6 ms·

I couldn't disagree more. Imagine shipping an iPhone back to the 18th century. It wouldn't seem like an advance in technology over the kinds of devices that exi

I couldn't disagree more. Imagine shipping an iPhone back to the 18th century. It wouldn't seem like an advance in technology over the kinds of devices that existed then. It would seem like magic. To me, this is just utterly obvious. And there's no reason to assume that future technology, possibly involving a deep understanding of the nature of awareness itself, if seen by today's people, wouldn't seem just as much like magic. Not going to argue further about it, though.

paulsutter 3y ago
I've been in technology for decades, and to me the iPhone still seems magic, like alien technology
tines 3y ago
If you'll allow me to converse with my tongue half-way in my cheek, I'd argue that Clarke's law is false: technology is distinguishable from magic, because magic knows right from wrong, but technology doesn't :)
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  That's an interesting claim about magic, and I'm not sure how you got there. When I think about "magic" and "right from wrong", my first thought is this comic, because the exact opposite is a common trope. http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20081015.gif http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20081015.gif
  - tines 3y ago
    On the contrary, the oblivious "chaotic neutral" wizard is a modern invention that subverts the classic conception of what a wizard is, and that's why it's funny. Historically and in most modern media, wizards are strongly associated with either good or evil. Just look at the Arthurian legend, and at Star Wars. Back then, there were Merlin and Morgana, and now, there are Darth Vader and Obi-Wan. There is a "light side" and "dark side" of the magic system in Star Wars; the magic itself is divided into parts which are almost moral agents themselves. It is technology, not magic, which doesn't care about good and evil. The gun and the hammer can be used for good and evil equally, but "force lightning" was always used by the bad guys.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      To me it feels off to use the phrase "magic knows right from wrong" for that kind of good versus evil situation. Is all the evil magic being wrong on purpose? And if we go back to Clarke's law, what if a bunch of technologies simply count as evil and we're the ones that are bad at distinguishing?
    - staticman2 3y ago
      >Historically and in most modern media, wizards are strongly associated with either good or evil. Just look at the Arthurian legend, and at Star Wars Back then, there were Merlin and Morgana, and now, there are Darth Vader and Obi-Wan. I don't think this is accurate. Merlin does good and bad things (I believe some bad being when he served Arthur's father), and Morgan does good and bad things. The Wikipedia article on Morgan le Fey even says "A significant aspect in many of Morgan's medieval and later iterations is the unpredictable duality of her nature, with potential for both good and evil." Edited to add, also see this bit from the Wikipedia article on Lady of the Lake: "In Le Morte d'Arthur, on the other hand, Nimue is still the one to trap Merlin, but Malory gives her a sympathetic reason: Merlin falls in love with her and will not leave her alone; Malory gives no indication that Nimue loves him back. Eventually, since she cannot free herself of him otherwise, she decides to trap him under rock and makes sure he cannot escape. She is tired of his sexual advances, and afraid of his power as "a devil's son", so she does not have much of a choice but to ultimately get rid of him." Also Obi-wan and Vader may have supernatural powers but they act more like knights than wizards. Comparing them to Merlin and Morgan seems a bit of a stretch to me.
      - tines 3y ago
        Key words being "medieval and later," because it didn't start that way. The wiki on Morgan le Fey begins > Early appearances of Morgan in Arthurian literature do not elaborate her character beyond her role as a goddess, a fay, a witch, or a sorceress, generally benevolent and connected to Arthur as his magical saviour and protector. So, migration to amorality was a later development. > Also Obi-wan and Vader may have supernatural powers but they act more like knights than wizards. Alright, if you want to say that because of their lightsaber combat. There's also Yoda and the Emperor, neither of whom use "swords" in the original series, they're totally dependent on their magic.
jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
Sufficient for what? That is the question, and the answer is entirely open-ended, presumedly on purpose. It's nonsense on the level of grammar alone.
- epgui 3y ago
  Just because something is not completely specified does not mean it is nonsense. A sufficient number of grains of rice will satiate any given animal, regardless of its size.
Aloisius 3y ago
Seems like magic? The components of an iPhone are mundane. What kind of magic can be broken with a hammer? They might not understand how it works, but the idea that it would be indistinguishable from magic upon close inspection to any but the close-minded and superstitious? Bah.
goatlover 3y ago
That's because they lacked the necessary scientific understanding. Clarke's law assumes that will always be the case. But with our current level, we've imagined all sorts of fantastic technologies. We've had a century full of science fiction and speculative technological ideas. A Dyson Sphere wouldn't be magical to us, it would just been a super impressive feat of engineering. Learning about warp drives and teleporters would inform us that our understanding of physics is incomplete. But it wouldn't be magical, strictly speaking. We'd have some idea of how aliens had achieved both, and what sort of updates to physics would be needed. There's talk of looking for Type 3 Kardashev galactic civilizations, so we have an idea of what that thermodynamically would look like. Only something like The Q on Star Trek would be sufficiently advanced, and there is no scientific explanation for Q. They're a god-like race that don't have to concern themselves with physical limits, because they're fictional. However sufficiently advanced any actual civilization is, they're still dealing with thermodynamics, Planck Scale limits and what not. We can already calculate maximum compute (by using a black hole). There's no reason to believe god-like aliens would be omniscient/omnipotent like Q.
- garyrob 3y ago
  "Only something like The Q on Star Trek would be sufficiently advanced, and there is no scientific explanation for Q." Your point of view makes the same assumption that would have been made by almost anyone in the 18th century. Anything they would have imagined would have been based on things that existed or had some theoretical basis then, and they would have said that anything else was impossible. Just as you are doing now. Or even in the 19th century: "In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon need to shrink in size, and eventually close, because, according to his perspective: — Everything that can be invented has been invented." [1] When I referred in my original comment to technology that may involve a deep understanding of awareness itself, phenomenon like Q may begin to come into scope. But again, we almost certainly can't even begin to imagine the things that will emerge because, today, we simply don't have any basis to make the necessary extrapolations. [1] https://www.reorbit.space/news/everything-that-can-be-invented-has-not-been-invented#:~:text=In%201889%2C%20Charles%20H.,be%20invented%20has%20been%20invented https://www.reorbit.space/news/everything-that-can-be-invent....
staticman2 3y ago
>Imagine shipping an iPhone back to the 18th century. It wouldn't seem like an advance in technology over the kinds of devices that existed then. It would seem like magic. Clarke's quote isn't "seems like magic" though. It's "indistinguishable from magic." When the Iphone runs out of batteries it's not going to seem so magical, is it?

paulsutter 3y ago

I've been in technology for decades, and to me the iPhone still seems magic, like alien technology

tines 3y ago

If you'll allow me to converse with my tongue half-way in my cheek, I'd argue that Clarke's law is false: technology is distinguishable from magic, because magic knows right from wrong, but technology doesn't :)

Dylan16807 3y ago
That's an interesting claim about magic, and I'm not sure how you got there. When I think about "magic" and "right from wrong", my first thought is this comic, because the exact opposite is a common trope. http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20081015.gif http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20081015.gif
- tines 3y ago
  On the contrary, the oblivious "chaotic neutral" wizard is a modern invention that subverts the classic conception of what a wizard is, and that's why it's funny. Historically and in most modern media, wizards are strongly associated with either good or evil. Just look at the Arthurian legend, and at Star Wars. Back then, there were Merlin and Morgana, and now, there are Darth Vader and Obi-Wan. There is a "light side" and "dark side" of the magic system in Star Wars; the magic itself is divided into parts which are almost moral agents themselves. It is technology, not magic, which doesn't care about good and evil. The gun and the hammer can be used for good and evil equally, but "force lightning" was always used by the bad guys.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    To me it feels off to use the phrase "magic knows right from wrong" for that kind of good versus evil situation. Is all the evil magic being wrong on purpose? And if we go back to Clarke's law, what if a bunch of technologies simply count as evil and we're the ones that are bad at distinguishing?
  - staticman2 3y ago
    >Historically and in most modern media, wizards are strongly associated with either good or evil. Just look at the Arthurian legend, and at Star Wars Back then, there were Merlin and Morgana, and now, there are Darth Vader and Obi-Wan. I don't think this is accurate. Merlin does good and bad things (I believe some bad being when he served Arthur's father), and Morgan does good and bad things. The Wikipedia article on Morgan le Fey even says "A significant aspect in many of Morgan's medieval and later iterations is the unpredictable duality of her nature, with potential for both good and evil." Edited to add, also see this bit from the Wikipedia article on Lady of the Lake: "In Le Morte d'Arthur, on the other hand, Nimue is still the one to trap Merlin, but Malory gives her a sympathetic reason: Merlin falls in love with her and will not leave her alone; Malory gives no indication that Nimue loves him back. Eventually, since she cannot free herself of him otherwise, she decides to trap him under rock and makes sure he cannot escape. She is tired of his sexual advances, and afraid of his power as "a devil's son", so she does not have much of a choice but to ultimately get rid of him." Also Obi-wan and Vader may have supernatural powers but they act more like knights than wizards. Comparing them to Merlin and Morgan seems a bit of a stretch to me.
    - tines 3y ago
      Key words being "medieval and later," because it didn't start that way. The wiki on Morgan le Fey begins > Early appearances of Morgan in Arthurian literature do not elaborate her character beyond her role as a goddess, a fay, a witch, or a sorceress, generally benevolent and connected to Arthur as his magical saviour and protector. So, migration to amorality was a later development. > Also Obi-wan and Vader may have supernatural powers but they act more like knights than wizards. Alright, if you want to say that because of their lightsaber combat. There's also Yoda and the Emperor, neither of whom use "swords" in the original series, they're totally dependent on their magic.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago

Sufficient for what? That is the question, and the answer is entirely open-ended, presumedly on purpose. It's nonsense on the level of grammar alone.

epgui 3y ago
Just because something is not completely specified does not mean it is nonsense. A sufficient number of grains of rice will satiate any given animal, regardless of its size.

Aloisius 3y ago

Seems like magic? The components of an iPhone are mundane. What kind of magic can be broken with a hammer? They might not understand how it works, but the idea that it would be indistinguishable from magic upon close inspection to any but the close-minded and superstitious? Bah.

goatlover 3y ago

That's because they lacked the necessary scientific understanding. Clarke's law assumes that will always be the case. But with our current level, we've imagined all sorts of fantastic technologies. We've had a century full of science fiction and speculative technological ideas. A Dyson Sphere wouldn't be magical to us, it would just been a super impressive feat of engineering. Learning about warp drives and teleporters would inform us that our understanding of physics is incomplete. But it wouldn't be magical, strictly speaking. We'd have some idea of how aliens had achieved both, and what sort of updates to physics would be needed. There's talk of looking for Type 3 Kardashev galactic civilizations, so we have an idea of what that thermodynamically would look like. Only something like The Q on Star Trek would be sufficiently advanced, and there is no scientific explanation for Q. They're a god-like race that don't have to concern themselves with physical limits, because they're fictional. However sufficiently advanced any actual civilization is, they're still dealing with thermodynamics, Planck Scale limits and what not. We can already calculate maximum compute (by using a black hole). There's no reason to believe god-like aliens would be omniscient/omnipotent like Q.

garyrob 3y ago
"Only something like The Q on Star Trek would be sufficiently advanced, and there is no scientific explanation for Q." Your point of view makes the same assumption that would have been made by almost anyone in the 18th century. Anything they would have imagined would have been based on things that existed or had some theoretical basis then, and they would have said that anything else was impossible. Just as you are doing now. Or even in the 19th century: "In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon need to shrink in size, and eventually close, because, according to his perspective: — Everything that can be invented has been invented." [1] When I referred in my original comment to technology that may involve a deep understanding of awareness itself, phenomenon like Q may begin to come into scope. But again, we almost certainly can't even begin to imagine the things that will emerge because, today, we simply don't have any basis to make the necessary extrapolations. [1] https://www.reorbit.space/news/everything-that-can-be-invented-has-not-been-invented#:~:text=In%201889%2C%20Charles%20H.,be%20invented%20has%20been%20invented https://www.reorbit.space/news/everything-that-can-be-invent....

staticman2 3y ago

>Imagine shipping an iPhone back to the 18th century. It wouldn't seem like an advance in technology over the kinds of devices that existed then. It would seem like magic. Clarke's quote isn't "seems like magic" though. It's "indistinguishable from magic." When the Iphone runs out of batteries it's not going to seem so magical, is it?