6 ms·

This is one of the reasons I believe science and technology as a whole are on an S-curve. This is obviously not a precise statement and more of a general observ

This is one of the reasons I believe science and technology as a whole are on an S-curve. This is obviously not a precise statement and more of a general observation, but each step on the path is a little harder than the last. Whenever a physics theory gets replaced it becomes even harder to make an even better theory. In technology low hanging fruit continues to get picked and the next fruit is a little higher up. Of course there are lots of fruits and sometimes you miss one and a solution turns out to be easier than expected but overall every phase of technology is a little harder and more expensive. This actually coincides with science. Technology is finding useful configurations of science, and practically speaking there are only so many useful configurations for a given level of science. So the technology S-curve is built on the science S-curve.

xvector 2y ago
It's an S-curve only so long as intelligence doesn't increase exponentially as well. What would the story look like if an ASI existed?
- CooCooCaCha 2y ago
  It's just accelerated. AI is bound by physics just like everything else. The S-curve is really about fundamental limits. Lets say ASI helps us make multiple big leaps ahead, I mean mind blowing stuff. That still doesn't change that there must be a limit somewhere. The idea that science and tech is infinite is pure science fiction.
- Retric 2y ago
  Exponential increases in intelligence doesn’t imply that the universe is more complex to compensate.
- thaw13579 2y ago
  The first turn in an S-curve can easily look like an exponential. ASI has physical limitations, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t take an S-curve as well, although at a much different rate than human intelligence.
somenameforme 2y ago
I don't think this is strictly true. Rather it seems that the problem is that we, at some point, invariably assume the truth of something that is false, which then makes it really difficult to move beyond that because we're working off false premises, and relatively few people are going out of there way to go back in time and challenge/rework every single assumption, especially when those assumptions are supported by decades (if not centuries) of 'progress.' An obvious example of this is the assumption of the geocentric universe. That rapidly leads to ever more mind-boggling complex phenomena like multitudes of epicycles, planets suddenly turning around mid-orbit, and much more. It turns out the actual physics are far more simple, but you have to get passed that flawed assumption. In more modern times relativity was similar. Once it became clear that the luminiferous aether was wrong, and that the universe was really friggin weird, all sorts of new doors opened for easy access. The rapid decline in progress in modern times would seem most likely to suggest that something we are taking as a fundamental assumption is probably wrong, rather than that the next door is just unimaginably difficult to open. This is probably even more true given the vast numbers of open questions for which we have defacto answers, but yet they seem to defy every single test of their correctness. --- All that said, I don't disagree that technology may be on an s curve, but simply because I think the constraints on 'things' will be far greater than the constraints on knowledge. The most sophisticated naval vessel of modern times would look impressive but otherwise familiar to a seaman of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years ago. Even things like the engines wouldn't be particularly hard to explain because they would have known full well that a boiling pot of water can push off its top, which is basically 90% of the way to understanding how an engine works.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  > The rapid decline in progress in modern times would seem most likely to suggest that something we are taking as a fundamental assumption is probably wrong, rather than that the next door is just unimaginably difficult to open. We actually know we have: Bell’s inequality tells us that the universe is non-local or non-real. We originally preferred to retain locality (ie, Copenhagen interpretation) but were later forced to accept non-locality. But now we have a pedagogy and machinery built on this (incorrect) assumption — which people don’t personally benefit from re-writing. Science appears trapped in something all too familiar to SDEs: A technical design choice turned out to be wrong, but a re-write is too costly and risky for your career, so everyone just piles on more tech debt — or modern epicycles. And perhaps that’s not a bad thing, in and of itself. Eg, geons were initially discarded because the math doesn’t work out — but with the huge asterisk that they might still be topologically stabilized. But the math there is hard and so it makes sense to continue piling onto the current model until enough advances in modeling (eg, 4D anyons) allow for exploring that idea again. Similar to putting off moving tech stacks until someone else demonstrates it solves their problems. But at least topological geons would explain one question: why does space look like geometry but particles look like algebra? Because topological surgery looks like both! - - - - > clear that the luminiferous aether was wrong Another interpretation is that the aether exists, but we’re also made of aether stuff — so we squish when we move, rather than rigidly moving through it (as per the theory tested by Michelson-Morley). That squishing cancels out the expected measurement in MM. LIGO (a scaled MM experiment) then works because waves in the aether squish and stretch us in a detectable way. Modern theories are effectively this: everything is fields, which we believe to be low-energy parts of some unified field.

xvector 2y ago

It's an S-curve only so long as intelligence doesn't increase exponentially as well. What would the story look like if an ASI existed?

CooCooCaCha 2y ago
It's just accelerated. AI is bound by physics just like everything else. The S-curve is really about fundamental limits. Lets say ASI helps us make multiple big leaps ahead, I mean mind blowing stuff. That still doesn't change that there must be a limit somewhere. The idea that science and tech is infinite is pure science fiction.
Retric 2y ago
Exponential increases in intelligence doesn’t imply that the universe is more complex to compensate.
thaw13579 2y ago
The first turn in an S-curve can easily look like an exponential. ASI has physical limitations, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t take an S-curve as well, although at a much different rate than human intelligence.

somenameforme 2y ago

I don't think this is strictly true. Rather it seems that the problem is that we, at some point, invariably assume the truth of something that is false, which then makes it really difficult to move beyond that because we're working off false premises, and relatively few people are going out of there way to go back in time and challenge/rework every single assumption, especially when those assumptions are supported by decades (if not centuries) of 'progress.' An obvious example of this is the assumption of the geocentric universe. That rapidly leads to ever more mind-boggling complex phenomena like multitudes of epicycles, planets suddenly turning around mid-orbit, and much more. It turns out the actual physics are far more simple, but you have to get passed that flawed assumption. In more modern times relativity was similar. Once it became clear that the luminiferous aether was wrong, and that the universe was really friggin weird, all sorts of new doors opened for easy access. The rapid decline in progress in modern times would seem most likely to suggest that something we are taking as a fundamental assumption is probably wrong, rather than that the next door is just unimaginably difficult to open. This is probably even more true given the vast numbers of open questions for which we have defacto answers, but yet they seem to defy every single test of their correctness. --- All that said, I don't disagree that technology may be on an s curve, but simply because I think the constraints on 'things' will be far greater than the constraints on knowledge. The most sophisticated naval vessel of modern times would look impressive but otherwise familiar to a seaman of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years ago. Even things like the engines wouldn't be particularly hard to explain because they would have known full well that a boiling pot of water can push off its top, which is basically 90% of the way to understanding how an engine works.

zmgsabst 2y ago
> The rapid decline in progress in modern times would seem most likely to suggest that something we are taking as a fundamental assumption is probably wrong, rather than that the next door is just unimaginably difficult to open. We actually know we have: Bell’s inequality tells us that the universe is non-local or non-real. We originally preferred to retain locality (ie, Copenhagen interpretation) but were later forced to accept non-locality. But now we have a pedagogy and machinery built on this (incorrect) assumption — which people don’t personally benefit from re-writing. Science appears trapped in something all too familiar to SDEs: A technical design choice turned out to be wrong, but a re-write is too costly and risky for your career, so everyone just piles on more tech debt — or modern epicycles. And perhaps that’s not a bad thing, in and of itself. Eg, geons were initially discarded because the math doesn’t work out — but with the huge asterisk that they might still be topologically stabilized. But the math there is hard and so it makes sense to continue piling onto the current model until enough advances in modeling (eg, 4D anyons) allow for exploring that idea again. Similar to putting off moving tech stacks until someone else demonstrates it solves their problems. But at least topological geons would explain one question: why does space look like geometry but particles look like algebra? Because topological surgery looks like both! - - - - > clear that the luminiferous aether was wrong Another interpretation is that the aether exists, but we’re also made of aether stuff — so we squish when we move, rather than rigidly moving through it (as per the theory tested by Michelson-Morley). That squishing cancels out the expected measurement in MM. LIGO (a scaled MM experiment) then works because waves in the aether squish and stretch us in a detectable way. Modern theories are effectively this: everything is fields, which we believe to be low-energy parts of some unified field.