Elly's story?

120513Can Physics and Philosopy get along-NYT.docx

MAY 10, 2012, 9:00 PM

Can Physics and Philosophy Get Along?

By GARY GUTTING

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.

Physicists have been giving philosophers a hard time lately. Stephen Hawking claimed in a speech last year that philosophy is “dead” because philosophers haven’t kept up with science. More recently, Lawrence Krauss, in his book, “A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing,” has insisted that “philosophy and theology are incapable of addressing by themselves the truly fundamental questions that perplex us about our existence.” David Albert, a distinguished philosopher of science, dismissively reviewed Krauss’s book: “all there is to say about this [Krauss’s claim that the universe may have come from nothing], as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.” Krauss — ignoring Albert’s Ph.D. in theoretical physics — retorted in an interview that Albert is a “moronic philosopher.” (Krauss somewhat moderates his views in a recent Scientific American article.)

Krauss’ mistake: his belief that scientific experiment is the “ultimate arbiter of truth” about the world.

I’d like to see if I can raise the level of the discussion a bit. Despite some nasty asides, Krauss doesn’t deny that philosophers may have something to contribute to our understanding of “fundamental questions” (his “by themselves” in the above quotation is a typical qualification). And almost all philosophers of science — certainly Albert — would agree that an intimate knowledge of science is essential for their discipline. So it should be possible to at least start a line of thought that incorporates both the physicist’s and the philosopher’s sensibilities.

There is a long tradition of philosophers’ arguing for the existence of God on the grounds that the material (physical) universe as a whole requires an immaterial explanation. Otherwise, they maintain, the universe would have to originate from nothing, and it’s not possible that something come from nothing. (One response to the argument is that the universe may have always existed and so never came into being, but the Big Bang, well established by contemporary cosmology, is often said to exclude this possibility.)

Krauss is totally unimpressed by this line of argument, since, he says, its force depends on the meaning of “nothing” and, in the context of cosmology, this meaning depends on what sense science can make of the term. For example, one plausible scientific meaning for “nothing” is “empty space”: space with no elementary particles in it. But quantum mechanics shows that particles can emerge from empty space, and so seems to show that the universe (that is, all elementary particles and so the things they make up) could come from nothing.

But, Krauss admits, particles can emerge from empty space because empty space, despite its name, does contain virtual fields that fluctuate and can give empty space properties even in the absence of particles. These fields are governed by laws allowing for the “spontaneous” production of particles. Virtual fields, the philosopher will urge, are the “something” from which the particles come. All right, says Krauss, but there is the further possibility that the long-sought quantum theory of gravity, uniting quantum mechanics and general relativity, will allow for the spontaneous production of empty space itself, simply in virtue of the theory’s laws. Then we would have everything — space, fields and particles — coming from nothing.

But, the philosopher says, What about the laws of physics? They are something, not nothing—and where do they come from? Well, says Krauss — trying to be patient — there’s another promising theoretical approach that plausibly posits a “multiverse”: a possibly infinite collection of self-contained, non-interacting universes, each with its own laws of nature. In fact, it might well be that the multiverse contains universes with every possible set of laws. We have the laws we do simply because of the particular universe we’re in. But, of course, the philosopher can respond that the multiverse itself is governed by higher-level laws.

At every turn, the philosopher concludes, there are laws of nature, and the laws always apply to some physical “stuff” (particles, fields, whatever) that is governed by the laws. In no case, then, does something really come from nothing.

It seems to me, however, that this is a case of the philosopher’s winning the battle but losing the war. There is an absolute use of “nothing” that excludes literally everything that exists. In one sense, Krauss is just obstinately ignoring this use. But if Krauss knew more philosophy, he could readily cite many philosophers who find this absolute use — and the corresponding principle that something cannot come from nothing — unintelligible. For an excellent survey of arguments along this line, see Roy Sorensen’s Stanford Encyclopedia article, “Nothingness.”

But even if the question survives the many philosophical critiques of its intelligibility, there have been strong objections to applying “something cannot come from nothing” to the universe as a whole. David Hume, for example, argued that it is only from experience that we know that individual things don’t just spring into existence (there is no logical contradiction in their doing so). Since we have no experience of the universe coming into existence, we have no reason to say that if it has come to be, it must have a cause. Hume and his followers would be entirely happy with leaving the question of a cause of the universe up to empirical science.

While Krauss could appeal to philosophy to strengthen his case against “something cannot come from nothing,” he opens himself to philosophical criticism by simply assuming that scientific experiment is, as he puts it, the “ultimate arbiter of truth” about the world. The success of science gives us every reason to continue to pursue its experimental method in search of further truths. But science itself is incapable of establishing that all truths about the world are discoverable by its methods.

Precisely because science deals with only what can be known, direct or indirectly, by sense experience, it cannot answer the question of whether there is anything — for example, consciousness, morality, beauty or God — that is not entirely knowable by sense experience. To show that there is nothing beyond sense experience, we would need philosophical arguments, not scientific experiments.

Krauss may well be right that philosophers should leave questions about the nature of the world to scientists. But, without philosophy, his claim can only be a matter of faith, not knowledge.

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. He is the author of, most recently, “Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy since 1960,” and writes regularly for The Stone.

120509경력재창조-HBR09-13.pdf

하버드 비즈니스 리뷰 블로그 네트워크

크리스토퍼 보위

크리스토퍼 보위는 제약 및 의료 산업에 정보를 제공하는 스크립 사의 미국 의료 분석 전문가이다.

자신만의 이야기를 만들어서 경력을 재창조하라.

2012년 5월 4일 금요일 / 크리스토퍼 보위 씀.

우리가 살아가는 이 곳처럼 혼란스러운 세계는 우리에게 엄청난 기회를 제공한다. 하지만 기회의 문을 두드리기 위해서는 우리 안에 내재된 장벽을 제거해야 한다.

주요 장벽은 경험을 분류하는 방식이다. 즉, 우리는 경험들을 한 가지 종류의 일이나 경력으로만 분류한다. 그런 분류를 피해야 한다. 그렇게 구분한 벽들을 부숴버리고 모든 경험과 지식, 기술을 섞어서 정확한 배합을 통해 새로운 자신을 만들어야 한다.

비교적 근간에 한 존경 받는 임원 전문 경력 전문가가 필자에게 “상자 속으로 들어가야” 한다고 말한 적이 있다. 즉, 잠재적 고용주들이 채워야 하는 상자 중 하나로 끼워 맞추기 위해 필자가 새로운 직종으로 이직하고자 구하던 중인 일자리의 종류 범위를 크게 축소시켜야 한다는 말이었다. 사실 그는 내 다양한 경험과 기술, 경력에 대한 기술이 상호 배타적이라고 말하고 있었다. 필자는 그가 위험스러운 잘못된 조언을 하고 있었다고 생각한다. 진정한 혁신이란 경계를 무너뜨려서 새로운 가치를 가진 무언가를 창조해야 하지 않는가?

필자는 4년이라는 기간에 두 개의 큰 경력을 쌓았다. 언론계를 떠나 빅 파머 사 최고경영자의 전략 고문으로 일한 후 산업체 분석 및 경영 컨설팅 분야로 이직했다. 특히 그런 경우들을 통해 내 인생을 통틀어 꾸준히 놀라웠던 점은 다양한 기술과 경험을 활용해서 나 자신을 재창조하고 음악인들이 음향 혼성기를 사용해서 가장 좋은 소리를 만들어 내는 일과 상당히 유사하게 가장 적합한 배합을 만들어 낼 수 있었던 방법이었다. (필자가 어릴 때 처음으로 가졌던 꿈은 락 음악을 하는 것이었다.)

혼성기는 소리크기 제어를 위해 수백 개의 조절기와 민감한 소리 조절 막대가 있는 크고 인상적인 계기판이다. 그런 조절 장치들은 각 악기를 조절하는 세로줄에 배열되어 있다. 실황이든 녹음이든 음악을 연주하는 밴드는 혼성기를 사용해서 목소리를 포함한 각 악기의 정확한 음색과 소리 크기를 혼합하여 완벽한 소리를 낸다. 혼성이 잘 되면 음악 소리는 각각의 악기와 목소리를 단순히 합친 소리보다 더 크고 좋은 소리로 변한다.

이것을 개인 혁신을 위한 모형으로 활용하기 위해서는 음향 혼성기에서 조절되는 악기처럼 삶에서 얻은 각각의 경험과 기술을 시각화해야 한다. 이 경험이 “더 큰 소리”를 내고 이 기술이 “더 작은 소리”를 낸다면 어떻게 될까? 다양한 일에서 얻은 오랜 경험들 중 어떤 종류가 자신의 전체적인 “소리”를 바꿀 새로운 방식으로 사용될 수 있을까?

필자가 고차원적으로 “혼성”시켜서 나 자신을 혁신시켰던 과거 경험 중 간단한 두 가지 예를 들어보겠다. 옛날에 필자는 여름 아르바이트로 (하수처리장이라고 부르던) 폐수 처리 공장에서 일한 적이 있다. 어느 날 프레드라는 말총머리 경력자가 필자에게 조언했다. “불도저를 운전할 수 있냐고 물으면 불도저를 운전하는 거야.”라고 말이다. 필자는 이 경험을 훨씬 더 높은 직위에 초점을 맞춰 대입해서 빅 파머 사의 최고경영자를 돕고자 이직했다. 그 경험이 없었다면 그 자리에 대해 생각도 못했을 지 모른다.

또 다른 일례는 자질 수행과 관련 있다. 과거 필자의 직책들은 필자를 최대한 청자의 입장에 있게 했다. 필자가 연출자 같은 자질을 가졌어도 그 소리는 필자의 배합 속에 사실상 최근까지 수십 년 동안 묻혀져 있었다. 이런 능력을고차원적으로 혼합한 결과 필자는 현장에 존재하는 새로운 방식을 더 많이 택하는 데 편안해짐으로써 분석 안들을 제시하고 경영 자문을 할 수 있었다.

새롭고 기발한 조합으로 자신을 만드는 경우의 수는 거의 무한하다. 음악 공연에서와 같은 실시간 이력에서 배합은 정적이지 않다. 다양한 노래의 다양한 부분에서 감정과 음색, 소리 크기의 변화가 필요하다. 이처럼 관객 앞에서 제 때 자신의 가치를 보여주는 자질의 “소리 크기”를 잘 조절하기 위해 항상 준비되어 있어야 한다.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/05/reinvent_your_career_by_writin.html#.T6lCa9WjDjE.facebook

120509Reinvent Your Career by Writing Your Own Narrative-H.docx

HBR Blog Network

CHRISTOPHER BOWE

Christopher Bowe is the U.S. health care analyst for Scrip, which provides information to the pharmaceuticals and health care industries.

Reinvent Your Career by Writing Your Own Narrative

1:45 PM Friday May 4, 2012  by Christopher Bowe 

A topsy-turvy world like the one in which we live offers us tremendous opportunities. But to tap them, we must remove the barriers within ourselves.

The crucial barriers are the ways we compartmentalize our experiences — keeping them uniquely bound to one kind of job or career. Avoid such compartmentalization. Break open those compartments and mix all of your experiences, knowledge, and skills into the precise blend that makes a new you.

Not long ago, I had a respected executive recruiter tell me I needed to "climb in a box" — drastically narrow what kind of work I was seeking to do in a new career move in order to get potential employers to fit me into one of the boxes they needed to fill. In effect, he was telling me that my various experiences, skills, and career narratives were mutually exclusive. I think that he was giving me dangerously wrong advice. Isn't real innovation supposed to blow through thresholds to create something of new value?

I've made two major career moves in the span of four years. I left journalism to work with a Big Pharma CEO as his counselor for strategic affairs and then transitioned to doing industry analysis and thought leadership. In those instances in particular and throughout my life the consistent surprise was how I could draw on different skills and experiences to reinvent myself and create the optimal mix much like musicians use sound mixing boards to create the best sound. (My first pursuit as a young man was to be a rock musician.)

A mixing board is a large, imposing console with hundreds of dials and sliding faders to control volume. They are arranged in columns that control each instrument. A band playing music, whether live or recorded, uses a mixing board to blend in the precise tone and volume of each instrument, including voices, to make a complete sound. When mixed well, the music sound is transformed into something bigger and better than the the sum of the individual instruments and voices.

To use this as a template for personal innovation, visualize each of your experiences and skills in life as an instrument controlled on a sound mixing board. What if this experience were "louder" and this skill were "quieter"? What kinds of old experiences from divergent things could be used in new ways to change the overall "sound" of you?

Here are two simple examples of past experiences I've "mixed" higher to innovate me. I worked at a wastewater treatment plant (the sewer plant, we called it) as a summer job way back. One day a pony-tailed veteran named Fred gave me some advice: "If they ask if you can drive the bulldozer, you drive the bulldozer." I brought this experience much higher into my focus when going to Big Pharma to work for the CEO. Without it, I might never have even positioned myself for the role.

Another singular example is with performing skills. Previously my career roles meant that I was in maximum listening mode. Although I had them, stagecraft-performing skills were virtually muted for decades in my mix until recently. Mixing these higher has helped me to be comfortable taking a new tack in being on stage more, presenting analytical ideas and thought leadership.

The permutations of building a new innovative mix of you are nearly endless. In a real-time career, as in live music, a mix does not stay static. Different parts of different songs require changes in feeling, tone, and volume. Similarly, one should always be prepared to tweak the "volumes" of what makes you valuable to your audience at the time.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/05/reinvent_your_career_by_writin.html#.T6lCa9WjDjE.facebook