4 ms·

> Nothing worth doing is easy. Breathing is pretty easy. But more seriously, I think what you said only applies in iterations of revolutions. A new breakthrou

> Nothing worth doing is easy. Breathing is pretty easy. But more seriously, I think what you said only applies in iterations of revolutions. A new breakthrough (e.g. new physics, new invention) could create a lot more low hanging fruit.

RC_ITR 4y ago
> I think what you said only applies in iterations of revolutions I think a major problem is ever since general relativity, all of our (existing and potential) new revolutions are very abstract and hard to relate back to human perception. Take dark matter/energy for example - if we get a better model to understand that, it will revolutionize how we think about the universe, but it will (hopefully) have less impact on day-to-day society than the nuclear model of atoms did.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Hmm, I don't think that's something we can predict. Someone could have said the same thing before general relativity... in fact, most people did because they thought we were almost done.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    I would argue that general relativity barely affects humans day to day lives, whereas the nuclear model of the atom completely changed the global political system.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      That would be dumb though because it has nothing to do with the original point. Maybe you just feel like arguing.
      - RC_ITR 4y ago
        I mean, I would love for you to expand upon how: >Take dark matter/energy for example - if we get a better model to understand that, it will revolutionize how we think about the universe, but it will (hopefully) have less impact on day-to-day society than the nuclear model of atoms did. Is unrelated to: >I would argue that general relativity barely affects humans day to day lives, whereas the nuclear model of the atom completely changed the global political system. Maybe to help you, I was using General relativity as a time marker (i.e. it was the first sea-change scientific discovery that had limited impact on day-to-day human life) You then argued that my premise was incorrect, because before general relativity was formalized, people could have believed that all future discoveries were too abstract to affect day-to-day human life. I then argued that you were correct in that general relativity in fact was too abstract to affect humans' day-to-day life. Then you made a personal attack against me. Now we are here.

RC_ITR 4y ago

> I think what you said only applies in iterations of revolutions I think a major problem is ever since general relativity, all of our (existing and potential) new revolutions are very abstract and hard to relate back to human perception. Take dark matter/energy for example - if we get a better model to understand that, it will revolutionize how we think about the universe, but it will (hopefully) have less impact on day-to-day society than the nuclear model of atoms did.

guerrilla 4y ago
Hmm, I don't think that's something we can predict. Someone could have said the same thing before general relativity... in fact, most people did because they thought we were almost done.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  I would argue that general relativity barely affects humans day to day lives, whereas the nuclear model of the atom completely changed the global political system.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    That would be dumb though because it has nothing to do with the original point. Maybe you just feel like arguing.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      I mean, I would love for you to expand upon how: >Take dark matter/energy for example - if we get a better model to understand that, it will revolutionize how we think about the universe, but it will (hopefully) have less impact on day-to-day society than the nuclear model of atoms did. Is unrelated to: >I would argue that general relativity barely affects humans day to day lives, whereas the nuclear model of the atom completely changed the global political system. Maybe to help you, I was using General relativity as a time marker (i.e. it was the first sea-change scientific discovery that had limited impact on day-to-day human life) You then argued that my premise was incorrect, because before general relativity was formalized, people could have believed that all future discoveries were too abstract to affect day-to-day human life. I then argued that you were correct in that general relativity in fact was too abstract to affect humans' day-to-day life. Then you made a personal attack against me. Now we are here.