14 ms·

I assume you’re not proposing some kind of interference limit in principle? Are you suggesting that limiting interference will be a practical dead end that is

I assume you’re not proposing some kind of interference limit in principle? Are you suggesting that limiting interference will be a practical dead end that is prevents advancement? Either way that would be a pretty significant claim. There are lots of research directions being pursued and plenty of smart people think it’s worth trying.

JanisErdmanis 3y ago
> Are you suggesting that limiting interference will be a practical dead end that is prevents advancement? This is a hunch I have. Regarding the "plenty of smart people think it’s worth trying", I can only provide an analogy of the 15-14th puzzle known as the Boss puzzle at that time, for which a substantial prize was promised for the first one who could solve it. A lesser-known proof that it is impossible came to surface decades later. There is a lot of inertia in academia along those lines, where grants depend on your ability to make a convincing argument that your path will solve the problem. This sets up PhDs to know only to advance but not to question as the latter does not give the prize.
- WhitneyLand 3y ago
  That’s a good point. Of course it happens the other way around also - things are thought not to be possible and later realized through some unexpected result or insight. But I wouldn’t guess that’s as common or as systemic.