Sonia Contera defines herself as a “misfit” in physics on her personal page at the University of Oxford, where she works as a professor of Biological Physics. This 55-year-old from Madrid has dedicated her career to the study and deep reflection on physics, yes, but also on its relationship with biology, nanotechnology, information technology, philosophy, power and politics. He talks about all this in his latest book, Six problems that science cannot solve (Harpa)which explores the great unsolved puzzles that nevertheless drive science and technology in today’s world: quantum mechanics, the theory of everything, the origin of life, aging, artificial intelligence and consciousness. Six fundamental problems that, according to Contera, science has not been able to decipher for decades but to which paradoxically it dedicates more and more resources and attention.
Contera speaks to EL PAÍS via video conference from his office in Oxford, where he admits that he longs for the light he observes through his interlocutor’s screen. In the interview, the expert reflects on the risks of the “barbarity of specialization” that José Ortega y Gasset spoke of, on the perversion of the neoliberal system of doing science and technology and on the most serious danger of all: that artificial intelligence invites us to stop thinking.
Ask. Why write a book about problems that can’t be solved instead of those that can?
Answer. I decided to write this book because, even if it doesn’t seem like it, science is stuck in its most fundamental problems. And the most interesting thing is that the less we manage to solve them, the more we focus on those very questions: artificial intelligence, planetary travel, the origin of life, quantum computers… All this is part of a science that we don’t understand and haven’t understood for a long time. It’s also an excuse to look at how science has changed over the last 100 years and how economic and geopolitical changes are intertwined with technology. And furthermore, I believe that these fundamental questions are ones where physics goes beyond the utilitarian, rational science of money and connects people to the profound mysteries of life.
Q. Carl Sagan said that we live in a society strictly dependent on science and technology, where no one understands science and technology, and that is a recipe for disaster. Something like this emerges from your book…
R. Yes, this is also what Ortega y Gasset said about the barbarity of specialization. The scientist has become part of the mechanism. And this is why it is important to return to these profound questions. Most scientists are familiar with our field of specialization, and we usually do not provide opinions on other areas of science. The specialist does not reflect on the fundamental issues and now we have technologies that take us by storm. We are in a truly catastrophic time for knowledge. Those who survive in academia are those who have the capacity to suffer without limits, and that makes no sense. We have to question the picture.
Q. Is the structure capitalism?
R. No, there are many types of capitalism. This is what we are doing. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we entered neoliberalism, this invention of maximizing profits for those who own them. The framework in which we do science is dismembering. And they also sold us an idea, that of disruption, which is a very perverse thing. We scientists felt limited in the academy, because we could not propose new ideas, and we saw the upheaval of start-ups as a step towards freedom. But it was a trick. They have used disruption to destroy what is public and leave it in the hands of large companies, the “technofeudal” ones. Even if they have very good intentions, if the system is capable of perverting them, we will find ourselves in a very complicated situation, like the one we are in now.
Q. Why the six problems you talk about in your book? What was the criteria for selecting them?
R. They are very united and at the center of current scientific problems. For example, the first, quantum mechanics. It emerged in the early 20th century, with experiments that cannot be solved with normal linear logic. This changes the way we see the world and we still don’t understand it, we don’t understand what that leap means. There is a classical world where causes have effects and time moves forward, and there is a quantum world where other rules exist. This breaks with all the baggage of the Enlightenment, the idea that reason can solve the world. This unresolved problem remains absolutely central. All modern questions arise from quantum mechanics.
Q. The second problem is the theory of everything. Will all these theories of physics ever be unified?
R. That chapter is very interesting to me, because I thought I was going to hate it. I thought it was totalitarian, that physicists wanted to control everything. But it’s much more interesting. It is a very deep and very ancient desire of humanity, to try to close off our understanding of the world, knowing that we will not be able to do so, and that is closely related to the problem of consciousness, to knowing ourselves as one. And this takes on a particular aspect now, when we are creating machines without conscience and without ethics.
Q. In the book we move from physics to biology with the question that seems fundamental: the origin of life. Why is it the third and not the first?
R. Because the origin of life, as discussed in modern science, comes from quantum physicists. It was they who began to become obsessed with why life arises on Earth. This scale, which is the scale of molecules, DNA, proteins, the nanometric scale, is the border between the classical world and the quantum world. It is the principle of the Turing machine, of computers. And they were the same characters! Now this knowledge is separate but, at that time, the same scientists were dedicated to the origin of life, quantum mechanics, the manufacturing of the first computers… It’s all intertwined and then we separated it. We have forgotten the story.
Q. Because of this current scientific ultra-specialization you speak of, perhaps we have lost a broader and richer vision of science…
R. As I write the book I realize that in Manhattan Project They are all there: even the physicists who began to build the first computers and study quantum physics were worried about the origin of life. These are very philosophical problems. And when the war ends we enter the science of reconstruction. It is a much more utilitarian agenda, which more or less erases all these sciences more dedicated to the profound meaning of existence. It involved the rationalization of the entire knowledge system, and entered into synergy with the production of the first computers. And in that moment we become part of the machine and those fundamental questions are forgotten. We forget the most transcendental part, the quantum part, which ends up becoming a thing hippies.
Q. The next question you ask yourself in the book tries to understand the biological limits of the human being, aging…
R. It’s a very interesting topic because it’s profound. What does it mean to grow old? We move time forward, we are able to break the symmetry of time, and these are physics problems. Aging is a very multidisciplinary science. The most problematic thing is that this happens without control. There are private companies that we don’t know very well what they do. And all these tycoons who want to live forever… The psychoanalysis of the characters who are in this battle would be interesting (laughs).
Q. Problem five. Can we create truly intelligent machines?
R. This is the main problem today. We’re very obsessed, and for many reasons: because we talk to ChatGPT, because smart drones kill people, because our relationship with artificial intelligence is already dystopian enough. We live in the age of deception. We are also obsessed with artificial general intelligence, but it is quite unlikely that in digital models we can have what we call general intelligence. There’s something different about what’s live versus what’s digital.
Q. And this ties into the last question. What is consciousness?
R. I find it fascinating, because it has always been a topic covered by pseudoscience, but in the last 20 years there has been a boom of neuroscientists interested in this. The point is that we are individuals only when we recognize the other. Without the other there is no me. But we have a conscience fragmented by specialization, and without conscience, without unity, there is no ethics.
Q. Is self-aware artificial intelligence possible?
R. I think it’s impossible because there’s really not enough energy in the world to do it. The human brain runs on 20 watts, how much would an artificial intelligence need? The only thing that can happen is that we are providing so much data and in so many dimensions that the computer system escapes us and may not be conscious, but it is very powerful. Furthermore, even these (technological) companies are starting to change, they have no limits, they are forgetting what it means to be human. In the book I talk about the new banality of evil. Hannah Arendt is very current.
Q. Is there a way to control these companies?
R. At the moment it seems not. In the United States no one can control them and Europe has lost this battle. A first step is to start talking about these issues starting from science. The reflection of the book is that we need mysteries, because they humanize us and we are losing our humanity. Knowledge is necessary for the common good, which is why I like attending university. One of the most terrible things that artificial intelligence is doing is telling us to stop thinking. It separates us from the act of reflecting and science is thinking.
Q. Losing the ability to think, you say in the book, is humanity’s most significant challenge. Do you see this in your students, even at a university like Oxford? Are they losing this ability?
R. This is a somewhat particular university, perhaps its students are not very representative. But it is true that before many people focused on professional success, on money, because it was possible. However, half of the students I had last year do master’s projects in my lab can’t get jobs. And they were the best. Now they come with a great need for philosophy, to think about things in depth. That’s why I wrote the book; I am responding to a need of my students. And I want to give them hope.
