Using the range of our scientific advancement over the past 500 years as a reference, Imagine the depth of our understanding in the future (state the time period of which you are commenting on when you reply).

500 years ago we thought Earth was flat. Today we use Hubbell to plot a 3D map of places that we won't even be able to visit because they have lived and died in our past and only their images are left for us to see.

Remember that scientific advancement is a non-linear curve. Tools such as GPS receivers, that would have been thought of as witchcraft in Columbus's day, are now merely tools that allow us to leap-frog to where?

Rules - No gadgets. Sure, we'll be able to download porn to monitors embedded in our eyelids and replicate Big Macs in our kitchens but use technology only to support your premise of what our realm of knowledge will be.

Science has to take us beyond quantum physics. The grand unified theory is out there somewhere. When the Greeks came up with the symbol for infinity, I think they hit the nail on the head. Today, astronomers and physicists are becoming one and the same because of the neutrino. Now the infinetely large (universe) and the infinetely small (quanta) are at the same place because both groups are looking at the same thing (neutrino).

Nox

I agree that the large and small are inextricably linked.

If they are both infinite in depth, is it our fate to discover that the unified theory is not within our grasp because we can never uncover an infinite number of layers (particles/distance)? Or will we master infinity by obtaining the ability to quantify it? Most of what we discover in the areas of particle theory and astrophysics is inferred by inducing or observing related phenomena. So even if we fail to get a good grasp on infinity, we may be able to postulate some form of understanding of it.

Interesting fact about the greeks conceptualizing infinity... wrong direction though, chronologically speaking that is.

user X,

Help me out, I don't know what you mean by wrong direction.

Nox

'chronological direction'. Never mind. Just a lame joke.

I Agree, Unification Theory has to be the next big step. I'm not sure what effect this will have on science. Over a long period of time, say 500+ I wonder if we will be looking back on science as chemists now look back on alchemy?
Another possible development is the 'Theory of Everything', that basic mathematical formula that we could apply to all scientific problems and would provide us with an answer. People like Hawkings are working on this though, fortunatly not everyone belives it is possible to achieve. Personaly I find the theory troubling. Would we truly have all the answers? Godel pointed out in the last century that it was possible to create other methods of geometry besides Euclidian that functioned with just as much validity, yet were bogus. This poses some questions about maths that I have not heard answered to my satifaction. What I am implying is would we have a theory of everything or would we have created boundaries of logic that would not permit us to see beyond our own constructs?

[This message has been edited by Autoptic (edited 04-11-2002).]

Couple of good points by Auto (Otto?).

If we did have all the answers, then where would we turn to satiate our innate desire to learn and explore. Would it demoralize us? Plunge us into spiritual decay?

Second, regarding painting ourselves into a logical corner... I think it's not likely due to the fact that we tend to recognize thereom as just that. We poke and prod it to make sure it's still standing up to newly discovered data. Some of Einstein's theories have gone the wayside and it will happen to others.

I do think that without bounadaries to explore we would stagnate.

In essence I agree with you that our natature tends to drive us to finding flaws in any form of absolutism. hmm I think I should clarify some points though: sure theories come and go but that is not strictly what I am implying. The theory of everything is a little different. Just because we have the final answer does not mean we have asked all the qestions. The idea is that the theory is not an answer per se, rather a mathmatical key to provide answers to problems that we come up with. The theory would not cease human development or discovery- if anything it would speed up our discoveries even further. The logic boundaries I was speaking of earlier are more a product of mathematics itself. I do not think that we'll ever run out of questions but I worry that with such an enticing explanation to hand we would be unable to ask qestions that do not sit within the boundaries we have defined. I also suspect that mathematics, like language defines our methods of thinking- see Wittgenstein.

[This message has been edited by Autoptic (edited 04-11-2002).]

I have thought of 2 scenarios as to where science will lead us

1. science will take us beyond thought and in a sense make humand kind a single entity like an living organisim that has people for cells. This entity will become ours know as god and controll everything.this also explains how the universe started by simply saying God created us yet we are God.

or

2.Science will lead us to nothing. This will of course happen only if everything is based on irrationality instead of rational and explainable things. Any thing is correct untill proven wrong be example. The fact that eveything is ration and can have an explination is proven wrong by and overly used example do define irationality in numbers. PI. Pi is irrational by having no end. this is true by the same law that makes it irrational. to find the end would explain that i is ration. no end is found it is irrational. there I have proven everything to be irration by example; and scince science is based of rational and explainable fact, I conclude that science is a load of bull shit and can lead us no where good.

may luck find you,
majik

Whether science has an end or not, its the journey that we enjoy.

good point but a fun journey with no good to come of it, when there could be time well spent on other things.....why bother?

I'm not trying to be flipant, ...because.

Nox

I'm in a good mood and I have discovered I can have meaningful converations with myself...so I'll contradict my self and answer why bother.
Why? well earlier I put two hypothosies one was glory above any other glory....the other ultimate shame...but I never said wich will happen....so reallly the point of science and the reson it sonctinues is the fun of the journey and human curiosity to find out what happens at the end of the line, but remember curiosity killed the cat.

may luck find you,
majik

I think unified theory will provide one law, to be used to construct/make new laws. Or it will be the law about the most basics of particles(or whatever you want to call the most basic unit of the universe, ill refer to it as a 'U'). This U is the simplest thing in the universe, it has only one rule that governs it, the unified theory. The interaction between U's provides the means in which our reality is created. Complexity of reality isn't about the pieces its about the interaction between the pieces. So im speculating that this law will cover the most basic form of interaction.

Im not sure where science will lead us but i do know one thing. When you learn about something, you learn that there are more things that you didn't know. I think the more questions we answer the more we will ask.

I don't think we can ever gain infinite knowledge because that would require infinite storage.

And to drive my point home we have the lonely electron. Who follows a simple rule go from areas of high consentration to areas of low consentration(sp), i.e. negitive to positive. This one simple rule allows the operation of your computer as you read this. It is not the law that is hard to understand it is the interaction between all the parts that makes it so (and quite interesting).

I think science will eventually reach a plateau, this rapid rate of advancement can't continue forever. Just like the population will level out once we've reached the maximum number of people the planet can hold. What comes afterwards will no doubt be very interesting.

A few years ago I would have agreed with the plateau theory. Protons, electrons and neutrons were as small as you could get. Then came quarks, bosons, etc.

The one problem with the grand unified theory is that it's only grand.

The more we discover, the more there is to discover. If there is ever a plateau, it is really far off.

Nox

I don't think there is this leveling off effect.

We are learning new things everyday about things most people would consider common. Interaction provides a complexity that in my opinion will last forever.

I think it's more of a staircase than a plateau. It will level off for a while while humans get used to the level if technology we have, and then begin to advance again.

Although i still have an interest in science im begining to dislike it. Or knowledge anyway.
Knoweledge is taking most of the wonder out of the world.
Years ago almost everything was unexplained and weird. Thanks to scientists and tv theres barely anything that leaves us in awe

Beany

quote:

---

Originally posted by confuzious:
I think it's more of a staircase than a plateau. It will level off for a while while humans get used to the level if technology we have, and then begin to advance again.

---

And other things would also cause the steps such as war.

War, and it's peacetime preparation, have historically caused us to advance at an accelerated rate. The military doth love its toys. Would we have let Kennedy push us out to the moon if the cold war wasn't on? It seems we were more interested in burning down our cities at the time. At least now we can brag that we've been to our moon and, perhaps later, we'll be able to brag that we've been to the center of our galaxy. And have someone to brag to other than ourselves.

Conversely, our scientific advancement would be slowed by religion. 100 years before the signing of our constitution, it was not legal to practice science in parts of the western world. Won't we be pissed when - we start to colonize space - we find that all the really good planets are already taken by squatters that had just arrived in the last 20 years.

just remember that science is merely an interpretation of the physical world as we know it. i may explain everything here (although i doubt it) but it can never explain non physical questions

quote:

---

Originally posted by syphon detonator:
... but it can never explain non physical questions

---

Those answers can be found in 'Science Of The Damned'

* as he stands and points down the road *

What is a Moderator anyway? Aren't they like some kind of Den Mother to the catagories or something?

I don't think science takes away the magic of things around us just because we know how it works.

We know the earth rotates around the sun, we know a lot of things about the sun and sunlight. But yet we can still admire the beauty of a sun set. We may know tons about it be we can appreciate it on more than one level.

Another example is a magic show. We know its magic, we know its not real. But we are still awed when someone pulls off a trick.

I can go on like this for some time but i think i made my point.

yeah, stars are only big flaming balls of gas, and yet they are beautiful.

I do not believe, that understanding would make the world any less amazing - or at least it shouldn't. Knowledge gives us more ways to see the world, more possibilities to affect on it and on our own lives. If knowledge makes your life dull, it isn't knowledges fault, you just don't respect the world enough to admit that it's wondrous.

And a good magic show will always give me kicks, though I suffle cards pretty well myself.

"I don't think science takes away the magic of things around us just because we know how it works."

fills me with more wonder.

I think its funny that the more we learn, the more we see ancient wisdom we once mocked is close to the truth. I think understanding the forces youre speaking about is an inherent unconcious characteristic of man, we just dont know the science behind it enough to make names and techincal theories. But man has apparently always understood the implications of the "new".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I think its funny that the more we learn, the more we see ancient wisdom we once mocked is close to the truth.

---

Some examples please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I think understanding the forces youre speaking about is an inherent unconcious characteristic of man...

---

Are you saying that we instinctually commune with nature? And if so, do you think city life dulls those instints?

Science as we know it now is helpful. But science will enevitable lead to the demise of the human race. Eventually we will run across something dangerous which we don't fully understand. A humans craving for experimentation and thier overwhelming curiosity will cause us to explore something that we shouldn't have. Nuclear missles are an example of this. Biological warfare is also an example. Dangerous things humans have created. Our dependence on computers has been steadily growing. If we become to dependent on computers then lose our technological crutches we will have quite a problem. Science is gradual suicide. If science were in the hands of true genius it would be safe. But we as humans are foolish. We make mistakes. We are to curious. While I feel that science is a very good thing at the moment, I think that I wouldn't have the same opinion in the distant future.

And to talk about an earlier point I think the world will actually become more interesting as we gain knowledge about earth. Truth is much more interesting than fiction. As we learn about the world we will question what else could be true on this world.

My thoughts are becoming quite mixed. Correct me if I had made any accidental contradictions...


[This message has been edited by Impulses (edited 05-10-2002).]