Comments on: Biweekly links for 11/21/2008 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-11212008/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:56:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: John Sidles http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-11212008/comment-page-1/#comment-15950 John Sidles Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:30:50 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=497#comment-15950 I'll offer the opinion that, although John Doer's TED Lecture (on the future of the planet) was good, Lee Smolin's lecture "How science is like democracy" is even better. I especially appreciated Smolin's succint and imaginative summary for the next era of science: "the merger of Darwinism and relationalism." Smolin's viewpoint is very congenial to engineers, because (1) the process of design in engineering can be viewed as essentially Darwinian (i.e., bad designs die while good designs evolve into better designs), and (2) quantum system engineering (in particular) is founded upon the Smolin-esque principle that quantum instruments are machines whose purpose is to construct relations (specifically, to construct a correlative relation between the classical knowledge of a system and the quantum state of a system). The point being, that Smolin's talk offered a (reasonably) clear vision for the future of science, whereas Doer's vision was more of a sobering, semi-apocalyptic "ruh-rho"! If we are lucky, Smolin-type methods will provide the necessary resources and tools for allaying Doer's concerns. :) I’ll offer the opinion that, although John Doer’s TED Lecture (on the future of the planet) was good, Lee Smolin’s lecture “How science is like democracy” is even better.

I especially appreciated Smolin’s succint and imaginative summary for the next era of science: “the merger of Darwinism and relationalism.”

Smolin’s viewpoint is very congenial to engineers, because (1) the process of design in engineering can be viewed as essentially Darwinian (i.e., bad designs die while good designs evolve into better designs), and (2) quantum system engineering (in particular) is founded upon the Smolin-esque principle that quantum instruments are machines whose purpose is to construct relations (specifically, to construct a correlative relation between the classical knowledge of a system and the quantum state of a system).

The point being, that Smolin’s talk offered a (reasonably) clear vision for the future of science, whereas Doer’s vision was more of a sobering, semi-apocalyptic “ruh-rho”!

If we are lucky, Smolin-type methods will provide the necessary resources and tools for allaying Doer’s concerns. :)

]]>