Alan Goodwin - Gravity's Chain

We live in fascinating times. First came Jack Mitchell and Superforce, now comes Frank Driesler and his Life Patterns. Science is on a rollercoaster and for most of us it’s becoming harder to predict where the ride will end. However, Driesler thinks he has all the answers and in his new self-published book sensation, The Patterns of Life , he sets out to answer them. He makes bold claims about changing the face not only of physics, but of biology, economics and even psychology. He doesn’t just want to change the way we do science; he wants to change its very nature. He tells Barbara Clay how he’s doing it and shares his thoughts about the future for the sometimes uneasy relationship between society and science.

What is so wrong with the old way of doing science?

I’m not saying everything that has been done should be thrown out. I just believe we have taken a wrong path and it’s time to put that right. The line from Galileo, through Newton to Einstein and now Mitchell is mathematical. However, although great technological advances have been built on this maths it doesn’t take us any closer to really understanding why things are the way they are. We have slaved for three centuries over equations that we hope will explain how everything works, but they don’t, not really. An equation might describe the orbit of the earth around the sun, but it can’t explain the simplest organism. It is time to find out what lies behind nature’s mask, to find out how things really work, not just an abstract mathematical description.

And you think you have the answer. Can you explain how it works?

The idea is rather simple. Instead of equations I use rules. For example, take spots on a cheetah. Our conventional teaching tells us that the array of patterns is the result of genetic mechanisms, but I really don’t think that’s right—nature is working to rules that create those patterns. On a computer I can generate a program that mimics the cheetah’s markings and the rules behind the program are really simple and quite basic. It’s the same with the solar system: if I draw the orbits of the planets I make a pattern, one that I can recreate on a computer with a program based on simple rules. Therefore one does not need a crafted mathematical formula to explain the orbits, all you need are the rules to make the pattern.

The beautiful thing is that you can reverse the process. I’ve written programs from which I find the resulting pattern mimics something found in the real world, for example a butterfly wing. From these simple rules grows complexity.

Who makes the rules?

I’m not sure anyone ‘makes’ them. The question is a philosophical or religious one and is no different from asking who or what made the equations that currently underpin physics. What I’m saying is that nature conforms to basic rules that are not mathematically based and to understand them we have to look beyond the maths because maths as a tool doesn’t help us here.

All those out there who struggle with maths should rejoice, because they will no longer be excluded from the scientific elite. Physics will no longer be a club where the price of admission is the cult of higher maths. It will also help people from all fields to contribute across the various disciplines.

This leads on to comments you’ve made about these rules crossing the boundaries of our science disciplines. Why is that important?

Specialisation is a curse on modern society. We cram ourselves into ever tighter compartments and we lose so much in the process. We fail to see the wider picture, fail to appreciate how everything is connected. This doesn’t just happen in science, it happens everywhere. We only have to look at law or medicine to see how specialisation forces people into increasingly small boxes. You can’t see the whole sky if you’re looking at a small patch out of the top of your box; just think about what you might be missing, what wonders might be out of sight. There might be this solitary grey cloud over your piece, but the rest is a beautiful blue.

What I like about the rule-based understanding of nature is that it breaks the walls down. If basic rules explain, for example, economics, which I think they do, then the physicist can do economics and vice versa. At the moment everything is disconnected and so people just don’t communicate with each other any more, they shout because there are all these box walls around. Who listens to the shouting man?

Do you think science and society communicate?

On the whole I don’t think they do communicate and that is a real loss. Part of the reason is that the deeper science becomes, the less the ordinary person understands.

Are we back to the maths thing?

That’s right. I mean, apart from a handful of physicists, who understands spiral field maths? Yet to truly understand Mitchell’s Superforce, one must know how the maths works. Those who don’t are excluded and rely on what others tell them. That robs almost everyone of true understanding. And if you don’t understand you can never truly appreciate.

It seems you’ve done a lot of talking about Mitchell over the past few months.

I think a lot of it has been exaggerated by the media, but there is a very basic difference between us. Don’t get me wrong: I think Mitchell has done some good things. Some of the work he has put into his show helps to explain the impact science has on our society and that’s a good thing. For example, helping people understand how Einstein has contributed to the laser and so to modern mass communications really does help to break open those boxes I’ve been talking about and it’s good for improving the communication between science and society. Yet, Mitchell himself is still in his own mathematical box, however smart and special that box might be. His theory doesn’t explain everything. I think it’s a really basic mistake to think that just because you can unite relativity and quantum you can explain the universe. In fact I think it’s arrogance beyond measure. In the past, physicists said that once we united these grand theories we would have an understanding of everything. Well, we have believed our own press, but, of course, it doesn’t explain very much of nature; it doesn’t explain why the butterfly has a patterned wing.

The other thing I’m unsure of about Mitchell is the way he goes about informing. He seems to live this lavish life of the rock star. Where is the humility? Where is the humanity for that matter? I think there’s a moral and ethical standard for a scientist and he’s eroding that standard by the way he conducts himself.

You seem to be questioning his ethics. Why?

In a way I am, yes. Let me explain. I think in many respects Francis Bacon has proved to be the greatest prophet in history. In 1627 he published The New Atlantis , which told the story of a traveller shipwrecked on the shores of a fabulous land where man has discovered that science can serve faith and restore him to the state of grace before the Fall. Man achieves this goal by controlling nature through the technologies that flow from science. This improves the people’s material lives and thus leads them to happiness. The land is ruled by Solomon’s House, a group of scientist priests who improve lives morally, not just materially.

In the hundreds of years following the book we took to heart the power of technology to control nature and improve our lives, but we left out the moral part. We’ve separated everything, so I come back to our boxes. But if we really want better lives we shouldn’t forget the moral aspect, in other words the moral effect of what scientists do.