COMMENSAL ISSUE 91

Morality (Dave Botting, C90/5 ; Michael Nisbet, C90/10-12 ): Further to Rick Street's comment ( C90/29 ) it could well be that morality simply evolves, like fingers and brains, and involves just about as much choice as they do. It aids the common, though ultimately the selfish, good; and promotes the survival of an optimum number of individuals for whatever are the prevailing conditions. This suggests that morality changes over time under its own momentum. Is this the essence of the 'Voluntaristic Fallacy' (Theo, C90/36-42 )? Social morality breaks down when the optimum is breached by that increase in numbers or deterioration in conditions which individuals regard as threatening to their own well-being. Historically, it might seem that having a war at that stage was an efficient, it perhaps unintentional, remedy: naturally selecting the peaceful from the violent. Of course, the best war for the purpose would involve volunteer armies fighting each other; rather than protecting themselves the most and involving the innocent as much as possible, which has characterised military thinking since carpet bombing and nuclear weapons. However, the danger to a society of not having a war when one is needed may be internal anarchy. Is this where choice might come in? Either way, it could be we're now headed back to the caves ready for the next major evolutionary step!

Zero Ducks and Other Uncertainties (Theo, C90/10 ): 'mathematics is the most precise language we've got' falls short of a ringing endorsement of mathematical precision but I'll gloat briefly by just saying that after four thousand years (or more?) maths still doesn't know its curve from its straight. In the matter of the positive negative it would serve little purpose to try to justify my perhaps clumsy introduction via the root of the negative so let me skip on to a physical analogy. Is an electron less than a positron? Would their mutual annihilation result in a zero? Except in the well-known field of mathematical fiction called accountancy a 'negative duck' would be a lot more than a promissory note: it would have the power to annihilate a duck; leaving a state which would give the impression of containing zero ducks; but which would contain a virtual duck and a virtual negative duck: a state from which Stephen Hawking could grow an entire duck universe! Incidentally, understanding the dictum, 'Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. Matter reacts back on space , telling it how to curve.' begs not the maths but a definition of the term 'Space'. Without such definition it would have marginally more meaning if you substituted the term 'rice pudding'. Of course, imagining a space full of virtual particles, virtual ducks, ..and.., yes, virtual rice pudding might well be persuasive enough for anyone to conclude that it had more than sufficient power to 'act'. ( ... and science thinks religion is metaphysical?! - pots and kettles)

Soul and Evolution (Nina Burton, C90/15 ): You ask: ‘why would we have an existence beyond our physical selves if we are just a passing stage' (on 'the evolutionary ladder’). The question itself assumes the belief to be: 'I am a body which has a soul', as indeed does most writing on this matter. If you substitute: 'I am a soul which has a body' then the problem may be resolved. Matter is freed to evolve and souls are freed to inhabit some dimensionless realm on/in which matter develops to the point at which the awareness of the soul can emerge constructively within the maelstrom of what is demonstrably purely apparent existence. Of course, this begs questions of awareness. Is it just electronic jiggery-pokery which would be equally at home in a brain or on a bit of silicon, or is it something more? I fear that these are questions you can only ask of yourself. Perhaps some individuals are aware and some are robots (Mike Rossell, C90/17 ). How could we find out which ?

Anthony Owens

Previous Article (in Commensal 90)

Anthony : As usual, I have to take issue with you on your philosophy of mathematics. What do you mean by saying that "maths still doesn’t know its curve from its strait" ? Why, also, do you think it has trouble with the term space ? Have you tried reading any book on general relativity where the concept is discussed ? I won’t enter into it here as I’d only end up tying myself in knots. Besides, it’s a topic for PhySIG.

With respect to negative electrons, you will find that there is a subtle difference between a positron and the absence of an electron. The latter is termed a hole and features in semiconductors. It is simply a missing electron. When an electron turns up, the hole is filled and we end up with nothing. Things are much different with positrons. This is an anti-electron, not a missing electron, and its interaction with an electron leads to their mutual annihilation in favour of photons (gamma radiation). There would be a similar distinction between a negative duck and an anti-duck, though the latter would be rather difficult to construct ! To ask whether an electron is less than a positron doesn’t make sense. The charge on an electron is equal & opposite to that on a positron. Minus 1 is less than plus 1, but this isn’t telling us anything meaningful about electrons & positrons as the sign is a mere convention. In any case, comparing the particles is not the same as comparing their charges, or masses, or other properties.

Mathematics is a collection of models which can sometimes, amongst other things, be applied to physical situations in order to make concrete predictions. Using the wrong model won’t give you the right answer.

Theo