Will science ever stagnate and come to a halt?

[studiot]

38 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does the law of diminishing returns apply to scientific progress?

If humans' needs are more or less met  will what is unknown in the physical world seem less important ?

Might     human civilisation "degenerate" into party time ?(especially if all the scientific acquisition are kept in the trust of AI guardians**whom few are inclined to doubt)

 

**one of their roles might be the propagation  of scientific infotainment. 

No I don't think so, have you any evidence for this ?

There is certainly much evidence to the contrary, since at all stages in history later stages could only accomplish or know certain things once a 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' was gained. So stone age Man could make metal tools, bronze age Man couldn't make iron tools, iron age Man couldn't make kevlar  etc

Edited January 17, 2023 by studiot

[geordief]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

No I don't think so, have you any evidence for this ?

There is certainly much evidence to the contrary, since at all stages in history later stages could only accomplish or know certain things once a 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' was gained. So stone age Man could make metal tools, bronze age Man couldn't make iron tools, iron age Man couldn't make kevlar  etc

Well,it seems a fairly common perception that we may be coming  to a point where most of the physical laws are known( a faulty perception ,no doubt  but I feel it is there)

Then our level of scientific progress seems to be unprecedented and so the  precedents you adduced ,as striking as they may be  might not  be good models for what we are facing into.

It seems to me that the future has never been less clear than it is today.

 

I was born into a period  of incredible technological and scientific (and social) change and am still unprepared for what is happening now (and seems likely to happen)

 

AI does seem to be one of the huge changes just hoving to on the horizon and so I  may have given into the temptation to shoehorn it into this thread (since its effects seem as if they are going to be felt right across the board and  may possibly and bizarrely even  impact on the subject of this thread )

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, geordief said:

,it seems a fairly common perception that we may be coming  to a point where most of the physical laws are known

I disagree. A common perception I observe is indifference, "It is something that scientists do..."

25 minutes ago, geordief said:

It seems to me that the future has never been less clear than it is today.

Disagree again, sorry. It seems to me just opposite.

[geordief]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I disagree. A common perception I observe is indifference, "It is something that scientists do..."

Yes   ,there are   different perceptions in different contexts.I didn't mean that the perception I mentioned was widespread(or right)  ,but that it was kind of perennial.

 

Yes the layperson struggles to have a clue-or interest  about what scientists  try to learn.

That means me (I struggle to have the understanding of a layman)

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

 

Disagree again, sorry. It seems to me just opposite.

The world is on a knife edge and we are accelerating into god only knows what future.I almost feel relieved I won't be here to find out.

[JacobNewton]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is such a laughable statement that it makes me doubt you're here in good faith. You seem to like making super dumb assertions to get a rise out of folks. It's not interesting at all.

not at all; im just exploring various avenues of thought. for instance; we either did stagnate at scientific novelty or we didn't. if we didn't, what practical inventions could we come up with in the future? Have we not stagnated at human happiness; if we haven't; what possible inventions to further contribute to said happiness? etc

12 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Well, we still don't have a warp drive. Physics has already stagnated for the last half century (because of relativity, IMO), but there's certainly plenty more out there to be discovered.

yes, i agree relativity was the ultimate milestone leap, and on that note, would it be too far to say on an invention of a time machine could be the next big scientific invention on the blocks?

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

There may well be a certain amount of incredulity built into the process (it's hard to imagine what hasn't been dreamed up yet). I think there's also an intellectually lazy path that tells some folks it's easier to claim that science is stagnating so they don't have to bother studying it at great length. It's so much easier to claim it's not worth your while than to actually learn it.

never said it wasnt worth my time to study; it certainly would be if there was any practical use studying it beyond what it's already been traveresed. I am one of the unbelievers in that regard; i contend no matter how far we go, we will never extravagantly better the human race via scientific invention than we already have unless we come up with absurd inventions like

A Time machine (now THAT would be a good one, I'd go back in time and unvote Trump)

A elixir of life 

That sort of thing.

And as you yourself would say, "Jesus" stuff aint science. 

Oh well then

 

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Does the law of diminishing returns apply to scientific progress?

If humans' needs are more or less met  will what is unknown in the physical world seem less important ?

Might     human civilisation "degenerate" into party time ?(especially if all the scientific acquisition are kept in the trust of AI guardians**whom few are inclined to doubt)

 

**one of their roles might be the propagation  of scientific infotainment. 

depends on your definition of 'science'.

if science doesnt contribute to the furtherance of humanity, isn't it more of a sport, or an art form? Like the Mona lisa, the science of painting the mona lisa, doesnt benefit anybody that aint da vinci or van gogh. 

 

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

You may want to look into the area of quantum computing.

 

quantum computing, now we talkin'.

quatum physics, the purveyor of the time machine, the only viable invention of importance in that region of science.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

No I don't think so, have you any evidence for this ?

There is certainly much evidence to the contrary, since at all stages in history later stages could only accomplish or know certain things once a 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' was gained. So stone age Man could make metal tools, bronze age Man couldn't make iron tools, iron age Man couldn't make kevlar  etc

alright then the question becomes one of determining what 'the critical mass of knowledge and capability' for this era is. Can we determine such via an algorithm for instance? if bronze age man had an algorithm to determine that the 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' of his era was 'lets build iron tools' he'd have ended up building time machines in no time. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

True. 
 

Science advancing doesn’t require that all areas advance at the same rate. Sometimes theory leads experiment, sometimes experiment shows the need for more/better theory. Sometimes we have to wait for technology to advance before theory can be tested (see e.g. Bose-Einstein condensation, gravitational waves)

There are more areas of inquiry than there were 50 years ago, and more then than 100 years ago. 

such is definitely the case with the impending invention of the time machine imo. 

better theory is called for before we can figure out conclusively how to build that part of the spaceship/ufo that can traverse the light barrier.

We know traversing the light barrier = back in time

We know vaguely what it takes to build such a invention (photons; that which reaches light-like speeds, etc)

But more research is called for.

[geordief]

35 minutes ago, JacobNewton said:

If science doesnt contribute to the furtherance of humanity, isn't it more of a sport, or an art form? 

Science is composed of (groups of) scientific workers whose motives may differ.

As with all things ,those outside the group may benefit ,or otherwise from the product of their labour.

In the realm of physics it may be said that the product of their work is to peel away the layers that obstruct the view of the way things work.

Failing that it is to build more accurate models of that.

 

The alternative to those results becoming public knowledge is to prevent people from pursuing  careers  in scientific endeavour.

A bit of a catch 22 (?).Some discoveries seem beneficial  at first and later are regretted whilst the opposite probably applies in other cases.

 

We seem as a civilisation to be in a kind of treadmill  where the option of falling behind is as  unfortunate  a circumstance as having to continuously  keep up.

[JacobNewton]

19 minutes ago, geordief said:

Science is composed of (groups of) scientific workers whose motives may differ.

As with all things ,those outside the group may benefit ,or otherwise from the product of their labour.

In the realm of physics it may be said that the product of their work is to peel away the layers that obstruct the view of the way things work.

Failing that it is to build more accurate models of that.

 

The alternative to those results becoming public knowledge is to prevent people from pursuing  careers  in scientific endeavour.

A bit of a catch 22 (?).Some discoveries seem beneficial  at first and later are regretted whilst the opposite probably applies in other cases.

 

We seem as a civilisation to be in a kind of treadmill  where the option of falling behind is as  unfortunate  a circumstance as having to continuously  keep up.

so overall, some, but not all regions of science, or pursuits of science, are beneficial to the human race?

Viz. Your physics definition; Its all about finding how stuff works, and naturally, how the natural world works, we can then use that information to manipulate the natural world to our benefit, like the guy who discovered gravity and used that information to build rockets. 

But my point is, the natural world has 99 percent bene perused to it's depths. We already know how everything in the world works, we've probed the depths of the oceans scaled the heights of everest. What is left to discover about the natural world? 

And consequently, what is left to manipulate about the natural world? 

 

[iNow]

Just now, JacobNewton said:

what is left to manipulate about the natural world? 

Recommend beginning with your currently flawed comprehension of it 

[JacobNewton]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Recommend beginning with your currently flawed comprehension of it 

flawed understanding?

I was quoting from my good comrade georgie's definition of physics:

"Understanding how stuff works"

Now that naturally means understanding how the NATURAL world work. E.g the stuff on the planet that hasnt been invented, for why would a physician want to understand HUMAN INVENTIONS? Human inventions have already been invented, nothing to understand about them apart from in Physics class.

So, my point stands: everything about the natural world has already been understood. Any pending manipulations via that understanding, i.e any new inventions on the cards?

Newton's Gravity led to the moon landing.

Understanding how a fish's gills work led to scuba gear. 

Physics understood how Gravity worked, not how moon rockets worked. The science students learn how moon rockets work, the physicists discover how the fish's gills work. 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by JacobNewton

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is such a laughable statement that it makes me doubt you're here in good faith.

And the dataset in support of that hypothesis continues expanding 

[Lorentz Jr]

7 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

would it be too far to say on an invention of a time machine could be the next big scientific invention on the blocks?

Yes, much too far. Time travel isn't just physically impossible, it's logically impossible. Either something happened or it didn't.

As much as I distrust the principle of relativity, I don't object to Einstein's geometric model of gravity nearly as much. The only thing about it that I have any really strong objection to is its allowance of time cycles.

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

so overall, some, but not all regions of science, or pursuits of science, are beneficial to the human race?

Viz. Your physics definition; Its all about finding how stuff works, and naturally, how the natural world works, we can then use that information to manipulate the natural world to our benefit, like the guy who discovered gravity and used that information to build rockets. 

But my point is, the natural world has 99 percent bene perused to it's depths. We already know how everything in the world works, we've probed the depths of the oceans scaled the heights of everest. What is left to discover about the natural world? 

And consequently, what is left to manipulate about the natural world? 

 

Consequently?

We may understand how volcanic eruptions occur but we cannot manipulate them. Nor can we prevent the uncontrolled cell division that causes cancer, even though we understand the biochemistry.

There's no "consequently" about it.

 

[studiot]

9 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

alright then the question becomes one of determining what 'the critical mass of knowledge and capability' for this era is. Can we determine such via an algorithm for instance? if bronze age man had an algorithm to determine that the 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' of his era was 'lets build iron tools' he'd have ended up building time machines in no time. 

How would bronze age man know about iron to make this famous statement "lets build iron tools"  ?

 

7 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

Understanding how a fish's gills work led to scuba gear.

Please provide proper supporting evidence for this astounding claim.

[JacobNewton]

4 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Yes, much too far. Time travel isn't just physically impossible, it's logically impossible. Either something happened or it didn't.

As much as I distrust the principle of relativity, I don't object to Einstein's geometric model of gravity nearly as much. The only thing about it that I have any really strong objection to is its allowance of time cycles.

I disagree, you forgot parallel dimensions. If you could go back in time in a parallel dimension, you might not be able to change the present timeline, but you could at least view it like a casual observer, as a passenger in a train views the speeding world withall. 

I kinda gather that the parallel dimensions are arranged in order of t=1 t=3 etc, where each dimension is one second ahead of the previous one?

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Consequently?

We may understand how volcanic eruptions occur but we cannot manipulate them. Nor can we prevent the uncontrolled cell division that causes cancer, even though we understand the biochemistry.

There's no "consequently" about it.

 

so basically, you agree that whatever happens in future, there is no way science can better the human race with its discoveries?

 

 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

How would bronze age man know about iron to make this famous statement "lets build iron tools"  ?

 

Please provide proper supporting evidence for this astounding claim.

well, you did say that 'a knowledge of critical mass and knowledge of capability' was the milestone in allowing humankind to determine what it needed next, in your example, bronze age men went from bronze age to iron age after they 'realised' they needed iron tools, or 'attained a knowledge of critical mass and knowledge of capability' to the effect that iron tools was what they needed. 

Well then, if we can attain a 'critical mass and knowledge of capability' relative to THIS era, then we are a step ahead in determining our needs and wants for the next era. Maybe we will discover, like the genius bronze age fellow who realised he needed iron tools, that we need a 3D cyber world, like a 3D internet that we can physically enter.

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by JacobNewton

[Bufofrog]

29 minutes ago, JacobNewton said:

 If you could go back in time in a parallel dimension,

Except you can't go back in time and dimensions are orthogonal to each other.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, JacobNewton said:

 

so basically, you agree that whatever happens in future, there is no way science can better the human race with its discoveries?

 

 

 

 

Basically, no. 

[joigus]

14 hours ago, studiot said:

No I don't think so, have you any evidence for this ?

There is certainly much evidence to the contrary, since at all stages in history later stages could only accomplish or know certain things once a 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' was gained. So stone age Man could make metal tools, bronze age Man couldn't make iron tools, iron age Man couldn't make kevlar  etc

Agreed.

There is such a thing as punctuated evolution, and the concept can be applied to some extent to scientific progress too, I think. Abrupt changes appear out of complex scenarios that could not have been predicted in any analytic way with the tools at hand. AAMOF, they are to be expected somewhere along the way. Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin is a perfect example.

We are in the middle of a massive data-gathering phase now, measuring things we could barely have dreamt of only decades ago. That's why something new is to be expected. That's also probably why, I think, no continuous model like the law of diminishing returns really applies when it comes to predicting this kind of abrupt changes.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, JacobNewton said:

well, you did say that 'a knowledge of critical mass and knowledge of capability' was the milestone in allowing humankind to determine what it needed next, in your example, bronze age men went from bronze age to iron age after they 'realised' they needed iron tools, or 'attained a knowledge of critical mass and knowledge of capability' to the effect that iron tools was what they needed. 

Well then, if we can attain a 'critical mass and knowledge of capability' relative to THIS era, then we are a step ahead in determining our needs and wants for the next era. Maybe we will discover, like the genius bronze age fellow who realised he needed iron tools, that we need a 3D cyber world, like a 3D internet that we can physically enter.

 

Have I done you a disservice in assuming that you can actually read ?

How on earth is this an answer to my question about your scuba claim ?

 

4 hours ago, studiot said:

12 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

Understanding how a fish's gills work led to scuba gear.

 

Please provide proper supporting evidence for this astounding claim.

 

 

As to your text being an answer to my previous question

4 hours ago, studiot said:

How would bronze age man know about iron

 

How does that demonstrate how  bronze aged man came to know about iron ?

Edited January 18, 2023 by studiot

[swansont]

12 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

flawed understanding?

I was quoting from my good comrade georgie's definition of physics:

"Understanding how stuff works"

Not sure who georgie is, but that’s not a very good definition. 

Science describes how nature behaves, not the why. Any part of why that you can figure out is a bonus.

e.g. F = GmM/r^2 describes the force between two massive objects; a behavior. It says nothing about why masses attract, just that it happens.

 

 

12 hours ago, JacobNewton said:

So, my point stands: everything about the natural world has already been understood.

We don’t understand why we have so much matter compared to antimatter. We don’t know what dark matter is. We don’t know how to reconcile QM and GR at small scales. We don’t understand why neutrinos have nonzero mass. 

There are a lot more things on the list of things we don’t understand.

 

 

[TheVat]

The mention of punctuated equilibrium by @joigus reminded me about the recent Nature paper studying the dropoff in "disruptive" groundbreaking research.  Here's a pull-quote from the New York Times coverage today...

 

https://archive.ph/hwOGJ    (screenshot of full article)

 

Miracle vaccines. Videophones in our pockets. Reusable rockets. Our technological bounty and its related blur of scientific progress seem undeniable and unsurpassed. Yet analysts now report that the overall pace of real breakthroughs has fallen dramatically over the past almost three-quarters of a century.

This month in the journal Nature, the report’s researchers told how their study of millions of scientific papers and patents shows that investigators and inventors have made relatively few breakthroughs and innovations compared with the world’s growing mountain of science and technology research. The three analysts found a steady drop from 1945 through 2010 in disruptive finds as a share of the booming venture, suggesting that scientists today are more likely to push ahead incrementally than to make intellectual leaps.

“We should be in a golden age of new discoveries and innovations,” said Michael Park, an author of the paper and a doctoral candidate in entrepreneurship and strategic management at the University of Minnesota.

The new finding of Mr. Park and his colleagues suggests that investments in science are caught in a spiral of diminishing returns and that quantity in some respects is outpacing quality. While unaddressed in the study, it also raises questions about the extent to which science can open new frontiers and sustain the kind of boldness that unlocked the atom and the universe and what can be done to address the shift away from pioneering discovery. Earlier studies have pointed to slowdowns in scientific progress but typically with less rigor.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5

 

 

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The mention of punctuated equilibrium by @joigus reminded me about the recent Nature paper studying the dropoff in "disruptive" groundbreaking research.  Here's a pull-quote from the New York Times coverage today...

 

https://archive.ph/hwOGJ    (screenshot of full article)

 

 

Miracle vaccines. Videophones in our pockets. Reusable rockets. Our technological bounty and its related blur of scientific progress seem undeniable and unsurpassed. Yet analysts now report that the overall pace of real breakthroughs has fallen dramatically over the past almost three-quarters of a century.

This month in the journal Nature, the report’s researchers told how their study of millions of scientific papers and patents shows that investigators and inventors have made relatively few breakthroughs and innovations compared with the world’s growing mountain of science and technology research. The three analysts found a steady drop from 1945 through 2010 in disruptive finds as a share of the booming venture, suggesting that scientists today are more likely to push ahead incrementally than to make intellectual leaps.

“We should be in a golden age of new discoveries and innovations,” said Michael Park, an author of the paper and a doctoral candidate in entrepreneurship and strategic management at the University of Minnesota.

The new finding of Mr. Park and his colleagues suggests that investments in science are caught in a spiral of diminishing returns and that quantity in some respects is outpacing quality. While unaddressed in the study, it also raises questions about the extent to which science can open new frontiers and sustain the kind of boldness that unlocked the atom and the universe and what can be done to address the shift away from pioneering discovery. Earlier studies have pointed to slowdowns in scientific progress but typically with less rigor.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5

 

 

I do think that the issue is largely structural due ongoing trends in the university and granting system, which is increasingly streamlined across countries, rather than one of science per se, as already mentioned. Sometimes more make things less focused and harder, rather than easier. I also see more papers that try to reinvent the wheel, which in some cases is down to limited knowledge of older lit (and connected quality drop in reviews).