When Will Science End?

[kenh]

New scientific discoveries will probably come to an end if and when we are able to time travel.  Then the paradoxes will probably screw things up completely. Hmmm... maybe it's already happened.  

[karadan]

There's an argument that there is an upper limit to the amount of knowledge it is possible for a society to accumulate until a sufficiently massive intellect is invented with the ability to cogetate such vast amounts of data. It would get to a point where it'd be pointless trying to grasp any concept unless the person/entity/society has the necessarry equipment or modifications to make sense of such advanced theories.

I guess if we could know everything, we'd be indistinguishable from god (minus all the jealousy and barbarism, of course)..

[Kylyssa]

I think science will continue until intelligent life dies out.  Or until civilization completely collapses but then we'll just start over again.

[Typist]

New scientific discoveries will probably come to an end if and when we are able to time travel.

We can time travel now.   Just go outside at night, and look up.  

Do you ever lay in the grass being basked by the sun, and think to yourself, "Only 8 minutes ago this sunlight was on the Sun, 93 million miles away".  

Trippy!   Ah man, the colors!

[Kylyssa]

Do you ever lay in the grass being basked by the sun, and think to yourself, "Only 8 minutes ago this sunlight was on the Sun, 93 million miles away".

Yes, all the time.  Well, not in January, though.

[karadan]

I just found this interesting piece on the Orion's Arm Project:


The quest for knowledge is a basic human trait, existing in nearly every human-descended species, including most of those created by humans such as vecs, AIs and provolves. However, the means to do it have changed over time. The scientific method of systematic empirical hypothesis-testing has been one of the most successful so far, but over time it has changed far beyond anything recognizable to a pre-singularity era scientist

One part of the change has been philosophical: new ways of viewing the universe, new ways of thinking, and new ideas about the nature of reality have caused the systematic search for knowledge to develop in unexpected directions. Another part is social: over the millennia the diverging Terragen clades have had utterly different needs, wants, and goals, which in turn has led to science developing in different directions.

Furthermore, the success of science itself can be counterproductive. One of the problems is the sheer amount of information that is available. Even artificially extended beings have to be selective in what they learn; there is simply not time and attention enough to learn everything (though some believe the higher level Archailects may accomplish this). This encourages specialisation, which in turn leads to different disciplines losing touch with each other and becoming mutually incomprehensible. Also, the advance of science can be hampered because new data can only be gathered under extreme conditions. This was one reason even advanced nanotech AIs had a hard time developing what is now known as transapientech. For some aspects they needed sizeable amounts of matter at nuclear densities, artificial black holes, and other exotica.

One problem is that science may go so far beyond the realms of ordinary experience that it becomes nearly incomprehensible to most people. One possible side effect of this phenomenon is the emergence of a specialised expert priesthood. Another is that science begins to appear irrelevant, or is misunderstood. Many cultures have crashed due to these pitfalls

The fact that there exist immensely knowledgeable entities such as the Archailects, and entire ancient alien civilisations that may have surpassed Terragen knowledge, has made many people less inclined towards research. After all, somebody already knows it in all likelihood. On many worlds the easy availability of household AIs and contact with the Known Net also means that curiosity is easily sated just by asking.

One way of dealing with this which has become widely used is Hermeneutic Science. HerSci as it is usually called does not attempt to discover new knowledge, but figure out what more advanced beings or civilisations have discovered. Even if the more advanced beings are friendly, it is often extremely hard to exploit their knowledge, as their explanations might be incomprehensible, clouded by intelligence barriers or otherwise garbled. The researchers study what the advanced researchers say and do, attempting to understand what it means and test their theories about this meaning empirically. In some cases whole chains of HerSci research occur, such as the famed transcendence institutes of Ain Soph Aur where ordinary sophonts study first singularity transapients, who in turn study the work of higher level transapients.

Another approach is the archive hunt. In many central systems or ancient universities there is bound to be everything worthwhile somewhere on the Known Net. Finding it can be nearly as hard as discovering it in the first place.

Some cultures have instead gone for "fundamentalist science" or "rebooting". They start from scratch, and researchers (sometimes simulated virtual researchers, sometimes real) work in isolation from earlier knowledge to discover the laws of nature and their applications. The drawback is the extreme expense, slowness and the many elementary rediscoveries, but in a few cases the new research tree bears fruit and produces a marvel.