Intro. [Recording date: September 24, 2024.]
Russ Roberts: As we speak is September twenty fourth, 2024, and my visitor is physicist and creator Alan Lightman. That is Alan’s third look on EconTalk. He was final right here in April 2020 speaking about stardust, which means, faith, and science. His newest e-book and the subject for at present’s dialogue is The Miraculous from the Materials: Understanding the Wonders of Nature. Alan, welcome again to EconTalk.
Alan Lightman: Good to be again in your present, Russ.
Russ Roberts: Now, you write that you do not imagine in miracles, however you do imagine within the miraculous, and that is in your title, The Miraculous from the Materials. It is a beautiful title. Clarify that distinction for you between miracles and miraculous.
Alan Lightman: Effectively, for me, a miracle is one thing that contradicts the legal guidelines of nature as we perceive them. Typically, individuals who speak about miracles confer with the intervention of God and the bodily world–or some supernatural being, the intervention into the bodily world. And naturally, the phrase ‘supernatural’ by itself already means past the pure or past something that human beings can clarify. So, that is what I imply by a miracle; and I do not imagine in miracles.
However, by the miraculous, I imply the expertise of awe, the wonder that we see on this planet, the great order, and specifically, visually extraordinary phenomena, which is what I speak about within the e-book. And, I really feel that I–and most of us are–are open to experiencing these extraordinary phenomena. And, that is what I imply by the miraculous. So, I feel that we are able to have a scientific worldview, which signifies that we imagine that the world is made out of–it follows pure law–but we are able to nonetheless be appreciative and open to those lovely phenomena.
Russ Roberts: And this e-book is a set of brief explanations and observations about such lovely visible phenomena. I feel all people has their very own checklist. That is yours, presumably. And at one point–I can not keep in mind which, and there are issues like rainbows, flowers, capturing stars, and so on.–at one level, you talked about how, I feel it was spider webs, which one other chapter you simply talked about how your entire kids or grandchildren will cease and study a spider net. And, I just lately, we did an episode on owls, and I discussed how my granddaughter loves owls. And I attempted to get all of my kids and now my granddaughter to be in awe of the pure world. By itself phrases. They have been all raised with some stage of Jewishness as effectively, spiritual perception, however I felt it was necessary to present them simply that transcendent appreciation of magnificence.
And, simply, I am curious what your ideas are as a dad or mum and grandparent, as how you probably did that. And, by the best way, none of my youngsters are scientists. One in every of them studied science, however none of them grew to become scientists, not less than not but. I would not say that was my purpose. I haven’t got a purpose that my granddaughter grow to be an ornithologist or an knowledgeable on owls. However, I am curious what your ideas are on that as a dad or mum and grandparent.
Alan Lightman: Effectively, I feel that almost all kids from my very own restricted expertise do have an awe and an appreciation of the pure world. So, I feel as a parent–and I’ve received 4 grandchildren as well–I feel that I simply need to encourage that and I would like them, my kids and grandchildren, to spend time in nature and simply to concentrate. I feel that the awe is pure, however we have to listen.
And, we do not actually listen as a lot on this planet at present as we used to due to the best way that every little thing has been digitized. All of us have our smartphones and are taking a look at these as an alternative of wanting on the bushes and the sky and the water. And likewise, the tempo of the world has gotten so quick, pushed by the velocity of communication that we do not take the time to simply listen. And, I feel once we listen, the awe will come, however we have to make time to concentrate.
Russ Roberts: Now, some would argue that the rise of science within the final couple centuries has decreased the quantity of awe. Issues that have been earlier than thought-about, as you say, supernatural or spiritual divine, now some would argue that the magic has been dispelled as a result of now we perceive why this stuff happen–at least at some stage, I’d stress. However, you argue the alternative within the e-book in a lot of locations, so clarify that.
Alan Lightman: Effectively, I feel which you can nonetheless discover awe in a pure phenomenon like a rainbow or a volcano or lightning or a spiderweb, even for those who perceive the science behind it. I perceive how Saturn kinds its rings, and I encourage all people to get a superb pair of binoculars or a small telescope and take a look at the rings of Saturn. And, I perceive how these rings type by gravitational pull and angular momentum. However, each time I take a look at the rings of Saturn, I am simply blown away by the great thing about them and the perfection.
So, I do not assume that understanding, on this case scientific understanding, is incompatible with awe and appreciation of magnificence.
I do agree with you that science during the last couple of centuries has given explanations for a lot of phenomena that we did not beforehand perceive, however we nonetheless have an emotional response to those issues. After I go outdoors on a transparent night time and take a look at the celebrities, I understand how far-off a few of them are. I do know that stars are suns like our solar. But it surely does not cut back the magnificent, the majesty of that view of an evening sky for me. That is an emotional response.
And I feel our emotional reactions–a complete set of emotions–come from a really historical a part of the mind, the amygdala. I am most likely mispronouncing it. And that is a really historical, primitive a part of the mind. And, we nonetheless react with that historical a part of our mind to the wonder that we see round us. Even when we’ve one other a part of the mind that has learn up on the most recent theories of diffraction and astronomy, that primitive a part of our mind, which is the seat of our feelings, remains to be energetic. And, after all, I am very, very glad that it’s.
Russ Roberts: For me, I feel the information truly normally enhances the awe. I imply, for those who consider the celebrities, I stay in Jerusalem–not a really industrial metropolis, however there’s ample mild air pollution that there is solely a handful of stars are seen on a winter night time. If I head a pair hours south into the desert right here, you get a unprecedented view of the Milky Method. So, I like that once I’m wanting on the skies right here in Jerusalem, I do know there is a richer tapestry to be loved.
And once I see that tapestry, the information that they are not all equally removed from me is I discover so mind-blowing that even once we take a look at a constellation which appears prefer it’s representing one thing, while you understand that they are not truly close to one another usually, possibly virtually ever–I feel there is a handful–but most of them are very far aside. It is an phantasm that they appear like they’re shut to one another. To me, it is like going from 2D to 3D, even after all we all know it is 3D [3 dimensions]. So, for me, it makes it higher for me.
Alan Lightman: Effectively, I agree with you that understanding and information has a great thing about its personal.
Russ Roberts: And also you write within the e-book very properly about being conscious of that, as human beings, is sort of extraordinary. Effectively, possibly we’ll come again to that.
Russ Roberts: Let me ask a extra philosophical query. Are there limits to what we are able to perceive concerning the bodily world, the fabric? Clearly, we have made great progress over these centuries we’re speaking about; after all, we do not know why issues are the best way they’re. We type of have a facet of us that desires to know, I feel. However, understanding the bodily processes and the legal guidelines that produce these phenomena is a unprecedented achievement in and of itself of the human thoughts, which as you level out, is simply this bizarre little set of neurons firing in a three-pound package deal, [?] a loopy concept that that might result in understanding the previous that we won’t observe instantly in any respect or not less than does not really feel like we are able to. Are there limits to what we are able to perceive otherwise you assume what we are going to perceive?
Alan Lightman: Effectively, I feel while you speak about understanding, we have to distinguish between the bodily world and possibly you may name it the ethical or moral world. There definitely are boundaries to the province of science, and there are questions that–important questions–that do not lie inside science, like: Does God exist, or would we be happier if we lived to be a thousand years previous, or is it moral to kill an enemy soldier in time of warfare? These are all crucial questions, however I feel they lie outdoors of science.
So, we’ll put these questions apart and simply discuss concerning the bodily world, and ask the query: Are there limits to what science can know concerning the bodily world? And, I do not assume that there are any limits, in precept. I view science as a protracted challenge of getting higher and higher approximations to the best way the pure world works. And, we do not have full information of how the world works bodily, however we’ve very, superb approximations. And, I feel that our approximations will get higher and higher.
There’s one other facet of that query, and that’s whether or not science is the very best device for understanding sure bodily phenomena.
And, after all, let’s take our feeling of appreciation for nature or our awe at wanting up at an evening sky or our falling in love. So, all of these experiences are psychological sensations. And, I do imagine, and I feel that almost all scientists agree with me, that each one psychological sensations are finally primarily based within the bodily neurons of our mind and the chemical and electrical exchanges between them. So, I feel that each one of these experiences that I discussed, like falling in love, are finally rooted within the bodily mind.
However, even for those who wired up my mind to an enormous pc that recorded the entire electrical exercise within the 100 billion neurons in my mind, you place all of that out on a chart, it nonetheless would not convey or signify what I really feel once I search for on the night time sky and really feel a part of it–that feeling that I’ve. Regardless that I imagine that that feeling is finally rooted within the materials mind. Science is simply not a superb device for capturing that feeling. That’s, the info of all of these neurons and what they’re doing does not actually seize the feeling and the sensation that I’ve.
Russ Roberts: Yeah, I feel the philosophical time period is qualia, which is a extremely pretentious means, possibly simply to say emotions, but–
Alan Lightman: Proper, qualia; sure, I learn about that time period.
Russ Roberts: However, the puzzle for me is: Why would we not count on science to unlock that? At one level, you talked about the emergent phenomena of the mind and consciousness, which we speak about each infrequently on this program–without a lot progress. However, in going past what I simply stated: Do you not assume there might be a, quote, “large enough pc”–a computing model of the mind that might permit us to foretell who you’d fall in love with or which night time sky would make you extra rapturous, and so on.? Do you assume it is past our understanding? Is it a computing problem or is it a philosophical barrier?
Alan Lightman: Effectively, it depends upon who you discuss to. And I did discuss to a neuroscientist at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] named Robert Desimone about simply this query, about whether or not a pc and a neuroscientist working collectively may ultimately predict who we’d fall in love with. And, what he stated was it is a query of chance: that proper now we’re at a stage the place a neuroscientist working with AI [artificial intelligence] may most likely, in the event that they did sufficient interviews with you and examined your mind, they might most likely say, ‘Effectively, there is a 70% probability you fall in love with Mary and a 30% probability you may fall with Eileen.’ And he stated that these possibilities will most likely get increased and better because the expertise and because the neuroscience advances.
So, I feel that in precept that you simply may be capable to make such predictions with excessive chance, however nonetheless there’s the query: Does the pc seize the qualia? Does the pc seize the feeling of being in love? And, there was an amazing thinker named Thomas Nagel who wrote a e-book, “What Does it Really feel Wish to Be a Bat?”
Russ Roberts: It is an essay. Yeah, it is an article.
Alan Lightman: Yeah, an essay. And, after all, he argues that in precept, we are able to by no means actually know what it feels wish to be one other organism. I imply, I do not know precisely what it feels wish to be you, Russ Roberts. I can take a look at your expressions and listen to what you need to say, and I can kind of examine that to my information [?] assist with the expressions that I make and the issues that I say, and conclude that you simply most likely are feeling issues that I am feeling or that I can perceive. However, I do not know for positive what you are feeling. And I do not know what my spouse is feeling, for positive. I definitely hope that she’s, more often than not she’s proud of me and never sad with me. I imply, I suppose I agree with Thomas Nagel.
One very attention-grabbing query that has come up quite a bit recently–and definitely because the introduction of ChatGPT [Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer] and the belief that computer systems are getting fairly smart–is a query of whether or not a pc can ever be aware. And naturally, you need to outline what you imply by consciousness, which is after all the elemental psychological sensation. And, my view, and I feel the view of many AI consultants, is that any finite checklist of attributes of consciousness which you can write down–like having the ability to acknowledge your self in a mirror, self-awareness, having the ability to plan for the future–any restricted checklist of manifestations of consciousness you can also make that we are going to sometime, possibly 10 years away or 20 years away, have a pc that may test all of the containers of manifestations of consciousness.
However that is not the identical as saying: Is the pc actually aware? And, to reply that query, you would need to know what it feels wish to be a pc. And, possibly 100 years from now, we’ll all have silicon chips in our brains that make us part-computer and part-machine. And, then, we might begin realizing what it feels wish to be a pc. However we definitely do not know now.
Russ Roberts: Yeah. I used to be in my first driverless automotive just lately. I used to be picked up by a driverless automotive in San Francisco, which has these on the road. And, my joke I’ve used right here up to now is: I ponder if it has any regrets that it is not an electrical automated vacuum cleaner or Roomba. Does it sit and lengthy for it to be one thing, some different type of pc machine, generative machine? It is exhausting to think about.
I used to be fascinated with your love instance. Most of us would have hassle remotely defining what it means to be in love. In its earliest manifestations, I’d say it has a bodily correspondence to–I’d generally get a abdomen ache fascinated with an individual and lacking her.
And, I feel as you keep longer with one individual, there is a totally different set of bodily and naturally emotional reactions. And, how would you start to quantify? I imply, I do not know. A few of it appears to be past the purview of science.
Alan Lightman: Yeah, I’d agree with that.
Russ Roberts: Let me ask you about physics. You could have a Ph.D. [Doctor of Philosophy] in physics. I do not know what your dissertation was on, however normally it is one thing you specialised. I am simply curious, given the enormously big selection of phenomena on this e-book, how most of the explanations got here effortlessly to you, versus having to do analysis? A number of the smartest individuals I’ve ever met are physicists. They don’t seem to be simply good although: they know about issues. Which, that is two various things. And if I say, ‘Why is that this such and such a means?’ They normally have some thought, and it is type of extraordinary. How’s that give you the results you want on this e-book?
Alan Lightman: Effectively, the e-book has every kind of scientific explanations. A few of them come from the sector of biology, some from chemistry, some from physics. And, there have been, I do not know what fraction of chapters come from the world of physics, however the physics, I used to be capable of write the reasons and the understandings from my very own information. There have been fields that I used to be not very acquainted with, like climate, and what makes the colours of a mandarinfish–which is chemistry and biology. And, for these, I had to perform a little research. And, even once I did the analysis, I did not utterly belief myself in fields that weren’t my very own. And I’d discuss to consultants in that space.
One of many nice privileges of dwelling within the Boston/Cambridge space, which is the place I stay, is that there are many consultants close by in virtually each topic. And, I’ve the privilege of realizing a few of them. So, I can decide up the cellphone and ask somebody, ‘What are the explanation why the mandarinfish has these colours?’ and so forth.
So, after all, for those who’re a scientist, you’ve got a sense for the entire sciences. You perceive logical arguments, you perceive quantitative arguments; however you might not know the small print and fields apart from your personal. And, I take a really humble method to this: that I can be taught from a whole lot of totally different individuals. And naturally, writing a e-book and writing a e-book, the issues that you simply learn–and I do know you’ve got written some books yourself–the belongings you be taught within the analysis is without doubt one of the joys and pleasures of writing the e-book.
Russ Roberts: For positive. I used to be [?] going to say: my dad was a really curious man, and he was not a tutorial. He would sometimes write individuals within the Boston/Cambridge space, say, for data, and plenty of of them would write again, which is very nice. After which, he would inform me they have been ‘on his workers’–they have been a part of the individuals he may seek the advice of. And, I’d simply add that the individuals you are speaking about while you say ‘the consultants,’ they’re precise consultants. They’re individuals who truly do learn about these scientific phenomena.
I am curious if writing the e-book made you extra curious. Did it begin to, or the belongings you what the e-book that you simply did not intend to as a result of one thing grabbed your eye?
Alan Lightman: Oh, yeah. It undoubtedly made me extra curious, and extra , and naturally extra conscious that there are zillions of extraordinary phenomena on the market, solely a small fraction of I perceive.
What began off the e-book is: I am a jogger, and I used to be working by a discipline that I usually run by, and it was early within the morning. I feel it was most likely within the fall. And there was a fantastic mist hanging over the sector that went up possibly about six ft or one thing like that–this layer, this six-foot layer of mist hanging over the sector. And, I had seen such mists earlier than, and I knew that because it gotten hotter and the solar got here out, that they might dissipate. And I started fascinated with why mists type, and I noticed that I did not perceive all of it. I had some guesses, however I did not know for positive all the small print and what makes a mist type. And, so, that is what began the e-book off. It was my very own curiosity.
Russ Roberts: Yeah. It is like my spouse requested me why motels are so costly in New York. I’ve received a fairly good thought, however why they’ve gotten costlier as Airbnb has principally been eradicated from New York–is it as a result of motels have been going to be constructed, would have been constructed, however due to Airbnb they weren’t? And now that Airbnb is gone, they’re–I do not know. So, I am after all semi-joking as a result of the information that economics brings to the world is proscribed in comparison with, say, physics, however I am going to take what I can get.
Russ Roberts: Inform us what ball lightning is. I might by no means heard of that. And, it occurred to you as soon as. Clarify what that’s.
Alan Lightman: Effectively, that is a superb instance as a result of we do not actually totally perceive what ball lightning is. However, what causes it–but, the phenomenon itself happens normally throughout a thunderstorm. And, a shining ball kinds, that’s one thing like possibly two ft or three ft in diameter, and strikes in a short time. And my very own expertise with it was that one summer season I used to be standing on the second flooring deck of my home and a thunderstorm was simply letting up, and instantly this shining ball got here at me. It glided by me and into the home and exploded with a bang. I imply, I feel it knocked out some electrical home equipment. And it moved in a short time. The whole phenomena, from the time I first noticed this ball to the time it exploded, was most likely solely about three seconds.
And so, there are numerous theories about what it’s. It is definitely some type of electrical energy. That’s, you most likely have the lightning and the thunderstorm most likely ionizes an remoted area of air–that is, it strips the electrons off the atoms: that is what ionization is. And it is electrically charged; however we do not actually know way more than that about it. It’s a uncommon phenomenon, however it’s actually extraordinary.
Russ Roberts: Within the film model, it could both be an alien or God speaking to you to get your consideration.
Russ Roberts: I count on that the bang was extraordinarily loud. Is that appropriate?
Alan Lightman: Um, it wasn’t extraordinarily loud. It was loud. I suppose–you know, an attention-grabbing case was I feel I had written one thing about it. And there was a authorized case within the State of Tennessee that concerned ball lightning and somebody had had property injury, and one of many attorneys within the case received in contact with me and requested me to explain what it was. And so, the truth that a lawyer that I did not know would name me up and requested me to be a witness, so to talk, instructed to me that it is a very, very uncommon phenomenon.
Russ Roberts: The explanation I ask is that I’ve by no means been struck by lightning, however I’ve heard it strike, quote, “close by.” Close by, which means possibly 30 yards away. It is actually loud. And, I am curious: One–you did not write about this–one, why is it loud? And, secondly, when it fried your home equipment, did the ball lightning go away another mark, bodily manifestation in your home? Like scar, like burn marks or–?
Alan Lightman: No, it did not. It did not go away something. It did not go away something like that.
Russ Roberts: Had been you alone?
Alan Lightman: I used to be alone.
Russ Roberts: Did you yell? Do you keep in mind?
Alan Lightman: I am fairly positive that my spouse was in the home, and I feel I did yell.
Russ Roberts: However, she heard both the bang or the yell or each?
Alan Lightman: Yeah, she heard one thing. She both heard it or noticed it as a result of she was one other spectator and confirmed my expertise. I imply, I assumed possibly I imagined the entire thing.
Russ Roberts: Positive. And, one of many conceits of–I am blanking. Oh, encounters of the–I can not even keep in mind the title of it now. I feel it is Spielberg movie.
Alan Lightman: Encounters of the Third Form.
Russ Roberts: Is that what it’s? I can not even keep in mind the title now, however I feel one of many nice charms of that film is that for those who truly did see aliens, individuals wouldn’t deal with you kindly. And, I feel it may have been a comedy. I am positive there’ve been some comedies prefer it. However, a part of that film is watching how irritating and insufferable it could be to see one thing extraordinary that nobody believed you. And, what you simply described, a ball of sunshine coming by way of the sky and virtually hitting you and going into the home–I am glad your spouse heard the noise. That is all I’ll say.
Alan Lightman: Proper. Effectively, I hear you and I perceive what you are saying.
Russ Roberts: It is Shut Encounters of the Third Form. That is the title, sorry.
Alan Lightman: Yeah, Shut Encounters of the Third Form.
However, there are lots of people that declare to have seen UFOs [unidentified flying objects] and different kinds of supernatural phenomena. After all, the UFO just isn’t supernatural, however there are folks that say that they noticed supernatural occasions. And, science requires that phenomena be repeatable so as to be plausible. I imply, there are particular exceptions to that just like the origin of our universe occurred solely as soon as, and but science nonetheless believes it as a result of there’s a whole lot of proof and a whole lot of fingerprints of that occasion.
However, the tactic of science is that one thing ought to be reproducible. It ought to be witnessed by a couple of individual, and so forth. That is simply the best way that science works. It is a very conservative means of science. We’d like a whole lot of proof to imagine one thing. I feel there are each pluses and minuses to that method. However, on the entire, science has executed very effectively for us civilized individuals; and it has introduced us antibiotics and every kind of cell telephones and all the opposite components of our fashionable world has been dropped at us by science and expertise.
Russ Roberts: Do you’ve got a thought on why it is so loud, lightning, when it strikes, or when a chunk of ball lightning ricochets off your eating room wall?
Alan Lightman: Effectively, after all, thunder–I imply, lightning is related to thunder. And, thunder, I am fairly positive is when there is a area of house the place there is a strain wave and it is first evacuated from air, after which the air rushes again in; and that is what makes the sound. I imply, in spite of everything, sound is simply vibrating molecules of air. That is what sound is. So, it has one thing to do with eradicating the air from a area after which having it rush again in.
Russ Roberts: And, after all, we all know sound travels slower than mild, so there is a delay there.
Alan Lightman: Sure, we see the lightning bolt first after which hear the sound.
Russ Roberts: I imply, does each lightning bolt have thunder? Generally we simply do not hear it?
Alan Lightman: No, I do not assume so. I imply, I am not an knowledgeable on lightning, however I do have a chapter of it within the e-book. However, I do not assume that each lightning bolt has thunder related to it. And naturally, static electrical energy, which is expounded to lightning and all electrical phenomena, it does not have any sound in any respect related to it.
Russ Roberts: A pair locations within the e-book you discuss concerning the function of coloration in nature, and naturally, as human beings, we like–for no matter motive, one other mystery–we like coloration; and we like a mandarinfish. And, if you have not seen one of us, you can purchase Alan’s e-book or you may cheat and Google Picture it. However, animals tend to specialise in both being colourful or not colourful, and there is a Simply So story afterwards to attempt to perceive these two variations. However, these tales make sense.
However, one piece I struggled with–and I do know this however I do not perceive it–some animals use coloration to sign that they are harmful as a result of they’re toxic. You speak about frogs; the mandarinfish is an instance, as a result of basic coloration does not make sense. There is a mating benefit generally, however basically, coloration is dear since you’re simply seen, and which means your predators can see you.
How is it attainable for a predator to be taught that you simply’re harmful? As a result of, if I eat you and I die–
Alan Lightman: Then you definately’re dead–
Russ Roberts: Yeah. That is drawback primary. And, I even have very little–if I am a fish, there’s colleges of fish, however there’s not that many fish colleges the place child fish can be taught that mandarinfish are toxic and it is best to keep away. How does that work?
Alan Lightman: Yeah. Effectively, there are two methods it may work, and doubtless each of them function. One is that for those who’re a predator and you are taking a small chew out of a mandarinfish–let’s simply say–and you get some poison that makes you very sick, that does not kill you, then you definitely would know to keep away from fish that appear like that sooner or later.
The opposite mechanism that most likely additionally operates is that as a matter of pure choice, that in case your ancestor fish–well, it must be half is identical as the primary example–that for those who have been a predator of a mandarinfish and took a small chew that made you sick however did not kill you, then the descendants of yours, which had genes that acknowledged the mandarinfish as being harmful, that these fish would survive–that these predators would survive–and those that did not have the genetic make-up to be cautious of this specific colourful fish would not survive.
So, I feel that pure choice operates, however I additionally assume that most likely even with out going a number of generations and taking into consideration Darwinian evolution, that there are most likely some predators who’ve had unhealthy experiences with mandarinfish and getting a little little bit of poison, however not sufficient to kill them.
Russ Roberts: And naturally, that might permit different fish to grow to be colourful imitating the toxic ones and free-riding on their–
Russ Roberts: Proper. If it really works that effectively.
Alan Lightman: Their adaptation, they might adapt to that.
Russ Roberts: After which they might use it for mating or no matter.
Russ Roberts: Let’s transfer to a few of my favourite issues within the e-book that I discovered, and I’ll ask you some follow-up questions. I by no means considered it: Mount Everest is the very best mountain on the face of the earth. It is 29,000-plus ft. I used to be shocked to be taught it could not be a lot increased. Clarify. There may by no means be a 80,000-foot mountain on the earth and there are increased mountains than Everest on Mars. Why is that?
Alan Lightman: Effectively, I feel the reason being associated to why glaciers can transfer. That’s, because the mountain will get increased and better, there’s an increasing number of strain on the backside of the mountain. And, sooner or later, there’s a lot pressure–because there’s extra strain, as a result of there’s extra weight because the mountain will get increased. And, sooner or later, the strain on the backside can liquefy the bottom beneath it, after which the mountain just isn’t standing on a stable basis anymore. And, that liquid can escape and restrict the peak of the mountain since you’ve taken away a part of the bottom of the mountain.
So, it has to do with the quantity of gravity: the burden of the mountain exerts a pressure–and after all, the burden is expounded to gravity–the strain on the base of the mountain principally melts the underside of the mountain when it will get above a sure peak. And, planets with decrease gravity and subsequently much less strain on the base can have taller mountains.
Russ Roberts: Presuming there is a ample drive within the up-thrust over time. It isn’t just like the mountain tries to be more durable [?higher?–Econlib Ed.] or individuals attempt to construct a much bigger one.
Alan Lightman: Yeah, proper.
Russ Roberts: Hummingbirds: When wings flap 1200 occasions per minute, that is actually quick. And, they do it in a means that you simply described within the e-book as kind of semicircular oscillation. It isn’t fixed. I imply, it is not the identical each time. It jogs my memory just a little little bit of treading water, a bizarre movement–which can be exhausting to describe–that you do along with your arms to remain in place. I’ve a reminiscence that almost all animals apart from people stay for roughly the identical variety of heartbeats–
Alan Lightman: Variety of heartbeats–
Russ Roberts: That means their hearts put on out after just about the identical variety of beats. So, I assume hummingbirds do not stay very lengthy. Is that appropriate? Are you aware?
Alan Lightman: I do not know the reply to that query. It is a good query. My guess isn’t any, they do not stay very lengthy. In addition they have a really excessive charge of metabolism. I imply, to provide the big power must flap 1200 occasions a minute. And I feel that is additionally a restrict to their lifespan–that the upper the metabolism we’ve, the extra that we’re taxing the physique; and the components simply put on out.
Russ Roberts: Yeah. You additionally level out they get actually heat as a result of they’re flapping their arms actually exhausting, their wings.
Alan Lightman: Proper. That is fairly apparent: that motion creates warmth.
Russ Roberts: And they also need to dissipate it.
Alan Lightman: They need to dissipate it, and so their our bodies are designed to dissipate warmth effectively. It is kind of the identical motive why camels have a lot of the fats of their our bodies in a hump in order that the remainder of their our bodies may be skinny: the pores and skin may be skinny and might dissipate warmth simply as a result of got here camels–this was not a chapter of the book–but camels, which stay in sizzling locations, want to have the ability to dissipate warmth simply and effectively.
Russ Roberts: Presumably they do not pant, which is the opposite means that some canine launch warmth.
Alan Lightman: Sure. Proper, precisely proper. I’ve by no means seen a panting camel, however that might be one other approach to maintain cool.
Russ Roberts: I used to be shocked to learn that there have been about 9 million lightning strikes per day on our Earth. That appears implausible, however I’ll take it as roughly true. It is clearly not a census; it is not a exact quantity. Lengthy-time joke on this system: When you stated 9,357,640, I most likely would discover it much more believable. However–
Alan Lightman: I would not say that.
Russ Roberts: I know you would not since you’re a severe individual, in contrast to many economists–inside joke for listeners. However, how do we all know that and is a strike which means it lands, it hits the Earth?
Alan Lightman: No, I feel that that simply signifies that they’re seen. 9 million strikes are seen, lightning bolts are seen; and I feel most locations on Earth have climate stations that report this stuff. However, even when you do not have a climate station in each hundred sq. miles of the Earth, you’ll be able to nonetheless take a look at the locations the place you do superb recording statistics and you may extrapolate from that to different components of the Earth. So, that is most likely the best way that that quantity was computed.
Russ Roberts: That is very cool.
Saturn has 146 moons. What number of, if any, are as large as ours? Are you aware? If some are greater, how large? What is the largest moon in our photo voltaic system? Is it ours? Are you aware? And, why does Saturn have so many?
Alan Lightman: No, ours just isn’t the most important.
Russ Roberts: Why does Saturn have so many?
Alan Lightman: Effectively, it’s most likely related–although I do not know for sure–to the explanation why it has rings, though the full mass within the rings is not–is little or no.
However, it comes all the way down to the formation of planets, which was the condensation of fabric out of an enormous revolving gasoline cloud across the solar when our photo voltaic system first shaped. And, there have been numerous fragments in that gasoline cloud, and there have been different objects that broke up. There have been collisions between totally different fragments. And, I do not know precisely why Saturn has so many moons, however I do know that the circumstances round every planet have been just a little bit totally different. And, it was most likely simply an accident of the circumstances round Saturn. It is most likely not unrelated to the truth that Saturn has the rings, which additionally got here from particles on the time that the photo voltaic system was shaped.
I do know that our moon just isn’t the most important moon within the photo voltaic system. And, whether or not or not you name one thing a moon or a planet is considerably arbitrary. I feel we normally outline moons as smaller our bodies than planets which are orbiting issues that we name planets.
And, after all, if a planet will get massive sufficient, then it turns into a star. I imply, if a mass turns into massive sufficient, then the temperatures at its middle are excessive sufficient to begin nuclear reactions, which is the power supply of stars. So, Jupiter, after all, is the most important planet in our photo voltaic system. And, if Jupiter have been, say, 10 occasions the mass that it’s, it may have been a star.
Russ Roberts: I chorus from asking whether or not it ever has any disappointment about that.
Russ Roberts: However, I truly need to ask a semi-serious query alongside these strains earlier than I neglect. At one level you write–you’re speaking about wanting up at 100 billion stars. I feel you are wanting on the Milky Method. Most of them–this is a quote now:
Most of them with their very own photo voltaic methods, and virtually definitely a few of these photo voltaic methods have been inhabited by dwelling beings, most likely a few of them smarter than us. Due to the huge distances of house, we are going to most likely by no means keep in touch with these different beings, but we’re fellow spectators on this unusual place of a universe we discover ourselves in. We, clever and dwelling beings, constituting solely a small fraction of the full mass of the universe, are the one means by which the universe can observe itself, the one means by which the universe has self-awareness.
Shut quote. Some individuals assume that every little thing has some stage of consciousness. That paragraph suggests to me that you do not agree with that. Am I proper?
Russ Roberts: I feel [inaudible 00:53:22] my Jupiter comment, proper?
Alan Lightman: Sure, proper. Effectively, consciousness is sort of definitely a graded phenomenon. It isn’t an all or nothing phenomenon. So, I feel crows and dolphins have a reasonably excessive stage of consciousness, though most likely not as excessive as human beings. We all know that they will acknowledge themselves in mirrors. We all know that crows play with one another or they exhibit exercise that appears very very like our play.
However, I feel as you go down the ladder of the animal kingdom and also you get to smaller and smaller brains, that the psychological capabilities lower. And I feel sooner or later, and the place you draw the road might be considerably arbitrary, however sooner or later that the entire psychological exercise that we affiliate with consciousness does not exist. I do not assume an amoeba might be aware in any significant sense. I additionally don’t assume that inanimate matter like rocks are aware. I do not assume they do any pondering in any respect. So, it is a graded phenomenon.
Russ Roberts: You are smiling while you say that, though there are individuals who assume in any other case, proper?
Alan Lightman: Oh, I do know there are individuals who assume in any other case. However, from every little thing in neuroscience, the thoughts and the mind are the identical factor. And it is only a query of what number of neurons you’ve got received and what number of connections there are between the neurons.
It isn’t absolutely the variety of neurons that results in increased mind exercise and experiences like consciousness. It is also the variety of connections between them, which we name synapses. So, I am positive that individuals who have pets, significantly canine, that they really feel like that these canine are actually in tune with them emotionally. And so, there is definitely some stage of consciousness there. However, you actually need to outline what you imply by consciousness. And, I feel there are various ranges of consciousness.
Russ Roberts: However, what concerning the universe as an entire? Or, lots of people wax poetic about how the Web has made the Earth aware, or us conscious–whatever that means–that we’ve some emergent stage of quote, “understanding,” crowdsource, no matter you need to, I do not know what you name it–some crowdsource stage of consciousness, information, perception. Do you imagine in any of that?
Alan Lightman: So, if I can rephrase your query, are you asking whether or not a group of clever beings can have kind of a group consciousness? And, I feel that is a matter of semantics. I imply, you may say that every little thing that human beings have created, all of our artwork and science and our civilization and our cities and buildings, that that may be a group exercise, and actually you’ll be able to interpret that as one mega-being, one mega-consciousness. And, you are able to do that if you would like.
However, I feel that every of us human beings has a really robust sense of being a separate entity, an impartial entity. There is a boundary between me and the lamp on my desk, and we’re not the identical factor and I am separate from it. And, I do not hear the ideas of different individuals in my mind, though that might change in 50 or 100 years.
So, we do have such a powerful sense of being impartial beings that I feel that we are impartial beings in any significant sense. And any group consciousness that you simply attribute to a bunch of human beings is a metaphor or an interpretation or a philosophical assertion.
Russ Roberts: I’d describe it as a type of romance. We wish to belong, human beings, and there is one thing romantic, poetic, no matter you need to describe it, religious, about the concept that we’re related to the lamp or the sunset–or, you and I are speaking; we have by no means met. We’re each born in Memphis, Tennessee. We each lived within the Boston space. We’ve got this connection. I’ve learn Einstein’s Goals, which one among your earliest books–which is an excellent, advisable to listeners. So, I connect with you in a sure means. However, I’ll die and you are going to die. And that connection might be severed, presumably. And, it would even be severed once we hold up the Zoom name in any actual sense. However I do not like that concept. I feel a part of the attraction of faith is–and different types of romance–true or not, is that they converse to this urge for belonging that we’ve.
Alan Lightman: Sure, I agree with every little thing you stated. I had forgotten that you simply and I have been each born in Memphis, Tennessee. However I feel that our feeling of belonging and want to belong–and sure different emotions that we’ve, together with our appreciation of beauty–I feel that these emotions have been hardwired into us by way of pure choice. When you return a few million years in the past when our species was rising, Homo–I do not know whether or not that is a genus or I feel that is, I suppose, a genus; I used to be by no means that good with zoological categorizations–that once we lived in caves–and I feel we all know from archeology that normally there have been 15 or 20 individuals to a cave, one thing like that–that we relied on one another for survival. The hunters went out and gathered meals, and the others stayed within the cave, saved the hearth going, and took care of the youngsters, and so forth.
We have been a extremely interdependent neighborhood in these early days. And, if one among us received separated from the group–went out on a stroll from the cave and could not discover their means again or something–it was a fast loss of life. And so, there was–the sense of being related to different individuals and needing different individuals was actually necessary as a survival technique. So, I feel that that want was constructed into our brains as a survival technique.
Now, that will de-romanticize the great feeling of being related to different individuals and being related to nature. So, I feel it is a beautiful feeling, and it is one thing that I honor and treasure. However, I do assume that it has a scientific or an evolutionary rationalization. Like most of the issues that we expertise and the ways in which we relate to the world and even the issues that we worth had an evolutionary origin. We’re animals, and we’re magnificent animals. We have created artwork and science and philosophy, and even economics; however ultimately, we’re animals. That is what Charles Darwin informed us. And, it does not make us any much less magnificent to say that we’re related to chimpanzees and dolphins and crows.
Russ Roberts: Yeah, I feel the explanation you forgot I used to be from Memphis is I haven’t got any accent from my birthplace. I lived there a yr, however my dad and mom grew up there. And so, once they can be in Boston, the place we lived for nearly a decade, they might lose a whole lot of their accent. I hear it in your voice; it is nonetheless there. However, once they would go dwelling to Memphis or discuss on the cellphone to somebody from Memphis, it could get stronger. I assume that is true for you, too. I am positive there’s an evolutionary rationalization for it as effectively.
Russ Roberts: However, I need to shut with an commentary. It isn’t a coherent thought, so I am not going to attempt to make it a query, however I’ll allow you to simply reply to it. You used a standard metaphor–that, after all, you did not imply literally–when we talked about creation, you stated: The fingerprints of the creation are nonetheless current. And, I could not assist however take into consideration the Sistine Chapel and the ceiling the place Michelangelo imagines God animating human beings with a fingertip. It is a magnificent factor. And as you alluded to briefly in our dialog and within the e-book, people have created some actually extraordinary, lovely things–through intention. The Sistine Chapel is one among my prime 10, probably–the ceiling of it.
And we do not like–I do not know, possibly you’re feeling differently–but as human beings, and whether or not this is–you can consider this as both evolutionary or divine–we like causation quite a bit. We like the concept that there’s fingerprints. There’s issues that trace on the origins of issues. And, it is simply attention-grabbing how compelling that’s. And, I do know you did not imply that that means, and I do not imagine that God has a hand. I do not even know if Michelangelo thought God had a hand. However he needed to indicate one thing causal there. Anyway, simply any ideas on that?
Alan Lightman: Effectively, we need order. And, I feel that is on the root of what you are speaking about: that we do not need to live–I imply, the universe is unusual sufficient as it’s. And we shudder on the thought that issues can occur randomly and unintentionally with out cause-and-effect relations. It simply means something may occur. You would begin floating up within the air, or the books in your bookshelf may begin popping out at any second, or the solar may flip right into a pumpkin. You recognize–we want–because the universe is as unusual as it’s, we wish there to be some rationalization, some motive, some cause-and-effect relations for every little thing that we see.
And, that was actually a part of the motivation of a well-known e-book written 2000 years in the past by the Roman poet Lucretius, who wrote a e-book known as The Nature of Issues, wherein he instructed the atomic course of: that every little thing is made out of atoms that obey cause-and-effect relations, every little thing is materials. And, a part of the motivation was to decrease the facility of the gods to carry out acts at random and upon whimsy. And, that was one of many motivations for his proposing the fabric atomic speculation underlying all phenomena: to decrease the facility of the gods. I imply, he nonetheless believed within the gods, however he thought that they need to keep of their place and allow us to human beings conduct our lives as we wish to.
Russ Roberts: However, we do like order. And, on the similar time, as you level out within the e-book, you need some type of unpredictability. You do not like the concept that we’d actually know every little thing about what’s coming subsequent.
Alan Lightman: Sure. Effectively, you are proper and that is one other attention-grabbing side of our human minds.
I feel it is associated to the very fact that–and my spouse is a painter, and he or she all the time talks to me about what makes a superb painting–and a very symmetrical portray just isn’t as attention-grabbing as a portray that has just a little little bit of asymmetry or a portray that has just a little dot of purple paint over within the right-hand corner–something that breaks the proper symmetry.
So, it is an attention-grabbing facet of the human thoughts and the human psyche that though we like most issues to be orderly and predictable and symmetric, can we additionally like just a little little bit of unpredictability.
And, for those who learn a novel and the actions of characters are utterly predictable, the novel just isn’t as attention-grabbing to you. It is all the time good to have just a few surprises.
Russ Roberts: Positive. My visitor at present has been Alan Lightman. His e-book is The Miraculous from the Materials. Alan, thanks for being a part of EconTalk.
Alan Lightman: Effectively, thanks, Russ, for inviting me once more to be a part of your very stimulating program.
