Postulating a Basis for Belief in a Technological Afterlife

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

As I posted earlier, what I am doing is best characterized as “Technology Forecasting”.  By definition, that means forecasting technology that doesn’t exist yet.

Here that's described as WAG: Wild Ass Guessing

31 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

I want to revisit my prediction that teleportation will be the method of interstellar travel.  Once we have mind storage/recovery, teleportation will be possible. 

Will it be powered by unicorn farts, or maybe the tears of transgender leprechauns?

 

[Genady]

Support local businesses.

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

I'm assuming that my prediction is plausible.  That's all that is required for predictions.  That's all that is required for belief.  We have a basis for a secular belief in an afterlife.

Plausibility is all that's required for you to believe?! This is me, recoiling in horror at the dubious system of belief you follow. I call that type of belief "wishful thinking". That's as opposed to faith and trust, the other two types of belief I observe. My preferred method is trust, which requires more evidence, and far less assumption.

[Bob Cross]

On 8/4/2023 at 11:35 AM, Phi for All said:

Plausibility is all that's required for you to believe?! This is me, recoiling in horror at the dubious system of belief you follow. I call that type of belief "wishful thinking". That's as opposed to faith and trust, the other two types of belief I observe. My preferred method is trust, which requires more evidence, and far less assumption.

Plausibility coupled with near infinite technological advancement is all that is required.  If technology is advancing to infinity (and that's what the evidence shows) anything plausible is a sound basis for belief.

And, as I said earlier, we can't even navigate life without belief.  What route you take to work depends upon your immediate beliefs about traffic.  The stock market, the weather, romance, politics, all require belief to navigate.

Even science requires belief!  The ancients had no interest in the laws of physics because they didn't believe they were unmutable.  Today they've been tested enough for us to assume that they are unmutable - but it has never been proven.  It's a belief.  Then there's Quantum Mechanics.  "Does God play dice?", as Einstein asked.  If probablities are involved reality becomes a dice game.

On 8/4/2023 at 11:20 AM, iNow said:

Here that's described as WAG: Wild Ass Guessing

Will it be powered by unicorn farts, or maybe the tears of transgender leprechauns?

 

It's not WAG that technology is heading for near infinity eventually.

And, as I've said earlier, mind contents will be captured via nano-machines.  Then those contents will just be broadcast to the distant star by radio and reconstituted on-site.

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

It's not WAG that technology is heading for near infinity eventually.

Of course it is. You can’t even tell me what it’ll look like next month. 

[Bob Cross]

On 8/17/2023 at 2:43 PM, iNow said:

Of course it is. You can’t even tell me what it’ll look like next month. 

I can't tell you what the weather forecast will be next month either.  Tell that to the climate scientists.

Forecasting based upon the known facts isn't WAG.  And technology has been advancing steadily for millennia and exponentially for centuries.  It's not WAG to expect that to continue.  In fact, anyone predicting technology to stagnate would be the one making baseless claims.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

Forecasting based upon the known facts isn't WAG.  And technology has been advancing steadily for millennia and exponentially for centuries.  It's not WAG to expect that to continue.  In fact, anyone predicting technology to stagnate would be the one making baseless claims.

Forecasting technology has a pretty poor track record if there’s any specifics included. Yes, technology will advance, but the devil’s in the details.

If you go back to the 70s and 80s, the predictions of what life will be like in 50 years bears little resemblance to what we have and what’s on the horizon. Their idea of robots in the home was not roombas. We don’t have flying cars getting us everywhere - and it really doesn’t take much analysis to know why, but you need to apply some analysis to know where the tall tentpoles are and what problems need to be solved, and know if it’s a fundamentally problem (like flying cars; it’s the energy) or technology..

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

I can't tell you what the weather forecast will be next month either.  Tell that to the climate scientists.

The climate scientists told me to remind Bob Cross that "weather" and "climate" are two different things, and that ignorance of the science is no excuse.

[studiot]

55 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

And technology has been advancing steadily for millennia and exponentially for centuries.

Are you making this demonstrably foundless claim by ignoring History or from ignorance of it?

 2 millenia ago the Romans had central heating , piped water supplies and sensible (for the their time) sanitation
arrangements.

Have you not heard of the Dark Ages when no one had these things ?

 

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you not heard of the Dark Ages when no one had these things ?

I know it is off-topic, but a historian friend of mine is going to be cross with me if I do not mention that the Dark Ages are a serious misnomer, based on misunderstandings. 

[studiot]

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

I know it is off-topic, but a historian friend of mine is going to be cross with me if I do not mention that the Dark Ages are a serious misnomer, based on misunderstandings. 

Nevertheless it is the accepted historical term for the period when there was a definite (and measurable) knowledge and capability regression in a large part of the world.

Or are you suggesting that someone somewhere had the knowledge to privide the engineering already listed or to perhaps construct a Roman aqueduct. ?

 

This was the period when the christian church took about 300 years of collapsing churches to learn how to build one securely.

[CharonY]

I don't want to pull it too much off topic, but we can open up a new thread to explore it further. But in short, the dark ages has fallen into disfavour among historians since around the 19th century.

I could probably rattle off a couple of points off the top of my head (the historian I know is specialized in European medieval history). The origin of the term is often attributed to Petrarch in the 14th century who basically equated the decline of the Roman empire with overall cultural decline, but does not refer to technological decline as such (though again, something we could explore in a separate thread).

One of the most basic criticism is the timeline. The time referred to as Dark Ages has changed but most commonly applies to the early medieval times (500-1000 AD). It covered a larger time period but especially the accomplishments in the 10th century have pushed it back by folks maybe around the 18th century or something like that. The issue is that some markers of decline (e.g. trade, surviving literary works, and son) happened either already hundreds years before (around 200 AD) and the second part is that it kind of ignores the continuation of the Roman culture in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire. 

Besides formal issues, there is a whole host of other issues- I was looking for a source besides books and this one seems to be somewhat reasonable (but not very in-depth) Just How Dark Were the Dark Ages? | Discover Magazine

But functionally, historians have largely abandoned the term as it is rather imprecise and has connotations that do not align with what is understood now for the time period.

 

[studiot]

On 8/24/2023 at 7:29 PM, CharonY said:

I don't want to pull it too much off topic, but we can open up a new thread to explore it further. But in short, the dark ages has fallen into disfavour among historians since around the 19th century.

I could probably rattle off a couple of points off the top of my head (the historian I know is specialized in European medieval history). The origin of the term is often attributed to Petrarch in the 14th century who basically equated the decline of the Roman empire with overall cultural decline, but does not refer to technological decline as such (though again, something we could explore in a separate thread).

One of the most basic criticism is the timeline. The time referred to as Dark Ages has changed but most commonly applies to the early medieval times (500-1000 AD). It covered a larger time period but especially the accomplishments in the 10th century have pushed it back by folks maybe around the 18th century or something like that. The issue is that some markers of decline (e.g. trade, surviving literary works, and son) happened either already hundreds years before (around 200 AD) and the second part is that it kind of ignores the continuation of the Roman culture in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire. 

Besides formal issues, there is a whole host of other issues- I was looking for a source besides books and this one seems to be somewhat reasonable (but not very in-depth) Just How Dark Were the Dark Ages? | Discover Magazine

But functionally, historians have largely abandoned the term as it is rather imprecise and has connotations that do not align with what is understood now for the time period.

 

I agree that a protracted discussion about what consitutes the Dark Ages is a tad off topic , but I think I have successfully communicated my point since you clearly understand the period of History I was referring to.

 

My point, of course, was to challenge the OP assertion that technology (as opposed to other aspects of History) has been steadily advancing, which to me at any rate means that this is equivalent to stating that there have been no declines to below the standard previously achieved.

 

I note that you have not addressed my clear examples to the contrary of the OP assertion.

 

 

 

[Bob Cross]

On 8/23/2023 at 10:29 AM, swansont said:

Forecasting technology has a pretty poor track record if there’s any specifics included. Yes, technology will advance, but the devil’s in the details.

If you go back to the 70s and 80s, the predictions of what life will be like in 50 years bears little resemblance to what we have and what’s on the horizon. Their idea of robots in the home was not roombas. We don’t have flying cars getting us everywhere - and it really doesn’t take much analysis to know why, but you need to apply some analysis to know where the tall tentpoles are and what problems need to be solved, and know if it’s a fundamentally problem (like flying cars; it’s the energy) or technology..

I think I put a lot of details into mind capture and storage (nano-machines, etc.).  Beyond that, I'm looking far beyond the horizon - millennia in the future.  In that case, we just can be sure that technology is going to be expanding to unimaginable advances.  As such, anything plausible that doesn't violate the laws of physics can be expected to come about.

On 8/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, Phi for All said:

The climate scientists told me to remind Bob Cross that "weather" and "climate" are two different things, and that ignorance of the science is no excuse.

That actually was my point.  Scientists can predict the climate far into the future without needing to get specific about what the weather will be like on a given day far in the future.

In the same way, I'm forcasting technology into the far future.  I don't have to file for a patent for that technology to do so.

On 8/23/2023 at 10:57 AM, studiot said:

Are you making this demonstrably foundless claim by ignoring History or from ignorance of it?

 2 millenia ago the Romans had central heating , piped water supplies and sensible (for the their time) sanitation
arrangements.

Have you not heard of the Dark Ages when no one had these things ?

 

 

Very Euro-centric of you.  The middle east and the far east had no such dark age.  Overall, world-wide, there was no regression of technology.  In fact, gun powder was invented during that period (9th century).

[studiot]

58 minutes ago, Bob Cross said:

On 8/23/2023 at 4:57 PM, studiot said:

Expand  

Very Euro-centric of you.  The middle east and the far east had no such dark age.  Overall, world-wide, there was no regression of technology.  In fact, gun powder was invented during that period (9th century).

Really ?

 

I suggest you check your arithmetic.

 

Let us say there was a small amount of progress in the largest continent, Asia.

But this is only 31 million square kilometres.

Set this against 29 for Africa, 21 for North America, 17 for South America, and 8 for Oceania (ignoring Antartica which has not been settled in human history) that makes 75 million square kilometers where no advances were being made.

[Bob Cross]

On 9/2/2023 at 1:41 PM, studiot said:

Really ?

 

I suggest you check your arithmetic.

 

Let us say there was a small amount of progress in the largest continent, Asia.

But this is only 31 million square kilometres.

Set this against 29 for Africa, 21 for North America, 17 for South America, and 8 for Oceania (ignoring Antartica which has not been settled in human history) that makes 75 million square kilometers where no advances were being made.

The invention of gunpowder was a lot of progress.  As impactful as the invention of nuclear weapons has been in our time.

And there was no REGRESSION of progress in Africa, the Americas, or Oceania.  Whatever technological level they were at they at least maintained that level.

Furthermore, even Europe wasn't fully dark.  The Byzantine Empire remained literate and civilized.  It was only Western Europe that suffered a dark age.

So...as I said, on a world-wide basis, technology continued to advance throughout this supposed dark period.

Regardless, there is no looming dark age stretching before us today.  What we see looming before us is a tidal wave of accelerating advancement of technology like never before in history.  It's gonna take your breath away!  And that means that what I've been postulating is plausible enough for rational people to believe in its eventual achievment.

[CharonY]

On 8/24/2023 at 7:00 AM, studiot said:

Or are you suggesting that someone somewhere had the knowledge to privide the engineering already listed or to perhaps construct a Roman aqueduct. ?

Yes, the remaining part of the Roman empire did not suddenly lose the information. In the Western part, however, there was slow governmental collapse into smaller entities. These shocks did change trajectories and considering that most of the Roman population was illiterate, and that trade routes started to break down, it likely led to localized loss of crafts and skills. So if we really look at a very localized level, there are for certain periods where knowledge could get lost. And if a society gets eradicated (which does not apply to the Romans as such) their societal development could be lost entirely. So at least in that regard it is obvious that the idea of a constant and inevitable advancement is incorrect.

I will also add that in some cases, the ability to create something is lost, because folks did not understand it in the first place. Rather, they followed specific instructions, using materials form specific places and once those ran out (or access was disrupted), things stopped working.  This again speaks against a narrative of continuous advancement. Only when knowledge became more consistently analyzed and stored did we enter a phase where continuous advances became more likely.

 

That being said, the Dark Ages idea is often associated with Petrarch in the 14th century, who wanted to use the light vs dark analogy to highlight the classical antiquity. This is unfortunately imaginary that has survived to this day. A part of the issue is that folks likely did not really understand the society in the 11th century and before, and for a long time the narratives of enlightenment and Renaissance has dominated or at least strongly influenced historic scholarship. However, in the 20th century more evidence-based history has come to the forefront and I am fairly certain that most modern historians would not use that term any more (at least not in that context).

Can you provide context regarding the 300 years of collapsing churches? I am not familiar with that. 

 

[studiot]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

I will also add that in some cases, the ability to create something is lost, because folks did not understand it in the first place. Rather, they followed specific instructions, using materials form specific places and once those ran out (or access was disrupted), things stopped working.  This again speaks against a narrative of continuous advancement. Only when knowledge became more consistently analyzed and stored did we enter a phase where continuous advances became more likely.

I consider my case that technological advances stagnated on balance during the stated period.

That is enough to demonstrate that the OP case for continued advancement disproven.

 

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Can you provide context regarding the 300 years of collapsing churches? I am not familiar with that. 

 

The need for subsequent reinforcement (the famous X structure) in the centre of Wells Cathedral,

The failure of the South Wall of St Peter's Church Bampton due to not appreciating roof loads.

 

In fact if you look into the records of many churches, built in those times,  you will find either an actual collapse or sufficient movement to have required strengthening.

Sadly some have yet to learn these lessons to this day.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

The need for subsequent reinforcement (the famous X structure) in the centre of Wells Cathedral,

The failure of the South Wall of St Peter's Church Bampton due to not appreciating roof loads.

 

In fact if you look into the records of many churches, built in those times,  you will find either an actual collapse or sufficient movement to have required strengthening.

Well, if there was a systematic survey showing that buildings in the time period were poorly built in general it might be indicative of some decline in architectural achievements, but I posit that a small selection of buildings is not indicative of that. There are famous buildings still standing from the time of the Justinian period all the way to Charlemagne (and later, of course). I may be wrong, but I doubt that all of them had structural issues, yet survived (in one form or another) to this day.

Again, there were areas that clearly fell into disarray due to societal upheaval, conquest etc. But using a broad brush for most of Western Europe for the whole time period is a bit inaccurate.

[iNow]

Sampling bias. Confirmation bias. Judgmental derogatory bias… all wrapped neatly in claims regarding dark ages

[studiot]

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, if there was a systematic survey showing that buildings in the time period were poorly built in general it might be indicative of some decline in architectural achievements, but I posit that a small selection of buildings is not indicative of that. There are famous buildings still standing from the time of the Justinian period all the way to Charlemagne (and later, of course). I may be wrong, but I doubt that all of them had structural issues, yet survived (in one form or another) to this day.

Again, there were areas that clearly fell into disarray due to societal upheaval, conquest etc. But using a broad brush for most of Western Europe for the whole time period is a bit inaccurate.

I see little point in going into the detailed history of structural engineering since you have avoided responding to my main point about the decline in engineering capability after the fall of Rome, the Church of St Sophia not withstanding.

 

On 8/24/2023 at 2:00 PM, studiot said:

Or are you suggesting that someone somewhere had the knowledge to privide the engineering already listed or to perhaps construct a Roman aqueduct. ?

 

The Romans were not scientists, they were technologists/engineers par excellence.

 

Nor was the decline confined to Europe, western or otherwise.

 

The nomadic 'babarian' hordes conquered into China, Mongolia, India and Indochina.

In the Americas, warring indegenous civilazations conquered each other and some destroyed themselves.

 

I would say that prominent landmark technological developments were

Fire, stone tools and weapons, bronze tools and weapons, ferrous tools and weapons, agriculture, electricity.

Gunpowder doesn't even make the second grade.  The besigers of Rochester Castle did not have gunpowder but managed to contrive an equally powerful, and a damn sight more reliable, alternative, also known to the Romans.
That is the volatility and explosion potential of pig fat at very high temperatures.

 

 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I see little point in going into the detailed history of structural engineering since you have avoided responding to my main point about the decline in engineering capability after the fall of Rome, the Church of St Sophia not withstanding.

I thought I did, there was no sudden collapse in engineering, the Eastern Roman empire continued on with similar feats for a few more hundred years, and decline in engineering capabilities are linked to societal challenges (including not having large entities around to fund infrastructure in many areas), and other challenges (e.g. global cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Antique_Little_Ice_Age, the Justinian plague, loss of trade networks and so on. So it is true that these were challenging times for most, which would slow down innovations. But it is not that there would be inevitable loss of technology or any form of progress.

I am not sure about the history of aqueducts (which is a fairly specific thing to anchor a general narrative on), but some were maintained until modern times, from what I understand, but I have not seen any evidence that folks did not know how to build them. Just because something was not done it does not meant that folks did not know how to build them. 

I will note that at least to me the examples that you have provided are rather selective, and also not really precise. I looked up the Wells Cathedral which was built in the 12th century (so a bit after what at least some folks used to call the dark ages) but the foundation was a church in 705. So if in the period between 705 and the 12th century engineering all but vanished, how did the foundation survive for 400 years? 

There is also a nifty list on Wikipedia showing all the (surviving) buildings between 500-1000 AD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_church_buildings#Europe_2

And again, considering the length of time these buildings have been around, suggests that folks did at least know how to keep buildings standing for quite long times. I will also note that the collapse of the Roman empire hit Britain worse than elsewhere, so there might be a bit of a bias there. 

Some key developments were made toward the end of this time period (e.g. heavy ploughs, I believe associated with Teutonic tribes), mills saw improvement and spread in that time frame throughout Europe and so on. So really it depends on which specific examples one want to select to build the narrative.

It is a time period where written records were sparser and times were tougher, but there is a reason why modern Historians reject the usage in the broad sense.