- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It does not make much sense imo to discuss whether the temperature of the syrup is transmitted through the thermometer . . . no, through its mercury . . . no, from the light rays that bounce from the thermometer to your eyes; there is no one right answer.
Laura Miller mentions numerous points from the book as though they were Truth.
The reality is that that many points are controversial among physicists. There are several differing interpretations of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Many physicists believe that when energy turn to heat, it most definitely *does* lose its information. Many physicists are considering the possibility that order can arise from chaos (like galaxy formation from dust, or evolution of life from the primeval ooze). The heat death of the universe is by no means universally believed to be inevitable.
I also found it offensive that Ms. Miller felt the need to say, in esssence, that scientists are not necessarily unfeeling jerks. The problem is the condescension that without her having put in a good word for scientists, the default would be to assume the stereotype.
(I suspect her heart was in the right place, but it came out all wrong.)
One more thing: The idea that the universe is a giant computer is in no way original with the book author, but as old as the hills, being detectable even in the 18th-century writings of Leibniz. It is nowadays mostly obvious, as well, that the universe figures out in real time things like the exact orbit of the moon or how water splashes on the floor, things that our computers could *never* figure out exactly, and would take eons to determine the answer to a high enough accuracy.
