- Email: [email protected]
Mathematics is hard
Letters– Multiversality From Peter White Amanda Gefter contends that we are being offered a choice between God and a multiverse as explanations for our existence (6 December 2008, p 48). Consider a third possibility: that our universe is an artefact created by an advanced species and
contained within the universe in which that species exists. It would be difficult to test this hypothesis, but at least it avoids invoking the supernatural. I sometimes suspect that our universe is some cosmic engineering undergraduate’s final-year project – though, if so, it’s probably not worth more than a second-class degree. Tongwynlais, Cardiff, UK From Mark Vernon Amanda Gefter is surely right when she says that an explanation for anthropic effects is not a straight choice between two explanations: multiverse or divinity. However, it is far from obvious that the notion that observation creates the universe – so-called top-down cosmology – can straightforwardly be called science. In his recent book The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies admits that such a “selfexplaining universe”, containing a “life principle”, will seem crypto-religious to many – though he is quite clear that he is not appealing to any supernatural agency. What it would necessitate, though, is a way of integrating 16 | NewScientist | 10 January 2009
into physics the elements that make for human observation: namely, life, mind and purpose. That sounds a lot like making an appeal to metaphysics, or at least as the physicist Roger Penrose would have it, a very different concept of science from that which exists today. London, UK From Helen Logan Of course our universe appears finely tuned for our existence. Altering any number of variables would mean we could not exist. But surely all we are observing is that we exist within the current conditions. If those conditions were to change might not another conscious being appear and assume in turn that those conditions were finely tuned for its existence? This observation doesn’t seem to me to require a multiverse or a deity. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK The editor writes: ● Most of the universes we can imagine would not support any sort of complex structures, which we assume are necessary for any sort of life, even something completely different from any life we might imagine.
Something for nothing From John Turner Lawrence Krauss seems to have strayed into the foothills of metaphysics without realising that he hasn’t brought the proper equipment (22 November 2008, p 53). He starts with the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” and claims that physics has largely answered this question by “reframing” it as “how” rather than “why”. This is not reframing – this is just a different question. Physics can create a partial description of how the universe came into being, and that can be a useful thing, but it does not advance our understanding of why any more than a mapping of
the human genome tells us why human beings exist. Krauss concludes that “science has once again altered the playing field for such metaphysical speculations in a dramatic and beautiful way”, whereas in fact it is he who has altered the playing field in a blatant and predictable way by ignoring the difference between a question of causation and a question of meaning. Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK
Mathematics is hard From John Campion Marcus du Sautoy declares that we can all do mathematics because we are naturally programmed to do so (29 November 2008, p 44). Being able to survive by moving around in the world and manipulating objects in it with speed and precision has nothing whatever to do with mathematics. The survival skills he alludes to are achieved through the natural acquisition and use of perceptualmotor schemata developed over many thousands of hours of practice. Being necessary for our continued existence, it is what humans are generally very good at. Mathematics, on the other hand, is the description of such activities using an unnaturally acquired formal system of symbol notation and manipulation. It is a different skill with different aims, employing different types of knowledge and using different parts of the brain. Being unnecessary for survival, it is what humans are generally very poor at. There is nothing more irritating and off-putting than some expert airily declaring that it’s all very simple really, when it self-evidently isn’t. If du Sautoy wants to meet his brief of furthering public understanding of science, he should start by coming clean on these matters. Liphook, Hampshire, UK
Sex, lies and surveys Name and address supplied Prompted by the article on sexual strategies (29 November 2008, p 32), I took a small informal poll at the school where I work. Seventeen out of 20 boys and six out of 10 girls said they would probably lie on a questionnaire about their sex life, even if they completed it anonymously. If it was not anonymous, all 20 boys said they would have lied, as did eight of the girls. Of course, they might have been telling lies. From Rupert Vidion, Department of Urology, Wellington Hospital You quote Anne Campbell from Durham University as saying that where there are fewer males than females “men can call the shots, and what men usually want is casual sex”. I feel this misses an important point. While a stable partnership may be desirable for raising a child, it is not essential to producing the next generation. When there are fewer males, it is also to females’ advantage, assuming they wish to procreate, for relationships to be less stable. With stable relationships, the limiting factor is the number of males in the population. If lessstable relationships predominate, females have a greater likelihood of finding a mate, however temporary, and reproducing. Wellington, New Zealand From Andrew D. Carothers In considering optimal sexual strategies we should bear in mind
www.newscientist.com
contained within the universe in which that species exists. It would be difficult to test this hypothesis, but at least it avoids invoking the supernatural. I sometimes suspect that our universe is some cosmic engineering undergraduate’s final-year project – though, if so, it’s probably not worth more than a second-class degree. Tongwynlais, Cardiff, UK From Mark Vernon Amanda Gefter is surely right when she says that an explanation for anthropic effects is not a straight choice between two explanations: multiverse or divinity. However, it is far from obvious that the notion that observation creates the universe – so-called top-down cosmology – can straightforwardly be called science. In his recent book The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies admits that such a “selfexplaining universe”, containing a “life principle”, will seem crypto-religious to many – though he is quite clear that he is not appealing to any supernatural agency. What it would necessitate, though, is a way of integrating 16 | NewScientist | 10 January 2009
into physics the elements that make for human observation: namely, life, mind and purpose. That sounds a lot like making an appeal to metaphysics, or at least as the physicist Roger Penrose would have it, a very different concept of science from that which exists today. London, UK From Helen Logan Of course our universe appears finely tuned for our existence. Altering any number of variables would mean we could not exist. But surely all we are observing is that we exist within the current conditions. If those conditions were to change might not another conscious being appear and assume in turn that those conditions were finely tuned for its existence? This observation doesn’t seem to me to require a multiverse or a deity. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK The editor writes: ● Most of the universes we can imagine would not support any sort of complex structures, which we assume are necessary for any sort of life, even something completely different from any life we might imagine.
Something for nothing From John Turner Lawrence Krauss seems to have strayed into the foothills of metaphysics without realising that he hasn’t brought the proper equipment (22 November 2008, p 53). He starts with the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” and claims that physics has largely answered this question by “reframing” it as “how” rather than “why”. This is not reframing – this is just a different question. Physics can create a partial description of how the universe came into being, and that can be a useful thing, but it does not advance our understanding of why any more than a mapping of
the human genome tells us why human beings exist. Krauss concludes that “science has once again altered the playing field for such metaphysical speculations in a dramatic and beautiful way”, whereas in fact it is he who has altered the playing field in a blatant and predictable way by ignoring the difference between a question of causation and a question of meaning. Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK
Mathematics is hard From John Campion Marcus du Sautoy declares that we can all do mathematics because we are naturally programmed to do so (29 November 2008, p 44). Being able to survive by moving around in the world and manipulating objects in it with speed and precision has nothing whatever to do with mathematics. The survival skills he alludes to are achieved through the natural acquisition and use of perceptualmotor schemata developed over many thousands of hours of practice. Being necessary for our continued existence, it is what humans are generally very good at. Mathematics, on the other hand, is the description of such activities using an unnaturally acquired formal system of symbol notation and manipulation. It is a different skill with different aims, employing different types of knowledge and using different parts of the brain. Being unnecessary for survival, it is what humans are generally very poor at. There is nothing more irritating and off-putting than some expert airily declaring that it’s all very simple really, when it self-evidently isn’t. If du Sautoy wants to meet his brief of furthering public understanding of science, he should start by coming clean on these matters. Liphook, Hampshire, UK
Sex, lies and surveys Name and address supplied Prompted by the article on sexual strategies (29 November 2008, p 32), I took a small informal poll at the school where I work. Seventeen out of 20 boys and six out of 10 girls said they would probably lie on a questionnaire about their sex life, even if they completed it anonymously. If it was not anonymous, all 20 boys said they would have lied, as did eight of the girls. Of course, they might have been telling lies. From Rupert Vidion, Department of Urology, Wellington Hospital You quote Anne Campbell from Durham University as saying that where there are fewer males than females “men can call the shots, and what men usually want is casual sex”. I feel this misses an important point. While a stable partnership may be desirable for raising a child, it is not essential to producing the next generation. When there are fewer males, it is also to females’ advantage, assuming they wish to procreate, for relationships to be less stable. With stable relationships, the limiting factor is the number of males in the population. If lessstable relationships predominate, females have a greater likelihood of finding a mate, however temporary, and reproducing. Wellington, New Zealand From Andrew D. Carothers In considering optimal sexual strategies we should bear in mind
www.newscientist.com