Skip to main content

How can you do knowledge transfer if you have no knowledge?

I just had to endure another few minutes of Michio Kaku rambling about something he does not even start to understand: free will. Physics, he says, puts an end to the debate about free will. His reasoning? After lots of 'Einstein' and 'Heisenberg' iconography ('god does not play dice', 'there is uncertainty'), repeating the simple and wrong 'an electron is everywhere at the same time' he arrives at the oh-so mind-numbing and wrong banality that we have a free will because there is uncertainty dominating physics. This makes the act of a murderer unpredictable and really evil (as compared to the Newton-driven murderer whos actions are predisposed by Newtons laws. Everything would be deterministic from the beginning of time - everything could be calculated, nothing would be left to chance ... hey, Michio, there is more to the world than crude mechanics .... and therefore that fella would be guilt-free (talking of the physics-laws-driven killer, not Michio, who, of course is guilty as hell. Guilty of oversimplifying).
So non-determinism equals free will. Yes? Got it right? All memebers of the Heisenberg-family (electrons, small particles...), who's position is 'everywhere at the same time' (according to 'theoretical physicist' Michio Kaku) have free will. sure.
f§$k no!
non-determinism is not free will!
Popularizing science the way this guy does is popularizing ignorance.
hey.
I did not have to watch him.
But I did.
Proving that I have no free will. At all.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

No theory - no money!

A neuroscientist I was talking to recently complained that the Higgs-research,even the Neutrino-fluke at CERN is getting humungous funding while neuroscience is struggling for support at a much more modest level. This, despite the undisputed fact that understanding our brain, and ultimately ourselves, is the most exciting challenge around. Henry Markram of EPFL in Switzerland   is one of the guys aiming for big, big funding to simulate the complete brain. After founding the brain institute and developing methods to analyze and then reconstruct elements of the brain in a supercomputer he now applies for 1.5 Billion Euro in EU-funding for the 'flagship-projects' of Blue Brain -and many believe his project is simply too big to fail. Some call the project daring, others audacious. It is one of the so very few really expensive life-science endeavours. Why aren't there more like that around? Why do we seem to accept the bills for monstrous physics experiments more easily? Is