Is there a limit to technological advance?

[RocketManJames]

I don't have a super clear question in mind... but it's something like this.

Say you wanted to push further in semiconductor technology. You'd have to know a ton of the basics of physics, math, etc. Once you had a strong working grasp of the fundamentals, you'd specialize in areas that would involve semiconductors.

Once you got really good at that, and given that you were really really smart and had others who were able to work with you, you might make new discoveries and help us advance our technology.

Now, fast forward a ton of years. Wouldn't the basic fundamentals and getting up to speed with the latest and greatest take so much time that you'd have less and less time to actually work on the cutting-edge stuff?

Or do our advances in medicine and other technologies allow us to keep up with this shrinking window of opportunity to continue to push the technological envelope further?

-RMJ

[danderso8]

Well, the computers and other advances that are here allow for much quicker learning of the techniques, and eliminate much of the need to do basic stuff on your own, making all sorts of work faster.

And the other thing that allows tech to move forward is our ability to stand on others' shoulders...sure, with a specific technology, there might be limits, but usually there comes along another technology that does the same thing but more better. Like vacuum tubes.

--dan

[Andrew Karpinski]

Yes but not for a long time

[cambraceres]

This is why our society is called a "dividion of labor" society. Specialization allows one to study this or that to whatever level is necessary, and in the process forego learning about other subjects. In the future, if we can overcome our resource problem, there will be enough people to study our various subjects to advanced levels, and make headway in this fashion. So long as you don't have to learn everything, you can learn something useful.

Cambraceres

[hmkpoker]

Ah, but is mankind also capable of creating ways of improving his own mental capacity and learning speed? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Eventually, I think mankind will invent and produce to a point where he no longer resembles man, but continues to evolve as a new, more artificial, highly connected and uber-powerful entity. Think Borg meets Matrix, minus the evil and throw in a dash of Unicron. Eventually he'll attain the power of God.

[RocketManJames]

Right I understand specialization... but, how can you master certain fields with enough competency to make a breakthrough without knowing the fundamentals?

Can you forgo calculus and understand high-level physics (or some futuristic, crazy, not-yet-invented field)? Specialization allows you to concentrate... that's for sure, but can you skip out on the fundamentals?

At some point (think thousands of years from now) it would seem that humans would have to live longer and study for much longer in order to make meaningful discoveries.

-RMJ

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
Right I understand specialization... but, how can you master certain fields with enough competency to make a breakthrough without knowing the fundamentals?

Can you forgo calculus and understand high-level physics (or some futuristic, crazy, not-yet-invented field)? Specialization allows you to concentrate... that's for sure, but can you skip out on the fundamentals?

At some point (think thousands of years from now) it would seem that humans would have to live longer and study for much longer in order to make meaningful discoveries.

-RMJ

[/ QUOTE ]

You are slightly misguided about the nature of discovery. It is good in this case to remember that most scientific breakthroughs are made by young men. Einstein was barely old enough to drink in 1905. Dirac, Heisenberg, Bohr, they were all young men when their great advancements were made.

Although it seems that on must be of advanced age to grasp the antecedent concepts of some mercurial and obscure science it is not true. If it was, then how do you explain the fact that these men made great advances in our most intricate and shrouded science at such young ages?

Understanding is not a static quality, advances in one science affects others, and the same is true for understandings of those sciences themsleves. A large large percentage of quality scientists from this period received early training in philosophy, and this seemed to give them a decided edge, as if the understandings of certain concepts were there waiting to be found inside them. This is an example of attaining knowledge through alternate means.

Scientists can speak in terms of generalizations when it is needed, and in this way simplify the grand problems of science. Now if one has a thorough understanding of this or that, intuition and intuition aone can take you farther, and there is no quantitative value to intuition. Young men possess it, and old men want it back, generally speaking.

Cambraceres

[RocketManJames]

Interesting. I never did think about how many great discoveries were made by brilliant minds at early ages. But, are many of our non-genius discoveries really not based on sound fundmentals and a broad-based push by a team? I really don't know the answer to this, but I keep thinking about how each year Intel and other chip makers make faster and faster chips, for example.

Do you think there is a limit to the knowledge and extent of technological advance? Say that what exists to be learned is actually greater than what is capable by us (or any other intelligent beings). If that makes any sense at all.

-RMJ

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I never did think about how many great discoveries were made by brilliant minds at early ages. But, are many of our non-genius discoveries really not based on sound fundmentals and a broad-based push by a team? I really don't know the answer to this, but I keep thinking about how each year Intel and other chip makers make faster and faster chips, for example.

Do you think there is a limit to the knowledge and extent of technological advance? Say that what exists to be learned is actually greater than what is capable by us (or any other intelligent beings). If that makes any sense at all.

-RMJ

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be physical limitations such as the end of the universe, but I think your question boils down to two questions

1. "is knowledge infinite", and my opinion is no it isnt.
2. "is there some knowledge so complex that is can never be discovered because no individual can be "scientifically creative" long enough to learn what is known and then advance things". My opinion on that is no as well, in fact I think more knowledge will lead toward less complexity not more.

[cambraceres]

All I can be sure of about the future of science is that it will be far to bizzare for my taste. If Quantum theory is any indication of what is next, and it may well be, then our problem will not be one of complexity but one of logic. We can figure out any problem we wish so long as it is compatible with our logic. Human ingenuity will get that done 100% of the time. Quantum logic is not compatible with our boolean type problem solving faculties, and there is no reason to believe a more advanced science will bring any relief. If we can amend our logic to fit new circumstances, over long periods, then perhaps science will show us no end.

Cambraceres

[ZenMasterFlex]

If we never evolve or never find ways to improve our own minds "go bionic" as one poster put it. I would have to say yes there is a limit to how far we can go. We will just get exponentially closer and closer to our limit forever. Study materials will become better clearer and easier to grasp, so we could become more knowledgeable younger than ever before. A super genius will continue to come along every so often and see things clearer than everyone else in a field, thus, pushing the field farther foward. But eventually, without eveloution or Bio-enhancement, generations will continue to be born with about the same potential, they will make discoveries, we would advance farther and farther, but eventually, the basics would take so long to learn, that yes, I believe however far down the road, we would be so close to the limit, that we could become stagnant.

Fortunately for future generations, I believe that if evolution doesn't exist, Bio-enhancement isn't beyond our limits even now. Imagine if there is ever a side-effect free stimulant invented, average kids would be suddenly super students,scientists would be able to stumble upon even greater bio-enhancements.
Some day, we could all have rain-man memories and live for thousands of years. Imagine the averate IQ at 300, and 30 minute orgasms, no depression, no war, no mental illness. People would look back at us with pity, as we look at cavemen.
So who knows? Maybe the son of someone on this forum could stumble on to the wonder pill.

I would like to see this same question asked in 50 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years etc. 5,000,000 years.

[cambraceres]

Even with the average IQ at 300, or increased life spans, or what have you, this same question will be asked then, and the same simple answer will still be wrong, or at least incomplete. The difficulty in scientific discovery is not of the type you are thinking. A genius makes discoveries that change us and our world, buffoons do not, and no matter how long a mediocrity can sustain awareness, he will make no strides toward a meaningful academic goal. Leaps of progress take "accidents". People who are born far smarter, or with some other decided edge, or with smart men who just "mess up" make discoveries.

Max Planck discovered his explanation of the "ultraviolet catastrophy" by thinking like the brilliant physicist he was, but not knowing how to complete the math of the problem. Planck forgot to complete the problem, but came upon the right answer. If a mathematician of any skill had been assisting him , quantum theory would not have come about. This is how the most shrouded science yet developed was stumbled upon. It happened to an exceedingly young man, by pure accident. Now how many times have you heard of the "Laboratory Accident" that leads to some understanding?

All I mean to say with these convoluted proustian intonations is that the nature of physical law is not so easily elucidated, and the process by which this is acheived is not so simple as many assume.

Cambraceres

[HLMencken]

Technologists developing the next Intel chip can do so because there are many specialized people working different aspects of the technology, not because one person or group of people are becoming "smarter" in every aspect. Don't confuse technological advance with super-genius scientific discovery--there is certainly a relation, but they are not one in the same.