Physical quotes

From Motley Bytes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

David_Bohm

Extraphysical Principles

“There is no reason why an extraphysical general principle is necessarily to be avoided, since such principles could conceivably serve as useful working hypotheses. For the history of scientific research is full of examples in which it was very fruitful indeed to assume that certain objects or elements might be real, long before any procedures were known which would permit them to be observed directly.”
  • Source: David Bohm in the paper “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables. II”. Published January 1952 in Physical Review volume 35 issue 2.

Niels_Bohr

No Quantum World

“There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”
  • Source: The words of Niels Bohr as reported by Aage Petersen in his article ‘The Philosophy of Niels Bohr’ published in the journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1963, volume XIX, number 7. Available online at https://books.google.pt/books?id=DgcAAAAAMBAJ retrieved 2024.

Robert_Boyle

Good Hypothesis

“The Requisites of a good Hypothesis are:
: That It be Intelligible.
: That It neither Assume nor Suppose anything Impossible, unintelligible, or demonstrably False.
: That It be consistent with Itself.
: That It be lit and sufficient to Explicate the Phaenomena, especially the chief.
: That It be, at least, consistent, with the rest of the Phaenomena It particularly relates to, and do not contradict any other known Phaenomena of nature, or manifest Physical Truth.
 
The Qualities and Conditions of an Excellent Hypothesis are:
: That It be not Precarious, but have sufficient Grounds In the nature of the Thing Itself or at least be well recommended by some Auxiliary Proofs.
: That It be the Simplest of all the good ones we are able to frame, at least containing nothing that is superfluous or Impertinent.
: That It be the only Hypothesis that can Explicate the Phaenomena; or at least, that do's Explicate them so well.
: That it enable a skillful naturalist to foretell future Phaenomena by the Congruity or Incongruity to it; and especially the event of such experiments as are aptly devised to examine It, as Things that ought, or ought not, to be consequent to It.”
  • Source: Robert Boyle, Boyle Papers, 37. Quoted In Barbara Kaplan (ed.), Divulging of Useful Truths in Physick: The Medical Agenda of Robert Boyle (1993), 50.

Paul_Davies

Models and Theories and Reality

"Until now, physical theories have been regarded as merely models with approximately describe the reality of nature. As the models improve, so the fit between theory and reality gets closer. Some physicists are now claiming that supergravity is the reality, that the model and the real world are in mathematically perfect accord."
  • Source: P.C.W. Davies, Superforce (1984, 1985), 149.

Hidden Links

"Finding hidden links between seemingly disparate phenomena is what makes the scientific method so powerful and compelling. The distinctive feature of science is that it is both broad and deep: broad in the way it tackles all physical phenomena and deep in the way it weaves them, economically, into a common explanatory scheme requiring fewer and fewer assumptions. No other system of thought can match its breadth and depth."
  • Source: Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right for Life (2007)

David_Deutsch

Universal Virtual Reality

“Since building a universal virtual-reality generator is physically possible, it must actually be built in some universes.”

Theory of Computation

“The theory of computation has traditionally been studied almost entirely in the abstract, as a topic in pure mathematics. This is to miss the point of it. Computers are physical objects, and computations are physical processes. What computers can or cannot compute is determined by the laws of physics alone, and not by pure mathematics.”

Arthur_Eddington

Brain and Mind

“Take the living human brain endowed with mind and thought. Thought it is one of the indisputable facts of the world. I know that I think, with a certainty which I cannot attribute to any of my physical knowledge of the world. More hypothetically, but on fairly plausible evidence, I am convinced that you have minds which think. Here then is a world fact to be investigated. The physicist brings his tools and commences systematic exploration. All that he discovers is a collection of atoms and electrons and fields of force arranged in space and time, apparently similar to those found in inorganic objects. He may trace other physical characteristics, energy, temperature, entropy. None of these is identical with thought. He might set down thought as an illusion ⎯ some perverse interpretation of the interplay of the physical entities that he has found. Or if he sees the folly of calling the most undoubted element of our experience an illusion, he will have to face the tremendous question, How can this collection of ordinary atoms be a thinking machine?”

Donald_Hoffman

The Interface

“The purpose of a desktop interface is not to show you the ‘truth’ of the computer — where ‘truth,’ in this metaphor, refers to circuits, voltages, and layers of software. Rather, the purpose of an interface is to hide the ‘truth’ and to show simple graphics that help you perform useful tasks such as crafting emails and editing photos. If you had to toggle voltages to craft an email, your friends would never hear from you. That is what evolution has done. It has endowed us with senses that hide the truth and display the simple icons we need to survive long enough to raise offspring. Space, as you perceive it when you look around, is just your desktop — a 3D desktop. Apples, snakes, and other physical objects are simply icons in your 3D desktop.”
  • Source: Donald Hoffman, writing in his book “The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes”. Published by W. W. Norton, New York, NY, in 2019. ISBN 978-0393254693. Preface, page 7.

Sabine_Hossenfelder

Infinity

“It’s generally a bad idea to compare infinity to infinity, because the outcome depends on just how you define the comparison, so any conclusion you draw from such an exercise becomes physically ambiguous.”
  • Source: Hossenfelder, Sabine. Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions (p. 62). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Carl_Jung

Existence

“It is an almost ridiculous prejudice to assume that existence can only be physical.”
  • Source: Written by Carl Jung in the book “Psychology and Religion”. Published in New Haven, CT by Yale University Press. Published 1977. Page 11.

Materialism

“Despite the materialistic tendency to understand the psyche as a mere reflection or imprint of physical and chemical processes, there is not a single proof of this hypothesis. Quite the contrary, innumerable facts prove that the psyche translates physical processes into sequences of images which have hardly any recognizable connection with the objective [i.e. physical and chemical] process. The materialistic hypothesis is much too bold and flies in the face of experience.”
  • Source: Written by Carl Jung in the book “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious”. Published in London, UK by Routledge. Published 1991. Page 57.

Bernardo_Kastrup

Causality

“We don’t see causality; we only see its manifest consequences in nature’s behavior. Therefore, the underlying organizing principle is metaphysical, instead of physical. It is derived on the basis of induction.”
  • Source: From “Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe”. Written by Bernardo Kastrup. Published by IFF Books, Washington DC. Kindle Edition. Page 49. Chapter 4.

Global Alignment

“It is impossible for physicists to identify global alignments... For although physicists can test individual events in the laboratory and verify that, when taken in isolation, the events are random, they wouldn’t be able to discern a global pattern within the complexity of the physical world at large; there are just too many ‘dice’ to keep track of under controlled laboratory conditions.”
  • Source: From “Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe”. Written by Bernardo Kastrup. Published by IFF Books, Washington DC. Kindle Edition. Page 52. Chapter 4.

Irreducible Patterns

“If there are such irreducible macroscopic patterns, they — unlike cause and effect — may not entail relationships of strict necessity, but tendencies, affinities or dispositions instead... We cannot expect to pin down the corresponding events on the basis of empirical regularities and counterfactual dependences. Not only may these events not be consistently repeatable, the global patterns they reflect may be excluded from experiments by our very efforts to isolate the experimental setup and control its conditions. We cannot induce these acausal events at will. The best we can do is to pay attention to the world around us, in the hope of noticing one of them as it spontaneously unfolds... Next to causality, the physical world organizes itself along archetypal correspondences of meaning, which break down the barrier between world and psyche.”
  • Source: From “Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe”. Written by Bernardo Kastrup. Published by IFF Books, Washington DC. Kindle Edition. Page 53. Chapter 4.

Synchronicity

“Synchronicity entails an equivalence of symbolic meaning between our inner psychic state and the concurrent physical state of the world surrounding us, as if they mirrored each other. This is metaphysically significant, for it abolishes the separation between world and psyche. Indeed, synchronicity suggests — if it doesn’t outright imply — a unity between psyche and physics.”
  • Source: From “Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe”. Written by Bernardo Kastrup. Published by IFF Books, Washington DC. Kindle Edition. Page 61. Chapter 4.

Johannes_Kepler

Physical Causes

“Some physical causes are recognized by all; others, by only very few people; indeed, many things exist naturally, but from causes hitherto known to no man. And of the causes, which we know, there are some whose kind and nature we all usually understand, and others whose kind or indirect cause are understood by very few people, or by nobody.”
  • Source: Johannes Kepler in “Fundamentis. Astrologiae Certioribus - Thesis IV”.

David_Kipping

Simulation Experiments

“The simulation argument might be able to resist our physical experiments but is not able to escape our mathematical and logical reasoning.”
  • Source: David Kipping from the YouTube “Why You're Probably Not a Simulation”, posted 2020-09-04 in the channel ‘Cool Worlds’. Video offset 32:36. Online at https://youtu.be/HA5YuwvJkpQ (2025).

You Are Sentient

“Whether you're a piece of computer code or real. Simulacra or physical. Conscious entities are conscious all the same. You are self-aware. You are sentient.”
  • Source: David Kipping from the YouTube “Why You're Probably Not a Simulation”, posted 2020-09-04 in the channel ‘Cool Worlds’. Video offset 32:48. Online at https://youtu.be/HA5YuwvJkpQ (2025).

Kenneth_W_Kolence

Software Not Physical

“We clearly do not now have an engineering capability comparable to those based on the physical sciences. Such a capability is what is implied by the term software engineering. But software is not a physical system, it is a description of what one describes how a given physical system (a computer of some sort) should act. Thus software is more akin to engineering drawings, either maintained on paper or within a computer. ... So probably it is incorrect to assume software engineering should be considered as a sibling in the family of the physical science based engineering disciplines.”

Software Engineering Body of Knowledge

‘While software engineering may be based on good principles of design activities, it is not a physical science based engineering body of knowledge. So we have to build an engineering capability based on some other body of knowledge.”

Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn

Scientific Method

“I like to distinguish between the scientific method, which is applied to all materialistic theories. The scientific method is one of observation or experimentation, repeatability, falsification, the repeatability by different techniques of different labs, or prediction and results. It's a scientific method. I say that if it's a non-physical theory, or the theory has any aspect of non-physicalism to it, it doesn't have to be all, any aspect invalidates, to some degree invalidates, the scientific method as I just described from being applicable. And I think there's a tendency in some theories that have some non-physical aspect to try to show their legitimacy by applying the scientific method... I think that's a false desire, because once you're non-physical you are invalidating, to one degree or another, the scientific method. Maybe not totally, but in some degree.”
  • Source: Kuhn, Robert Lawrence. Within the YouTube video “All 325+ Competing Consciousness Theories In One Video” on the Essentia Foundation channel, https://youtu.be/h5G6Oc_V3Lw?si=jzabxeu55GvABDFs, published 2025-08-22, video offset at 1:32:25.

Tim_Palmer

Qubit Information Capacity

“Is there a fundamental reason why quantum computers cannot factor large integers used for encryption today? We introduce a concept called Qubit Information Capacity which arises if the continuum nature of quantum mechanics’ state space is an approximation for something inherently discrete. We argue that the physical reason for such discreteness is gravity. Based on this, we predict that quantum computers will never be able to break realistic RSA-encrypted messages.”

Joel_Pel

Murphy's Law Equation

“A new mathematical foundation to one of today’s most recognized physical laws, Murphy’s Law. Experimental data matches very nicely with the theory presented in this equation.”
MurphysEquation.gif
  • Notes:
    • PM is the Murphy’s probability that something will go wrong.
    • KM is Murphy’s constant (equal to one).
    • FM is Murphy’s factor, a very small number that can only be calculated on a 386-computer running Windows 3.1. Here we will approximate it by FM ≈ 0.01.
    • I is the importance of the result or outcome of the event on a scale of 1 to 10.
    • C is the complexity of the system on a scale of 1 to 10.
    • U is the urgency on a scale of 1 to 10.
    • F is the frequency on a scale of 1 to 10.
    • e is Euler's number, a mathematical constant approximately equal to 2.71828.
  • Source: Written by Joel Pel in the article “The Murphy's Law Equation” published 2007-05-21 in The Science Creative Quarterly.

Roger_Penrose

Mind

“My point of view entails that it is our present lack of understanding of the fundamental laws of physics that prevents us from coming to grips with the concept of ‘mind’ in physical or logical terms.”
  • Source: Written by Roger Penrose in the book “The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics” published in 1989 by Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. Kindle Edition; Page 4. ISBN: 978-0-19-286198-6.

Steven_Pinker

Neurons to Consciousness

“None of us has a brain that can actually put us in touch with reality unaided with truth. I've just shown you a bunch of gadgetry that responds to things that are essential to our survival, things that prevent us from falling off cliffs and bumping into trees. But they don't actually correspond to any clear description of the world as it is. So we have, for example, circuitry that responds to the edges rather than the physical distribution of light, because edges are important, that's where objects leave off and their backgrounds begin. Moreover, they can be fooled, as I did with each one of you. That since our neural circuitry does consist of a mechanism, not a pipeline to the truth or a window onto objective reality. That is naïve realism we know is false because there are illusions. You can't just trust your senses. That means we need some way of augmenting the faculties that nature gave us to make our beliefs as accurate as possible. Which of course is why the early modern philosophers made such a big deal of visual illusions. They said you can't just open your eyes and see the world as it is. Look at all these illusions. So what we do, what gives some of us confidence that our beliefs are objectively true is that they are part of an institutional infrastructure of testing and criticism and logic and determining which hypotheses withstand criticism and attempts at refutation. Devising exotic arrangements of reality to reflect the way reality is put together, namely experiments. Thanks to this huge network of minds, each one of them making up for deficits of all the others, we like to think that we have a collective grasp on truth that none of us individually can have. But of course, it's always fallible. The religious beliefs I think were actually pretty reasonable hypotheses in earlier states of our collective knowledge. Even Richard Dawkins said that before Darwin he probably would have been a creationist because the cosmic engineer was the only available explanation for the obvious adaptive complexity of living things. I would add that prior to the advent of modern neuroscience I probably would have believed in souls because there was no better explanation for phenomena such as that people respond intelligently to their environments. When you dream some part of you is up and about the world while your body is in bed the whole time. That seems like there must be some part of you that can leave your body. When a person suddenly dies some kind of animating force no longer seems to be animating the body that was there just a few minutes ago. So the soul hypothesis is not a stupid or irrational belief, nor is creationism if it's the best that you have. Now, of course, we can do better. But doing better in part depends not just on this cumulative weight of evidence and argument. But because few of us can actually reconstruct the scientific observations that justify the theory of natural selection or the theory of neural networks, all of us, at least a little bit, take it on faith in the following sense; that there is a community that you trust enough because when they have been challenged to defend their beliefs they can connect them to reality. They have shown that it isn't magic. That they have given reason to trust them because they've convinced you that they're the mores of their culture, of their scientific culture, designed so that they will find true things and weed out false things. If you don't have a degree of solidarity or trust, if you think that scientists are all in cahoots with big corporations or are trying to tear down all faith and values and meaning and you simply refuse to follow through the very long chain of deduction that connects the claims to the experiments, then you'll naturally reject it just because it's not your tribe. For you and me scientists are our tribe and we're apt to give them some credibility, indeed some credulousness, knowing that if ever challenged it would be repaid. But unless you trace that through it can be all too easy to reject the conclusions of science, and indeed a number of studies have shown that contrary to the common belief that people believe in falsehoods, such as that vaccines cause autism or that humans were created five thousand years ago or that the burning of fossil fuels has no effect on global temperatures, it turns out that people with those beliefs that we have every reason to believe are false are no more scientifically naïve on average than people that have beliefs that are scientifically justified. You give a test on evolution to a bunch of people who believe in evolution, give it to a bunch of creationists, there's not much difference in how well they score. In fact, often they are equal. Likewise, the typical grasp of climate science among someone who signs on to the scientific consensus is not much better than the adamant deniers. That kind of dashes the hope that simply by increasing the quality of science education you will lead people to more accurate beliefs. There, in addition, has to be a dissociation of who you think are the good guys and who are the bad guys from who has the best claims to truth. That's what it depends on.”

Keywords: Accuracy_quotes Adament_quotes Adaptability_quotes Addition_quotes Advent_quotes Aid_quotes Animate_quotes Argue_quotes Arrangement_quotes Attempt_quotes Augment_quotes Autism_quotes Availability_quotes Background_quotes Bad_quotes Bed_quotes Belief_quotes Best_quotes Big_quotes Body_quotes Brain_quotes Bump_quotes Bunch_quotes Burn_quotes Cahoot_quotes Chain_quotes Challenge_quotes Circuit_quotes Claim_quotes Clear_quotes Cliff_quotes Climate_quotes Collective_quotes Complexity_quotes Common_quotes Community_quotes Conclusion_quotes Confidence_quotes Connection_quotes Consensus_quotes Consist_quotes Contrary_quotes Convince_quotes Cooperation_quotes Corporation_quotes Correspondence_quotes Cosmic_quotes Creationism_quotes Credibility_quotes Criticism_quotes Culture_quotes Cumulative_quotes Dash_quotes Deal_quotes Death_quotes Deception_quotes Deduction_quotes Defence_quotes Deficit_quotes Degree_quotes Deny_quotes Dependence_quotes Description_quotes Design_quotes Determine_quotes Devise_quotes Differences_quotes Dissociation_quotes Distribution_quotes Dreaming_quotes Early_quotes Easy_quotes Edge_quotes Education_quotes Effect_quotes Engineer_quotes Environment_quotes Essential_quotes Evidence_quotes Evolution_quotes Exotic_quotes Experiment_quotes Explanation_quotes Eye_quotes Faculty_quotes Faith_quotes Fall_quotes Fallible_quotes False_quotes Few_quotes Find_quotes Follow_quotes Fool_quotes Force_quotes Fossil_quotes Fuel_quotes Gadget_quotes Global_quotes Good_quotes Grasp_quotes Guy_quotes Huge_quotes Hypothesis_quotes Illusion_quotes Importance_quotes Increasing_quotes Individual_quotes Infrastructure_quotes Institution_quotes Intelligence_quotes Irrational_quotes Justification_quotes Knowledge_quotes Leave_quotes Life_quotes Light_quotes Logic_quotes Long_quotes Magic_quotes Meaning_quotes Mechanism_quotes Mind_quotes Modern_quotes Moral_quotes Naïve_quotes Nature_quotes Natural_Selection_quotes Network_quotes Neural_quotes Neuroscience_quotes Object_quotes Objectivity_quotes Observation_quotes Obvious_quotes Part_quotes People_quotes Perception_quotes Phenomena_quotes Philosophy_quotes Physical_quotes Pipeline_quotes Possibility_quotes Prehistoric_quotes Prevent_quotes Reality_quotes Reason_quotes Reconstruct_quotes Reflection_quotes Refuse_quotes Refutation_quotes Rejection_quotes Religion_quotes Repay_quotes Respond_quotes Science_quotes Scientist_quotes Score_quotes Seem_quotes Selection_quotes Sense_quotes Show_quotes Sight_quotes Solidarity_quotes Soul_quotes State_quotes Study_quotes Stupidity_quotes Survival_quotes Tear_quotes Temperature_quotes Testing_quotes Theory_quotes Thinking_quotes Time_quotes Touch_quotes Trace_quotes Tree_quotes Tribal_quotes Trust_quotes Truth_quotes Try_quotes Typical_quotes Unaided_quotes Vaccine_quotes Value_quotes Visual_quotes Weed_quotes Weight_quotes Whole_quotes Window_quotes Withstand_quotes World_quotes

Information and Computation Medium

“Information and computation reside in patterns of data and in relations of logic that are independent of the physical medium that carries them.”
  • Source: Steven Pinker (1997). How the Mind Works. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-06973-0; eISBN 978-0-393-06973-0. Chapter 1 Section Reverse-Engineering the Psyche.

Willard_Van_Orman_Quine

Science as a Tool

“As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries - not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.”
  • Source: From A Logical Point of View (1953), p. 44.

Erwin_Schrödinger

Measurement and Observation

“The state of affairs... is often described by saying that, as the technique of measuring is refined, the observer is gradually replaced by more and more elaborate apparatus. Now this is, certainly in the present case, not true; he is not gradually replaced, but is so from the outset... The observer's colourful impression of the phenomenon vouchsafes not the slightest clue to its physical nature.”
  • Source: Erwin Schrödinger in the book “Mind and Matter”, chapter 6. Contained within the anthology “What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches”. Published in 1992 and reprinted in 2013 by Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. ISBN: 9781107604667. Online at <http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-what-is-life-mind-matter-auto-sketches.pdf> retrieved 2024. Note: “Mind and Matter” originally published separately in 1944.

Objective Nature

“While the direct sensual perception of the phenomenon tells us nothing as to its objective physical nature (or what we usually call so) and has to be discarded from the outset as a source of information, yet the theoretical picture we obtain eventually rests entirely on a complicated array of various informations, all obtained by direct sensual perception. It resides upon them, it is pieced together from them, yet it cannot really be said to contain them. In using the picture we usually forget about them, except in the quite general way that we know our idea of a light-wave is not a haphazard invention of a crank but is based on experiment.”
  • Source: Erwin Schrödinger in the book “Mind and Matter”, chapter 6. Contained within the anthology “What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches”. Published in 1992 and reprinted in 2013 by Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. ISBN: 9781107604667. Online at <http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-what-is-life-mind-matter-auto-sketches.pdf> retrieved 2024. Note: “Mind and Matter” originally published separately in 1944.

Melvin_Schwartz

Mathematics More than a Language

“Mathematics is much more than a language for dealing with the physical world. It is a source of models and abstractions which will enable us to obtain amazing new insights into the way in which nature operates. Indeed, the beauty and elegance of the physical laws themselves are only apparent when expressed in the appropriate mathematical framework.”
  • Source: Melvin Schwartz, In Principles of Electrodynamics (1972, 1987), 105.

Max_Tegmark

Mathematical Reality

“Many of my physics colleagues will say that mathematics describes our physical reality, at least in some approximate sense. I go further and argue that it actually is our physical reality because I'm arguing that our physical world doesn't just have some mathematical properties, but it has only mathematical properties.”
  • Source: Youtube The Great Math Mystery - Documentary posted by Aerospace Engineering 2017-03-03.

Computer Game

“If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical. That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”
  • Source: Max Tegmark and John Archibald Wheeler; Scientific American, February 2001

John_Archibald_Wheeler

It From Bit

“It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.”
  • Source: John Archibald Wheeler from a paper originally presented at the 1989 Santa Fe Institute workshop. Published in the book "Complexity, Entropy & the Physics of Information: Volume I", edited by Wojciech H. Zurek, section "Physics of information", as a paper entitled "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links". Published in 1993 by the SFI Press Archive Series. ISBN: 978-1-947864-27-6.

Shoshana_Zuboff

Panopticon Recording

“Information systems that translate, record, and display human behavior can provide the computer age version of universal transparency with a degree of illumination that would have exceeded even Bentham's most outlandish fantasies. Such systems can become information panopticons that, freed from the constraints of space and time, do not depend upon the physical arrangement of buildings or the laborious record keeping of industrial administration. They do not require the mutual presence of objects of observation. They do not even require the presence of an observer. Information systems can automatically and continuously record almost anything their designers want to capture, regardless of the specific intentions brought to the design process or the motives that guide data interpretation and utilization.”
  • Source: Zuboff, S. (1988). In The Age Of The Smart Machine: The Future Of Work And Power. New York, NY: Basic Books, p. 322. ISBN:0465032125.

Technological Innovations

“History reveals the power of certain technological innovations to transform the mental life of an era -- the feelings, sensibilities, perceptions, expectations, assumptions, and, above all, possibilities that define a community. From the social influence of the medieval castle,' to the coming of the printed book, to the social and physical upheaval associated with the rise of the automobile -- each specific example serves to drive home a similar message. An important technological innovation is not usefully thought of as a unitary cause eliciting a series of discrete effects. Instead, it can be seen as an alteration of the material horizon of our world, with transformative implications for both the contours and the interior texture of our lives. Technology makes the world a new place...”
  • Source: Zuboff, S. (1988). In The Age Of The Smart Machine: The Future Of Work And Power. New York, NY: Basic Books, p. 388. ISBN:0465032125.