Philosophy Now Forum

Faster, stronger, cheaper, etc. Where will it end? What are the limits to technology and science?

PhilX

Impossible to know. Just one unexpected breakthrough in the next century could render any of our predictions untrue.

Over deep time nonliving organic chemical chains became mammals and humans. How predictable was that in hindsight? :)

The big question is whether humans will overcome growing sustainability pressures. If sufficient advancement is reached - where materials can be readily converted into foods and other essentials - at least a portion of humanity will never be vulnerable. Otherwise, all surface life on Earth will become extinct within a billion years at the very latest due to our ageing star. A billion years seems optimistic.

Still, if Earth does not survive, perhaps some intelligent beings in other galaxies may succeed. It seems likely to me that, at some stage in the far future, terraforming AI will be in existence.

Articles are now suggesting new laws of science will be discovered. I have no further information to offer except that instruments such as microscopes and telescopes would lead the way towards adding to our knowledge. An example of this is the discovery of dark matter in a certain part of our universe.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:An example of this is the discovery of dark matter in a certain part of our universe.

PhilX

What were they expecting to find there instead of the dark matter that they came across?

There may well be parts of the universe that do not abide by the natural laws that we now see the world through.. but I find that a fascinating thought to consider.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Articles are now suggesting new laws of science will be discovered. I have no further information to offer except that instruments such as microscopes and telescopes would lead the way towards adding to our knowledge. An example of this is the discovery of dark matter in a certain part of our universe.

Either dark matter or gravity behaving differently at ultra-large scales. MOND is not well accepted, though, as its current models do not match observations as well as dark matter/WIMP hypotheses.

Logically, however, I would think it odd if gravity maintained the same influence at ultra large scales as it does at more familiar proportions. The strong nuclear force is dominant in the quantum realm, with gravity so comparatively weak as to be rendered moot. So it would seem a logical possibility at least that at very large scales - maybe even greater than galactic dimensions - a force or forces other than gravity would be dominant. Perhaps that is what drives the mysterious movements of galactic superclusters?

Greta wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Articles are now suggesting new laws of science will be discovered. I have no further information to offer except that instruments such as microscopes and telescopes would lead the way towards adding to our knowledge. An example of this is the discovery of dark matter in a certain part of our universe.

Either dark matter or gravity behaving differently at ultra-large scales. MOND is not well accepted, though, as its current models do not match observations as well as dark matter/WIMP hypotheses.

Logically, however, I would think it odd if gravity maintained the same influence at ultra large scales as it does at more familiar proportions. The strong nuclear force is dominant in the quantum realm, with gravity so comparatively weak as to be rendered moot. So it would seem a logical possibility at least that at very large scales - maybe even greater than galactic dimensions - a force or forces other than gravity would be dominant. Perhaps that is what drives the mysterious movements of galactic superclusters?

With the weakness of gravity, there's a theory that suggests that gravity is leaking at hypothetical higher dimensions which would account for the weakness. But why only gravity and not the other forces of nature?

PhilX

MagsJ wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:An example of this is the discovery of dark matter in a certain part of our universe.

PhilX

What were they expecting to find there instead of the dark matter that they came across?

There may well be parts of the universe that do not abide by the natural laws that we now see the world through.. but I find that a fascinating thought to consider.

The article I read didn't say what they were looking for originally. What leads you to ask that question?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Greta wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Articles are now suggesting new laws of science will be discovered. I have no further information to offer except that instruments such as microscopes and telescopes would lead the way towards adding to our knowledge. An example of this is the discovery of dark matter in a certain part of our universe.

Either dark matter or gravity behaving differently at ultra-large scales. MOND is not well accepted, though, as its current models do not match observations as well as dark matter/WIMP hypotheses.

Logically, however, I would think it odd if gravity maintained the same influence at ultra large scales as it does at more familiar proportions. The strong nuclear force is dominant in the quantum realm, with gravity so comparatively weak as to be rendered moot. So it would seem a logical possibility at least that at very large scales - maybe even greater than galactic dimensions - a force or forces other than gravity would be dominant. Perhaps that is what drives the mysterious movements of galactic superclusters?

With the weakness of gravity, there's a theory that suggests that gravity is leaking at hypothetical higher dimensions which would account for the weakness. But why only gravity and not the other forces of nature?

Yes, what makes gravity different or special? Or could that specialness be the result of a misclassification of the forces?

Greta wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Greta wrote: Either dark matter or gravity behaving differently at ultra-large scales. MOND is not well accepted, though, as its current models do not match observations as well as dark matter/WIMP hypotheses.

Logically, however, I would think it odd if gravity maintained the same influence at ultra large scales as it does at more familiar proportions. The strong nuclear force is dominant in the quantum realm, with gravity so comparatively weak as to be rendered moot. So it would seem a logical possibility at least that at very large scales - maybe even greater than galactic dimensions - a force or forces other than gravity would be dominant. Perhaps that is what drives the mysterious movements of galactic superclusters?

With the weakness of gravity, there's a theory that suggests that gravity is leaking at hypothetical higher dimensions which would account for the weakness. But why only gravity and not the other forces of nature?

Yes, what makes gravity different or special? Or could that specialness be the result of a misclassification of the forces?

Sometimes it pays to look at things from another POV.

Let's assume that gravity isn't a weak force, rather assume it's a normal force in terms of its strength. This would make the three other forces very strong beyond normal expectations. This doesn't seem to violate reason nor facts, yet scientists will say gravity is a weak force. This suggests there is something deeper to all of this, but I've never seen an explanation as to why gravity is so weak, just speculation that it loses strength to higher dimensions.

Something to think about.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Greta wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
With the weakness of gravity, there's a theory that suggests that gravity is leaking at hypothetical higher dimensions which would account for the weakness. But why only gravity and not the other forces of nature?

Yes, what makes gravity different or special? Or could that specialness be the result of a misclassification of the forces?

Sometimes it pays to look at things from another POV.

Let's assume that gravity isn't a weak force, rather assume it's a normal force in terms of its strength. This would make the three other forces very strong beyond normal expectations. This doesn't seem to violate reason nor facts, yet scientists will say gravity is a weak force. This suggests there is something deeper to all of this, but I've never seen an explanation as to why gravity is so weak, just speculation that it loses strength to higher dimensions.

Yes, that's the usual explanation. It still doesn't explain why gravity is lost to those dimensions and the other forces aren't.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The article I read didn't say what they were looking for originally. What leads you to ask that question?

PhilX

Because I am always amazed when scientists or astronomers are amazed when they come across something in space that they didn't expect to come across.

Funnily enough.. this exact topic came up on the early-morning news this morning, and industry said that machines and robots have already replaced a large part of the human workforce and the process is only going to speed up over the coming years... so how are us humans supposed to earn money to live on? escorts and giggolos for the corporate owners?

MagsJ wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The article I read didn't say what they were looking for originally. What leads you to ask that question?

PhilX

Because I am always amazed when scientists or astronomers are amazed when they come across something in space that they didn't expect to come across.

Funnily enough.. this exact topic came up on the early-morning news this morning, and industry said that machines and robots have already replaced a large part of the human workforce and the process is only going to speed up over the coming years... so how are us humans supposed to earn money to live on? escorts and giggolos for the corporate owners?

UBI

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:UBI

PhilX

UBI? not come across that before.

MagsJ wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:UBI

PhilX

UBI? not come across that before.

Universal Basic Income.

PhilX

MagsJ wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The article I read didn't say what they were looking for originally. What leads you to ask that question?

PhilX

Because I am always amazed when scientists or astronomers are amazed when they come across something in space that they didn't expect to come across. :|

Funnily enough.. this exact topic came up on the early-morning news this morning, and industry said that machines and robots have already replaced a large part of the human workforce and the process is only going to speed up over the coming years... so how are us humans supposed to earn money to live on? escorts and giggolos for the corporate owners? :?

I am amazed that you'd be amazed when scientists and astronomers are amazed at the unexpected :) You'll find that they are amazed when they find what they expect too. The kind of childlike nerdy fascination that leads to excessive "Wow!" responses is pretty well a prerequisite for being a successful scientist. If you aren't super excited about your field there'll be another hundred geeky enthusiasts desperate for your job :)

You ask a good question at the end. Early indications are that increasing numbers of people simply will not earn money and the controlling corporations will let them die or go feral. There are already many in the commentariat today who promote the natural selection approach to governance, who see the death of the "unfit" to be a necessary evil. Unless they are embryos or old people on life support machines, of course, in which case those same advocates will invariably wax lyrical about the sanctity of life.

As Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes.