Magie & transhumanisme 4 : la BD et le futur 4

Les 1169 commentaires sont triés des plus récents aux plus anciens .

Acces direct aux pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


19. nem° - 26/09/13 15:52
Une nouvelle bataille rhétorique et théorique s'annonce. Je sors donc mon sabre-laser. Et c'est un vrai!

Via Axolot

18. nem° - 26/09/13 15:10 - (en réponse à : achab)
El transcripto :

0:16The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality
0:23in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in. This is a very widespread belief
0:29in our society. It's the kind of belief system of people who say "I don't believe in God,
0:35I believe in science." It's a belief system which has now been spread to the entire world.
0:43But there's a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry based
0:48on reason, evidence, hypothesis and collective investigation, and science as a belief system
0:55or a world view. And unfortunately the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit
1:02and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavour.
1:09Since the late nineteenth century, science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief
1:15system or a world view which is essentially that of materialism; philosophical materialism.
1:22And the sciences are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the materialist world view. I think that
1:30as we break out of it, the sciences will be regenerated. What I do in my book The Science
1:37Delusion, which is called Science Set Free in the United States, is take the ten dogmas,
1:45or assumptions of science, and turn them into questions. Seeing how well they stand up if
1:53you look at them scientifically. None of them stand up very well.
1:59What I'm going to do is first run through what these ten dogmas are. And then I'll only
2:04have time to discuss one or two of them in a bit more detail. But essentially the ten
2:09dogmas, which are the world view of most educated people all over the world are:
2:16First, that nature's mechanical or machine-like. The universe is like a machine, animals and
2:22plants are like machines, we're like machines. In fact, we are machines. We are lumbering
2:27robots, in Richard Dawkins' vivid phrase. With brains that are genetically programmed
2:33computers. Second, matter is unconscious. The whole universe
2:38is made up of unconscious matter. There's no consciousness in stars, in galaxies, in
2:45planets, in animals, in plants, and there ought not in any of us either, if this theory's
2:51true. So a lot of the philosophy of mind over the last hundred years has been trying to
2:56prove that we're not really conscious at all. So the matter's unconscious, then the laws
3:04of nature are fixed. This is dogma three. The laws of nature are
3:09the same now as they were at the time of the bi g bang and they'll be the same forever.
3:14Not just the laws; but the constants of nature are fixed, which is why they are called constants.
3:20Dogma four: The total amount of matter and energy is always the same. It never changes
3:26in total quantity, except at the moment of the bi g bang when it all sprang into existence
3:31from nowhere in a single instant. The fifth dogma is that nature's purposeless.
3:38There are no purposes in all nature and the evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
3:47Dogma six, the biological hereditary is material. Everything you inheret is in your genes, or
3:55in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
4:02Dogma seven, memories are stored inside your brain as material traces. Somehow everything
4:09you remember is in your brain in modified nerve endings, phosphorylated proteins, no-one
4:14knows how it works. But nevertheless almost everyone in the scientific world believes
4:19it must be in the brain. Dogma eight, your mind is inside your head.
4:25All your consciousness is the activity of your brain, nothing more.
4:30Dogma nine, which follows from dogma eight, psychic phenomena like telepathy are impossible.
4:36Your thoughts and intentions cannot have any effect at a distance because your mind's inside
4:41your head. Therefore all the apparent evidence for telepathy and other psychic phenomena
4:47is illusory. People believe these things happen, but it's just because they don't know enough
4:52about statistics, or they're deceived by coincidences, or it's wishful thinking.
4:59And dogma ten, mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. That's why governments
5:05only fund research into mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies.
5:12Those can't possibly really work because they're not mechanistic. They may appear to work because
5:17people would have got better anyway, or because of the placebo effect. But the only kind that
5:24really works is mechanistic medicine.Well this is the default world view which is held
5:31by almost all educated people all over the world. It's the basis of the educational system,
5:37the national health service, the medical research council, governments and it's just the default
5:45world view of educated people. But I think every one of these dogmas is very, very questionable.
5:53And when you look at it, they fall apart.I'm going to take first the idea that the laws
6:01of nature are fixed. This is a hangover from an older world view, before the 1960s, when
6:07the bi g bang theory came in. People thought that the whole universe was eternal, governed
6:13by eternal mathematical laws. When the bi g bang came in, then that assumption continued,
6:20even though the bi g bang revealed a universe that's radically evolutionary, about fourteen
6:25billion years old. Growing and developing and evolving, for fourteen billion years.
6:32Growing and cooling and more structures and patterns appear within it. But the idea is
6:37all the laws of nature were completely fixed at the moment of the bi g bang like a cosmic
6:41Napoleonic code. As my friend Terrence McKenna used to say, modern science is based upon
6:48the principle "give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest". And the one free
6:52miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe and all the laws
6:56that govern it, from nothing, in a single instant.
7:00Well, in an evolutionary universe, why shouldn't the laws themselves evolve? After all, human
7:08laws do, and the idea of laws of nature is based a metaphor with human laws. It's a very
7:14anthropocentric metaphor; only humans have laws. In fact, only civilised societies have
7:19laws. As C.S. Lewis once said, to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying
7:25a law makes it a man, and even a citizen. It's a metaphor we've got so used to we forgot
7:32it's a metaphor. In an evolving universe, I think a much better idea is the idea of
7:37habits. I think the habits of nature evolve; the regularities of nature are essentially
7:42habitual. This was an idea put forward at the beginning of the twentieth century by
7:48the American philosopher C.S. Pierce, and it's an idea which various other philosophers
7:54have entertained, and it's one which I, myself have developed into a scientific hypothesis;
8:00the hypothesis of morphic resonance, which is the basis of these evolving habits. According
8:07to this hypothesis, everything in nature has a kind of collective memory, resonance occurs
8:12on the basis of similarity. As a young giraffe embryo grows in its mother's
8:18womb, it tunes in to the morphic resonance of previous giraffes. It draws on that collective
8:25memory, grows like a giraffe, and it behaves like a giraffe, because it's drawing on this
8:30collective memory. It has to have the right genes to make the right proteins. But genes
8:35in my view are grossly overrated. They only account for the proteins that the organism
8:41can make, not the form or the shape or the behaviour. Every species has a kind of collective
8:47memory. Even crystals do. This theory predicts that if you make a new kind of crystal for
8:53the first time, the very first time you make it, it won't have an existing habit. But once
9:00it crystallises, then the next time you make it, there'll be an influence from the first
9:04crystals to the second ones, all over the world by morphic resonance, it'll crystallise
9:09a bit easier. The third time, there'll be an influence from the first and second crystals.
9:14There is, in fact, good evidence that new compounds get easier to crystallise all round
9:20the world, just as this theory would predict. It also predicts that if you train animals
9:26to learn a new trick, for example rats learn a new trick in London, then all round the
9:31world rats of the same breed should learn the same trick quicker just because the rats
9:35had learned it here. And surprisingly, there's already evidence that this actually happens.
9:42Anyway, that's my own hypothesis in a nutshell of morphic resonance. Everything depends on
9:48evolving habits not on fixed laws. But I want to spend a few moments on the constants
9:53of nature too. Because these are, again, assumed to be constant. Things like the gravitational
10:00constant of the speed of light are called the fundamental constants. Are they really
10:06constant? Well, when I got interested in this question, I tried to find out. They're given
10:12in physics handbooks. Handbooks of physics list the existing fundamental constants, tell
10:18you their value. But I wanted to see if they'd changed, so I got the old volumes of physical
10:24handbooks. I went to the patent office library here in London - they're the only place I
10:29could find that kept the old volumes. Normally people throw them away when the new values
10:33(volumes) come out, they throw away the old ones. When I did this I found that the speed
10:38of light dropped between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen fourty-five by about twenty kilometres
10:43per second. It's a huge drop because they're given with errors of any fractions of a second/decimal
10:50points of error. And yet, all over the world, it dropped, and they were all getting very
10:56similar values to each other with tiny errors. Then in nineteen fourty-eight, it went up
11:02again. And then people started getting very similar values again. I was very intrigued
11:08by this and I couldn't make sense of it, so I went to see the head of metrology at the
11:13National Physical Laboratory in Teddington. Metrology is the science in which people measure
11:20constants. And I asked him about this, I said "what do
11:24you make of this drop in the speed of light between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen
11:28fourty-five?" And he said "oh dear", he said "you've uncovered
11:32the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."
11:36So I said "well, could the speed of light have actually dropped? And that would have
11:41amazing implications if so." He said "no, no, of course it couldn't have
11:44actually dropped. It's a constant!" "Oh, well then how do you explain the fact
11:51that everyone was finding it going much slower during that period? Is it because they were
11:55fudging their results to get what they thought other people should be getting and the whole
12:00thing was just produced in the minds of physicists?" "We don't like to use the word 'fudge'."
12:07I said "Well, so what do you prefer?" He said "well, we prefer to call it 'intellectual
12:12phase-locking'." So I said "well if it was going on then, how
12:21can you be so sure it's not going on today? And the present values produced are by intellectual
12:27phase-locking?" And he said "oh we know that's not the case."
12:30And I said "how do we know?" He said "well", he said "we've solved the
12:34problem." And I said "well how?"
12:35And he said "well we fixed the speed of light by definition in nineteen seventy-two."
12:41So I said "but it might still change." He said "yes, but we'd never know it, because
12:45we've defined the metre in terms of the speed of light, so the units would change with it!"
12:50So he looked very pleased about that, they'd fixed that problem.
12:56But I said "well, then what about bi g G?" The gravitational constant, known in the trade
13:01as "bi g G", it was written with a capital G. Newton's universal gravitational constant.
13:06"That's varied by more than 1.3% in recent years. And it seems to vary from place to
13:14place and from time to time." And he said "oh well, those are just errors.
13:19And unfortunately there are quite bi g errors with bi g G."
13:23So I said "well, what if it's really changing? I mean, perhaps it is really changing."
13:29And then I looked at how they do it, what happens is they measure it in different labs,
13:33they get different values on different days, and then they average them. And then other
13:38labs around the world do the same, they come out usually with a rather different average.
13:42And then the international committee of metrology meets every ten years or so and average the
13:47ones from labs all around the world to come up with the value of bi g G. But what if G
13:53were actually fluctuating? What if it changed? There's already evidence actually that it
13:58changes throughout the day and througout the year. What if the earth, as it moves through
14:03the galactic environment went through patches of dark matter or other environmental factors
14:09that could alter it? Maybe they all change together. What if these errors are going up
14:14together and down together? For more than ten years I've been trying to persuade metrologists
14:19to look at the raw data. In fact I'm now trying to persuade them to put it up online, on the
14:23internet. With the dates, and the actual measurements, and see if they're correlated. To see if they're
14:29all up at one time, all down at another. If so, they might be fluctuating together. And
14:34what would tell us something very, very interesting. But no-one has done this, they haven't done
14:38it because G is a constant. There's no point looking for changes. You see, here's a very
14:44simple example of where a dogmatic assumption actually inhibits enquiry. I, myself think
14:50that the constants may vary quite considerably. Well, within narrow limits. But they may all
14:56be varying, and I think the day will come when scientific journals like Nature have
15:01a weekly report on the constants, like stock-market reports in the newspapers. You know, "this
15:05week, bi g G was slightly up, the charge on the electron was down, the speed of light
15:11held steady, and so on." So that's one area where I think thinking
15:22this dogmatically could open things up. One of the bi ggest areas is the nature of
15:27the mind. This is the most unsolved problem as Graham just said, that science simply can't
15:33deal with the fact we're conscious. And it can't deal with the fact that our thoughts
15:39don't seem to be inside our brains. Our experiences don't all seem to be inside our brain. Your
15:46image of me now doesn't seem to be inside your brain, yet the official view is that
15:51there's a little Rupert somewhere inside your head. And everything else in this room is
15:56inside your head; your experience is inside your brain. I'm suggesting actually that vision
16:01involves an outward projection of images, what you're seeing is inside your mind but
16:05not inside your head. Our minds are extended beyond our brains in the simplest act of perception.
16:12I think that we project out the images we're seeing, and these images touch what we're
16:18looking at. If I look at you from behind, you don't know I'm there. Could I affect you?
16:24Could you feel my gaze? There's a great deal of evidence that people can. The sense of
16:29being stared at is an extremely common experience, and recent experimental evidence actually
16:35suggests it's real. Animals seem to have it too, I think it probably
16:39evolved in the context of predator/prey relationships. Prey animals that could feel the gaze of a
16:44predator would survive better than those that couldn't. This would lead to a whole new way
16:48of thinking about ecological relationships between predators and prey.
16:53Also about the extent of our minds. If we look at distant stars, I think our minds reach
16:59out in a sense to touch those stars, and literally extend out over astronomical distances. They're
17:05not just inside our heads. Now it may seem astonishing that this is a topic of debate
17:11in the twenty-first century. We know so little about our own minds that where our images
17:16are is a hot topic of debate within consciousness studies right now.
17:21I don't have time to deal with any more of these dogmas, but every single one of them
17:27is questionable. If one questions it, new forms of research, new possibilities open
17:32up. And I think as we question these dogmas that have held back science so long, science
17:39will undergo a reflowering, a renaissance. I'm a total believer in the importance of
17:44science. I've spent my whole life as a research scientist, my whole career. But I think by
17:51moving beyond these dogmas, it can be regenerated. Once again, it can become interesting, and
17:57I hope, life-affirming. Thank you.

17. nem° - 26/09/13 14:35 - (en réponse à : PC)
Je pense que c'est une question de moment inertiel. Demande à un spécialiste pour vérifier.

16. nem° - 26/09/13 14:30 - (en réponse à : achab)
Je vois, une sorte d'indice. Tu fais référence à la catastrophe ultraviolette? Sinon je crois qu'il y avait le transcript sous la vidéo, je vais te le copier ici.

15. Achab - 26/09/13 14:20
En fait, c'est pas que je ne sais pas où elle est, cette vidéo, c'est que je ne peux pas la voir (parce que je suis au boulot et que les vidéos sont bloquées).

Par ailleurs, j'ai un passé de physicien, mais il commence à être loin derrière moi donc je ne vais pas être capable de vous donner les dernières nouvelles de la constante de structure fine (qui porte le sobriquet alpha et qui vaut grosso-modo 1/137).

En gros, elle a été introduite lorsque qu'une spectroscopie (i.e. mesure des longueurs d'onde de la lumière absorbée/émise) plus sensible de l'atome d'hydrogène a fait apparaître des raies mitoyennes fines (auparavant indifférenciées et considérées comme une seule et même raie) que le modèle en vigueur à l'époque (modèle de Bohr) ne permettait pas d'expliquer. En appliquant, une correction (i.e. en prenant en compte une influence électro-magnétique jusqu’ici négligée) dont la forme fait intervenir cette constante alpha, on a pu décrire et expliquer cette observation (et généraliser le phénomène à d’autres cas).

Voilà, c’est juste une donnée mesurable, qui fournit la même valeur en toute circonstance et dont on se demande si cela a toujours été le cas.

14. pierrecédric - 26/09/13 14:17
Je viens de me rendre compte d'un certain constat, certains moteurs électrique refusent de démarrer quel que soit la tension et l'ampérage, c'est le cas par exemple de mon petit Braun KD138801 4-713-005, dès que je le court-circuite avec un autre moteur, on peut les alimenter avec n'importe quel voltage et intensité celui-ci ne démarrera pas, l'autre oui.
Alors je vais essayer de voir avec un moteur solaire qui peut démarrer à 0,3 volt.

13. nem° - 26/09/13 14:06
dens, tu m'as pas répondu sur les phonons!

12. nem° - 26/09/13 14:05 - (en réponse à : longshot)
La réponse, en l'occurrence. Si j'ai bien compris l'article lié, on va nourrir les voitures avec du sucre et faire le plein des humains avec de l'amidon? J'ai bon? Ca tendrait plutôt à renforcer l'idée-force transhumaniste que c'est justement l'humain qu'il faut modifier, on a pas le choix. Parce qu'à 7,5 milliards et en hausse (moins rapide, certes), la coupe sera bientôt pleine. Ou vide, c'est selon. Bref, ce sera moins risqué pour la biosphère que de bidouiller tout l'environnement pour l'adapter aux besoins délirants des primates "intelligents" que nous sommes. Au pire, on servira de fertilisant. Bio.

11. nem° - 26/09/13 13:53
j'ai posé une question à un physicien et je n'ai pas compris la réponse

Plutôt : j'ai posé la question et elle ne m'a pas satisfait.

10. longshot - 26/09/13 10:56 - (en réponse à : nem°)

9. longshot - 26/09/13 07:18 - (en réponse à : Achab)
Elle était dans le sujet précédent.

Je ne conseillerais pas de la regarder, mais vu que tu as l'air de t'y connaître, je serais curieux d'avoir ton avis sur les notions de physique qu'il évoque. La façon dont il présente son point de vue laisse penser qu'il y a un vrai souci, mais j'ai quand même un peu l'impression que son raisonnement se résume à : j'ai posé une question à un physicien et je n'ai pas compris la réponse, donc les physiciens sont des charlots. Ce qui serait un peu léger.

8. nem° - 26/09/13 01:44 - (en réponse à : achab)
La constante de structure fine

Ouiiiiiiii, et en terrien standard, ça se traduit par?

7. Achab - 25/09/13 17:14
Je vois pas la vidéo à laquelle vous faites référence, mais je vous signale quand même que la variabilité des constantes est un sujet sur lequel se penchent les physiciens depuis un moment quand même.
La constante de structure fine a été disséquée dans ce sens notamment. Donc bon, si c'est pour discréditer la communauté des physiciens en faisant une hypothèse qu'ils ont eux-même formulée et qu'ils continuent de tester, c'est un peu ridicule...

6. nem° - 25/09/13 14:24 - (en réponse à : dens)
hypothese un peu moins capilotractée que de dire que les regles fondementales de l'univers varient a l'chelle d'observation humaine dans tout le reste de l'univers...

Oui, c'est mon angle d'écoute de son discours. Je m'étais intéressé à une époque au rapport entre le spin des particules et la chiralité, c'est une piste intéressante. Encore faut-il avoir le niveau (c'est pas mon cas) ou être intellectuellement rigoureux (c'est pas son cas).

5. dens - 24/09/13 20:10
sans aller jusqu'a etre sans faille il faut VRAIMENT eviter de tomber dans la faille qu'on essaye de critiquer sinon on perd toute credibilite...

mais vraiment en y repensant c'est tellement stupide ce qu'il dit sur la genetique et la resonnance morphique que je suis convaincu qu'il y a une faille tout aussi debile dans ses arguments sur les constantes physiques (vu qu'il est biochimiste de formation)

il me semble qu'il se bat contre un moulin a vent et effectivement que les physiciens qui s'y interessent savent qu'elles ne sont que des conventions ...
et pas une representation d'une realite fixe...
en plus les fluctuations dont il parle sont d'ordre de grandeur tres minime...

et si effeectivement toutes les mesures de par le monde avaient des fluctuation synchrone ca pourrait aussi indiquer qu'on passe dans une zone de radiation cosmique qui affecte nos instruments humains electroniques ...
hypothese un peu moins capilotractée que de dire que les regles fondementales de l'univers varient a l'chelle d'observation humaine dans tout le reste de l'univers...

Mais apres je suis d'accord sur le fait qu'on en sait rien si les constnates sont constantes sur des temps de milliard d'année sur des distances cosmiques... on a pas de moyen de le savoir Si il ya des variations "locales" d'un bras de la galaxie a l'autre les astronomes et les physiciens auront peut etre moyen d'y repondre en observant des trucs qui osnt pas explicable sans inclure des modifications locales...

mais dire qu'on comprend mieux que "les specialistes"

4. nem° - 24/09/13 14:24 - (en réponse à : longshot)
Je suis d'accord, quand on prétend dénoncer les fautes des autres, on se doit d'être sans failles.

3. longshot - 24/09/13 11:06
Pareil que dens, mais je n'aurais pas sa patience : la démarche elle-même est certainement « saine », mais à entendre le gars j'ai quand même l'impression que la mise en pratique laisse sérieusement à désirer...

2. nem° - 24/09/13 00:05 - (en réponse à : dens)
D'ailleurs c'est intéressant l'artwork sur le page d'io9 que tu as liée. Il me rappelle beaucoup le petit vaisseau d'Obi-wan dans l'Episode II, avec son cercle détachable. A quand le Cyberlab?



Et j'y pense, puisque tu parlais de cristallo, les phonons, c'est pas aussi boulversifiant que les quanta ça? Pour le coup, ça résonne!

1. nem° - 23/09/13 23:54
Je réponds à dens depuis le dernier sujet : oui, certains sujets sont limite, mais dans les grandes lignes je trouve la démarche plutôt saine. Sinon, pour aller avec ton hyperdrive, la NASA va aussi envoyer une mission chercher des portails dimensionnels dans l'espace. Non, non, ce n'est pas le pitch du prochain Star trek.





 
Actualité BD générale
Actualité editeurs
Actualité mangas
Actualité BD en audio
Actualité des blogs des auteurs
Forum : les sujets
Forum : 24 dernières heures
Agenda : encoder un évènement
Calendrier des évènements
Albums : recherche et liste
Albums : nouveautés
Sorties futures
Chroniques de la rédaction
Albums : critiques internautes
Bios
Bandes annonces vidéos
Interviews d'auteurs en videos
Séries : si vous avez aimé...
Concours
Petites annonces
Coup de pouce aux jeunes auteurs
Archives de Bdp
Quoi de neuf ?
Homepage

Informations légales

(http://www.BDParadisio.com) - � 1996, 2012 BdParadisio