3 ms·

You either accept scientific method, and then there will be no advancements to go faster than speed of light, or you don’t and then all bets are off and discuss

by vl 4y ago

You either accept scientific method, and then there will be no advancements to go faster than speed of light, or you don’t and then all bets are off and discussion is pointless.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
"No genius ever transcends his own epoch or is much aware of advances possible only a half-century in his future." -- Erich Fromm Perhaps an exception is Da Vinci. Generally though, there's a separate class of those with rich, intuitive imaginations, but without the ability to fill in the details. They have the odd ability to be right more than half the time. Early computer "sci-fi" thinkers, and I'd include visionaries like Ada Lovelace there, have interpreted our internet hundreds of years in advance. At that time there was nothing comparable in nature to take as an analogy.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Past performance is no guarantee of future success. Everything discovered until now has been the low hanging fruit. The pattern is that it's only getting harder to discover new secrets of nature. Today it requires decades of education, rare genius, and a massive amount of work and luck. There will likely come a point at which reaching new discoveries requires more energy, resources, and time than any human(s) can afford. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but accept that diminishing returns will kick in at some point. We live on a finite planet as a precarious existence. Learning to first live sustainably is probably a better bet than burning the earth to send few people to another planet for a while.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but accept that diminishing returns will kick in at some point. You're most probably right Paul. I agree with Thiel and Graeber (in their now famous conversation) that this began 20 or 30 years ago. > The pattern is that it's only getting harder to discover new secrets of nature. Not sure about that. What pattern do you mean? There have been stalls, hiatus and centuries of dark-age. That "past performance is no guarantee of future success" swings both ways. No strong epistemological statements can be made. Maybe the patterns we see have more to do with power dynamics than opportunity. > Everything discovered until now has been the low hanging fruit. We cannot know that. Imagine the discovery of a new force that connects electrodynamics and gravity, or an extraordinary development in mathematics that changes the way we see data and statistics. These could seed a 100 year run of paradigm shifts. > Today it requires decades of education, I've been on this line of thought too. I did a talk at Kings College on the problem of the "pulled up ladder", the resilience of innovation and the possibility of reconstructing a post-calamity society due to lost knowledge and the apparently insurmountable demands of education. But as I think more on it, hasn't every epoch faced the same challenge. It's terrifying when viewed as an individual prospect, but on a collective scale we always advance. > There will likely come a point at which reaching new discoveries requires more energy, resources, and time than any human(s) can afford. This might be a bit Malthusian. Let's hold out hope for genius and luck too. > We live on a finite planet as a precarious existence. Learning to first live sustainable is probably a better bet than burning the earth to send few people to another planet for a while. That's an interesting debate. I also have reservations on the expansive/exploratory mind-set. It's a cliche to say it, but very few people understand the scales, energy and likely opporunity from space. A period of sustainable consolidation might be what we need. On the other hand some will wish to push on regardless and I don't think anyone ought to discourage them or that they need to "burn the planet" to do so.
drexlspivey 4y ago
There already several hacks around speed of light in physics: Space itself expands faster than C. How is this possible? Well it doesn't count if the space itself is expanding Wormholes have been theorized by Einstein among others and allow FTL travel. How is this possible? Well you dont travel faster than light inside the wormhole only if you count the distance the long way Tachyons are particles that travel faster than light. How is this possible? Well you can travel faster than light but you cannot accelerate to a speed faster than C (sure..)

by vl 4y ago

You either accept scientific method, and then there will be no advancements to go faster than speed of light, or you don’t and then all bets are off and discussion is pointless.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

"No genius ever transcends his own epoch or is much aware of advances possible only a half-century in his future." -- Erich Fromm Perhaps an exception is Da Vinci. Generally though, there's a separate class of those with rich, intuitive imaginations, but without the ability to fill in the details. They have the odd ability to be right more than half the time. Early computer "sci-fi" thinkers, and I'd include visionaries like Ada Lovelace there, have interpreted our internet hundreds of years in advance. At that time there was nothing comparable in nature to take as an analogy.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Past performance is no guarantee of future success. Everything discovered until now has been the low hanging fruit. The pattern is that it's only getting harder to discover new secrets of nature. Today it requires decades of education, rare genius, and a massive amount of work and luck. There will likely come a point at which reaching new discoveries requires more energy, resources, and time than any human(s) can afford. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but accept that diminishing returns will kick in at some point. We live on a finite planet as a precarious existence. Learning to first live sustainably is probably a better bet than burning the earth to send few people to another planet for a while.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but accept that diminishing returns will kick in at some point. You're most probably right Paul. I agree with Thiel and Graeber (in their now famous conversation) that this began 20 or 30 years ago. > The pattern is that it's only getting harder to discover new secrets of nature. Not sure about that. What pattern do you mean? There have been stalls, hiatus and centuries of dark-age. That "past performance is no guarantee of future success" swings both ways. No strong epistemological statements can be made. Maybe the patterns we see have more to do with power dynamics than opportunity. > Everything discovered until now has been the low hanging fruit. We cannot know that. Imagine the discovery of a new force that connects electrodynamics and gravity, or an extraordinary development in mathematics that changes the way we see data and statistics. These could seed a 100 year run of paradigm shifts. > Today it requires decades of education, I've been on this line of thought too. I did a talk at Kings College on the problem of the "pulled up ladder", the resilience of innovation and the possibility of reconstructing a post-calamity society due to lost knowledge and the apparently insurmountable demands of education. But as I think more on it, hasn't every epoch faced the same challenge. It's terrifying when viewed as an individual prospect, but on a collective scale we always advance. > There will likely come a point at which reaching new discoveries requires more energy, resources, and time than any human(s) can afford. This might be a bit Malthusian. Let's hold out hope for genius and luck too. > We live on a finite planet as a precarious existence. Learning to first live sustainable is probably a better bet than burning the earth to send few people to another planet for a while. That's an interesting debate. I also have reservations on the expansive/exploratory mind-set. It's a cliche to say it, but very few people understand the scales, energy and likely opporunity from space. A period of sustainable consolidation might be what we need. On the other hand some will wish to push on regardless and I don't think anyone ought to discourage them or that they need to "burn the planet" to do so.

drexlspivey 4y ago

There already several hacks around speed of light in physics: Space itself expands faster than C. How is this possible? Well it doesn't count if the space itself is expanding Wormholes have been theorized by Einstein among others and allow FTL travel. How is this possible? Well you dont travel faster than light inside the wormhole only if you count the distance the long way Tachyons are particles that travel faster than light. How is this possible? Well you can travel faster than light but you cannot accelerate to a speed faster than C (sure..)