Excel

 Molti informatici hanno una profonda antipatia per il programma excel. A me piace invece moltissimo, e credo per lo stesso motivo per cui agli informatici non piace: excel (e lotus 1-23 da cui derivaa) sono multidimensionali, mentre il coding usuale è lineare e unidemnsionale.

Comunque io non sono un programmatore quindi può darsi che mi sbagli completamente.

ζ function of Rieman

The naswer to life, the universe and everything else is not "42" but the ζ function of Rieman

Google, AI

Da quando google usa l'intelligenza artificiale non si trova più niente,

Dio

Il sogno segreto degli informatici è di creare l'intelligenza divina. Non vedo perché, avendo la fortuna 8a occhio e croce) che essa non esista, si debba farla in silicio.

Whati is life?

This nice video points to an important question. It is very easy to tell life from death, but it is very difficult to give a definition. It is commonly held that life = DNA, but DNA is obviously dead stuff, and this rises the questions discussed in the video. In my opinion life is a system that is able to repair itself. A cell is life, a virus is dead but a virus in a cell is living, and when we will make software that repairs itself we wouldl have created a rudimentary but perfectly working artificial life. Evolution itself arises from the errors made in the process of self-reparation. Information is not life (information is in everything). Information that creates new information is life.

Of course this idea is by no means new. It is the idea of "autopoieitc machine" of Maturana and Varela, of Morin, and can be traced even to Marx, that said that men are beings the produce themselves (in the economical-phylosophical manuscripts).

Informatic Middle Age

Are we entering the informatic middle age? In 1971 Giorgio Vacca, a member of the Club of Rome and an engineer that involved in the first, pionieristic attempts at computer modeling of complex itnerrelationship when computer power was ridiculously small – published “The Forthcoming Middle Age”. In this book he says that the systems we have build and on which depend the life of people will become so complex that we will lose the ability to understand and manage them. I remember this old book when I browse the web, and I find a sort of new religion, intolerant exactly like the Christianity of IV-V century a.C., when I see that books or at least reading are disappearing, like at the fall of the Roman Empire, and even when I see that in many branches of science the rigorous logical-mathematical way of thinking that was developed by scientists like Euclid or Archimedes is replaced by simple, intuitite thinking based on computer modeling. And also the economic system seems to be in deep crisis; true, BRICS and many other developing countries are growing exponentially, yet this growth is driven by the difference of costs between developed and developing countries, and it is difficult that it will last more than 20-30 years.


Middle Age lasted 1000 years. The Reinessance was largely a rediscovery of the wisdom and techniques of the ancients, but this rediscovery gave new life to the undoubtedly innovative ideas of Christianity. For instance, the idea of equality was substantially alien to the Ancient, that could not put on the same plane an aristocrat, a plebeian, or a slave, and was introduced into the estern Civilization by Christianism, and yet it became a leading idea only in XVIII century, almost two thousaad years after the “Tale of the Mountain”. We are entering in an era of regression, must we await after 1000 years a Reinessance where the power of informatic turns from regressive to progressive?

Science and politics

Many scientists complain - I am thinking in particular to the editors of the Italian edition of "Scientific America - Le Scienze" - that science is not present in the public debate and that scientists appear rearely in the media. In Italy this is in part due to the prevalence of the humanistic culture and on the preponderance, until a few decades ago, of Croce phylosophy, that despised science. But the situation is not much different in the english-speaking countries. Even there, where great attention and funding is paid to science, writers and other humanists play a more important role in the society. Incidentallu, a day I was watching Margerita Hack on TV. The astronomer is fascinating, but something was not convincing. After a little, I realized that she lacked a political perspective in her talk. A novelist, a poet, a philosopher, even when speaking of apparently neutral issues, such as love, always have a political perspective, and in fact intellectuals are writers, since Voltaire and even Pico della Mirandola. This is not the case with scientists, with sparse exceptions, for instance information scientists or Noam Chomsky, or Jared Diamond and many other ecologists. This lack of political perspective dates back, unfortunately, to Galileo. Galileo was not satisfied with the prurely intellectual approach of Copernicus, that stated that his heliocentrism was a purely mathematical idea, and wanted instead to convince the Church of the philosophical and political importance of the subject, that changed completely the vision of the world of the Midlle Ages. The Church almost condemned him to death, and allowed to proceed with scientific research, provided that science had no political implication. The Church was aware of the practical importance of scientific research, and of the danger of political implications. Nowadays, scientists complain for a reduced role, but inconsciously continue to separate science and politics.