I got to have dinner last night with Robin Hanson, who blogs at Overcoming Bias. Robin is a creative big-picture thinker, who took a twisting career path from physics through philosophy of science and artificial intelligence research to become a tenured professor of economics. He posed a question, which he just re-posed at his blog: what is the most surprising thing we’ve learned about the universe?
Obviously the right answer depends on a set of expectations; surprising to whom? I originally suggested quantum mechanics, and in particular the fact that the outcomes of experiments are not perfectly predictable even in principle. I think that was the most surprising thing to the people who actually discovered it, in the context of what they thought they understood. But what about the most surprising thing to our pre-scientific hunter-gather ancestors? I suggested the fact that the same set of rules govern living beings and inanimate matter, but if you have any better ideas feel free to chime in.
But we can ask the complementary question: what is the most surprising thing about the universe that we haven’t yet discovered, but plausibly could? Something that is not already reasonably excluded by experiments that we’ve done, but also wouldn’t be readily accommodated by a theoretical model. So “string theory is right” certainly wouldn’t count, but neither would “the proton is heavier than the neutron.”
I once discussed this with Bill Wimsatt on an episode of Odyssey (RealPlayer). I went with “reproducible violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” But there are plenty of other good possibilities; what if we discovered tachyons, or that there really was an Intelligent Designer? Suggestions welcome.
Past surprises, I am with you on quantum mechanics. Future ones? maybe subtle manifestations of quantum gravity on macroscopic scales. Don’t ask for details please, but we can probably all agree that would be surprising.
That would be surprising and interesting, but — most surprising? More than tachyons, or an intelligent designer?
I would be very surprised to learn that our universe doesn’t allow for the evolution of life.
Isn’t the second law more of a logical necessity than a physical phenomenon? More ways to have a scrambled egg than an unscrambled one (although actually, most restaurants offer more ways to have unscrambled eggs than scrambled ones).
The discovery of an intelligent designer would only surprise those who don’t believe in one – which is a relatively small group. The number of people mixing about with the tiny little quanta of the universe is also a small group, relatively speaking (Ha. For you Albert). So the prize for “most surprising” thing we could discover would have to surprise all of us or “most” of us, would it not?
Hal, it’s not a logical necessity. Even if there are more ways to have a scrambled egg than an unscrambled one, that doesn’t logically imply that every way is equally likely. It’s not hard to imagine irreversible fundamental dynamics that would lead entropy to decrease. (But the real world doesn’t seem to be like that.)
Maybe if scientists were able to prove mathematically that the Hokie-Pokie really IS what its all about. That would certainly blow minds.
My favorite is from the afterward of Carl Sagan’s novel Contact: deep in the digits of pi, we find a hidden message of overwhelming statistical significance.
If you haven’t read it, see, e.g. http://www.priups.com/riklblog/dec06/061220-sagan.htm
I think this falls in the category of discovery of an intelligent designer, but more specifically it is an example of what might provide truly compelling proof for someone like myself.
Sean, I didn’t tell you which subtle effects I have in mind, so at this stage it’s not either/or situation.
Most surprising discovery-to-be: Scientific proof that the bird is NOT the word.
The more I think about it, the more I’m shocked that we have yet to find evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. If in 20-30 years, after putting serious effort into examining all of the stars in the solar neighborhood (perhaps within a kpc radius), we still find no compelling evidence of intelligent life, I believe this would be profound. It suggests that either we’re unique and perhaps created by a higher power (which I don’t believe), or there is something inherent about intelligent beings that makes their civilizations extremely short-lived. This, to me, would be profound. Of course, it wouldn’t be an overnight discovery, but accumulated evidence over decades.
I think the most surprising thing to me would be if string theory were right after all.
That would show a distinct lack of imagination on part of the laws of physics.
“The more I think about it, the more I’m shocked that we have yet to find evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. If in 20-30 years, after putting serious effort into examining all of the stars in the solar neighborhood”
Really? You are surprised that we haven’t found intelligent life when we have been looking for only 10^-9 times the age of the universe?
Hello Sean
How about combining your suggestion of an intelligent designer, and JasonPace’s observation that this would only surprise a tiny minority?
Wouldn’t all parties be surprised if evidence emerged, from a suitably ostentatious miracle, that God exists, but then the Deity makes it clear that either (a) there is no personal immortality for humans, or (b) there is personal immortality, but God is malicious, not benign.
Hume thought he was undermining the argument from design by arguing that the state of the universe indicated a remarkably incompetent or malign Creator. Suppose this turns out not to be a joke, but a (by chance) correct inference, well founded on the available data?
Most suprising, I think: how un-central and un-special each of us, and people in general are, in the universe. You could say this is a more general expression of other statements here (same principles apply to living and non-living things; size of the universe.)
I would be pretty surprised if it turned out that P=NP.
And just for fun, finding out that we really lived in The Matrix would be interesting.
To GM Hurley: some of your questions are good cognitive exercises – I like to think of them as alternative theology. I mention a few scenarios in another blog:
http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com/2008/12/ghosts-unicorns-and-psychics.html
Any evidence for something we would currently consider supernatural, even as mild as parapsychology, would be a huge surprise to me.
Truly new laws of physics make for a more interesting thought experiment, perhaps.
Past surprise: the discovery that the universe obeys a set of rules that humans can understand.
Future surprise: if we were to discover that Earth is the only place that habours life (whatever we mean by “life”).
Finding a contradiction in the axioms of mathematics (say, ZF) would be the most surprising thing. Can’t rule that one out, strangely enough, at least not within the framework of the axioms themselves.
Finding closed time-like curves would be a close runner up, as would P=NP or =PSPACE (which actually follows from existence of CTCs).
How about something as simple as if it turns out that the known laws of physics only applying in our solar system? The most basic assumption of all astronomy and cosmology has been that the laws of the universe apply equally everywhere. What we discover that once you get outside our solar system, there are, say, the strength of the gravitation force increases. Or, hell, why not that there are four large spatial dimensions?
…what is the most surprising thing about the universe that we haven’t yet discovered, but plausibly could?
How about analytic solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for turbulent flow? Or would that be a mathematical surprise, rather than a physical one?
Also, I’d pay good money to see anyone blow interlocking smoke rings.
I would be most surprised by any sort of faster than light travel or time travel. So basically, I agree with you on tachyons.
Those who speak of Omega Point ( I associate that with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the deceased Jesuit priest who was trained as a geologist too but spent much time on paleontology, and thinks in an unconventional Catholic or Christian way, in that, where popular Christian thinking is that God comes and brings those saved to heaven, Teilhard thinks that, mankind by their own boot strapping efforts will bring themselves to God) Teilhard credits species man with a lot of potential because through his science studies, and field work, he saw the efforts of man from antiquity and how far had come by their own efforts and thus I think he projects the exponential effort to specie man who is then able to bring specie man to God.
Somehow between “here” and “Omega Point” , something/s or many things must happen, be it leap of consciousness, deepened understanding, broader deeper knowledge, news way of perception, deepened perception, new or different ways of analysis, that, come to bear that brings us from “here” to “Omega Point”, it being another matter whether we specie man will be extinct before or at Omega Point.
On the surface, it might be there are those who think there is or can be discovered road map/s to Omega Point, and there could be those who do not even consider directly a or any road map/s to Omega Point.
If Teilhard de Chardin represents those who think that specie man will one day, reach Omega Point on their own boot strapping efforts, without intervention of God. Then I wonder whether Dalai Lama, thinks there is no issue of Omega Point, but nonetheless, by his teaching from the Mahayana school (of Buddhism) that it is better to delay crossing over to Nibbana till every sentient life has crossed over, and that is against the background that he thinks it will take 30,000 to 40,000 eons of personal effort through rebirths in that immense long span of time (not clear what an “eon” is) one can infer that, when that happens when all sentient life cross over to Nibbana, then Omega Point is reached.
The idea of Omega Point, seems to arise in midst of science and theism ( or even pantheism, like those who attribute pantheist to Einsten) , and the idea of all sentient life crossing over to Nibbana arises in midst of Buddhism. Whatever the terminology or conceptualization, it envisages long spans of time, as well as lot of personal and specie human effort, collective effort, and provides room for envisaging that there could arise new modes of analysis to supplement enhance old archaic modes of analysis and perception. Does it also mean some sleeping gene in our specie human will kick in? Or we will develop new functionalities or new multi dimensional analysis. I do not know.
I really like someone’s remark above about finding a message in the digits of Pi. It would have to be compelling, that is clearly unlikely to arise due to arbitrary choice of decipher.
To me this ranks among “most surprising” not because it might be seen as indicating a designer — I agree with posts above that that wouldn’t surprise most people, even if it surprises people who prioritize explanations based on their simplicity. To me it’s so surprising because it indicates the designer even designed mathematics! That is to say, not even math is above god.
I can’t imagine how it could be “discovered,” but any clear indication that mathematics itself is not absolute, that for example it is a construct of our history and experience, should also be considered as most surprising.