The limits of biology

The limits of biology are practical, rather than theoretical, although some biological problems are so difficult, that it seems unlikely that we’ll be ever able to solve them. Among these problems, I will select the following:

·         The origin of life. The possibility of replicating an experiment is one of the fundamental principles of scientific method, as it is applied in the experimental sciences. No discovery is considered valid until it has been confirmed by an independent team. If an experiment cannot be replicated, it is not considered scientific.

The origin of life took place only once in the history of the Earth. Obviously, it cannot be replicated. Therefore, it is not a scientific fact, but a historical fact. Historic facts are treated in a different way than scientific facts: documents are sought that confirm that the fact did happen and describe how it happened. The credibility of these documents is then estimated. In the case of the origin of life, the documents would be fossil remains, but it’s practically impossible to find them, so it’s very likely that this problem will never be solved.

The limits of physics

There are two kinds of limits in scientific research:

1.      Theoretical or intrinsic limits: when these limits exist, no matter how many scientific discoveries may be made in the future, they won’t be exceeded.

2.      Practical limits: they appear when, in theory, a problem can have a solution, but there are practical reasons that make it impossible, at least for the time being. In these cases, we cannot affirm that the problem won’t be solved in the future.

Sometimes we don’t know if a given limit is theoretical or practical. In these cases, what will happen in the future is open. If the limit turns out to be theoretical, it will never be exceeded. If it is practical, it will be exceeded if our technical capabilities exceed the technical needs for its resolution, being possible that this will never happen. Take, as an example, the inherently difficult math problems I mentioned in the previous post.

The limits of mathematics

Kurt Gödel

In the last decades of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege, a professor in the university of Vienna, undertook an ambitious goal: formalizing the arithmetic in a set of axioms and deduction rules, in such a way that every true theorem would be deductible from the axioms by a finite number of applications of the deduction rules. The result was a monumental book, Grundgesetze der Arithmetike (1893-1903), which introduced, among other things, a basic formalization of set theory and a cumbersome notation, quickly replaced by Peano’s, which we are using now.

Unfortunately for Frege, when the second volume of his book was about to be published, he received a letter from Bertrand Russell, proving that his formulation of set theory entails an inconsistency. In Frege’s set theory, some sets are not member of themselves (as the set of all integers, which is not an integer), while other sets are members of themselves (as the set of all infinite sets, which is an infinite set). Russell then defined this set: the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. It is easy to see that this set leads to a paradox: if it is a member of itself, it cannot be a member of itself, and vice versa. Russell’s paradox wreaked havoc with Frege’s work, who had to add a hasty appendix to his book and then abandoned his research on the fundamentals of mathematics.

Conscience, Self-conscience and Artificial Intelligence

Ramón López de Mántaras

In an article published on 3/22/2021, these words are attributed to Josu Bilbao, head of the ICT area of ​​IKERLAN:

In three years, artificial intelligence will make an intelligent dialogue with machines possible.

We have seen many similar predictions since the term Artificial Intelligence (AI) was invented over 60 years ago. In most cases (if not all) those predictions have been too optimistic. Is the same going to happen here?

I have consulted with one of the world's leading experts in the field of the automatic analysis of natural language, a technique used to implement the type of applications referred to in the article I am commenting, and he told me this:

It depends on how "intelligent dialogue" is defined. If it is restricted to a specific domain, for example, controlling your home automation systems using Google Home, that can be done now with a success rate above 70%, while ten years ago it was science fiction. If you want to have a philosophical conversation where your interlocutor understands what he is saying, rather than generating texts from a language model, this is too optimistic.

The golden rules of science fiction and my own work

Isaac Asimov

These are, according to Isaac Asimov, the two golden rules of good science fiction:

1.      Any scientific claim (even a prediction) must always be compatible with current science. It would not, therefore, be good science fiction a novel where the squaring of the circle with a ruler and compass was achieved, because it has been shown mathematically that this is impossible. Or traveling through space at a speed greater than that of light, without using some scientific trick that makes it possible to achieve it, such as going through the world of tachyons.

2.      Predicting social consequences is better than predicting technical advances. Thus, in a hypothetical novel written in the nineteenth century, predicting the parking problem would be much better than just predicting the car. An example of this kind of good science fiction, mentioned by Asimov in this regard, is Robert Heinlein's short story Solution Unsatisfactory, written in 1941, which not only predicted the atomic bomb as a means of ending World War II (in which the United States were not yet taking part), but also predicted the subsequent equilibrium between the great powers and the permanent threat of a war of extermination.

To be exact, these two laws are my elaborations of what Asimov wrote in two popular articles published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction: Future? Tense! (1965) and O Keen Eyed Peerer into the Future (1974). To be even more exact, Asimov's laws were three and, similarly to his three laws of Robotics, he called them the three laws of Futurics.

Science and Science Fiction: mutual influences in the 20th century

H.G. Wells

NOTICE for those of you who have subscribed to the posts of this blog by email: Google has announced the end of "feedburner", its notification service, which was being used by this blog. From now on, another service will be used: "follow.it". You may initially receive two notices, one from each service.

Halfway between the 19th and 20th centuries, the British H.G. Wells also practiced the literature of scientific prediction, although his predictions are usually longer-term than Verne's, more remote from the technique of his time, so very few have come to be carried out. We still don't have The Time Machine and can't see it anywhere near. We cannot make artificial men by vivisecting animals (The Island of Doctor Moreau). Nor can we make ourselves invisible (The invisible man). And fortunately the Martians have not invaded us (The War of the Worlds). In 1938, a radio dramatization of this novel by Orson Welles caused a mass panic in the United States. Despite the boom in science fiction at the time, the public was still as credulous as when it had been fooled a century earlier by the articles in the Sun.

Wells also wrote (of course) about a trip to the moon and populated our satellite with intelligent giant ants, although the procedure to make the trip is more imaginative than, and as impractical as Verne's. But his great scientific foresight success is the novel The World set free (1913), which not only anticipated the atomic bomb, but also influenced its practical realization, stimulating Leo Szilard's research on the neutron chain reaction. Although Wells also made a tremendous mistake in this novel, by predicting in 1913 that the First World War would start in 1956. But as he said a few years later: [I have] always been... a rather slow prophet. You can also see my review of this book in Goodreads.

Science and Science Fiction: mutual influences until the 19th century

Illustration of the Sun article

In the early years of the 20th century there was a flood of titles that led to the recognition of a literary genre called science fiction.

In fact, science fiction novels, understood as works using science (especially future advances) as an essential element of the plot of a novel, are very old. Lucian of Samosata, a Syrian satirist from the 2nd century, is usually considered the creator of the genre. One of his works (Vera Historia) tells of a journey from Earth to the moon in a ship that, lifted by a waterspout, is launched into space. The moon is inhabited by an advanced civilization, which has crossed space and is at war with the inhabitants of the sun over a conflict of interest regarding the colonization of planet Venus. As he didn't know about the existence of interplanetary vacuum, Lucian never thinks of explaining how his characters could breathe during their trip.