From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Tue Feb 16 1999 - 15:21:19 MST
Jean-Francois Virey wrote:
> Jerry Pournelle A Step Farther Out (Ace Books, 1979)
> [February 12 1999]
> **
>
> The message of the book is very similar to Julian Simon's, except Simon
> focuses on the Earth's resources, while Pournelle extends the range of
> available resources to the whole solar system.
An interesting observation. I think, however, that there is a significant
difference in attitude. A central theme in Julian Simon's work is the idea
that 'natural resources' are not a fixed entity, but rather the result of
applying human effort and intellect to the environment in an attempt to
produce some desired good. This transforms the very nature of the resource
depletion argument, which normally assumes that resources are static
quantities of particular physical materials.
Pournelle , in contrast, simply argues that the supply of those fixed
material resources is much larger than has been assumed. We can stave of
resource depletion by mining extraterrestrial resources, which are so
abundant that they could supply our current civilization for far longer
spans of time than anyone is seriously worried about.
> In its defense of nuclear energy, the book
> echoes the message of Pournelle and Niven's " Lucifer's Hammer ", where
> mankind found its post-cataclysmic salvation by maintaining a nuclear
> plant in activity.
I also found it interesting. They carried a similar theme into "Footfall",
in which the world is saved from alien invasion by liberal use of nuclear
technology (for power, spacecraft propulsion and weapons). If there are any
SF authors more pro-nuclear than these guys, I can't think of them.
> At times, Pournelle is extremely naïve, as when he assumes that one day,
> the acquisition of knowledge will be automated (" the computer can squirt
> the book's contents directly into your mind " p86) or rendered obsolete
by
> instant hook up with world databases. He doesn't seem to realize the
> importance of the integration and automatization of knowledge (not to
> mention the filtering !), which cannot be done without extended periods
of
> intense " chewing " of the material.
Yes, he definitely oversimplifies matters here. AI devices can do this sort
of thing, but organic minds can't. Really advanced nanotech could deal with
that limitation (by rewriting neural connections at much higher speeds than
they are normally capable of), but its going to be a long time before we
reach that point.
> Pournelle also gratuitously assumes
> there is a " central processing unit " in the brain (p86) - the myth of
> the homonculus debunked by Gerald Edelman and others - and that the "
> basis of consciousness " is either "matter or structure" (p308)…
I'm not sure why you would consider this idea either gratuitous or naive.
It is simply a less developed formulation of the current idea that the mind
is nothing more or less than the product of physical processes in the brain.
There is considerable evidence in support of this view, and a considerable
number of prominent thinkers have adopted it. Even if you happen to fall in
the opposing camp, I would suggest that it is a mistake to reject it out of
hand.
> I think this book was included in the reading list more for its enthusiasm
> and anti-defeatism than for any factual information it contains.
I suspect the practical discussion of space colonization / industrialization
was a factor as well. Of course, Pournelle obviously didn't pay enough
attention to the economic aspects of the project, but his treatment of the
engineering involved is better than any of the current work I am familiar
with.
> The most disgusting part of the book is certainly the speculations
> concerning black holes, which seem to offer elbow room for the
> scientists' irrationality. " Time running backward " is a meaningless
> phrase if you accept the Aristotelian conception of time as a measurement
> of change and of the present as "all there is"; and Hawking's idea that
> " anything " can come out of a black hole is simple nonsense.
If there is anything we should have learned from quantum mechanics, it is
that the universe is not obliged to conform to human notions of logic.
That's why science is based on experiments, not on philosophy. Just because
something seems to be illogical, self-contradictory, or otherwise impossible
does not mean that it can't happen.
Modern physical contains all sorts of odd nooks and crannies that seem to
imply that time travel can take place under certain conditions. Since the
conditions required can not be duplicated in the lab, they will remain
hypothetical for some time to come. If you prefer to assume that these
predictions will prove false, you are certainly free to do so.
However, it is also perfectly reasonable to expect that these theories are
accurate. After all, they give accurate predictions for everything we have
been able to observe. Certainly, they have proven far more reliable than
any human concept of what does or does not make sense.
About Hawking's theory: I would suggest that anyone who wants to argue with
Stephen Hawking about physics has an obligation to provide a more complete
criticism than saying "that's obviously nonsense". However, I believe that
Pournelle interpretation of his theory is flawed. What Hawking actually
said would translate into layman's terms as something like this:
1) An evaporating black hole radiates mass/energy in random configurations.
2) There are no constraints on how the radiated mass/energy is organized.
Therefore:
3) Any combination of matter and energy that is allowed by physical law, and
has a total mass less than that of the black hole, could in principle be
produced by black hole evaporation.
The point Pournelle missed is that all results are not equally likely.
Low-mass elementary particles will form almost all of the matter actually
produced in this fashion. More massive structures rapidly become
vanishingly unlikely, and a particular complex structure is even more
improbable. Thus, saying that macroscopic objects can be produced in this
fashion is like saying that all the air molecules in the room could suddenly
rush out the window - true in principle, but it will never actually happen.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:04 MST