Concept Summary Chapter 9
Science may force us to be intimate with the world, but throughout its triumphant history it has also forced us to reflect on the nature of our intimacy with the world. We have learned that each new perspective revealed by science showed how much a vestige of our presence was previously involved in what we thought we knew about the world. The Earth seemed to be the center of the universe, but this was only because we viewed the universe, until recently, from the perspective of Earth. It seemed obvious that God's "nows" would be the same as our "nows," that now on Earth would be now throughout the universe, but after Einstein we know that our intuitive feeling of simultaneity is also anthropocentric. Quantum physics forces us to reflect upon the possibility that although we thought we were uncovering an independent nature, as in any relationship where an interaction is created and must be maintained by the existence of both partners, what we have been learning is the nature of our relationship with nature, not nature itself.
The universe is very large and we wish to know if there are other forms of life with which to share our thoughts. In the seventeenth century the best minds assumed other creatures must exist, because they assumed their God would not want to waste His creation of other planets and suns. And, of course, these creatures must think a little like God, and like us, so they must have writing and geometry. Today we think we know a lot more about this subject. It is easy to see the preconceptions of others, but so difficult to see our own.
From one point of view the odds for extraterrestrial life seem very good. With billions of stars within billions of galaxies, and hence, perhaps trillions of planets, with the right chemical basic building blocks for the evolution of life scattered throughout the universe, it seems absurd that we would be the only ones to establish a partnership with the universe. Whether or not such a conscious partnership like ours can be duplicated depends upon to what extent evolution duplicates anything. Although the message of natural selection is clear in one sense -- a process of nonrepeatable diversity means human beings once and only once -- uniqueness can be complemented by repeating optimum ways of relating to the environment. There may never be another hummingbird moth, but there are hummingbirds and many diverse creatures that fly. Thus, evolution not only diverges it also converges.
Because evolution tends to repeat optimal ways of relating to the environment, a case can be made for the notion that our intelligence "resonates" with nature. Our awareness and consequent flexibility in dealing with the environment, our rational ability and its expression in science and technology, may comprise an optimal survival trait. Hence, this trait is likely to be repeated at least sometimes when life evolves elsewhere. Although it is unlikely that other intelligent life has already visited us -- the distance between stars is too vast and our own means of technological communication too new for others to know about us -- extraterrestrial intelligence could produce technology and the means of remote communication. This notion assumes that intelligence has something to be intelligent of, that like the characteristic of flight, which needs a common environment favorable for flight, so intelligence has a universal, objective climate -- the laws of nature. If this is true, then the laws of nature also make possible a common means, a cosmic Rosetta stone, for communication with other intelligent forms of life. Hence, it is reasonable to listen with our radio telescopes for an unmistakable sign that we are not alone, most likely a coded mathematical message.
But is this view a twentieth-century egocentric version of the seventeenth century writing-and-geometry argument? In Chapter 8 we saw that quantum physics raises the possibility that the laws of nature are not observationally independent as the convergence-resonance argument assumes. What intelligence is intelligent of may not be nature itself but our relationship with nature. And just as every relationship is unique, the divergent forces of evolution could well produce only divergent channels of awareness. We could be totally alone with our thoughts, even if many other forms of life in the universe exist. In particular, our mathematical thoughts, so critical to our way of relating to the universe, may be nothing more than our own footprints.
Alone or not the result of finding out would be staggering. In the final analysis these issues can only be resolved by the self-corrective empirical process of science. Whether or not there is something out there that a successful mathematics captures, and whether or not another intelligent form of life, struggling with its environment, has evolved a system of thought to capture this same reality can only be answered by testing such notions as hypotheses, by looking for other footprints. Let's hope we have enough time.