Contents
- 5 Things I Learned From Neil deGrasse Tyson
- The Full Transcript
I've been booking and hosting PCMag's streaming interview series, The Convo, for nearly a year now. In that time, we've had many big names stop by for a chat—from best-selling authors and government officials to CEOs, scientists and former astronauts. However, none of these names attracted a live studio audience from the busy PCMag staff. That quickly changed when Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson stopped by our offices recently.
Tyson stopped by to talk about his new book, Welcome to the Universe, but the 50-minute conversation—which included questions from viewers watching live on Facebook—touched on many different geeky topics, including politics, education, the multiverse (also, "the metaverse"), Twitter beefs, which sci-fi movie "violated more laws of physics per minute than any other movie ever made," space colonization, and Bigfoot poop—just to name a few. And Tyson easily handled it all with wit, candor, and intelligence.
You can watch the full interview in this video, or read the whole transcript on the next page. But here are five important takeaways from our conversation
1. There's No Scientific Proof We're Not Living in a Giant Simulation
The notion that "reality" is actually a simulation concocted by a higher intelligence is a staple of modern science fiction. It's an idea that serious thinkers like Elon Musk reportedly take pretty seriously.
As technologies evolve, the idea that we might all be stuck inside a massive simulation has been transformed from high "what if" fantasy to a very real possibility. In fact, according to Tyson, current technologies present "a path of reasoning that makes it pretty compelling."
Today's most advanced machine-learning algorithms still don't come close to creating anything as complex as, say, Data from Star Trek, but they do allow machines to gain new abilities and come to conclusions they weren't originally programmed for—something akin to free will (at least based on a pre-determined logic). And these capabilities are only improving. Tyson took this concept a few steps further as evidence to support the idea that we may be inside a simulation.
"As we get better at programming our computers, and as computers get faster and smarter—as we approach AI—what is to stop us from writing a computer game that itself has characters that control their own destiny with a kind of free will?
"Well, if we do that perfectly enough with all the interactions of all the characters who's to say that we are not those characters playing out our lives in this world that is itself the simulation of someone who programmed this universe in their parent's basement? Some teenager, but way smarter than any of us, creates our universe. Here's where the reasoning becomes compelling.
"If you create an accurate enough representation of life, and that life has what it calls free will, and that's all a simulation, what's to prevent that life from programming their computers to make a simulation within themselves—and then it's simulations all the way down. So in that world, there's one real universe, but all the other universes that are created are simulations. Now you ask, 'What are the chances we are in the one real universe rather than in one of the uncountable simulations within simulations within the simulations?'"
In summation: If you were an infinitely looping robot in Westworld, how would you even know?
2. Science Denial Inevitably Leads to the End of Democracy
Tyson is very much the public face of science and he rarely (purposefully) wades into the current news cycle's political debates—except when science is at the center. But today's hyperpartisan culture wars have even managed to drag an astrophysicist into the fray.
In the bowels of the right-wing blogosphere you will find criticisms of Tyson's series Cosmos because he referred to Venus as having a run-away greenhouse effect (which, regardless of your views of fossil fuel policies here on Earth, happens to be absolutely true). So, how should a scientist—particularly, a science educator—go about maneuvering within this toxic political landscape?
"So, I've said this many times. I'll say it again. The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. Now, I should sharpen that. That's the catchphrase, but really, the methods and tools of science when invoked, what role they serve is they find what is true, completely independent of who it is that's doing the finding.
"If you get a result and I say, 'Well, I don't know if that's true or not. In fact, I think you're wrong.' I then design some experiment more clever than yours and I get an answer. Then we see if someone else from another country using a different power source, using a different bias get the same result. We have found an emergent scientific truth, and when you find those they are not later shown to be false. We can build on them, but when something is experimentally verified persistently, that is a new emergent truth.
"If you were in denial of that in a free country, sure. Go ahead. I don't even have an issue with that. A free country means freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Sure. But if now you have a position of power over others and you take your belief system, which is not based in objective truth, and apply it others who don't share your belief system—that is a recipe for disaster. It's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy."
3. Art and Science Can (And Must) Co-Exist
When I interviewed NASA deputy administrator Dava Newman, she was a vocal proponent of an emerging education movement known as STEAMED. It's an evolution of the familiar STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) acronym, plus the occasionally dropped-in "A" for Art (thus STEAM), and then rounded out with a "D" for Design (and therefore STEAMED).
Tyson is famous as an ambassador of science. However, in order to sell his logic-based agenda to a general audience, he's utilized the filter of the arts—be it through the slick sci-fi effects filter of his Cosmos series or in his podcast StarTalk, which he co-hosts with a revolving table of stand-up comedians and guests from various creative fields.
So, what is the ideal mix of science and the arts as we prepare the next generation for an increasingly technologically infused future?
"STEM, of course, became a very strong movement. It had a great acronym: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Just to remind people if you didn't otherwise know, the value of those four fields is incalculable in its role in driving the growth of an economy. If you care about money, the economy, and economic health, you cannot detach yourself from what role those four branches—that science literacy—plays in this. Innovations in those fields will be the engines of tomorrow's economy, and to the extent that you do not know that or invest that way is to the detriment of your economic health going forward.
"Now, the arts, they're always the whipping boy of budgets. 'Oh, we ran out of money. No room for arts, no money for arts, so the music class or this, and they're getting cut.' Et cetera. Et cetera. It's a noble effort to say, 'Let's put the A the STEM so we can carry it along,' but you have to be careful about that...because there's plenty of jobs and economic stability for people who are graphic artists, who are architects, or this sort of thing. Designers, set designers. There are jobs out there. That's not the issue. We're talking about what's going to grow an economy. What I want is art to make a case for itself without claiming that it has to be in STEM for STEM to do what it has to do. History shows that's just simply false."
At this point, I offered a bit of pushback using the example of Steve Jobs—a tech behemoth who famously saw Apple as being at the juncture of engineering and the liberal arts. You can see the entire exchange in the video above, but here was his response to that:
"No doubt about it. A beautiful machine is better than an ugly machine. No doubt about it. Whatever might be your motivations for creating that, if they're artistically driven, great. Another example of that is the flip phone, which, of course, debuted as a communicator in Star Trek, now in its 50th anniversary year—the flip phone comes out just like that. Now, of course, we're passed that, and that was supposed to be the 23rd-century communication. My point is that when you make a product, that's hugely influenced by design. Hugely. But the electromagnetic physics that's in the machine, the electronics, the quantum physics that's in that machine is not driven by art. That's all I'm telling you. I'm just being very candid about that.
"Now, if you want to make something beautiful that we live with, we have industrial design. By all means, connect it there. I'm telling you that the things that create tomorrow's economy are based on science, technology, engineering. and math. Those things then enable the artist to do beautiful and wonderful things.
"Now, with regard to art, I can tell you this. You can make a country based on STEM that has a thriving economy. You could do that, but if that country has no art, is it a country you would choose to live in? Of course not. No educated person would give that answer."
4. Humans Need to Explore Space, But They Better Not Forget About Earth
We live in exciting times. Not only are NASA and other federal agencies reaching out further than ever before, but we now have a viable private space industry. Some of this exploration is powered by the profit motive, some of it by the spirit of exploration, but there's also an existential element. We (meaning humanity and all life on Earth) face many big challenges—some of which we can control (say, nuclear war), some of which we can't (say, asteroid impact). If we are going to survive—in the big long run—we're going to need an insurance policy.
While Tyson very much sees the value in reaching further out into space (both in the spirit of exploration and for survival), he acknowledges that the massive amount of investment could also be used to fix some issues here on Earth. There's an altruistic value there—to look out for the little guy, i.e. those who would not have the means to be the first to escape our home planet. But it also might just be cheaper to fix the Earth than it would be to transfer our species to a new home.
One of our viewers asked Tyson about Stephen Hawking's recent 1,000-year warning for humanity to escape to another planet or face extinction due to some future disaster.
"Well, it depends on what kind of a disaster, of course. We're always susceptible, and in fact, what scares me most is that 100 years ago if you asked what's your biggest concern for our civilization people would say, 'Well, we might outstrip our food supply,' or, 'cholera,' or, 'tuberculosis.' No one was even in a position to say, 'One of our biggest risks is that we can be taken out by an asteroid,' because the data set didn't even allow us to know yet this other way that we could all be rendered extinct.
"That leaves me wondering, in 100 years what will we discover that will pose yet another risk? Something else we've got to worry about. An asteroid risk, that's real. Some kind of incurable virus, that's real. Total nuclear annihilation, it seems a little less likely post-Cold War than during Cold War, but none the less nuclear weapons are out there, so yeah. Or some unforeseen thing that we come up with in a century, yes.
"My issue with Stephen Hawking's comment is often he and others, Elon Musk as well, are using that argument to compel us to become a multi-planet species. If that's the case, and there's some affliction on one planet, then the species still survives. Now, you have to think of the practicality of that. It's, 'Oh, okay. A billion are going to die over there, but we're safe on this planet. Goodbye, half the human race.' I don't see how that plays well in headlines. What does it cost to terraform Mars and put a billion people there?
"Whatever it costs to terraform Venus and Mars, and ship a billion people to each planet, whatever that costs, it's probably cheaper to figure out how to deflect an asteroid. It's probably cheaper to find a perfect serum that cures you from any possible virus that could arise. It's probably cheaper to explore sources of food so that we don't render ourselves as a starved, extinct species. I'm thinking that's probably easier to accomplish than terraforming two planets and shipping a billion people there, and then having the ethical dilemma that a third or a half of your species will be wiped out because you get to watch from another vantage point."
5. If Bigfoot Is Real, Where Is His Poop?
People keep claiming he's out there. In fact, there are numerous "reality" cable TV shows based around that very idea. So, what does Tyson think?
"It's very hard to hide a 200-pound mammal because they poop. If you wanted to say Littlefoot was out there and it was a microbe, sure. That could easily evade our searches. But large, furry mammals that are presumably smelly and they poop, because everything poops, as the book tells us. I think it's very hard to hide such an animal, so I would go as far to say that, no, Bigfoot does not exist on Earth. "
Sorry, folks. There's no Bigfoot out there.
Continue Reading: The Full Transcript >>>
Back to top
- 1
- 2
By Evan Dashevsky Features Editor
More Stories by Evan
- The Best PlayStation 4 Black Friday Deals
Most of these deals are already live, so get shopping! More »
- How Humans Will Colonize Mars (Much Sooner Than You Think)
We chatted with Stephen Petranek, author of How We'll Live on Mars. More »
- Why T-Mobile's CEO Could Beat Donald Trump in 2020
Trump created the template. All you need is an executive with a boisterous personality and social me... More »
The Best PlayStation 4 Black Friday Deals 
Why T-Mobile's CEO Could Beat Donald Trump in 2020 See More +
Comments
Login or Register
blog comments powered by Disqus