Letter
I must confess to having been rather baffled by your cover story, despite
three readings. I can only offer two explanations for this.
First: in line with Fisher’s theory, there was a gap between the amount of
information I was able to extract from the article (I), and the full
sense of the article (J).
Secondly: my brain refused to allow me to understand Frieden’s theory,
sensing that if I did I would finally comprehend the illusory nature of reality.
My brain feared that such a realisation might endanger my instincts for
self-preservation.
Some people would probably argue that I am just too stupid to understand
Frieden’s approach. Others might be of the opinion that Frieden’s theory is
utter nonsense, so it is no wonder that I am unable to understand it.
Personally, I prefer my own explanations.
See-through eyes
At ABC, Australia’s national broadcaster, newsreader Richard Moorcroft has a
problem with Chromakeying鈥攖he TV trick where a blue background is
electronically blanked out behind the presenter and replaced by an exotic backdrop
(Patents, 23 January, p 7).
The way Moorcroft has told it, he has blue eyes that match the blue
background. So when the special backdrop is projected, it shows up in his eyes
as well. It looks as though there are two holes in his head where his eyes
should be.
Draining mines
You report incorrectly that practices in the Australian mining industry aimed
at solving the problem of acid mine drainage are ineffective
(This Week, 23 January, p 12).
The article purports to base its claim on a 1997 report I prepared after I had
studied 317 mines across the country.
The mining industry uses a range of techniques for managing its wastes. I
found a need for long-term monitoring to assess the effectiveness of these
techniques, which include covering or encapsulation. I did not, however, say,
that these techniques are ineffective
In fact, in most cases, well-designed systems of covering or encapsulation do
appear to work. But, as you also point out, by far the best approach is to
address the issue of acid drainage before, not after, a mine closes.
Long live redundancy
I laughed at Rachel Dugdale’s letter about redundant labels
(Letters, 30 January, p 50).
I can see, however, a possible function for the apparently
otiose label “Please remove this label before use”.
Its presence distinguishes those units which have not been used from those
which have, such as returns (for whatever reason) from customers, which may have
to be examined for defects and/or repackaged before resale. In other words, it
is there (or not) as a guide for warehouse staff.
Common sense tells me that commercial firms are not likely to waste money on
utter superfluities.
Letter
Let’s face it: most things in our lives are redundant, or if not they
certainly have a more efficient alternative. It is obvious that we need all
these redundant things to fill our lives. They take the stress out of
situations.
A new toilet with a pointless sticker telling you only to remove it serves no
purpose but to entertain, and so relieve the stress of installing it.
Mythical masses
Yet another issue in which at least two new sources for the
mythical missing mass are proposed
(This Week, 6 February, p 17,
and Letters, p 54).
With so much of the wretched stuff about it’s a wonder the Universe hasn’t
already collapsed back to a dot.
Nitrophobia
It is disappointing that crying “stomach cancer” is still regarded as the way
to draw readers’ attention to the issue of nitrate in the environment
(Forum, 23 January, p 47).
Medical researchers no longer take seriously the suggested link between
nitrate and stomach cancer. Research in this field has moved on considerably,
and there is even evidence that some intake of nitrates is beneficial to humans
and animals, giving some protection against gastroenteritis.
It is also simplistic to state that fertilisers are one of the prime sources
of nitrate. Agricultural research has also moved on. The majority of the nitrate
entering water from agricultural land is derived from the breakdown of organic
nitrogen compounds in soil and animal manure.
Ammonia deposited onto land (mainly from livestock farming) and oxides of
nitrogen (mainly from burning oil and petrol) also make significant
contributions. Fertilisers contribute indirectly when unnecessarily large
amounts are applied, as happens if the supply of nitrate from other sources has
been underestimated. An improved understanding of all inputs, which is a major
priority in current agricultural research, would allow farmers to obtain better
advice.
To blame only nitrate for causing eutrophication is misleading. In most
freshwater, phosphate is the nutrient that limits algal growth and
eutrophication. While this should not be used as an excuse for ignoring nitrate,
tackling phosphate loss is likely to have a more rapid effect in solving
eutrophication problems.
Finally, it is disappointing that Mark Huxham has concentrated on nitrate and
ignored other environmental problems connected with nitrogen. For example,
nitrous oxide produced from the microbial reduction of nitrate in soil is a
potent greenhouse gas. Some measures designed to decrease nitrate loss, such as
buffer zones, may boost nitrous oxide production. Designing changes to
agricultural practices that will reduce all environmental impacts represents a
considerable challenge.
Who's abnormal?
Although it was surely not your intention, one aspect of your article on milk
could be misunderstood and might give offence as a result
(This Week, 6 February, p 14).
The article portrays the inability of adult humans to digest lactose as an
abnormality affecting “90 per cent of Asians . . . three-quarters of Africans .
. . half the world’s Hispanic people” and “as many as 50 million Americans”,
whereas “most Caucasians are unaffected”.
It is much more logical to interpret this difference in the ability to digest
lactose as an unusual attribute of Caucasian humans rather than as something
that all the other racial groups “suffer from”. In fact it is the non-Caucasian
races that are “normal” in this respect.
A human infant needs to be able to digest lactose because this sugar occurs
in human breast milk. In the days before animal milk was used as human food
there was no need for this ability to be retained throughout adult life, and the
infants of many races, such as those listed, lose it in childhood. It is not
unusual for young infants to have systems that disappear in adult life: fetal
haemoglobin, for example.
In all the descriptions of this subject I have ever read, it is the
Caucasians who are seen to be unusual in retaining what is essentially an infant
ability into adult life.
Bots like us
Mention artificial intelligence and someone is bound to scream “save us from the robots”
(Letters, 30 January, p 49).
It has been the same ever since the brilliant pioneer Alan Turing worked on
what he called “intelligent machinery” at the National Physical Laboratory in
London, where in 1948 some of his colleagues were reported to have claimed:
“Turing is going to infest the countryside with a robot which will live on twigs
and scrap iron.”
Turing considered giving an intelligent machine wheels, arms and camera eyes
so that it was mobile enough to find things out for itself. He was also aware of
the potential risks this posed to ordinary citizens鈥攁 startling example of
his foresight.
Ontologically, there is nothing special or unknowable about the human body,
including the central nervous system and brain. It follows that it will be only
a matter of time before our level of understanding is such that we can replicate
the brain artificially. Your correspondent’s unsupported and dogmatic statement
to the contrary is not helpful, and I expect it will fare as badly as past
claims that humans would never fly or make it to the Moon.
Hysteria at the possibility of losing our place as the “smartest” species on
the planet needs to be put aside if we are to consider ways in which artificial
intelligences could be made to coexist with us to our benefit. Risk assessment
and safety considerations are clearly important, but much of the problem is
caused by our attitude. We give strangers the benefit of the doubt when it comes
to deciding whether they are dangerous or not. Catching a bus or visiting the
shops would seem impossible otherwise. What is stopping us doing the same for an
intelligent machine? The answer is irrational human prejudice.
Letter
You covered a nice range of paranoias in your Letters column. First, we have
Kenneth Buckmaster’s horror story, in which contacting alien beings results in
all our descendants getting eaten up 20 000 years later. Then Nicholas Albery
and someone with name and address withheld are terrified that the artificial
intelligences we are constructing will mutate and develop to a point where they
cull and enslave us.
The two fears are not exactly new but they got me thinking. Suppose both
phobias turn out to be spot-on. Suppose bloodthirsty bug-eyed monsters hot
from the constellation Hercules arrive in 20 000
years ready to gobble all Earthlings up鈥攐nly to find that those silly
carbon-based life forms have long since vanished, replaced by superintelligent
computers disinclined to suffer alien invasions gladly. What then?
Maybe Douglas Adams can write a book about it. I would do it myself, but I
have this strange feeling that if I try, my Olympia Monica manual typewriter,
which I bought a few years back at a village jumble sale, will suddenly lunge at
me and I’ll end up impeached.
Any old maths
Roy Frieden’s project to unify physics based on R. A. Fisher’s definition of
information is fascinating
(“I is the law”, 30 January, p 24)
but we should not be surprised that it is possible. Mathematical theories in physics
are mathematical models, and any number of cognate mathematical systems will
suffice.
Heisenberg expressed quantum theory in terms of matrix algebra before
Schr枚dinger formulated his wave mechanics. Physicists wondered how two
apparently different theories could produce such similar results until it was
shown that they were mathematically equivalent.
No doubt Euclid would have been impressed that his geometry of circles and lines on
a two-dimensional plane surface could be expressed in terms of strings of algebraic symbols.
Because theories are just models, we should not necessarily read into any
particular formulation a special physical insight. Some formulations, however,
are better developed technically than others. Using Euclid’s methods we could
never have expanded geometry into dealing with complex forms in multidimensional
space, but analytical geometry made it possible.
If Frieden’s information approach is capable of greater extension into
unexplored theoretical areas in a way previous formulations are not, then it
really will be an exciting development.