3 ms·
> scientific progress has really been linear. We didn't "get" physics 50 times better in 1990 compared to 1940 It's very hard to quantify scientific progress.
by kawa 12y ago
> scientific progress has really been linear. We didn't "get" physics 50 times better in 1990 compared to 1940
It's very hard to quantify scientific progress. The main reason is that we first pick the "low hanging fruits" and advancements get progressively harder. Just think of particle physics: While the first steps could be done with basic lab bench equipment, today we need to build gigantic accelerators to push the boundaries even a little bit. The same is true in other areas: The first steps are comparatively easy, but the more you know the harder it gets to solve the remaining problems, because you already got the easy ones.
So even if perceived progress is linear, considering the increasing difficulty we may have exponential scientific progress.
- andybalholm 12y agoThat is the OP's main point, except turned around. He was measuring progress by results, not by effort expended, and saying that it takes exponential effort to reach linear results.
- kawa 12y agoBut considering that the total amount of scientific knowledge is limited, linear progress will find "everything" in a manageable amount of time. Of course we don't know how big the percentage of our total knowledge is, but it's quite possible that we are already getting close to know "everything". The singularity doesn't promise certain invention (for example it's possible that there is no and will never be a way to go faster than the speed of light) it only promises exponential growth which will bring the "end of science" into the foreseeable future. So if we found maybe 80% of all physics in the last 200 years, with linear progress we would reach the end of physics in 40 years.