Who Created the World(s) and How? A Thought Experiment Among Science Fiction, Physics, and Theology in the Novella Professor A. Dońda by Stanisław Lem
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI've found the article very interesting and it was a pleasure to read it. Therefore I'd like to focus only on things-detials-that the Author might find helpful in improving the work.
- From religious / theological point of view probably could be very interesting to say few words why prof. Dońda didn't think that God created present universe, that it was an advanced civilisation (or group of such civilisations);
- More sociologically, there is interesting description of the clash of the fall of advanced civilisations with the fact of the vanishing information. Perhaps it could be interesting to add some words about this process (or write next paper ;) );
- Perhaps it could be interesting to juxtapose all Lem's ideas with classical theology of creation (e.g. scholastic one).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
I will first consider the first and the third comments of the First Reviewer, then I will pass to the second comment.
1). “From religious / theological point of view probably could be very interesting to say few words why prof. Dońda didn't think that God created present universe, that it was an advanced civilisation (or group of such civilisations)”,
3). Perhaps it could be interesting to juxtapose all Lem's ideas with classical theology of creation (e.g. scholastic one)”.
Thank you for pointing this out – I find these comments very interesting and stimulating. For that reason, I have created a new footnote 22 and added to the bibliography new entries (highlighted in yellow in the corrected text).
The footnote 22:
As a matter of fact, Professor Dońda never clarifies why he didn’t believe that God created the current universe, nor any other universe. What he states is that “the Cosmos came into being out of information! […] It’s impossible to prove, but it is in keeping with Dońda’s law. No, I don’t think it was God.” Professor Dońda emphasizes that the creation from information is fully coherent with his law; however, it cannot be definitively proven that what exists came into being in that way, i.e., from pre-existing information “created” by other civilizations in a sort of infinite chain of creation events that follow Dońda’s law. From this perspective, there is nothing that rules out a possibility of divine creation that could also utilise Dońda's law. Professor Dońda prefers the first solution; however, it is a belief that relies more on his conviction (an act of faith) than on the necessary demonstrations. To complete the picture, it is essential to remember with Thomas Aquinas that the eternal existence of a universe does not necessarily preclude divine creation (De aeternitate mundi contra murmurantes; i. g. see: Pabjan 2020). It should also be highlighted that the theme of the “creation” of civilisations is very important to Lem. For instance, it suffices to consult Ijon Tichy's recollections of his encounter with Professor Corcoran, who recounts his experiments with the creation of artificial worlds (in: PAD, 33-45) or the account of Klapaucius’s experiments with microminiaturised civilisations (Lem 1973, 19-29).
For Bibliography:
Pabjan, Tadeusz. 2020. The Problem of the Beginning of the World in the Interpretation of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Person and the Challenges. 10(1): 5-15.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comment 2
2). “More sociologically, there is interesting description of the clash of the fall of advanced civilisations with the fact of the vanishing information. Perhaps it could be interesting to add some words about this process (or write next paper).”
I have created a new footnote 14 and added to the bibliography new entries (highlighted in yellow in the corrected text).
Footnote 14:
See: PAD, 148. In the PAD scenario, Professor Dońda highlights how the excessive growth of information is a trap for civilisations that are not sufficiently vigilant about the accumulation of data. But it can also be an opportunity. For example, by entrusting data management to artificial intelligence, it becomes possible to gain more time for reflection, to better understand the processes at work and to create innovative ways of managing and using data (i.e. for teaching context see: Johnson 2024). Equally interesting would be a closer sociological examination of the fate of civilisations that have failed to escape the trap identified in Professor Dońda's theory. However, due to the limited space available, such topics will have to be reserved for future studies.
For bibliography:
Johnson, Emily. 2024. The Pedagogy of Slow Making in the Age of AI. ELO (Un)linked 2024.14 (accessible at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/elo2024/algorithmsandimaginaries/schedule/14).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article discusses an interesting theme from the point of view of the contemporary challenges related to the possibilities of especially AI and the tension between the rapidly increasing amount of information and in many areas decreasing amount of knowledge and classical civilisation, and for example the environmental challenges of the increasing use of energy and natural resources in the date devices.
The paper shows another time how the thought experiments made in the science fiction can be useful when searching for ways to find new insights out of the box. The author might want to reflect the relevance of his analysis even more in the concluding part also from the perspective of general relevance and cultural implications.
Some general comments regarding those parts which might be developed further in the article.
On line 65 you claim that a "theory of creation" is relevant "to any philosophy". You're right that the theory of origin is relevant also philosophically. However, not every philosophy wants to reflect this with concepts which clearly have theological connotations, or at least refer to a philosophy of religion like "creation".
You use in the text a lot of abbreviations. To help the reader it would be helpful to explain for example on the line 536 the abbreviation DRT. Similarly helpful would be to explain on line 564 the Landauer principle.
You should define what is meant by "information" if it should have mass. Perhaps you could even analytically reflect whether there is a materialistic philosophical background presupposed in these reflections which tend to reduce everything to material reality?
Regarding the question whether information has mass, you could have mentioned that generally the answer has been no (Kish and Granquist 2013, 1895). After all, the idea is contra intuitive. Yet there are indications that date storage leads to changes in the weight. Anyway, I'd like to ask how about the alternative explanasion that the process of storing data increases weight but not the information as such? Similarly the process of emptying the storage can release energy and make the storage lighter which is not the same as emptying the storage of its information content. You also refer yourself to the tests made by Kish and their inconclusive results.
For example Kish and Granquist state (2013, 1895): "Our results indicate that there are different answers depending on the physical situation, and sometimes the mass can even be negative."
The scenario on lines 623-626 seems to be quite realistic and gives a rather well argued reason to think about the consequences of the information growth for our planet and humankind.
Lines 646-649: It is good to ask what are the philosophical presuppositions of a universal method. Is it a part of a rationalistic Enlightenment project to control the reality? Is there another philosophical or theological idea in the background? Some clues could be traced back for example in the clear influence of Leibniz.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you very much indeed for all comments - I find these comments very important and stimulating. I will respond to the comments in the order indicated in your review.
1). The paper shows another time how the thought experiments made in the science fiction can be useful when searching for ways to find new insights out of the box. The author might want to reflect the relevance of his analysis even more in the concluding part also from the perspective of general relevance and cultural implications.
Thank you for that comment. I fully agree, but it would take too much space to talk about it. However, I have added a new note 18 and included new items in the bibliography to highlight the issue.
2). On line 65 you claim that a "theory of creation" is relevant "to any philosophy". You're right that the theory of origin is relevant also philosophically. However, not every philosophy wants to reflect this with concepts which clearly have theological connotations, or at least refer to a philosophy of religion like "creation".
Yes, you are right. I have corrected with the expression (highlighted in the text):
Needless to say, the theories of creation and the theory of being hold significant im-portance in numerous philosophical discourses.
3). You use in the text a lot of abbreviations. To help the reader it would be helpful to explain for example on the line 536 the abbreviation DRT. Similarly helpful would be to explain on line 564 the Landauer principle.
Abbreviations are explained in the footnote 1; but following your advice I have added a formulation of Landauer’s principle with the appropriate bibliography (see footnote 15).
4). You should define what is meant by "information" if it should have mass. Perhaps you could even analytically reflect whether there is a materialistic philosophical background presupposed in these reflections which tend to reduce everything to material reality?
Indeed, the concept of mass is crucial in this context. In lines 603 to 614, I point out the issue by referring to studies that address the question you mention, also at an analytical level. In this case the contribution of Burgin and Mikkilineni goes precisely in the direction of your comment. I did not want to go into detail, as my text - effectively - has a more, I would say, ‘humanistic’ cut. Of course, I fully agree, a form of reductionism is always lurking, even in the situation of reducing all reality to a form of the MEIE Principle. Again, I did not want to get into the subject - that would be a topic for another essay.
5). Regarding the question whether information has mass, you could have mentioned that generally the answer has been no (Kish and Granquist 2013, 1895). After all, the idea is contra intuitive. Yet there are indications that date storage leads to changes in the weight. Anyway, I'd like to ask how about the alternative explanasion that the process of storing data increases weight but not the information as such? Similarly the process of emptying the storage can release energy and make the storage lighter which is not the same as emptying the storage of its information content. You also refer yourself to the tests made by Kish and their inconclusive results. For example Kish and Granquist state (2013, 1895): "Our results indicate that there are different answers depending on the physical situation, and sometimes the mass can even be negative."
I didn't want to go into the Kish results in detail because of the reasons I mentioned before (see above p. 4). The idea of 'negative mass' is very interesting. But as far as I know, no one has continued this line of experimental research.
6). Lines 646-649: It is good to ask what are the philosophical presuppositions of a universal method. Is it a part of a rationalistic Enlightenment project to control the reality? Is there another philosophical or theological idea in the background? Some clues could be traced back for example in the clear influence of Leibniz.
It is not easy to answer the question. Indeed, Lem's approach may be close to the tendencies of the Enlightenment and Leibniz, but I would exclude purely theological inspirations. But scholars of his work indicate a multiplicity of inspirations and themes in Lem's work. Perhaps the theme of the relationship between the mind (human or robotic - even in the sense of artificial intelligence) and the world, conjugated as a form of solipsism, could be indicated as his prevailing interest. But again - I did not want to get into the subject that would require the study of his entire oeuvre. I realise I am repeating myself - but here too there would be material for another essay. In any case, I felt it my duty to point out the issue by adding references to the two volumes specifically dedicated to the subject (footnote 18).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
