Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:51:02 UTC No. 16089618

>>16089614
>theoretical maths hasn't seen any major innovation since 1930s
We've had an enormous amount of innovation post-Turing, it's just that these innovators all have to be computer scientists as well as mathematicians

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:03:26 UTC No. 16089637

Yup, we're headed to brown retard daycare and then a collapse of the high IQ value producing demographic. Things will get shitty before IQ is selected for again.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:15:17 UTC No. 16089645

>>16089614
>>Both energy and population growth are no longer exponential due to this
You say that like it's a bad thing. Honestly
we should be striving for an equilibrium population.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:19:21 UTC No. 16089648

>>16089614
>lives in developed countries aren't any radically different to what they were in 1970s
you gotta be kidding

>1970s technology
>essentially no computers
>essentially no video games
>no internet
>no smart phones
>no AI

These technologies make a huge difference in people's everyday lives. Also women were just beginning to enter the workforce and manufacturing jobs were still strong in the developed world. This is a huge change in technology and society in just 50 years.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:36:55 UTC No. 16089662

>>16089648
Notice how ALL of them are ultimately just computers, take computers away and our lives are almost the same. Now I love computers but I do think its impact on society isn't as large as say electricity or steam engine. Moreover ever since 80s computers are getting more and more efficient but their basic architecture is pretty similar. What exactly do we have after this?

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:43:55 UTC No. 16089671

>>16089662
> What exactly do we have after this?
Nothing anon
Society is collapsing across the first world, with the fall of first world demand, turd world will collapse into pre 17th century savagery, a lot of places have already become like this.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:46:32 UTC No. 16089678

>>16089662
There is a possibility that Humanity goes extinct (maybe some untouched tribe on some island survives?)

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:50:50 UTC No. 16089684

>>16089662
>take computers away and our lives are almost the same.
Computers and the internet have a huge impact on everything in our lives. Porn and online dating have changed everyone's love life. The music, book, newspaper and movie industries are all a shadow of what they were before the 1990s. Arguably politics has even gotten more polarized due to the echo chamber effect of online communication (although that is more speculative).

>What exactly do we have after this?
Well, AI of course. It's gotten to a real game changing level in the last few years, and we will see the changes in society more and more in the coming decade. I am already seeing ads that I suspect involve AI generated art. Clearly the commerical art industry will be collapsing in the near future. You don't have to have too much imagination to see it will affect other industries as well.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:53:41 UTC No. 16089687

>>16089614
There are still many things to discover in neuroscience and genetics

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:56:11 UTC No. 16089693

>>16089687
All of that has been made impossible due to leftism.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:04:21 UTC No. 16089865

Science has ossified into yet another religion.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:19:10 UTC No. 16089883

>>16089614
>>Theoretical Maths hasn't seen any major innovation since 1930s
stopped reading there
op is retarded and a faggot

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:27:56 UTC No. 16089901

>>16089645
We could have had that in the west but the psychotard bankers and their puppeticians decided they just couldn't do without the fun and games paid for by the economic/population growth ponzi, hence mass immigration from overpopulated tropical areas.

Now all we have to look forward to is dwindling non-renewable resources and being a hated minority in the lands our forefathers built.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:56:17 UTC No. 16089958

>>16089883
If he said the 60s he would be correct. Any "breakthroughs" that happen these days are so specialized that only 4 people in the world max can understand them

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:02:00 UTC No. 16089971

What are you on about. The whole 20th century was the golden age of mathematics.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:07:11 UTC No. 16089981

>>16089958
Hmm... I wonder if there were a couple of extremely well-known conjectures solved in the late 90s/early 00s

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:21:23 UTC No. 16090014

>>16089981
Only 4 people could understand perelmans or wiles proofs.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:29:49 UTC No. 16090030

>>16089614
you are starting off from incorrect assumptions. There have been PLENTY of advancements in mathematics since the 1930s.

As for the other things, it is likely we'll se a decreased rate of innovation until we finally achieve a key breakthrough in some field, after which there will be new innovation.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:35:44 UTC No. 16090317

>>16089614
nobody gets stuck anon, there will be enormous pressure from tampering with DNA and blending ourselves with tech.
at this moment more people than not have and use a smartphone, so I could argue that having a smartphone favors you for reproduction. try having at it without a mobile phone, without tech, see how that works out for you.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:22:33 UTC No. 16090455

Slow down and breathe. Humans can't yet reliably predict and/or produce technological leaps while existing in our own history, only when looking at it in hindsight under some biased model only slightly representative to reality
It happens when it happens; it's nothing to freak out about. Sure there's a lot of interference (if that's the right word) based on funding and social & (geo)political forces, but maybe thats just an insignificant coefficient in the long run. It seems to me that if paradigm shifts were predictable in its timing and tech that causes it; we'd already have seen large scale megalomaniacs minmaxing it for profit.

My opinion is that: instead of predicting/creating tech leaps from a place of noble truth seeking and humanism (if there ever was such thing); instead now this bastardized hyper..something environment encourages MANIPULATING into paradigm shifts in a controlled landing type of manner to maximize influence (or its ugly twin, manipulation)

We're all so mindwarped at the moment [across all generations], into this quick fix cycle of consumption.
Boredom and the passage of time has become a huge discomfort for most of us; we're also approaching peak Internet access/densification for web 2.0 if you wanna call it that.

There are more people online than ever, yet I think instinctively we can all see that there are proportionally less people making content and chaos and creativity (many valid fears + valuing anonymity + "it's already been done before" or "Im not talented enough"; i.e. too much comparison driven cognition

I don't think it's fair to blame people as a whole, when it's the result of a mass [artificial] environmental change that is beyond the hands of any one of us probably. The people who singlehandedly impact these things already know who they or their family/associates are at this point. The rest of us are better off being patient and forgiving towards each other

It's an exciting time and easy to be exceptional among npcs

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:27:43 UTC No. 16090458

>>16090317
>nobody gets stuck anon, there will be enormous pressure from tampering with DNA and blending ourselves with tech.
Yeah, hoping to be an anime girl when this happens.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:51:33 UTC No. 16090475

>>16090455
>>16090455
Had to take a second to appreciate the sacred geometry of these digits.
Anyway my point is this:
We should be dreamers first and reconcile it with realism later. Focusing too much on current limits to achieve the utlity of being able to predict future leaps, is a limiting mindset. It's interesting to ponder about and model economically for sure, but don't it mixed up with what can actually be reality

It's times like these that we should try to be diamonds of creativity forged from the immense pressure and heat of existing in a stacked shitcoal environment. The times after stagnation will call for leaders and creative thinkers. Just gotta be on the lookout for what to even stand-up for cause all our shit's fucked up. We know it's not a sustainable way to live at any scale of society.
I guarantee that for every person like me openly referring to it, there are tens or hundreds who silently acknowledge it too, and are looking out for that new horizon - whether it's out of necessity or optimism for the future/disdain for the present

Us bloomers and thinkers need to hunker down and develop creativity & leadership, for the time in a few months/years/decades when a cause or paradigm worth believing in is discovered or unfolded
We'll figure something out, it's way too early to linit ourselves, we're still in our infancy. I think if we could see our near descendants we'll be surprised at how they were able to expand either their cognitive floor/ceiling in that thing vaguely intuited to be intelligence, and enhanced or new senses and morphology

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:08:56 UTC No. 16090547

>>16089614
We have pushed the limits of knowledge to the point where we run up against irreconcilable weakness in our conceptual frameworks.

We perceive 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. We conceptualize there exists infinity, infinities, infinitesimals, conceptual ideas even if they dont exist in practice. We create cardinal numbers on the basis that there exists discrete quantities. All of which seem perfectly axiomatic, with those precepts we logically explore all the possibilities that can be built upon them.

Which was fine. It gets bridges built. Ledger accounts reconciled. We can build and fire missiles accurately over vast distances. Send probes into space.

However it also leads to problems upon which we place what are essentially band aid fixes. The square root of a negative number? Fine, no problem, here's imaginary numbers. The square root of 2 is can never be precisely calculated? Man, that gave the Greeks a headache over 2000 years ago. Okay, lets just be happy to live with an approximation, just as we do with pi. Umm, actually what is "space" exactly? Dunno, its something, lets move on for now.

We should be examining why these irresolutions and inconsistencies exist.

We are stuck with our perceptions upon which we have drawn fundamental concepts about the nature of reality. The problem however is that these concepts may be fundamentally flawed. Much in the way some peoples during the Middle Ages were convinced the Earth was the center of the Universe, it seemed patently obvious that was the case to them, they drew up convoluted models which explained how the the planets, sun, moon, and stars moved around the Earth, and these models worked quite well. But ultimately their fundamental concept was flawed.

I am aware that by posting this here most, if not all replies, will be made by people who either misinterpret what I say, or who are basically just too dense to even grasp what I am saying. But perhaps one of you gets it.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:40:08 UTC No. 16090582

>>16089614
You are a fucking idiot.
>>16090547
And you are even worse.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:37:16 UTC No. 16090628

>>16089614
If it solely depended on the bottom 99% of the populace, yes.
Now, define the "top 1%" however you want. Certainly, I don't mean wealth, and IQ isn't really that apt either. I just mean: let's regard the 1% of people in the world that make the most difference for "future tech" (this was OP's angle). This set may contain some billionaires, but mostly it's just scientists, engineers, etc.
It turns out, currently that 1% is currently 80 million people. In the year 1800, the top 1% accounted for merely 10 million people. On that account alone, tech/science accumulates to a higher degree.
That 1% is the sole reason stupid-90IQ-AGI will happen soon. It's the reason why we might be getting androids (humanoid robots) in our lifetime.
These two techs alone will have grave consequences.

Now apply this over 800 years. Assume 50 million 1%ers constantly pushing the tech rafinesse of the species forward. Naturally, this will not make much halt from biomedical and bionic advances. Without either a) religion/dogma-tier ludditism, or b) some disaster for civilization (like a medium-sized asteroid), extensive transhumanism will happen.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:56:16 UTC No. 16090641

>>16090582
>deeply upset
>lashes out
>has nothing of value to say
Whenever someone makes ad hominems its a good indication that whoever he is replying to does has something of value to say.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:20:08 UTC No. 16091007

>>16090547
We are being overwhelmed by the complexity that unavoidably results from science getting treated as religion. Religion in its core means that you interpret everything according to a certain scripture that needs to be adhered to. This gives you a false sense of certainty as well as the sense that you can deduce much more than others, but in fact you use the scripture as a leverage and bet everything against its certainty. Sooner or later, as the scripture is always somewhere between subtly and completely wrong, and you grow unmanageable complexity in attempts to reconcile all observation with it. Like Martingale betting strategy, gives you a false sense of certainty before an inevitable devastating failure

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:24:43 UTC No. 16091014

>>16090547
We are being overwhelmed by the complexity that unavoidably results from science getting treated as religion. Religion in its core means that you interpret everything according to a certain scripture that needs to be adhered to. This gives you a false sense of certainty as well as the sense that you can deduce much more than others, but in fact you use the scripture as a leverage and bet everything on its certainty. Sooner or later, as the scripture is always somewhere between subtly and completely wrong, and you grow unmanageable complexity in attempts to reconcile all observation with it. Like Martingale betting strategy it gives you a false sense of certainty before an inevitable, devastating failure.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 07:50:20 UTC No. 16092264

>>16089614
No we are not take your meds now

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:09:50 UTC No. 16092282

>>16092264
Shut up you fucking idiot.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:41:49 UTC No. 16092420

>>16091014
Bullshit. One of the core values of science is that its open to change. Sure even within science you get some intellectual vermin like this peasant >>16090582 but overall a genuine scientist is always willing to test new ideas and accept evidence in the face of current beliefs. Its not a dogma like religion.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:07:48 UTC No. 16092440

>>16092420
>One of the core values of science is that its open to change.
Not in practice.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:54:21 UTC No. 16092481

>>16089662
You're right anon, if you take our major innovations away, society has not had any major innovations since those things were invented.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:24:55 UTC No. 16092644

>>16089614
AI, AGI, AR, and VR are very real technological advancements and they are moving very rapidly. Literally like two years ago all we had were ugly thumbnails generated by Craiyon, now we can make entire short films using AI tools, complete with music and voice overs

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:53:17 UTC No. 16093664

>>16092644
You are a fucking idiot.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:55:00 UTC No. 16093667

>>16092644
We can have a nuanced discussion about innovations without straw-manning the people who say innovation is stagnant

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 05:36:50 UTC No. 16093744

If you think innovation has flatlined you obviously aren’t part of any field and are merely ignorant

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 05:38:29 UTC No. 16093746

>>16092440
This. Research is FULL of dogma and biases and close mindedness.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:12:26 UTC No. 16094051

>>16093744
You are the worse fucking idiot in this thread so far.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:53:29 UTC No. 16094737

>>16089614
>AI which leads to robotics
>bio technology

As they recently showed of that ai driven robot i thought about how humanoid robots might give ai systems the vessel to actually gather data about how the real world works and learn about that. may be important because some researchers think ai needs to contain an actual world model to become truly intelligent.
If this is the case, we may soon se actual humanoid robots in our daily life.

Then there is bio technology. Haven't they made huge advancements in the understanding of how all kinds of processes work in our body. I always read about how they can model this and that because of some new tech. You don't see the results of this often, because its not part of our daily life but the progress is there. you can decode your genome for a couple hundred bucks. another example is from a friend: she was researching some shit about some protein, and i asked where she gets the stuff and apparently they just contract some firm to just casually produce or replicate some random biomaterial no problem at all.

If you think this further, the possibilities are vast. imagine having a full blueprint of how the entire human body works. being able to model how anything affects everythin in your body. being able to specifically produce some biotech for your body, that specifically kills your cancer and grows you a second liver or regenerates your brain after an accident. We are machines there is no reason why this should not work. its just a matter of finding out how to do it.

In terms of fundamental physics i think we already know a lot (although stuff like dark matter is still a giant riddle) there there are many intermediate level systems that we don't understand and i think there is a lot of potential there

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:05:21 UTC No. 16094749

>>16092420
> scientist is always willing to test new ideas and accept evidence in the face of current beliefs
LMAO

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:10:23 UTC No. 16095349

>>16089693
wtf does that even mean anon?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:21:36 UTC No. 16095494

>>16089614
modern math has been corrupted by judaism.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:29:44 UTC No. 16096316

>>16089614
Dude this is the fucking stone age. We can keep humanity barely afloat. Philosophy wise most are still fighting for a reason to live, that's like the basics.

We invented computers and discovered that we're not understanding a single bit out there. Most of our algorithms are clunky hacks or some algebraic pile of shit that some scientist has put together in his free time. We have absolutely no framework for anything, it's just the invention of fire, repeated. Also fuck space, this is some aviation autist take on measuring humanities' technological advances.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:47:05 UTC No. 16096353

There still is a lot to do.
But, some forces, perhaps, think that we are far enough and white spaces just need to be filled with brown to get a nice working class.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:58:44 UTC No. 16096379

>>16096316
>Most of our algorithms are clunky hacks or some algebraic pile of shit that some scientist has put together in his free time
Complexity theory has actually come a long way, unfortunately it's mostly in terms of generating proofs for problems that we can't solve though

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:16:48 UTC No. 16096912

>>16090547
>Umm, actually what is "space" exactly? Dunno, its something, lets move on for now.
>Much in the way some peoples during the Middle Ages were convinced the Earth was the center of the Universe, it seemed patently obvious that was the case to them, they drew up convoluted models which explained how the the planets, sun, moon, and stars moved around the Earth, and these models worked quite well. But ultimately their fundamental concept was flawed.

Very good post. Most people are not remotely mentally ready for the implications behind the universe not being locally real

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:21:44 UTC No. 16096916

>>16096316
It's all relative in the end. As far as we know we're the only truly sapient lifeform around these parts. If you compare humanity to other lifeforms on the planet it's clear we've come quite fucking far already.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:41:06 UTC No. 16096947

>>16089614
If funding is more for maintaining than taking on risk, yes.

You're trying to identify something others don't want to look at. People have hope. Ignorance is bliss.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:47:36 UTC No. 16097042

I passed calculus 2

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:58:17 UTC No. 16097234

>>16095349
you can't publish real results in genetics without ending in a gulag

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:44:48 UTC No. 16098250

>>16089614
>Theoretical Maths hasn't seen any major innovation since 1930s

lol no

>Theoretical Physics has largely been stuck since 1960s

lol no

>All possible philosophical ideas have been explored

lol no

>No major revolution in how society and economy interact since 1900s

lol no

>Both energy and population growth are no longer exponential due to this

As for population and energy growth, it really depends on the country, some countries use less energy because things are getting more efficient.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:51:02 UTC No. 16098258

No you fucking nigger and you already made this fucking thread. Stop with these its annoying just like the trump steak threads. Just make a general at that point