4 ms·
Those sound like different questions. The original is asking if it is theoretically plausible. I don’t think that’s out of line.
by b_tterc_p 8y ago
Those sound like different questions. The original is asking if it is theoretically plausible. I don’t think that’s out of line.
- eof 8y agoTo be fair, the article did little to nothing to address if it's theoretically plausible. Just that we are far away at the moment.
- laumars 8y agoThe OP's point was that adding "ever" in the title means the question isn't just relevant to our current understanding of what is theoretically plausible but it also doesn't exclude some currently unknown theory that might be derived at a distant point in the future. While I do see - and to an extent agree with - their point, I there is a lot more wrong with that heading than just the lack of a contextual end date.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago> The OP's point was that adding "ever" in the title means the question isn't just relevant to our current understanding of what is theoretically plausible but it also doesn't exclude some currently unknown theory that might be derived at a distant point in the future. Or, somewhat more plausibly, some theory or technique that constitutes a minor subfield right now but could be the next big thing in another 20-30 years, or whenever someone just makes it really fast.
- laumars 8y agoI still personally think would be the former context (current tech) rather than the latter context ("ever") because you're discussing something that is already working theory - even if it is just a subfield. So the question doesn't become "Will we ever have..." but rather "When will it become...". Ever applies more for something with an indeterminate future imo.