David Deutch - The Fabric of Reality
Здесь есть возможность читать онлайн «David Deutch - The Fabric of Reality» весь текст электронной книги совершенно бесплатно (целиком полную версию без сокращений). В некоторых случаях можно слушать аудио, скачать через торрент в формате fb2 и присутствует краткое содержание. ISBN: , Жанр: Физика, Философия, на английском языке. Описание произведения, (предисловие) а так же отзывы посетителей доступны на портале библиотеки ЛибКат.
- Название:The Fabric of Reality
- Автор:
- Жанр:
- Год:неизвестен
- ISBN:0-7139-9061-9
- Рейтинг книги:4 / 5. Голосов: 2
-
Избранное:Добавить в избранное
- Отзывы:
-
Ваша оценка:
- 80
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
The Fabric of Reality: краткое содержание, описание и аннотация
Предлагаем к чтению аннотацию, описание, краткое содержание или предисловие (зависит от того, что написал сам автор книги «The Fabric of Reality»). Если вы не нашли необходимую информацию о книге — напишите в комментариях, мы постараемся отыскать её.
The Fabric of Reality — читать онлайн бесплатно полную книгу (весь текст) целиком
Ниже представлен текст книги, разбитый по страницам. Система сохранения места последней прочитанной страницы, позволяет с удобством читать онлайн бесплатно книгу «The Fabric of Reality», без необходимости каждый раз заново искать на чём Вы остановились. Поставьте закладку, и сможете в любой момент перейти на страницу, на которой закончили чтение.
Интервал:
Закладка:
As a warning against the unreliability of even informed speculation, let me revisit the ancient master builder of Chapter 1, with his pre-scientific knowledge of architecture and engineering. We are separated from him by so large a cultural gap that it would be extremely difficult for him to conceive a workable picture of our civilization. But we and he are almost contemporaries in comparison with the tremendous gap between us and the earliest possible moment of Tiplerian resurrection. Now, suppose that the master builder is speculating about the distant future of the building industry, and that by some extraordinary fluke he happens upon a perfectly accurate assessment of the technology of the present day. Then he will know, among other things, that we are capable of building structures far vaster and more impressive than the greatest cathedrals of his day. We could build a cathedral a mile high if we chose to. And we could do it using a far smaller proportion of our wealth, and less time and human effort, than he would have needed to build even a modest cathedral. So he would have been confident in predicting that by the year 2000 there would be mile-high cathedrals. He would be mistaken, and badly so, for though we have the technology to build such structures, we have chosen not to. Indeed, it now seems unlikely that such a cathedral will ever be built. Even though we supposed our near-contemporary to be right about our technology, he would have been quite wrong about our preferences. He would have been wrong because some of his most unquestioned assumptions about human motivations have become obsolete after only a few centuries.
Similarly, it may seem natural to us that the omega-point intelligences, for reasons of historical or archaeological research, or compassion, or moral duty, or mere whimsy, will eventually create virtual-reality renderings of us, and that when their experiment is over they will grant us the piffling computational resources we would require to live for ever in ‘heaven’. (I myself would prefer to be allowed gradually to join their culture.) But we cannot know what they will want. Indeed, no attempt to prophesy future large-scale developments in human (or superhuman) affairs can produce reliable results. As Popper has pointed out, the future course of human affairs depends on the future growth of knowledge. And we cannot predict what specific knowledge will be created in the future — because if we could, we should by definition already possess that knowledge in the present. {7}
It is not only scientific knowledge that informs people’s preferences and determines how they choose to behave. There are also, for instance, moral criteria, which assign attributes such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to possible actions. Such values have been notoriously difficult to accommodate in the scientific world-view. They seem to form a closed explanatory structure of their own, disconnected from that of the physical world. As David Hume pointed out, it is impossible logically to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Yet we use such values both to explain and to determine our physical actions.
The poor relation of morality is usefulness. Since it seems much easier to understand what is objectively useful or useless than what is objectively right or wrong, there have been many attempts to define morality in terms of various forms of usefulness. There is, for example, evolutionary morality, which notes that many forms of behaviour which we explain in moral terms, such as not committing murder, or not cheating when we cooperate with other people, have analogues in the behaviour of animals. And there is a branch of evolutionary theory, sociobiology, that has had some success in explaining animal behaviour. Many people have been tempted to conclude that moral explanations for human choices are just window-dressing; that morality has no objective basis at all, and that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are simply tags we apply to our inborn urges to behave in one way rather than another. Another version of the same explanation replaces genes by memes, and claims that moral terminology is just window-dressing for social conditioning. However, none of these explanations fits the facts. On the one hand, we do not tend to explain inborn behaviour — say, epileptic fits — in terms of moral choices; we have a notion of voluntary and involuntary actions, and only the voluntary ones have moral explanations. On the other hand, it is hard to think of a single inborn human behaviour — avoiding pain, engaging in sex, eating or whatever — that human beings have not under various circumstances chosen to override for moral reasons. The same is true, even more commonly, of socially conditioned behaviour. Indeed, overriding both inborn and socially conditioned behaviours is itself a characteristic human behaviour. So is explaining such rebellions in moral terms. None of these behaviours has any analogue among animals; in none of these cases can moral explanations be reinterpreted in genetic or memetic terms. This is a fatal flaw of this entire class of theories. Could there be a gene for overriding genes when one feels like it? Social conditioning that promotes rebellion? Perhaps, but that still leaves the problem of how we choose what to do instead, and of what we mean when we explain our rebellion by claiming that we were simply right, and that the behaviour prescribed by our genes or by our society in this situation was simply evil.
These genetic theories can be seen as a special case of a wider stratagem, that of denying that moral judgements are meaningful on the grounds that we do not really choose our actions — that free will is an illusion incompatible with physics. But in fact, as we saw in Chapter 13, free will is compatible with physics, and fits quite naturally into the fabric of reality that I have described.
Utilitarianism was an earlier attempt to integrate moral explanations with the scientific world-view through ‘usefulness’. Here ‘usefulness’ was identified with human happiness. Making moral choices was identified with calculating which action would produce the most happiness, either for one person or (and the theory became more vague here) for ‘the greatest number’ of people. Different versions of the theory substituted ‘pleasure’ or ‘preference’ for ‘happiness’. Considered as a repudiation of earlier, authoritarian systems of morality, utilitarianism is unexceptionable. And in the sense that it simply advocates rejecting dogma and acting on the ‘preferred’ theory, the one that has survived rational criticism, every rational person is a utilitarian. But as an attempt to solve the problem we are discussing here, of explaining the meaning of moral judgements, it too has a fatal flaw: we choose our preferences. In particular, we change our preferences, and we give moral explanations for doing so. Such an explanation cannot be translated into utilitarian terms. Is there an underlying, master-preference that controls preference changes? If so, it could not itself be changed, and utilitarianism would degenerate into the genetic theory of morality discussed above.
What, then, is the relationship of moral values to the particular scientific world-view I am advocating in this book? I can at least argue that there is no fundamental obstacle to formulating one. The problem with all previous ‘scientific world-views’ was that they had hierarchical explanatory structures. Just as it is impossible, within such a structure, to ‘justify’ scientific theories as being true, so one cannot justify a course of action as being right (because then, how would one justify the structure as a whole as being right?). As I have said, each of the four strands has a hierarchical explanatory structure. But the fabric of reality as a whole does not. So explaining moral values as objective attributes of physical processes need not amount to deriving them from anything, even in principle. Just as with abstract mathematical entities, it will be a matter of what they contribute to the explanation — whether physical reality can or cannot be understood without also attributing reality to such values.
Читать дальшеИнтервал:
Закладка:
Похожие книги на «The Fabric of Reality»
Представляем Вашему вниманию похожие книги на «The Fabric of Reality» списком для выбора. Мы отобрали схожую по названию и смыслу литературу в надежде предоставить читателям больше вариантов отыскать новые, интересные, ещё непрочитанные произведения.
Обсуждение, отзывы о книге «The Fabric of Reality» и просто собственные мнения читателей. Оставьте ваши комментарии, напишите, что Вы думаете о произведении, его смысле или главных героях. Укажите что конкретно понравилось, а что нет, и почему Вы так считаете.