Why esoteric science could be overlooked by aliens (1)
The question of whether aliens have a grasp of physics is also brought up in Andy Weir’s novel Project Hail Mary [Ed 鈥� see page 26 for a review of the film]. Though Rocky’s species, the aliens in the story, reach the same conclusion as humans regarding the existential problem they face, they make a fundamental error in their calculations by not knowing about relativity (14 March, p 42).
I think relativity and quantum mechanics are so esoteric that they could be easily overlooked by alien scientists. After all, much of what we know and do could readily be learned or accomplished without that deeper understanding. As Daniel Whiteson writes in his article, most of our historical achievements were made possible by engineering rather than hard science. Trial and error can achieve so much.
Why esoteric science could be overlooked by aliens (2)
Whiteson’s opening and closing discussion in his article made me think of physicist Werner Heisenberg’s comment that “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning”.
How consciousness could be what keeps us all alive
I wonder if what consciousness actually is eludes us because we are trying to make too much of it. Could it be that self-awareness, i.e. consciousness, has the primary function of keeping us motivated, so as to keep us alive? Without sensory input, to which we react, we would starve to death, succumb to danger or fail to procreate. When sensory inputs don’t have our full attention, our chattering minds keep us mentally ticking over. When we are unconscious, through trauma or anaesthesia, we are at our most vulnerable, so the need to be conscious is self-evident (Letters, 14 March).
It follows that being self-aware is a biological imperative, alongside self-organisation and self-defence. As such, all living things must be “conscious” to some degree, either individually or collectively.
Ed’s note: For more on consciousness, turn to page 30
On the past, present and future of data storage
I read Karmela Padavic-Callaghan’s article on storing data in glass with interest, but I couldn’t help but feel that such research is misdirected. In my long life, I have used many “ultimate” methods of long-term data storage, from wire recorders in the 1940s to floppy discs. Now, it is virtually impossible to recover data from these media, as the relevant technology has been superseded. How will people in 100 or 1000 years know that data is contained in the glass? (28 February, p 13)
I suspect our efforts would be better directed to finding ways to record information in a readable form on stable materials, then creating and distributing a number of modern “Rosetta stones” across the planet to enable subsequent generations to interpret the information.
On the past, present and future of data storage
Encoding information in glass isn’t such a new idea. In the 1998 Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode “In the Pale Moonlight”, glass storage serves as a key plot point. A recording of an AI-generated meeting intended to convince the Romulans of an impending sneak attack by supposed allies is stored on an “optolythic data rod”, a fancy name for a glass rod. While the ploy eventually fails, it provides cover for an attack from a different direction, which eventually brings the Romulans into the war on the side of the Federation.
What does AI really know about nuclear war? (1)
In your report “AI can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes”, you quote a researcher who says “The nuclear taboo doesn’t seem to be as powerful for machines [as] for humans”. Surprise, surprise! I also noted with interest the discovery that, in the fog of war, accidents happened in 86 per cent of the conflicts. As 19th-century general Helmuth von Moltke said, “No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force” (AI or no AI) (7 March, p 11).
What does AI really know about nuclear war? (2)
Your short piece on the apparent willingness of AI models to deploy nuclear weapons without the usual human reservations doesn’t indicate whether the AI involved had been made aware of the possibility of nuclear winter. The bombs themselves have been tested and their destructive capabilities are well known. However, the nature of a nuclear winter must obviously remain untested. Will it actually destroy all life on Earth, or only part of it? Therefore, the number of warheads needed to trigger the phenomenon must always be a matter of informed guesswork. The total global number of warheads has been reduced, but the trigger for a nuclear winter could be as low as 50, or even fewer. Surely human war-planners are aware of this possibility, but is AI?
A bird's-eye view of Stone Age seafaring
If Stone Age people did indeed use the flight of wild birds as a tool for navigation, could they also have taken their own birds? If these were unable to land on water, e.g. eagles or corvids, when released they would fly ever higher looking for distant land. If they saw land, they would fly towards it, but if there was no land, they would be forced to come back and land on the boat. What could be simpler? (31 January, p 32)
Going camping with a theoretical physicist
I have thought of an analogy that best describes the confusing situation in cosmology today. Imagine going on a camping trip with a new tent. You haven’t had time to practice erecting it, so you assemble the tent from the rather limited instructions. On completion, you find there are poles sticking out and bits of fly flapping all over the place. If you are a theoretical physicist, you try to bend the poles to align and batten down the offending loose canvas with extra ropes. Most ordinary people would just take the tent down and start again (7 March, p 30).
The moral of the story is, don’t go camping with a theoretical physicist!