3 ms·

This is a shitty replacement for Hilbert's list. Hilbert had 25 problems in mathematics: when you solved them, you knew you had, or at worst you would wait for

This is a shitty replacement for Hilbert's list. Hilbert had 25 problems in mathematics: when you solved them, you knew you had, or at worst you would wait for peer review to confirm you got it. No one will ever solve, to pick one, "Alternatives to paid labor for most humans". It's already happened for some people, will never happen for some people, and won't necessarily be a good thing if it happens for many people. The items on this list are overwhelmingly people and political problems and - even if they are laudable goals in general - don't belong in the same breath as Hilbert's.

dvt 8y ago
Let alone that some are just dubiously ambiguous. What does "transmutation of matter to different elements and structures" mean? We've already done this via hydrogen bombs and particle accelerators, it's just very (very) expensive or very (very) destructive. Or does the author mean something different -- maybe more like the alchemy of the Dark Ages? What does the author even mean by "structures"?
- Alex3917 8y ago
  I don't think he necessarily means elements in the chemistry sense of the word. By elements he probably just means new physical materials (e.g. graphene), and by structures he's probably talking about things like nanobots or 3D chips. (I could be completely wrong, but just a guess.)
valar_m 8y ago
I don't think his point is to replace Hilbert's list. I think his point is to think about specific problems that are worth the effort to solve. It seems like he made an effort to distinguish his list (and the exercise itself) from Hilbert's: > Technology doesn’t have to be high-tech. It can simply be the hard work of finding generous solutions to important problems, big or small. > Our next steps might be far more effective than simple resolutions, which are easily ignored or pushed aside. > As citizens, creators and consumers, each of us can also propose a more global list. Forgive me for saying so, but your response strikes me as a bit ironic -- losing sight of the larger theme by focusing on technically correct but less important details seems to be exactly the type of thing the author is hoping to discourage.
joppy 8y ago
Hilberts list of problems is way less clear-cut than you think. His first and second problems eventually ended up being “solved” only once people figured out what Kurt Gödel was going on about with his incompleteness theorems. But to many people at the time, this was not really a “solution”. There are other problems on the list like “formulate physics mathematically” and “further develop calculus”. So Hilbert’s list contains both specific and hopelessly vague problems.

dvt 8y ago

Let alone that some are just dubiously ambiguous. What does "transmutation of matter to different elements and structures" mean? We've already done this via hydrogen bombs and particle accelerators, it's just very (very) expensive or very (very) destructive. Or does the author mean something different -- maybe more like the alchemy of the Dark Ages? What does the author even mean by "structures"?

Alex3917 8y ago
I don't think he necessarily means elements in the chemistry sense of the word. By elements he probably just means new physical materials (e.g. graphene), and by structures he's probably talking about things like nanobots or 3D chips. (I could be completely wrong, but just a guess.)

valar_m 8y ago

I don't think his point is to replace Hilbert's list. I think his point is to think about specific problems that are worth the effort to solve. It seems like he made an effort to distinguish his list (and the exercise itself) from Hilbert's: > Technology doesn’t have to be high-tech. It can simply be the hard work of finding generous solutions to important problems, big or small. > Our next steps might be far more effective than simple resolutions, which are easily ignored or pushed aside. > As citizens, creators and consumers, each of us can also propose a more global list. Forgive me for saying so, but your response strikes me as a bit ironic -- losing sight of the larger theme by focusing on technically correct but less important details seems to be exactly the type of thing the author is hoping to discourage.

joppy 8y ago

Hilberts list of problems is way less clear-cut than you think. His first and second problems eventually ended up being “solved” only once people figured out what Kurt Gödel was going on about with his incompleteness theorems. But to many people at the time, this was not really a “solution”. There are other problems on the list like “formulate physics mathematically” and “further develop calculus”. So Hilbert’s list contains both specific and hopelessly vague problems.