Professional aluminum metallized film manufacturer for over 13 years experience.

Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson - colored glass film

by:Cailong     2019-07-19
Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson  -  colored glass film
In his new collection,
Freeman Dyson, a famous physicist, turned his idea into "Stained Glass"it-
Your own biotechnology and the breeding of your own pet lizard, the fallacy of global warming science, science fiction (hats for Madeline Engel, who recently left) and the importance of biology to the future of religion.
For Dyson, a deeper understanding of the human brain means a better understanding of theology, and perhaps more tolerance for those who believe differently. Such broad-
Spectrum thinking, especially for scientists, often puts you in one of two camps: Charlatans or geniuses.
They both call Dyson.
However, his preference for challenging traditional wisdom matches a sense of humor, a necessary attribute for any scientist who has seen 70 years of scientific hits and failures ---
Some of them are his own.
In the scientific world, Dyson is best known for the three versions of quantum invented by Julian scharsène Wenger, sijiro tomenga and his friend and colleague Richard Feynman.
But it was his broader work on nuclear weapons, immortal science, and alien intelligence that attracted the public.
Dyson quickly reminded readers that he was a scientist, not a prophet.
"Mistakes are better than blurs," he said, certainly the pain of the former, not the pain of the latter.
Dyson looked back at his advice to young Francis Crick, that is, to stick to physics instead of wasting time in biology, and he joked, "When I was young and arrogant, I tried to predict the future of physics and biology.
Even the smart 22year-
For the future of science, the old is not a reliable guide. And the 22-year-
Now that he is 82, he is less reliable.
"Dyson never got a PhD. D.
But, in addition to his 18 honors degrees, he has won many awards, winning the National Book Critic Award from his 1984 book, weapons and hope, he won 2000 Templeton Religious Progress Award.
Of his six children, there were master of the digital age, esther Dyson, and George Dyson, a science historian.
Read "more than one-
"Stained Glass" is meant to understand the wonders and awe that continue to drive our success and failure.
When Dyson continues to write a lot, if you ask him what he is doing, it is easy for him to refer to his work as "graffiti equation on paper ".
In the conversation, Dyson was studied frankly and was not afraid of one person --Word reply--
It seems better to ask him to think about a problem he might prefer.
You write that it is impossible to observe the scientific and religious aspects of human nature at the same time.
Science is just a box of tricks for me and I like to play with them.
This is a way to exercise.
It has nothing to do with philosophy, and of course it has nothing to do with religion.
This is basically just a skill I happen to learn.
Some people think more seriously about science.
For me, science has nothing to do with profound thoughts.
Do you think science is inconsistent with religion?
I think only a small number of people think so.
Maybe they have more voices than others.
What do you think Richard Dawkins is doing?
I think Richard Dawkins did a lot of damage.
I don't agree with him very much.
I don't deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a lot of harm when he says publicly that you have to be an atheist in order to be a scientist.
This will only keep young people away from science.
He convinced many young people not to be scientists because they did not want to be atheists.
I strongly oppose him on this issue.
What he said is not true at all, not only not true, but also harmful.
As a matter of fact, many of my friends are more pious than me and are the first --Scientists.
There is absolutely nothing to stop you from having both.
Dawkins called religion a virus.
I totally disagree.
He is arrogant to say that anyone who disagrees with him is infected with the virus.
No wonder he can't live in peace with them.
You mentioned that you believe in God.
For me, religion is more about a group than faith.
Both literature and music are good.
As far as I know, people who belong to my church don't necessarily believe anything.
Of course, we don't talk so much.
I think I am a better Jew than a Christian.
Jewish religion is not so much a matter of faith as a matter of community, and I think to a large extent the same is true of our Christians.
Yes, are your parents Christians? Nominally.
What I want to say is that they are Christians but do not believe in Christians.
What's the difference? it's totally different.
A Christian person who lives a Christian life and likes to worship with many others and thinks that the church is a community of his own, but you will not ask others carefully what they believe.
Of course, some people take faith very seriously, while others do not.
You said, "My concept of God is not because I don't know whether the physical universe is open or closed, limited or infinite, simple or multiple.
God is a mystery to me, and it is still a mystery after we know the answers to these questions. . .
I can't imagine that the efforts of our teenager to read his heart left a deep impression on him.
"I don't remember the background of this sentence.
Maybe I was thinking about the struggle between Galileo and the philosophers of his time.
The yaristorians want to separate heaven from Earth so that there is room for God in the sky.
Galileo said that the moon is like the Earth. there are mountains and seas.
Galileo said that the size and shape of the universe did not tell us anything about God.
No one knows quantum mechanics, says physicist Richard Feynman.
Is the explanation of quantum mechanics a religion among scientists? I won't say that.
For me, the most important thing about quantum mechanics is Equations and mathematics.
If you want to know quantum mechanics, do math.
All the words revolving around it don't mean too much.
Like playing a violin.
If the violinist judges them according to the way they speak, it makes no sense.
As we improve our understanding of biology, and you write this, our understanding of religion will also improve.
It affects our understanding of theology.
What I would like to point out is that human theology is based on our own system of values. -
The most important thing is when we experience good and evil.
Bring a child with autism
I took the case of Jessica Parker, a friend of mine who happened to be autistic.
If she had theology, it would be very different because she could not understand the pain of others.
She has no idea of the existence of others like us.
She lives in a completely different world.
You can judge by her inability to understand the difference between "me" and "you.
She uses these words without distinction.
Therefore, the idea of a suffering savior makes no sense to her at all.
If she had theology, there would be no sin involved.
One feature of people with autism is that they can't lie.
Jessica never lies because you have to have the idea of cheating someone to lie on purpose.
This is something she can't imagine.
Since there is no sin, there is no fall from grace or redemption.
Jessica's example shows us that our own view of the world may be equally distorted.
The world may have many essential features that we cannot see, just as she cannot see the thoughts and feelings of others.
Therefore, our theology also reflects our view of the possible distortion of the world.
You write about the importance of "heretical" in the scientific community.
This is mainly about politics. In "A Many-
"In terms of global warming, I came out of the closet.
I think global warming is a serious problem.
It's a real problem, but it's not as serious as people are being led to believe.
The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is completely nonsense and is causing a lot of harm.
It distracts people's attention to more serious problems.
This is an example.
There's not so much to do about science.
This is indeed a political issue.
Why do you choose to disagree about climate change? I am an evil, because at least I was working on climate change before it became fashionable.
I used to go to Oak Ridge National Laboratory [Tennessee], which was the main place to study it at the time, where they had a very good group of people.
I often go there and write a paper about the connection between climate and vegetation.
It's so surprising that we know very little, and it's still true.
Scientifically speaking, almost all statements made publicly are wrong, which is very interesting.
We have no reason to believe that climate change is harmful if viewed from the whole world.
In fact, most places are warmer than colder places.
Historically, the really bad period for the environment and people is the cold period, not the warm period.
The fact that the climate is warming does not scare me at all.
There is no reason why one should be afraid.
The economic situation and technological changes in the world are much faster than climate change, so I don't see any reason to rush.
A huge movement has taken place between scientists and policymakers, proving that global warming is urgent.
Have you ever had a public debate, and that doesn't help much.
True believers will not change their minds just because of me.
Why do you think they are so strong on the issue that you think they misunderstood science and I think it's a combination of things.
Take Al Gore as an example. he is the chief propagandist.
I think it's really a religion for him.
According to Al, he believes it is his mission to spread the gospel of global warming.
So there's nothing I can do about it.
His film is a wonderful work.
It looks great when you see it.
In fact, the pictures do not prove that what he said is true.
Can you give an example of a polar bear sitting on a melted ice cube?
The poor bear is drowning. it's a tear. jerker.
But in fact, the bear is doing very well.
The number of bears in the Arctic is increasing rather than decreasing.
In general, they like warmth.
Just because you see pictures of glaciers falling into the ocean doesn't mean something bad is happening.
This is what has been happening.
This is part of a natural cycle.
According to the measurements, we know that the glaciers have melted in 200 at least.
So it must be a long time before human activity can lead to it.
We also know that glaciers were actually much smaller 4,000 years ago.
At the same time, they are actually growing.
So it seems to be some sort of cyclical process.
They will grow and shrink, and there is no particular reason to worry just because they are shrinking at the moment.
I'm not saying there's no climate change.
Climate change, of course.
Climate change is part of a normal order, and we know it happens before the arrival of humanity.
Someone else-
Climate change.
This is certainly happening.
But I think there is no reason to worry about this.
As a result, climate change has been politicised, with this very strong organization, the IPCC, and the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
It is a panel of officially appointed experts who make statements every five years.
This group is considered sacred.
They are very unforgiving.
They always believe that any criticism is a hostile act that must be fought.
I think they did badly.
But this is an unusual example in science. -
This is where politics destroys science.
But in general, scientists are not opposed to pagans.
This is unique to climate research.
This is also related to the way research funding [is] available.
The funding for the climate expert community as a whole is based on the urgent issue.
So they can't say it's not urgent or they lose their thumbs.
Let's talk about your positive views on biotechnology.
Bill Mack basic, Bill Joy and other scientists believe that our moral maturity lags behind our technical capabilities.
This is obvious, but it doesn't mean we're not doing well technically.
Technology gives you strength and you can use it for evil and good.
I look forward to the good application of biotechnology.
You can't get rid of the dark side, but you shouldn't overestimate the dark side.
This is a question of balance.
People talk about the dark side all the time, so I talk about the bright side just to change.
Do we have historical evidence that scientists can handle the dark side? -
In addition to the simple facts, we also accept the case of recombinant DNA here.
Thirty years ago, they found a recombinant DNA that was spliced by a gene.
Biologists then developed a set of guidelines for avoiding dangerous experiments.
These guidelines have actually been working for about 30 years, so we have not had a serious accident.
The problem, of course, is that you might do evil on purpose.
It remains to be seen whether we can solve this problem.
But these guidelines are certainly helpful.
How do you see the domestication of biotechnology in the near future? I saw this on my computer 50 years ago.
We built the first programmable computer in Princeton.
John von Neuman, the owner of the project, never thought that computers would become small and cheap, and that usersfriendly.
He thinks that computers are big and expensive things and always need to be handled by experts.
He thinks they will belong to large organizations and they will become bigger and more expensive over time.
Of course, he just didn't see what really happened.
They become smaller, cheaper and more powerful, and eventually fall into the hands of primary school students and even preschool children.
The biggest part of the computer industry is computer games.
I see the same thing happened with biotechnology.
Now people are very skeptical about it, because it's in the hands of big companies, and they do things that people don't approve of, such as putting toxic genes into crops.
It has become unpopular politically.
But I think it's going to be domesticated, so-it-
Everyone can use their own kit.
According to your own design, you will be able to read and write your own genome and produce roses, orchids, lizards, snakes or any kind of creature.
Yes, you think it's a creative business.
Film technology has become one of the main artistic forms in the 20 th century.
I would say that writing the genome in the same way may be an art form of the 21st century.
We will have all these creative people Design creatures and try beautiful arrangements.
This is a new form of landscape design where you can design plants and landscapes.
This can be a biotechnology game for children, and you will give the child some eggs and seeds, as well as a kit to write the genome and see the results.
It would certainly be a very confusing, sometimes even dangerous thing, but I think it might be very good for education in general.
When people can manipulate the natural world themselves, they have a better understanding of the natural world.
It looks natural to them, and of course it's the way computers are.
My grandchildren have a lot more computers at home than I do.
So I think the same is true of biotechnology.
What is the concept of genetic engineering for ourselves or designers? Human genetic engineering is very concerned about me.
I didn't talk about it in my new book because I talked about it before.
It raises a lot of basic ethical and fair questions that don't come up when you process wheat and soybeans.
I'm not advocatinghome, do-it-
Design Kit for human babies.
You wrote that cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the main driver of change.
You mean, this is an idea I borrowed from Carl wassé, who is a very famous biologist.
You can divide the history of life into three periods.
First, in the early days, all genes were freely exchanged between different cells, so that the world of survival was made from the original cells and the genome, which were the same as viruses. Travel from cell phone to cell phone.
This is what we call horizontal gene transfer.
Evolution is collective.
Anything useful invented by a cell can be shared with other cells, so evolution is very fast.
Some time after about half a billion years, things have changed because these creatures are starting to become selfish and refuse to share their genes with their neighbors.
They keep the genes for themselves, and that's what we call the species invention.
Species refer to a collection of organisms that do not breed outside the species.
Once life is divided into species, evolution becomes a Darwin evolution.
Then there is competition between species.
Each invention is only good for the species that invented it.
Everyone else has to compete alone.
Then evolution has slowed a lot in billions of years.
This is what I call a Darwin episode.
Now, since the emergence of human beings, things have changed again.
Now we are back to the time when genes can be transferred horizontally.
We learned how to transfer genes from one organism to another.
This is what we call gene splicing.
So humans can easily get genes from an animal, put them into a virus or bacteria, and breed them into a large population, and then put them back into another creature
You can easily spread the ideal qualities from one species to another.
This is what I call a new era of openness.
SOURCE Genetics, analogy with openness
Source code software in computer business.
This means that genes are shared between species.
The final species will disappear.
They will merge.
I think this is a promising future, but of course it will also be dangerous.
There is no doubt that all kinds of unexpected consequences will bother us.
But it seems to be happening anyway.
Do scientists know what led to the initial shift --
SOURCE evolution of Darwin's theory of evolution
This is a detail we don't know at all.
But I like to use Bill Gates metaphor.
Some bacteria are slightly ahead of others and decide to establish a monopoly.
They only predicted Bill Gates billions of years ago.
Part of your vision for the future of biotechnology is what you call "green technology ".
Your green technology is very different from the "green" in the traditional sense.
"Can you explain it? I mean technology based on biology, not physics.
So the green technology is to milk cows or grow grapes and make wine.
This also means transferring genes from one plant to another.
Among other things, the Green technique is to plant an anti-pesticide soybean and then kill weeds with a pesticide.
Now people take it for granted.
It works very well.
I just expanded it to produce new chemicals using this technology. -
In particular, liquid fuel is produced.
My idea is that in 50 years the whole problem of fossil fuels will disappear as we will learn how to plant trees that produce liquid fuels more efficiently than existing trees.
So we will have plenty of fuel to supply without having to dig it out of the ground.
I think this is likely to happen.
50 years is enough for this technology to take over the world, 50 years is short enough, so the climate will not change much.
Explain how you imagined this through trees.
At present, the efficiency of trees to convert carbon dioxide and sunlight into wood is less than 1%.
And Wood is not a convenient fuel.
It must be harvested.
You have to cut the tree down to get the wood.
This is destructive and ugly.
So, first of all, you can program a tree to 10 times more efficient so you need less land to produce fuel.
Secondly, you can produce fuel in the form of liquid, which will enter the underground pipeline so you don't need to cut down trees to get the fuel.
It seems to me that this is a very practical solution.
This is just a question of learning how to do it.
What about genetically modified foods? are you worried about the potential destructive ecological effects of gene splicing? M.
Food crops can be bad, just like the old Ecological effects
Old-fashioned farming may not be good.
But G's opponentM.
Food crops have significantly exaggerated the damage they could cause.
In most cases, G. M.
Food crops are far greater than disadvantages.
Why do you think green technology can empower people in poor areas, rural areas? It has a great advantage. it uses sunlight as an energy source and it is distributed evenly around the world.
It is especially rich in tropical areas where most people live.
Global fuel production will be much more uniform than fossil fuels.
There are many resources here.
Rich and poor areas.
Historically, resources are controlled by rich countries.
So how can this empower rural communities better than in the past? It depends on them.
You must educate your people to master the technology.
Some countries do very well.
Asian countries have done very well in this regard.
Everyone is watching countries like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
In a generation, they have gone from poverty to wealth, basically educating people by spending a lot of money.
One very sensible thing the Japanese do is to translate all the scientific books in the world into Japanese, allowing children to learn science in their own language from the beginning.
Compared with other Asian countries, this is the main reason for Japan's leadership.
Therefore, the inevitable result of the development of green technology will be education, most likely through the Internet.
The Internet is a very good development.
This means that people around the world can learn quickly, which is very helpful.
This will be even more so in the future.
We hope everyone in Africa can access the Internet.
Not far from here.
I think it has been getting cheaper all the time.
Now they're talking about a $100 pc, not to mention a phone.
The viruses spread rapidly in Africa and beyond.
Many of these countries are likely to be well managed.
Custom message
Chat Online
Chat Online
Chat Online inputting...
Sign in with: