Existential Nihilism at RHIC II

How does one gauge the quality of a presentation, especially one made to a group of your most senior and eminent peers?  This interesting question was asked and answered yesterday, during a closed session of the RHIC "PAC" (Program Advisory Committee), where I had been asked to give a talk on "New Directions", a working group that I run with two colleagues of mine in the context of working out the compelling scientific case for RHIC II, the upgrade to the RHIC facility.  Now, the name of this group is somewhat of a misnomer.  In the attempt to find "new" directions for our field, our meetings and discussions had the fascinating outcome of revealing incredible disagreements and controversies about issues that many people think are completely settled, or even "consensus" views.  Maybe it's my humanities background, but I'm a big believer that science exists and grows via intense questioning and reasoned (and sometimes unreasoned!) debates.  Thus, I have no fear getting up in front of my colleagues, who are charged with the continuing progress of the field, and suggesting that we may not be doing everything right up to now, and even now, with 5 years of outrageous productivity under our belts.  Of course, when I do such a thing, I do it in keynote and try to make as many jokes (verbal and visual) as I can -- and it comes out like this (5.5MB PDF).

So how do I measure quality of a talk?  By the quality of insults I get while giving it!  And even better, by the sophistication of the insult delivery, e.g. this email I received last night from Miklos Gyulassy of Columbia University after giving this talk (b.t.w. I approved this posting with him last night at dinner, of course after a couple of drinks)

From:   gyulassy@[email edited]
Subject: Notes for PAC
Date: November 4, 2005 7:08:01 PM EST

PAC05 (tongue in cheek) notes of MG:

Peter Steinberg (speaker), J.Nagle, B. Mueller committee

New directions [of existential nihilism at RHIC II]:

11/4/05  PAC Seminar

slide 1
"less about new ideas but clear thinking "

Begin Do Loop:

1A list basic questions
1B get depressed about them
1C go back to 1 or STOP and go on vacation
... if you get this far

2A  make hypothesis or model
2B  get depressed about them
2C  go back to 1A or STOP and go on vacation
... if you get this far

3A role up sleeves, pick up pencil and get to work
3B compute and make falsifiable predictions
    for some observables related to questions 1A
3C get depressed about them
3D go back to 1A or STOP and go on sabbatical
... if you get this far

4A  propose experiment to falsify 3B
4B  ask for funding
4C  get really depressed
4D   go back to 4B or STOP and retire
... if you get this far

5A  Build detector, get old waiting for beam time
5B  IF measurement falsifies 3B 
5C         get depressed about falsifying 3B
5C         go back to 1A or 2A or STOP and break your pencil
... if you get this far

5D   ELSE  if prediction of your model is verified
5E         take Prozac because you MUST go back to 3B
           to disprove your poorly formulated questions
           and stupid models another way.

THE END      

Example:
fundamental questions like
entropy generations:
mechanism is unknown

degrees of freedom: unknown
color quanta vs brown-shuryak resonances

ducks or rabbits

discussion of ambiguities

conclusion -> depression -> vacation

Useful Reference for further study: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nihilistic themes epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, philosophers and some physicists for years.  Existential despair is a response to nihilism. There is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]).

Existential Nihilism is often discussed in terms of extreme skepticism and relativism. However, the GOOD NEWS is that Nietzsche believed that we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. If we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind [and the reason to continue experiments at RHIC and LHC].

Best Regards, Miklos

Now, I can see why he may think I'm an existential nihilist.  I can be an uncompromising guy at times, especially about scientific issues (which should be able to take it, if they are truly scientific!)  But I can only do that since I live my work life as a card-carrying scientific realist (although reasonably-well informed about the counterarguments).  I'm also a wide-eyed idealist about RHIC physics. People who know my private views on RHIC know that I have very strong, concrete (and possibly wrong!) views on what's really going on in these collisions (and elsewhere in the nuclear and particle physics world).  More importantly, they know that while I like to kibitz and criticize, I really believe that there are some deep, compelling questions about nature intertwined with what we do.  Some of those questions may be buried deep in the details (thus the need for RHIC II!) and some may well be sitting on the surface (my personal bias, but one which will require a few conceptual innovations before we can see them clearly).

That said, I could use a few days on the beach.  I'm sure I'd feel a lot better about things then!

Comments

[m.visaya]

aren't we all born to quit after sometime if not for this? it is only messy now... (RBI-833)

[CLAIRE.BERTIAUX]

I AM TERRIFIED BY THIS: WHERE ARE YOU SCIENTISTS? I DESCRIBE TWO REALLY NIHILISMS SITUATIONS: THIS ONE OF THE PROBELMS OF FRANCE NOW. WHO ASKED IF I WAS LIVING IN MY CHILDHOOD IN ONE SORT OF SURVIVAL AREA FOR CHILDREN? WHAT HAPPEN THIS WEEK TO FRENCH CHILDS IN CERTAIN PARTS OF TERRITORIES IN FIRE? AND I HEAR THAT IT IS FOR THE PRINT TIME IN AMERICA...SECOND ONE DAY MY FATHER ARRIVED IN ON ROOM WHERE THE MAN HE MANAGED WERE PUTTING - I DON'T FIND THE ENGLISH WORD: LUFT IN DEUTSCH, AIR IN FRENCH- IN THE POUMON OF ONE MAN LIKE THE BONHOMME MICHELIN. THEY SAID IT WAS ONE JOKE. PERHAPS IT WAS...THAT IS NIHILISM.
NOBODY IS TALKING OF EUROPE, EXCEPT URSULE THE DAY IT COMES IN PARIS INTRAMUROS... I SUPPOSE, I DIDN'T SUCCEED TO OPEN THE POST.