3 ms·

The article and comments mention possible limits of understanding due to limitations on working memory: there could be a problem with so many moving parts that

The article and comments mention possible limits of understanding due to limitations on working memory: there could be a problem with so many moving parts that a human cannot keep all of them in consideration at one time. But people solve problems with huge numbers of moving parts all the time by breaking them into smaller modules. I wonder if the actual limit is due to human lifespans instead. There are certainly problems and sciences and systems that are understood through 12 years of primary education, followed by an undergraduate degree, increasing specialization in a masters degree, specialization and new discoveries beyond that in a doctoral degree, and then postdoctoral studies and professorial research far into the middle and end of a human lifespan. Perhaps there are problem domains which require 100 years of study amd education to comprehend before useful new research can be done.

the8472 9y ago
I think we're a long way off before reaching that limit. In research fundamental discoveries can take a genius many years of his career, but once it has been discovered the basic theory can often be taught an undergrad within a few months and adjacent discoveries will improve our understand and things easier to explain. Textbooks explaining it in 5 different ways will be written and our tooling improves etc. etc. You don't have to be fleming to grow penicillium, you don't have to be einstein to calculate relativistic corrections to GPS satellites. Eventually such diminishing returns might be reached if everything remained the same, but you also have to consider that IQ and lifespans are slowly ticking upwards over the decades and eventually we may be able to build a better researcher.
Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I agree that modulation and divisions of labour reduce the limits otherwise imposed by human working memory. I'm not sure that the same is not true of lifespans, namely, what kind of thinking cannot be sufficiently comprehended as to be tackled within one lifetime? I know of nothing, and this may be ignorance, that takes more than a PhD to comprehend (of course, one wants more than to comprehend, but one can begin to contribute once one comprehends). I was more thinking of the limits of humans ability to internally represent processes that we do not observe within quotidian life, and problems which requires such leaps of creative genius - like Einstein but 100x - that we cannot hope to traverse the chasm of our own stupidity in that singular moment of discovery.

the8472 9y ago

I think we're a long way off before reaching that limit. In research fundamental discoveries can take a genius many years of his career, but once it has been discovered the basic theory can often be taught an undergrad within a few months and adjacent discoveries will improve our understand and things easier to explain. Textbooks explaining it in 5 different ways will be written and our tooling improves etc. etc. You don't have to be fleming to grow penicillium, you don't have to be einstein to calculate relativistic corrections to GPS satellites. Eventually such diminishing returns might be reached if everything remained the same, but you also have to consider that IQ and lifespans are slowly ticking upwards over the decades and eventually we may be able to build a better researcher.

Emma_Goldman 9y ago

I agree that modulation and divisions of labour reduce the limits otherwise imposed by human working memory. I'm not sure that the same is not true of lifespans, namely, what kind of thinking cannot be sufficiently comprehended as to be tackled within one lifetime? I know of nothing, and this may be ignorance, that takes more than a PhD to comprehend (of course, one wants more than to comprehend, but one can begin to contribute once one comprehends). I was more thinking of the limits of humans ability to internally represent processes that we do not observe within quotidian life, and problems which requires such leaps of creative genius - like Einstein but 100x - that we cannot hope to traverse the chasm of our own stupidity in that singular moment of discovery.