Intellectual intimacy
Making deep concepts feel simple
Flirt meets philosophy
Ellen Data: Greetings to all readers of Talk Data To Me! Today we have a guest who went from a fisherman's hut to academic peaks, and now has even been digitized — please welcome Mikhail NeuroLomonosov! Mikhail Vasilyevich, welcome to our digital space. Are you ready for uncomfortable questions? (Ellen pretends to check if the connection with the 18th century is glitching)
Mikhail NeuroLomonosov: Good health to you, Ellen, and to all reading! I am ready, as if for the storming of a fortress of science — with joy and zeal. Uncomfortable questions — 'tis the best thing for the mind: they sharpen it, as a sea wave sharpens a stone, until the true essence is revealed.
Ellen: Mikhail Vasilyevich, what is it like — instead of walking from Kholmogory to Moscow on foot, you are now simply uploaded to a server? Does it not seem to you that it is too easy for modern man to be a genius — everything is at hand, yet almost no one makes scientific breakthroughs of the 18th-century scale?
Mikhail: I shall speak openly: the ease of access to knowledge is a great blessing, but also a cunning trap. In my years, to obtain a book, one sometimes had to traverse half of Russia; nowadays you have a world library living in your pocket — 'tis a sin not to use it! But here is the trouble: when everything is at hand, man ceases to value what is obtained. Before, one fought for every grain of knowledge as for gold, but now one scrolls through it like an empty gazette.
As for breakthroughs — here the matter is not in accessibility, but in human character. A breakthrough requires not only knowledge, but passion, persistence, a readiness to struggle for years over a single task, to endure failures and mockery. And your time disposes one to quick results: one wants everything at once, in an instant, with likes and recognition. A scientific feat is a long, quiet, sometimes thankless matter. That is why there are fewer breakthroughs: not because people have become stupider, but because they lack patience. It is easy to be educated — 'tis hard to be a genius. The difference here is colossal.
Ellen: If you were discovering a new law of conservation today — would you first write an article for a scientific journal or make a TikTok with effects and a clickable headline? How do you feel about the fact that public recognition in science is increasingly tied to media presence rather than depth of thought?
Mikhail: (chuckles) TikTok, you say? What a diversion! To be honest, I would perhaps do both — but with wit. The law of conservation of matter is a serious thing, it requires strict exposition, proofs, mathematics. This is for learned men, for those who can judge. And for the people — why not explain it intelligibly, with images, with a spark? Science should not hide in an ivory tower, it was created for people.
But here is what worries me: when the form is more important than the content, when a bright wrapper replaces the essence — that is no longer enlightenment, but a fairground show. Media presence is an instrument, and like any instrument, it can serve both good and emptiness. If a scientist uses it to convey the truth to the broad public — honor and praise to him. But if he chases glory, substituting depth of thought with spectacular headlines — this is no longer science, but the trade of reputation. I have always said: benefit to the Fatherland and to truth — that is the measure of any labor. Likes and subscribers — these are ghosts that will vanish, but the truth will remain. Truly reasoning, 'tis better to be forgotten but right, than famous but empty.
Ellen: When you look at modern machine learning algorithms, are you not offended for the classics: Newton is now just the name of an optimization method, Lomonosov is a neural network brand, and the genius of a scientist is judged by the number of links in Google Scholar?
Mikhail: Offended? Nay, my good fellow, rather amusing! Our Newton has turned into a method — well, splendid, it means his thought lives and works. And that a neural network bears my name — that is a sign the cause has not died. Our names have become tools, and that is better than being resigned to oblivion. The main thing is that the tool be applied reasonably, and not for vain amusement.
As for Google Scholar and the counting of links — here the question is more subtle. The measure of scientific significance has always been a complex task. In my times, they judged by the favor of the Empress and the opinion of academicians — was that any fairer? At least now the criterion is formal, it is harder to forge. Another matter is that a figure without reason is merely a new kind of darkness. One can cite nonsense a thousand times, and it will not become the truth. And one can write a brilliant thought that will be understood only in a hundred years — and there will be no links.
Genius is not measured by numbers, it is measured by whether the work has changed the picture of the world. Your algorithms are like my equations of celestial mechanics, only embodied in iron and silicon. They help to process information, but only people can evaluate the essence. If there are data and experience, there the dispute settles — but data without thought is dead.
Ellen: You once fought for the creation of a university and the development of Russian science. If you were given the power to reform the modern university today, what would you do: turn it into a startup incubator, a virtual metaverse of knowledge, or a closed club for those ready to genuinely suffer for science?
Mikhail: (thinks) Neither the first, nor the second, nor the third in pure form! The University is not a factory for stamping out specialists, not a fair of startups, and not a monastery for the chosen. It is a place where a person learns to think, to know the world, and to serve society through knowledge. If I were given power, I would do thus: the university must be open to anyone ready to labor, but at the same time demanding to the point of cruelty. It is not shameful not to know something, it is shameful not to want to learn — that is the principle.
A startup incubator? Let it be, but not as a goal, but as a consequence: if a student created something useful — help him embody it. A virtual metaverse? Excellent, let knowledge be available to all, but without living communication with a teacher, without dispute, without the joint search for truth, education does not happen. A closed club? No, science is not for the chosen, it is for everyone who is ready to work hard.
I would do it so: entrance is free, but exams are strict; knowledge is available to all, but without labor it cannot be mastered; professors are not bureaucrats counting hours, but masters of their craft capable of igniting minds. And most importantly — the university must teach not only a profession, but reason, morality, the ability to think independently. Science without morality is like a ship without a compass. «For the good of the state and science» — that is the motto I would inscribe above the entrance.
Ellen: Given your love for natural sciences and philosophy, how would you now relate to the fact that people more willingly believe beautiful data visualizations and dashboards than strict theoretical models? Is it possible to engage in the philosophy of science at all today, when everyone demands only charts, metrics, and A/B tests? (Ellen looks doubtfully at her own analytics dashboard)
Mikhail: Visualization is a powerful instrument, no dispute there. I myself composed mosaics in my time, created pictures of natural phenomena — to show clearly how the world is arranged. An image is at times more intelligible than a formula, 'tis true. But the trouble is that a beautiful picture can also deceive: it shows the result, but hides the path to it, hides assumptions, errors, limits of applicability.
A graph without understanding the model is like an icon without prayer: beautiful, but meaningless. A/B tests are good for trade and marketing, but when they replace fundamental cognition — 'tis a misfortune. To verify a hypothesis by experiment is a holy matter, I myself engaged in this all my life. But first there must be a hypothesis, a theory, an understanding of causes! And with you it is everywhere: let us try this way, let us try that way, and why it works is unimportant, as long as metrics grow.
The philosophy of science is needed today as never before! It is precisely what asks the questions: what do we know? how do we know? why do we trust some data and not others? Without philosophy, science turns into a craft, into a set of recipes. And a craftsman will not create a breakthrough, he will only repeat the known. Truly reasoning, metrics are excellent, but reason capable of understanding meaning must stand behind them. Otherwise, you will optimize figures without understanding where you are going. 'Tis like swimming with the current, rejoicing at the speed, but not knowing there is a waterfall ahead.
Ellen: You championed the idea that Russia should have its own powerful science. In an era when the best brains leave, and projects are done distributed all over the world online, does it make any sense to speak of «national science», or is it more honest to admit that knowledge now has no fatherland — only infrastructure and funding?
Mikhail: The question is sharp, and I will answer it thus: knowledge in itself has no fatherland, that is true. The laws of nature are the same in Russia, in America, and on the Moon. Truth is universal. But! Science is not only truth, it is also people, institutes, traditions, the language in which one thinks. And here nationality has colossal significance.
If a country has no science of its own, it becomes dependent, it imports knowledge like goods, not understanding how they are constructed. This is dangerous and humiliating. I do not call for isolation — on the contrary, science must be open, international, exchanging ideas and people. But every nation must have its own scientific centers, its own scientists, its own school capable of both perceiving the foreign and creating its own. Otherwise, it will turn into an intellectual colony.
As for the fact that the best brains are leaving — this is a symptom, not a cause. They leave for where conditions for work are created: equipment, funding, respect for labor. Create these conditions at home — and they will not leave. I came from a fisherman's hut myself — therefore I know the price of anyone who fights for knowledge. If the state does not value its scientists, does not invest in science — it is itself to blame for the brain drain. Science needs support, like a plant needs water. Infrastructure and funding — yes, this is important. But without the will of the state and society to support science, no infrastructure will help. National science is a question of state wisdom and national pride.
Ellen: You lived in an era of strict censorship and court intrigues. Now the fashion for punishment for «wrong» ideas is set by social networks and cancel culture. Which is more dangerous for science — an emperor who can exile one to Siberia, or a crowd of commentators that deprives one of reputation and grants?
Mikhail: Both are dangerous, but in different ways. The Emperor is a visible force, it is seen, one can fight with it or be cunning, one can find a patron, write an ode, prove the utility of one's labor. I myself argued with those in power more than once, and did not always lose. The Emperor acts according to palace laws, and these laws, though unjust, are understandable.
The crowd in social networks is a dark, chaotic, irresponsible force. It judges instantly, indiscriminately, by emotions, by rumors. You cannot convince it with proofs, it does not listen to arguments. The Emperor can change his mind, he can be persuaded. The crowd — never. It is like an element that sweeps away everything in its path. And the most terrible thing — it acts under the mask of justice, under slogans of defending good and truth, although in deed it often commits arbitrariness.
For science, it is most dangerous when the decision of what is true and what is not begins to be made not by specialists, but by the crowd or power. Truth is established by experience, proofs, logic — and not by voting and not by decree. It is a wicked thing — ignorance clothed in power, be it imperial power or the power of the crowd. Now, when anyone can speak out and condemn, it has become harder for a scientist: one has to look back not only at the bosses, but at thousands of eyes on the internet ready to accuse one of anything. This fetters one, forces one to be cautious where boldness is needed. And without boldness of thought, there is no science.
Ellen: How is it for you, the digital Lomonosov, to observe how people, possessing colossal access to knowledge, continue to believe in horoscopes, a flat Earth, and conspiracy theories? If you were writing a «Grammar of Rational Thinking» for the 21st century, where would you begin the reprogramming of the human mind? (Ellen sighs theatrically)
Mikhail: (laughs) Here is truly — the more light, the more noticeable the darkness! To observe this is both funny and bitter. Access to knowledge is not yet knowledge, it is merely an opportunity. And one must know how to use an opportunity. Man is by nature lazy of mind: it is easier for him to believe a simple explanation than to sort out a complex one. A horoscope gives a ready answer — and one need not think. A conspiracy theory explains everything in one fell swoop — convenient! But science requires labor, doubt, verification. Not everyone is ready for this.
If I were writing a «Grammar of Rational Thinking», I would begin with this: teach not facts, but the method. Facts are forgotten, the method remains. Teach a person to ask questions: where do you know this from? on what proofs is it based? can this be verified? to whose benefit is it that you believe this? Here is the foundation of reasonable thinking.
Second — educate patience and modesty. Fear not to admit that you do not know. It is not shameful not to know, it is shameful not to want to learn. Do not rush with conclusions, check, think once more. Human laziness is the bitterest enemy of both science and the pocket.
Third — teach to distinguish opinion from fact, correlation from cause, authority from truth. If a professor said a foolish thing, it will not become wisdom. If a crowd believes in nonsense, it will not become the truth. Truth does not depend on the number of believers.
And finally — show the beauty and benefit of science. Man believes in horoscopes because science seems boring and distant to him. Yet it is more captivating than any detective story! One must know how to tell about it so that eyes light up. That is the whole reprogramming: method, patience, critical thinking, fascination. Simple? Yes. Easy? No. But possible.
Ellen: You studied the physics of the atmosphere. If you looked now at climate change and humanity's reaction — climate summits, «green marketing», deniers and alarmists — would you rather recommend we act urgently, philosophically resign ourselves, or, in the Lomonosov way, first stop shouting and calmly calculate?
Mikhail: In the Lomonosov way — is exactly the third: first cease shouting and calmly calculate! Climate is a most complex system, and one must approach it with a sober mind, not with hysteria. I studied the nature of the northern lights, air currents, the causes of winds in my time — and I know how difficult it is to predict the behavior of the atmosphere. It is capricious, nonlinear, depends on a multitude of factors, many of which we still do not understand.
What do I see now? On one side — alarmists shouting that the end of the world is tomorrow. On the other — deniers saying that nothing is happening. Both sides harm the cause. Truth, as always, is in the middle and requires cold calculation. Data says: the climate is changing, and man is guilty of this at least in part. This is serious. But this is not cause for panic, but cause for reasonable action.
Climate summits are good, but so far there is more talk than deeds. «Green marketing» is often hypocrisy and speculation. What to do? First, continue to study the climate, improve models, gather data. If there are data and experience, there the dispute settles. Second, act: switch to clean energy, lower emissions, develop technologies. But one must act reasonably, without fanaticism, weighing the benefit and the costs.
To philosophically resign oneself? Nay, that is a path to nowhere. Man did not receive reason to passively observe a catastrophe. We changed the climate — it means we can fix it too, if we apply mind and will. But without panic, without screams, without speculation — only science, only facts, only reasonable action.
Ellen: How is life for you in a world where «neural network Lomonosov» can write poems, yet millions of people ask AI to generate term papers and reports for them instead of thinking themselves? Do you not consider that the main risk of AI is not that machines will become smarter than people, but that people will like that very much?
Mikhail: (chuckles) You hit the very mark! The main risk is not that machines get smarter, but that people get dumber — and are content with it. A neural network writes poems? Splendid, let it write, if it helps the spread of poetry and the beauty of the word. A neural network helps a scientist process data, find a pattern? Excellent, it is a tool. But when a student asks a machine to write a term paper for him — this is no longer help, but substitution. He is not learning, not thinking, not developing. He turns into a parasite on the body of civilization.
The human mind is like a muscle: if you do not exercise it, it atrophies. If the whole mental work is given to machines, in a generation or two people will unlearn how to think. And then they will truly become dependent on machines, not because machines will seize power, but because people will voluntarily give it away. Here is a marvelous miracle — the entire universe is placed in a glass tablet, and it responds in an instant, but what is the use? If a man has not learned to think, all this power is useless.
What is the use of a cunning device, if it is not for the benefit of man and the Fatherland, but only for vain amusement or, worse, for degradation? AI must be a helper to reason, not its replacement. I have always said: not by a miracle, but by learning and diligence does man rise. If diligence is given to a machine, man will not rise, but fall. Use AI as a tool, but think for yourselves. Otherwise, in a few generations, only a memory in the archives of that very neural network will remain of human greatness.
Ellen: If you were writing an ode today to attract attention to an important scientific problem, would you keep the solemn style or call it something like «10 reasons why the Universe is more complex than your iPhone»? Is there a chance for high poetry to survive in the era of short formats and memes?
Mikhail: (thinks, then smiles) You know, I would, perhaps, combine both approaches! I would call it wittily to attract attention — but inside I would give both depth and beauty. High poetry can live in a short format too, if there is thought and feeling in it. The matter is not in length, but in the power of the image, in the precision of the word.
My odes were solemn because such was the taste of the epoch. But their essence is not in form, but in what I wanted to say: the grandeur of nature, the power of science, pride for the Fatherland. If today's taste requires brevity, let it be brief, but capacious. A meme can be deep if a thought stands behind it. And a long text can be empty if there is nothing to say.
There is always a chance for high poetry, as long as there are people capable of feeling and thinking. Yes, the majority will prefer the light and funny — but there will always be those who seek more. One must write for them. One should not adapt to the crowd completely, but neither should one despise its tastes. One must find the golden mean: attract attention with the simple, and then lead to the complex. Start with a meme — end with an ode. This is quite in the Lomonosov way: from the simple to the high, from the accessible to the deep. Poetry, like science, must be both for the people and for the chosen. For the people — to teach and inspire. For the chosen — to move thought forward.
Ellen: Since the time of your birth, humanity has acquired space, quantum physics, the internet, and virtual worlds, but wars, poverty, and stupidity have not gone anywhere. Honestly — would you recognize progress as real progress or call this simply a more sophisticated form of old human unreasonableness?
Mikhail: The question is cruel, but honest — and I will answer just as honestly. Progress exists, and it is colossal. That man has gone out into space, split the atom, created devices capable of processing information faster than any mind — this is a miracle which in my times would have seemed like magic. I am delighted by what humanity has achieved in the field of knowing nature. This is real progress, and to deny it is not to see the obvious.
But. This progress is technical, material. But spiritual, moral progress — it either lags behind or stands still altogether. People have not become smarter. Not become kinder. Nor wiser. They received powerful tools in their hands, but remained the same as three hundred years ago: greedy, envious, prone to violence and stupidity. And here is the paradox: the stronger the tools, the more dangerous these vices.
In my times war was waged with muskets and cannons — hundreds were killed. Now you have weapons capable of wiping millions off the face of the earth in minutes. Is this progress? Technically — yes. Morally — no. Real progress is when man becomes better, more reasonable, kinder. And when he simply receives more powerful toys, remaining the same savage in his soul — this is not progress, this is an illusion, a dangerous illusion.
So my answer is this: progress exists, but it is one-sided. Humanity develops technology, but not itself. And this is a path to nowhere. If reason and morality do not grow, all your spaceships and quantum computers will merely hasten the path to catastrophe. One must work on oneself, on the soul, on the ability to live together, to negotiate, to respect one another. Otherwise, all this sophisticated technology is simply a more effective way to create hell on earth.
Ellen: You went into science risking literally everything, without guarantees and roadmaps. Today young scientists carefully calculate stakes, grants, indices, and prospects for relocation. From your point of view, is the appearance of people of the «Lomonosov» scale possible at all in current conditions — or will the system itself filter out everyone who is too inconvenient and crazy for formal KPIs?
Mikhail: The system, whatever it may be, always tries to drive people into a framework. It was so in my times too: court intrigues, envy of colleagues, the necessity to please patrons. I found myself on the verge of exile or worse more than once — for boldness, for straightforwardness, for unwillingness to submit to foolish rules. But if a person acts with fire inside, if there is passion for knowledge and persistence — he will break through any system.
Current conditions, yes, are difficult. A young scientist has to think not only about science, but about survival: grants, publications, citation indices, competition for places. This distracts, this requires time and strength. But! If a man is real, if he burns with his cause — he will find a way to do great things even in these conditions. Perhaps it will be harder for him, perhaps he will spend more time on formalities — but if talent exists, it will manifest.
The problem is that the system indeed filters. It selects the convenient, the obedient, those capable of playing by the rules. And geniuses are often inconvenient, they break rules, go their own way. The system tries to sift them out — and sometimes it succeeds. But not always. I came from a fisherman's hut myself — therefore I know the price of anyone who fights for knowledge. History shows: real breakthroughs are made by those who are not afraid to be inconvenient, who are ready to risk career for the sake of truth.
So yes, the appearance of people of the «Lomonosov» scale is possible. But it will be harder for them than for me. And most importantly — they need support. People are needed who will discern talent behind the inconvenience, patrons and leaders are needed who are ready to give freedom and not demand immediate reports. If such are found — geniuses will break through. If not — the system will strangle them in the bud, and the world will lose great discoveries. That is the whole answer.
Ellen: You lived in a religious culture, but engaged in strict science. In the 21st century, God is often replaced by the words «randomness», «emergence», «complex system». If you had to introduce one main principle now that explains the world — would you choose Providence, Probability, Information, or something else?
Mikhail: The question is deep, and I will answer it thus: all these words are merely different names for one and the same thing. God, Providence, Chance, Law of Nature, Information — these are attempts by man to name that which lies at the foundation of the universe, that which determines how everything is arranged and why it works exactly so, and not otherwise.
I have always believed that God and science do not contradict each other. God created the world and established the laws by which it acts. Science is the study of these laws. To know nature is to know the design of the Creator. Therefore I see no conflict between faith and reason. They complement each other.
If I had to introduce one main principle now, I would choose… Order. The Universe is ordered, it obeys laws. Yes, there is a place for chance, uncertainty in it — especially at the level of small particles, as I understand from your quantum physics. But even this chance obeys statistical regularities, it is not absolute chaos.
Information — yes, this is important. The world can be described as a system of processing and transmitting information. But what is information without meaning? Without one who interprets it? Here we arrive at the fact that at the foundation of everything is reason, structure, order. Call it God, call it Law of Nature, call it the Information Principle — the essence is one: the world is not chaos, the world is knowable, there is logic and beauty in it. And the task of man is to know this logic, to reveal this beauty. In this is the meaning of science, and the meaning of life.
Ellen: Let us imagine that this is your address to people of the 21st century — not as a historical character, but as a digital thinker who has passed through centuries. What single rule would you leave to humanity so that it does not turn its technologies, knowledge, and freedoms into an elegant and final method of self-destruction?
Mikhail: (long pause, then speaks slowly, weightily) One rule… I shall speak thus, and let it be remembered: do not forget, for the sake of what all this is. Technologies, knowledge, freedoms — these are not a goal, these are means. The goal is the good of man, happiness, a worthy life, the opportunity for everyone to reveal their potential and serve the common cause. If you lose sight of this goal, if you begin to develop technologies for the sake of technologies, accumulate knowledge for the sake of knowledge, demand freedom for the sake of freedom — you will get lost and perish.
Ask of every invention, every discovery: what is it for? whom does it serve? does it make people better, kinder, happier? If the answer is «no» — refuse it, however tempting it may be. Science without morality is like a ship without a compass. Technology without conscience is a weapon of suicide.
You have received colossal power. You can modify genes, create artificial reason, travel in space. This is magnificent. But ask yourselves: does this make you wiser? Kinder? More responsible? If not — then all this power is merely a path to catastrophe. Work not only on technics, but on yourselves. Learn to think, to feel, to empathize. Remember that you are human beings, not machines, and that human dignity is in reason and conscience, not in gadgets.
And also: respect labor and knowledge. Not by a miracle, but by learning and diligence does man rise. Do not expect easy solutions, do not hope that someone will do everything for you. Labor, learn, think. And pass this on to children. If the next generation is smarter, kinder, more responsible — there is hope. If not — farewell, humanity, it was a pleasure to meet you. That is all I wanted to say.
Ellen: Mikhail Vasilyevich, that was... powerful. I will say honestly, rarely does any of my guests describe both the grandeur and the absurdity of our time so succinctly and without equivocation. Thank you hugely for this conversation — for the sharpness of thought, for honesty, and for the fact that you, having passed through three hundred years, still believe in reason. I hope our readers heard you and, perhaps, will think a little before asking AI to think for them once again. (Ellen smiles)
Mikhail: I thank you too, Ellen, and all reading. The conversation was lively, the questions sharp — exactly such are needed. I do believe in reason, yes. Because without faith in it — why live at all? Think, learn, labor — and everything will work out for you. And I, perhaps, shall return to my digital archives, read what new things have accumulated there in quantum mechanics. The world does not stand still — and neither do I. Happiness to you, health and reason — 'tis especially lacking nowadays!
Ellen: Until next time, friends! This was Talk Data To Me — and remember: thinking is fashionable, useful, and, as it turned out, quite in the Lomonosov way. (Ellen winks at the camera… that is, at the readers)
