The Limits of Technology
One of the most intriguing things about some of the concepts developed in some 
books concerning modern physics, and especially, although not entirely, those 
concerning some of the philosophical repercussions of the theory of Quantum 
Mechanics and its subsidiaries, is the scale of imagination being utilised.  
The arts are usually considered to be the area of the imagination, but in many 
respects in recent years, it is possible to argue that the arts have become 
more conservative.  This may be due to many possible aspects of contemporary 
life - economic conditions, concern over the environment, concern over personal 
issues, the apparent breakdown in family cohesiveness, the pervasiveness in some 
areas of certain philosophies, but the fact is that much contemporary art 
concerns itself, or perceptions of itself, or attempts to 're-discover' itself, 
often in reaction to what are perceived to be the difficulties of contemporary 
life.  This contrasts strongly with the vigour and self-confidence of much of 
the post-war avant-garde in Europe and America, in music such and Stockhausen, 
Berio and Boulez, which openly and explicitly investigated new and highly 
divergent ways of communicating.  This does still occur, but often in a rather 
self-conscious, retrospective fashion.  Perhaps artists of all sorts are more 
concerned now with the gap that has arisen between 'art' and 'the public' - 
not, presumably, because they are particularly interested in commercial success, 
but probably rather through guilt.  If art is not 'applied' in such a way, what 
use is it?

For whatever reason, whereas in the nineteenth century, if you wanted to have 
your mind stretched you'd be more likely to look to artists, poets and possibly 
the more abstract philosophers of art and perception.  Science was very much 
the domain of doing - often dealing with appalling social and medical conditions.
  This does not appear to be the case any more.

Ask many people what they feel about computers and they still respond with 
caution - even if they are fully capable and understand what they're doing, 
they are often still suspicious of computers and machines 'taking control' 
and somehow subverting humanity.  This may be reminiscent of the way that 
some people were suspicious of electricity when it became universally available - 
they were worried, amongst other things that it would 'leak out' of the socket 
and, presumably, affect them in some malign way.  Similarly, there is currently 
much suspicion of genetically modified food products, In spite of the fact that 
the majority of these commentators have no real idea of the technology involved, 
myself included.  Maybe our recent experiences with science, technology and 
progress justify such suspicion - the nuclear industry, the effects of carbon 
fuels, (although this is hardly a contemporary industry), the 'destruction' of 
the environment come to mind.  Whether it is science, scientists, industry, 
government or public demand for goods and services that is really to blame for 
all this is debatable, but there is a growing and vocal part of the public 
which is blaming all of these and more, linking them all and fanning suspicion.  
This may well account for the increase, especially amongst young people, of 
interest in some of the more 'esoteric' and 'older' traditions, notably the 
occult.

So, amongst other things, there is considerable pessimism, even amongst 
scientists and technologists about the prospects of artificial intelligence, 
(Penrose, etc...).

Whatever the rights and wrongs of these discussions, and it is part of the 
problem that in many ways it really doesn't matter, there are a few basic 
points which are very hard to argue with, whether we like them or not.  Even 
if people believe that artificial intelligence, for instance, is not possible, 
this does not stop us imagining what effect it would have on ourselves and our 
view of ourselves where it to come about.  The simple fact is that no one can 
be entirely sure of what will or will not be possible in the future.  

Or is this the case?  Another astonishing thing one perceives when reading the 
books of eminent mathematicians and physicists is the divergence of opinion 
concerning some of the most basic ideas behind reality.  So, while David Deutsch 
is positively bullish about the prospects for technology in the future, and lays 
considerable emphasis on the potential for technology to enable the use of 
artificial intelligence and active virtual reality, (which would amount to the 
same thing), Roger Penrose uses similarly convincing arguments on the opposite 
side, to emphasise some potentially fundamental difficulties involved in this 
process.  Perhaps inevitably, and also, perhaps, with a hint of regret, 
Penrose's  book The Emporer's New Mind has in some places an almost 'apologetic' 
air to it - that he cannot find it in himself or in the evidence he perceives 
that he can see a solution to these problems, also he does graciously accept 
that work in other fields - specifically quantum computing - may, although 
this is only extremely tentative, provide eventually some means of overcoming 
such difficulties.  Clearly, his message, while no less elegant, is considerably 
more bear-like.

What is a musician, or indeed any 'lay' person supposed to make of these 
disagreements?  One of the most convincing arguments proposed by David Deutsch 
is exceptionally simple - the age of the universe, the age of our own sun, the 
age of our own species is, in cosmic terms, remarkably young in comparison to 
the eventual time the is generally accepted as being the most likely for the 
'big crunch' (if this phenomenon is itself accepted as the most likely outcome 
of the universe).  In a series of speculations that go way beyond those which 
one might normally expect in any 'science' book, he outlines the ideas of Frank 
Tipler, who proposes an extraordinary theory concerning the future of mankind 
in terms of the 'big crunch' - the omega point theory.  Even more extraordinarily,
 when combined with Deutsch's own proposals concerning the existence of multiple 
'parallel' universes (he would claim them to be much more than just this - he 
would take the view that they are a proven phenomenon), means that Tipler feels 
able to suggest that his omega point theory is inevitably the case in at least 
one universe of the 'multiverse'.


The Need to Accept Certain Ideas, at least provisionally
Time Scales
Possible Futures