copyright 2006 Booklist

From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review

The title's question was posed on Edge.org (an online intellectual clearing house), challenging more than 100 intellectuals of every stripe-from Richard Dawkins to Ian McEwan-to confess the personal theories they cannot demonstrate with certainty. The results, gathered by literary agent and editor Brockman, is a stimulating collection of micro-essays (mainly by scientists) divulging many of today's big unanswered questions reaching across the plane of human existence. Susan Blackmore, a lecturer on evolutionary theory, believes "it is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will," and Daniel Goleman believes children today are "unintended victims of economic and technological progress." Other beliefs are more mundane and one is highly mathematically specific. Many contributors open with their discomfort at being asked to discuss unproven beliefs, which itself is an interesting reflection of the state of science. The similarity in form and tone of the responses makes this collection most enjoyable in small doses, which allow the answers to spark new questions and ideas in the reader's mind. It's unfortunate that the tone of most contributions isn't livelier and that there aren't explanations of some of the more esoteric concepts discussed; those limitations will keep these adroit musings from finding a wider audience. (Mar.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

What We Believe but Cannot Prove Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty Chapter One Martin Rees Sir Martin Rees is a professor of cosmology and astrophysics and the master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal and is also a visiting professor at Imperial College London and Leicester University. He is the author of several books, including Just Six Numbers, Our Cosmic Habitat , and Our Final Hour . I believe that intelligent life may presently be unique to our Earth but has the potential to spread throughout the galaxy and beyond it -- indeed, the emergence of complexity could be near its beginning. If the searches conducted by SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) continue to come up with nothing, that would not render life a cosmic sideshow; indeed, it would be a boost to our self-esteem. Terrestrial life and its fate would be seen as a matter of cosmic significance. Even if intelligence is now unique to Earth, there's enough time ahead for it to permeate at least this galaxy and evolve into a teeming complexity far beyond what we can conceive. There's an unthinking tendency to imagine that humans will be around in 6 billion years to watch the sun flare up and die. But the forms of life and intelligence that have by then emerged will surely be as different from us as we are from a bacterium. That conclusion would follow even if future evolution proceeded at the rate at which new species have emerged over the past 3.5 or 4 billion years. But posthuman evolution (whether of organic species or artifacts) will proceed far faster than the changes that led to human emergence, because it will be intelligently directed rather than the gradual outcome of Darwinian natural selection. Changes will drastically accelerate in the present century -- through intentional genetic modifications, targeted drugs, perhaps even silicon implants in the brain. Humanity may not persist as a single species for longer than a few more centuries, especially if communities have by then become established away from Earth. But a few centuries is still just a millionth of the sun's future lifetime -- and the universe probably has a much longer future. The remote future is squarely in the realm of science fiction. Advanced intelligences billions of years hence might even create new universes. Perhaps they'll be able to choose what physical laws prevail in their creations. Perhaps these beings could achieve the computational ability to simulate a universe as complex as the one we perceive ourselves to be in. My belief may remain unprovable for billions of years. It could be falsified sooner -- for instance, we or our immediate posthuman descendants may develop theories that reveal inherent limits to complexity. But it's a substitute for religious belief, and I hope it's true. Ray Kurzweil Ray Kurzweil is an inventor, entrepreneur, and principal developer of (among a host of other inventions) the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first CCD flat-bed scanner, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition system. Recipient of the National Medal of Technology among many other honors, he is the author of several books, including The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology . We will find ways to circumvent the speed of light as a limit on the communication of information. We are expanding our computers and communication systems both inwardly and outwardly. Our chips' features are ever smaller, while we deploy increasing amounts of matter and energy for computation and communication. (For example, we're making a larger number of chips each year.) In one or two decades, we will progress from two-dimensional chips to three-dimensional self-organizing circuits built out of molecules. Ultimately we will approach the limits of matter and energy to support computation and communication. As we approach an asymptote in our ability to expand inwardly (that is, using finer features), computation will continue to expand outwardly, using materials readily available on Earth, such as carbon. But we will eventually reach the limits of our planet's resources and will expand outwardly to the rest of the solar system and beyond. How quickly will we be able to do this? We could send tiny self-replicating robots at close to the speed of light, along with electromagnetic transmissions containing the needed software. These nanobots could then colonize faraway planets. At this point, we run up against a seemingly intractable limit: the speed of light. Although a billion feet per second may seem fast, the universe extends over such vast distances that this appears to represent a fundamental limit on how quickly an advanced civilization (such as we hope to become) can spread its influence. There are suggestions, however, that this limit is not as immutable as it may appear. Physicists Steve Lamoreaux and Justin Torgerson of the Los Alamos National Laboratory have analyzed data from an old natural nuclear reactor that 2 billion years ago produced a fission reaction lasting several hundred thousand years in what is now West Africa. Analyzing radioactive isotopes left over from the reactor and comparing them with isotopes from similar nuclear reactions today, they determined that the physics constant a (alpha, also called the fine structure constant), which determines the strength of the electromagnetic force, apparently has changed since 2 billion years ago. The speed of light is inversely proportional to a, and both have been considered unchangeable constants. Alpha appears to have decreased by 4.5 parts out of 108. If confirmed, this would imply that the speed of light has increased. There are other studies with similar suggestions, and there is a tabletop experiment now under way at Cambridge University to test our ability to engineer a small change in the speed of light. Of course, these results will need to be carefully verified. If they are true, it may hold great importance for the future of our civilization. If the speed of light has increased, it has presumably done so not just because of the passage of time but because certain conditions have changed. . . . What We Believe but Cannot Prove Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty . Copyright © by John Brockman. Reprinted by permission of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Available now wherever books are sold. Excerpted from What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.