> First, regarding "technology plateau" being unlikely, that presupposes what it oughta prove [1]. We can discuss it as a counter-assertion to mine, but it can'

> First, regarding "technology plateau" being unlikely, that presupposes what it oughta prove [1]. We can discuss it as a counter-assertion to mine, but it can't be part of an argument that proves that we're unlikely to be in a plateau, because that would be circular reasoning. You previously wrote, "It's entirely possible (also for us) that scientific and technological advancement plateaus." I don't see how "entirely possible" equates to "likely", so if you really felt it was likely, you can't blame me for assuming we were in agreement here, because you haven't made that clear until now. > Second, even if that "technology plateau" is low probability was a legit argument, and even given that "technology plateaus now" is also low probability, and thus their chances of happening together being even lower probability (the multiplication of those two low probabilities) -- that would just prove that "technology plateaus now" is low probability. It wouldn't mean it's impossible, much less that it's not happening. Yes, but if technology plateaus in the future, it would be the same as if it didn't plateau at all, in that we wouldn't be able to recognize the telltale signs of it, being completely foreign to our own. > And my assumption wasn't based on probabilities, but on empirical observations. Winning the lottery is low probability. Your first script getting accepted to be made into a major movie is too. But if you have the lottery ticket in your hands, have verified the winning numbers, and you just got a call from a Hollywood director that want's to buy your script, the fact that those two events occurring together are "low probability" doesn't matter. They are reality. > (Besides, for any two events with low probability that have happened in history, somebody could have made the exact same argument you've made, to "prove" that they didn't happen). I find your empirical evidence rather weak. You cherry picked the data. > Plotting the outline of inventions on a timescale, and their impact, one can see that there's a big boom in the 18th century, continues to 19th century, peaking in 20th to mid 20th century. For 60+ years we haven't found anything as big as electricity (Maxwell and co), electric light, combustion engine, telephone, television, internet, photography, AD/DA conversion, nuclear power, transistors, DNA, Quantum Mechanics, penicillin, antibiotics, Relativity, flight, plastics, rockets, etc. Even computers and the internet herald back to 30s and 60s respectively. Where are those equivalent impact theories or inventions (as opposed to mere optimizations and marginal improvements to existing theories/inventions) in the last 60 years? > I'm sure you'll find a few. I doubt you'll find 1/10th as many as in, say, 1900-1950. You realize human history started a long while before the 18th century, don't you? We have a long way to go before we drop back to the level of invention attained in the previous millennium. You are extrapolating out tiny fluctuations at the very tail end of the history of humanity, and ignoring the rest of it.