From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:47:26 GMT
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>On what basis do you judge this, if not from modern science? Perhaps they are
>>easier to imagine than the others, but that does not mean that they are more
>>likely to appear soon.
>
>Improvements in materials and power technologies probably follow a relatively
>steady curve (of whatever function), similar to computer memory density or
>cost.  The curve doesn't take into account whether it's an improvement in
>electrical conversion equipment or an application of muon-catalyzed fusion; 
>the future power/cost ratio has a significant probability of matching the 
>projected figure.  The same holds true for communication rates, material 
>strength, etc.

	I don't see why anyone should make this assumption - that material and 
power technology should follow a steady curve. I think that one just has to 
look in the past at some other things which were assumed to follow steady 
curves. Primarily improvements in technology are small - but they are hardly 
steady, and there are plenty of radical shifts. 
	I think the assumption of small changes is probably good for the 
next 30-40 years or so, but past that, these sort of predictions become 
laughable. There was nothing wrong with much of the science around 1900, 
and they imagined that explosive power would follow a fairly steady curve. 
It did - until 1945. Others had good reason to believe that only metals 
would be good conductors, and that resistance was reaching its lower limits. 

	To point out about communication rates: present day communication 
rates are limited by the speed of electrical switches. However, we are capable 
of producing pulses of light of 10^-14 seconds duration, which can be 
transmitted down unlimited length of fibre-optic cable. If we wanted to, in a 
few years we could set up a communications channel that transmitted 10^12 
bits of information per second *per fibre-optic strand*. 

>
>A new basic force of the universe accessible only from a sentient brain 
>doesn't fit on any curve that I can think of.  It's not like discovering 
>quantum mechanics, unless psionics is limited to such small ranges, energies 
>or data rates that our present instruments haven't detected it yet.  It's not 
>like discovering W particles, unless psionics doesn't occur until the brain is
>accelerated to near-c velocity or subjected to TeV energies.

	The assumption that new discoveries will be just like the old has been 
a mistake made over and over again through the centuries. In the late 1800's, 
many people were convinced that science was coming to a halt, because they 
had discovered everything there was to know. The idea that observation would 
change physical reality was nonsensical and silly. Who ever heard of a half-
dead cat? 
	Our current science focusses alot on achieving higher energies, bigger 
accelerators, and more money (not neccessarily in that order). However, later 
discoveries might focus in on quantum effects in complex systems. Perhaps 
out ideas about information and thought (like those about space and time many 
years ago) are naive, and will radically change in later years. 

>
>No, I can see advances in fusion reactors or high-temperature superconductors
>as having a probability that is calculable, even if at only a low precision,
>based on plots of previous advances. 

	Any plot of the previous advances will clearly show that one cannot 
predict the future of them by more than 50 years, at best. 
	As a good example - high temperature superconductors. One can plot 
the highest temperature at which superconductivity can be maintained as a 
function of years since 1950. Is this plot meaningful - will it tell us how 
much higher the temperature of superconductors will go? No. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you, 
Columbia University         | they will kill you."         - Watership Down
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy