5 ms·

I do wonder if every generation picks slightly higher hanging fruits in science will there come a time when a single human lifetime won't be enough to digest ev

I do wonder if every generation picks slightly higher hanging fruits in science will there come a time when a single human lifetime won't be enough to digest even the most specialised domain of science in order to build upon it

uoaei 7y ago
Scientific "unified" models hide this complexity by abstracting it away so we can keep chipping away at the next level. We can navigate this hierarchy, up or down, to understand respectively large- and small-scale behavior, and the hierarchical model makes it so humans can still comprehend at a given level of abstraction.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  Sure, but this doesn't address the possibility that there may well be problems of sufficient complexity that this model doesn't work.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
stabbles 7y ago
That's an interesting question. In Kuhn's view on science the tree would be replaced after a paradigm shift, meaning there is enough low-hanging fruit in a period of normal science (between two major breakthroughs). I wonder if Kuhn had any claims about whether paradigm shifts would happen less often in time.
SonOfLilit 7y ago
This is a wonderful short story related to this question: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
commandlinefan 7y ago
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Right now, science has an emphasis on causal discovery. Showing that X is a mechanism by which Y happens. That includes finding the different X's for a Y and finding evidence for the relationship between a given X and Y. Once you know how a thing works, that doesn't necessarily make it easy to work with it. For example in quantum mechanics, a common phrase is "shut up and calculate" because the mental models are all messy. But as we all know (especially those of us who have refactored many systems), every once in a while you find a new way of looking at a thing that makes it all much simpler. A geometric way to look at an algebraic thing, or vice versa. Or a unifying structure to combine disparate pieces. Or just a "wow that was dumb" undoing of unnecessary complexity. It makes further progress easier. I could imagine that, as the boundaries of science get more complex, there will be more scientists working on making the rest of it less complex. Meanwhile, maybe we get smarter and live longer. The calculations involved with many areas of modern science have already outpaced what we can do by hand, but we invented computers, so I can take the mean of a zillion numbers without much effort and spend my time elsewhere. And in med school, apparently they say "half of what we teach you will be false, but we don't know which half." As science progresses, you don't just add, you prune too.
- n4r9 7y ago
  Nicely put. In fact a lot of the field of quantum foundations (and interpretations) could be seen as an attempt to work towards this sort of perspective/paradigm shift.
- jonshariat 7y ago
  Ever since I saw this animation [1] of the difference between a heliocentric vs geocentric view of the planets, I always see complexity in a new light. The geocentric movements are all technically correct (thats how they move in relation to the earth) but once the true state is discovered it becomes so much more simple. 1. http://www.malinc.se/math/trigonometry/geocentrismen.php http://www.malinc.se/math/trigonometry/geocentrismen.php
- bordercases 7y ago
  > Meanwhile, maybe we get smarter and live longer. The calculations involved with many areas of modern science have already outpaced what we can do by hand, but we invented computers, so I can take the mean of a zillion numbers without much effort and spend my time elsewhere. With software being as slow as it is despite massive speedups, and even despite despite massive speedups, we really are still not good enough at using our computers to their fullest capacity which still means getting insights into complexity before crunching the numbers.
hinkley 7y ago
A sometimes-spoken hope is that the universe is built on relatively simple rules with complex behaviors. If fields grow too complex, they hope to find some underlying principle that explains (away) that complexity. We started out that way, I dunno if we'll end that way. And even if it does eventually come down to 30 rules that explain everything? How many rules does Chess have? Way more than Go, and both can take decades to really understand.
klyrs 7y ago
In my exposure to number theory, this certainly seemed to be approaching. Grad students barely have a grasp on the basic definitions; postdocs seemed shaky but familiar; professors "get it" but don't claim to understand. And sure, we've got Terry Tao making everything look easy, but that isn't a comfort.
dumbfounder 7y ago
We are still in an explosive growth mode, and probably will be for a very long time (>100 years is my guess). But yes, it will be asymptotic at some point, unless you think the amount of science to grasp is infinite.
- dcow 7y ago
  Until we can create a copy of our own universe, I don’t think people will stop. It’s possible that in this pursuit we’ll keep discovering higher and levels of understanding or in other words that more answers will always lead to more questions.
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
Doubtful. Just look at computer science. How many people actually grasp what the computer is doing at the lowest level? Relatively few compared to the number of developers there are. Abstractions are the key.
wasdfff 7y ago
I don’t think thats a huge worry. Science is pretty much like that now—no one is a walking encyclopedia. Studying all of known physics top to bottom would probably take you a few lifetimes.
m463 7y ago
Right now we're getting help though. AI is able to search and sift and pick up patterns and find theories. But you're right, will the human race ever "retire"?

uoaei 7y ago

Scientific "unified" models hide this complexity by abstracting it away so we can keep chipping away at the next level. We can navigate this hierarchy, up or down, to understand respectively large- and small-scale behavior, and the hierarchical model makes it so humans can still comprehend at a given level of abstraction.

Enginerrrd 7y ago
Sure, but this doesn't address the possibility that there may well be problems of sufficient complexity that this model doesn't work.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

stabbles 7y ago

That's an interesting question. In Kuhn's view on science the tree would be replaced after a paradigm shift, meaning there is enough low-hanging fruit in a period of normal science (between two major breakthroughs). I wonder if Kuhn had any claims about whether paradigm shifts would happen less often in time.

SonOfLilit 7y ago

This is a wonderful short story related to this question: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/

commandlinefan 7y ago

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

Right now, science has an emphasis on causal discovery. Showing that X is a mechanism by which Y happens. That includes finding the different X's for a Y and finding evidence for the relationship between a given X and Y. Once you know how a thing works, that doesn't necessarily make it easy to work with it. For example in quantum mechanics, a common phrase is "shut up and calculate" because the mental models are all messy. But as we all know (especially those of us who have refactored many systems), every once in a while you find a new way of looking at a thing that makes it all much simpler. A geometric way to look at an algebraic thing, or vice versa. Or a unifying structure to combine disparate pieces. Or just a "wow that was dumb" undoing of unnecessary complexity. It makes further progress easier. I could imagine that, as the boundaries of science get more complex, there will be more scientists working on making the rest of it less complex. Meanwhile, maybe we get smarter and live longer. The calculations involved with many areas of modern science have already outpaced what we can do by hand, but we invented computers, so I can take the mean of a zillion numbers without much effort and spend my time elsewhere. And in med school, apparently they say "half of what we teach you will be false, but we don't know which half." As science progresses, you don't just add, you prune too.

n4r9 7y ago
Nicely put. In fact a lot of the field of quantum foundations (and interpretations) could be seen as an attempt to work towards this sort of perspective/paradigm shift.
jonshariat 7y ago
Ever since I saw this animation [1] of the difference between a heliocentric vs geocentric view of the planets, I always see complexity in a new light. The geocentric movements are all technically correct (thats how they move in relation to the earth) but once the true state is discovered it becomes so much more simple. 1. http://www.malinc.se/math/trigonometry/geocentrismen.php http://www.malinc.se/math/trigonometry/geocentrismen.php
bordercases 7y ago
> Meanwhile, maybe we get smarter and live longer. The calculations involved with many areas of modern science have already outpaced what we can do by hand, but we invented computers, so I can take the mean of a zillion numbers without much effort and spend my time elsewhere. With software being as slow as it is despite massive speedups, and even despite despite massive speedups, we really are still not good enough at using our computers to their fullest capacity which still means getting insights into complexity before crunching the numbers.

hinkley 7y ago

A sometimes-spoken hope is that the universe is built on relatively simple rules with complex behaviors. If fields grow too complex, they hope to find some underlying principle that explains (away) that complexity. We started out that way, I dunno if we'll end that way. And even if it does eventually come down to 30 rules that explain everything? How many rules does Chess have? Way more than Go, and both can take decades to really understand.

klyrs 7y ago

In my exposure to number theory, this certainly seemed to be approaching. Grad students barely have a grasp on the basic definitions; postdocs seemed shaky but familiar; professors "get it" but don't claim to understand. And sure, we've got Terry Tao making everything look easy, but that isn't a comfort.

dumbfounder 7y ago

We are still in an explosive growth mode, and probably will be for a very long time (>100 years is my guess). But yes, it will be asymptotic at some point, unless you think the amount of science to grasp is infinite.

dcow 7y ago
Until we can create a copy of our own universe, I don’t think people will stop. It’s possible that in this pursuit we’ll keep discovering higher and levels of understanding or in other words that more answers will always lead to more questions.

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago

Doubtful. Just look at computer science. How many people actually grasp what the computer is doing at the lowest level? Relatively few compared to the number of developers there are. Abstractions are the key.

wasdfff 7y ago

I don’t think thats a huge worry. Science is pretty much like that now—no one is a walking encyclopedia. Studying all of known physics top to bottom would probably take you a few lifetimes.

m463 7y ago

Right now we're getting help though. AI is able to search and sift and pick up patterns and find theories. But you're right, will the human race ever "retire"?