The Not-So Good Old Days

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That is what history has shown us so far, hasn't it?

So when you walk down a path you think it will never end, because it hasn't yet?

[Lorizael]

This is a stupid, stupid philosophical debate. Kid, your entire argument is one big logical fallacy. Things that sound the same in your head are not necessarily the same thing when it comes to the real world

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
This is a stupid, stupid philosophical debate. Kid, your entire argument is one big logical fallacy. Things that sound the same in your head are not necessarily the same thing when it comes to the real world

Is that suppose to pass for an argument?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So when you walk down a path you think it will never end, because it hasn't yet?

See, here's your problem. You're trying to shoehorn a non-physical, intellectual journey into an analogy with a physical, tangible journey, and using the latter's termination as "proof" that the former must also end.

The difference between a nature hike and the drumbeat of progress is that the former is very tangible. From the very onset, you've committed to both a beginning and an end. You start it with a goal, and once that goal is obtained, the path ends.

Technological progress, on the other hand, is quite open-ended. There is no end goal other than, "progress further, higher, faster, better," or, in other words, its only purpose is to continually advance itself. With that as its whole raison d'etre, it cannot have an end.

I maintain that the only time such progress will ever stop is if humanity itself is terminated; for even in laziness and retardation of its intellectual curiosity, there will always be a drive to make things that much easier and simpler.

So are you saying that every single techological advancement can be fed upon? .... And that advancement fed upon, and so forth to infinite?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Why shouldn't it? What possible technological advancement could exist that couldn't be improved upon/spawn new advancements?

What makes you think there is a terminus to progress? If it's simply the physical path analogy, then honestly, you ought to go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a more rigorous argument.

[Lorizael]

First, you assume that all things end. In order to do this properly, you have to come up with a definition for both 'thing' and 'end'.

From a classical standpoint, looking at matter and energy, neither of these things can be destroyed or created. Since these are the most basic of 'things', you have to stray from these concepts when talking about bigger things likes 'paths' and 'technological development'.

It can be said that many higher order structures, such as human life or stars, can indeed end by some measure, but do these things not carry on in some other format?

We have memories of people, and we have heavy atoms of stars.

At what point did you prove that everything ends? At what point did you prove that all paths end? At what point did you prove that a path is the same thing as technological development? At what point did you prove that you had anything even approximating an argument?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
The difference between a nature hike and the drumbeat of progress is that the former is very tangible. From the very onset, you've committed to both a beginning and an end. You start it with a goal, and once that goal is obtained, the path ends.

Technological progress, on the other hand, is quite open-ended. There is no end goal other than, "progress further, higher, faster, better," or, in other words, its only purpose is to continually advance itself. With that as its whole raison d'etre, it cannot have an end.

It's true that I assume that it has an end, because everything does, except for possibly time and space. But you also have just made an assumption, and you want me to accept it even though it doesn't jive with my real world experience with tangible objects. At least I'm using my experience. Your assumption seems to have no justification whatsoever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
At what point did you prove that you had anything even approximating an argument?

I never did. I'm questioning the claim that something is infinit because it has never ended. I'm not trying to prove anything. I just see that as faulty logic.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I never did. I'm questioning the claim that something is infinit because it has never ended. I'm not trying to prove anything. I just see that as faulty logic.

Even if you were right why would it matter? The end of technical progress would almost certainly have to be preceded by the end of far more tenuous things such as civilization or even baryonic matter either of which would make the theoretical end of technical progress moot in any event.

Bottom line we have every reason to believe that technical progress will last for as long as civilization does.

[Q Classic]

It's true that I assume that it has an end, because everything does, except for possibly time and space.

Why don't time and space end? What makes them unique in opposition to everything else? Is it the fact that to you, they did not have a beginning? If that is the case, why not push that argument further?

Did time exist before we put our framework on it? One could argue that for humans for whom time does not quite exist (as evidenced by an Amazonian tribe), for them, there is no past nor future.

If this is the direction you want to take the argument, feel free; I think, however, it would be a disservice to our actual argument.

But you also have just made an assumption, and you want me to accept it even though it doesn't jive with my real world experience with tangible objects.

Except, and here's the thing--I'm not asking you to judge this on tangible objects. I'm pointing out that you cannot assume that an intangible concept will end simply because physical, tangible objects do.

If you're so set on your real-world, tangible experience governing your world view, how then can you accept the power of an Atomic Blast? How then can you accept the concept of other peoples' histories, which you have not been a party to?

At least I'm using my experience. Your assumption seems to have no justification whatsoever.

Wrong. My assumption does have very firm justifications--for one, I make the distinction between tangible objects and intangible concepts. Because I make that distinction, I am able to understand just how differently they behave. Much as I cannot expect an intagible, auditory sensation codified into a song to provide as many tangible benefits as a very physical loaf of bread, I cannot expect intangible the progress of knowledge and ideas to end simply because a road path does.

I never did. I'm questioning the claim that something is infinit because it has never ended. I'm not trying to prove anything. I just see that as faulty logic.

Except... you yourself are claiming that time and space are infinite because they haven't ended.
You claim that time and space have no beginning because when you acheived sentience, you also had the notion of time--but was that sensation of time not ingrained in you from societal forces and biological forces? Was there not a time, as an infant, where you were not aware of the passage of time?
One of your fundamental assumptions, yes, I know. Perhaps it's not fair to call you on it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Why don't time and space end? What makes them unique in opposition to everything else? Is it the fact that to you, they did not have a beginning? If that is the case, why not push that argument further?

Did time exist before we put our framework on it? One could argue that for humans for whom time does not quite exist (as evidenced by an Amazonian tribe), for them, there is no past nor future.

If this is the direction you want to take the argument, feel free; I think, however, it would be a disservice to our actual argument.

I said it was possible that time and space are infinite. I'm not making that claim. Indeed, if time and space have endings than everything does, even the number of concepts that pass for technological advancement.

Except, and here's the thing--I'm not asking you to judge this on tangible objects. I'm pointing out that you cannot assume that an intangible concept will end simply because physical, tangible objects do.

If you're so set on your real-world, tangible experience governing your world view, how then can you accept the power of an Atomic Blast? How then can you accept the concept of other peoples' histories, which you have not been a party to?

What does tangibility have to do with it? I don't get where you are going with this. Ok, take something intangible, like dedication. I'm dedicated to my job. I become more and more dedicated to my job everyday. Are you claiming that every passing day I will become more dedicated to my job, just because I have been thus far?

Honestly, I was just trying to give an example that was simple. I didn't mean to get into a big thing about tangibility.

[Q Classic]

I said it was possible that time and space are infinite. I'm not making that claim.

I must have misread this:

The only things that I beleive have not start and end are time and space. Nothing that I know of has a beginning, but not and end. Why do you think technological advancement is different?

The way you phrased that made it seem as if it were a bedrock assumption, a fundamental rationale behind your arguments.

Indeed, if time and space have endings than everything does, even the number of concepts that pass for technological advancement.

As far as this goes, we don't have a disagreement here, per se--if you go back and see what I've said, I said that there is one condition for which advancement will be halted--the termination of humanity. Which, I'd think, could be covered by the ending of time and space.

===

What does tangibility have to do with it? I don't get where you are going with this.

What I'm saying is that since tangible and intangible objects and concepts behave very differently, one cannot expect that just because one ends, the other has to. Your argument, which seemed to be based on that analogy, didn't take into account the dichotomy between the two, which is the point I was trying to make.

Ok, take something intangible, like dedication. I'm dedicated to my job. I become more and more dedicated to my job everyday. Are you claiming that every passing day I will become more dedicated to my job, just because I have been thus far?

You do yourself a disservice by consistently trying to find analogies that do not apply. Is dedication as iterative and continual as technological progress? I'd argue that it isn't, necessarily. Because dedication isn't necessarily iterative and continual, like the accumulation of knowledge, it's a poor comparison.

Honestly, I was just trying to give an example that was simple. I didn't mean to get into a big thing about tangibility.

The problem with simplifying arguments is that much of the nuances get lost. You end up in a situation like Kerry (my end), and Bush (your end).
Simplicity in argumentation does not always entail accuracy in argumentation.

===

The point I'm trying to make is this, Kid: you say that technological progress must have an end, though you provide no other justification outside of, "physical things end, therefore...", or, "it's been my experience that things end, therefore..."

On my end, I say that it's a) a poor argument, and b) because of the very nature of progress, it's quite unlikely to end, ever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Because dedication isn't necessarily iterative and continual, like the accumulation of knowledge, it's a poor comparison.

That's just your claim. You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it so.

Ok, what other intangible things do you think have no end. Maybe I will agree with one.

[Q Classic]

Because dedication isn't necessarily iterative and continual, like the accumulation of knowledge, it's a poor comparison.

That's just your claim. You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it so.

You'll have to explain that line. Which part isn't so? The claim that dedication isn't iterative and continual, or the claim that knowledge accumulation/technological progress is iterative and continual?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That is what history has shown us so far, hasn't it?

And history covers what percentage of the human experience? For about 90% of it things did not really change very much at all.

Evidence points towards a generally upward trend. Nothing stops people from taking giant leaps backwards thought, and who knows if some plateau is not coming up. One can't know.

[Q Classic]

GePap, a plateau is not necessarily termination; indeed, I don't suggest that there aren't times when it's not retarded--for instance, in Europe and the Dark Ages. Hardly a time of stellar advancement--however, the respite helped generate conditions for a revolution in thought, which restarted progress.

I mean, heck. While I think we're potentially poised on a technological revolution, it's also entirely possible we may hit a brief flat period, no thanks in kind due to a certain party's detestation of science in favor of religion and corporate affairs.