Debating the laws of nature (1)
In response to Jo茫o Magueijo’s article “Bringing chaos to order”, the term “law of nature” is used to describe a process that has, since its identification, always been observed to be the case. However, a basic tenet in the philosophy of science is that one knows that the observation of the process describes only what has been the case up to this point, that a new observation is always possible and the description of the process (the law) would, in that case, need rephrasing (16 May, p 30).
So, one isn’t committed to having to accept that anything one calls a law is “permanently so”.
So no surprises or issues here, then 鈥� it isn’t “backing every football team at random” 鈥� it is being able to accept that change can happen to one element and alter the fortunes of a club.
Debating the laws of nature (2)
Magueijo’s fascinating speculation about the evolution of the laws of physics from a chaotic initial state begs to be extended. He presumes initially random variations of laws and constants over time, but there would also have been random variations over space. Thus, it might be worth looking for inconsistencies not only as time passes, as he suggests, but also from one region of the visible universe to another.
Debating the laws of nature (3)
The notion that the “laws of nature”, the term we use to give natural explanations rather than supernatural ones, may not have always existed, while intriguing, is also corrosive to rational thought, for without stable natural laws, the very notion of a natural explanation of phenomena loses all meaning. Such metaphysical conjectures are in danger of abandoning the realms of refutable hypotheses and testable deductions that Karl Popper placed at the heart of the scientific endeavour.
How long would it take to visit a distant star system?
Leah Crane writes a fascinating article about the TRAPPIST-1 star system, with its seven roughly Earth-sized planets. Just out of curiosity, I worked out how long it would take us to get there, as measured on board a ship. If a 1 g ship accelerates for the first half of the journey, and decelerates for the second half, it would take roughly 7.5 years for the astronauts, because of relativistic time dilation, but just over 40 years as measured on Earth (23 May, p 36). All we need is that spaceship!
Which came first: the bird or the dinosaur?
In your interview with Dave Hone, he says that “birds are literally dinosaurs”. It is likely that the physical characteristics of birds that facilitate flying 鈥� lighter, stronger bones and more efficient lungs that have unidirectional air flow and sacs that act like bellows 鈥� are also characteristics that in dinosaurs led to huge sizes. Birds also have smaller, tighter neurons, which mean some birds are smart despite seemingly small brain capacity, and so perhaps dinosaurs were smart, too. It’s often said that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but considering the above, perhaps dinosaurs evolved from an originally flying animal (2 May, p 40).
Which came first: the bird or the dinosaur?
I greatly enjoyed Hone’s interview, but think he greatly underestimates the importance of birds’ legs. Not just useful for running and jumping into the air, they are also sophisticated at perching and catching prey of all kinds 鈥� both in the air and in water. Also, birds’ wings can enable hovering and flying backwards, as well as effortless soaring. Could the pterosaurs do all that?
The important distinction between a cow and an ox
The story of the gradual decipherment of proto-Elamic script is fascinating and impressive. However, the reason “cow” doesn’t appear with “plough” is probably because they used a different sign for “ox”. An ox was a beast of burden and used for ploughing. A cow was for milk and calving. The fact that we modern English speakers retain the two words 鈥� despite not having used oxen since the industrial revolution 鈥� shows that the distinction was important (9 May, p 30).
Sorting objective from subjective reality
It seems to me that “The essence of reality” confuses the objective and the subjective. “What could be more real than experience?” your author asks. A human observer with three distinct iodopsin molecules in three distinct retinal cones will experience the red tomato differently than people with zero, one or two cone types. So, their subjective reality differs 鈥� so what? A physicist should instead measure the distribution of reflected wavelengths and their intensities under a specified light source. That is the objective reality. The rest is just spinning philosophical wheels with no traction (2 May, p 36).
Humans and animals evolved senses and perception of those sensations to maximise survival and reproductive fitness. Does our inability to detect X-rays mean they don’t exist? Obviously not. Did the world not exist before I was born? Well, it didn’t for me, and won’t after I die, but that doesn’t mean reality didn’t exist before me or won’t continue to exist after me (at least I hope not; that would be too great a burden).
The philosophy that science can't do without
Your leader article “Asking the big questions” must draw us to Ren茅 Descartes: “I think, therefore I am (16 May, p 3).”
Can science exist without three domains of philosophy: personhood, thought, existence?
An evolutionary view on the meaning of love
In her piece about the mystery of love, Carissa Wong doesn’t mention evolution. She refers to the initial honeymoon stage filled with intense desire. In the normal course of events this is likely to produce offspring. This period will, therefore, have served its evolutionary purpose (23 May, p 10).
For the record
Global sea-level has risen by more than 0.2 metres over the past 150 years as a result of global warming (16 May, p 4).