Lately I have been worried abour the following idea: since the begining of the history (old Greeks and other "old"civilisations) people were encreasing their knowledge of the world. Then (in the old times) they knew much less then we do now but with the development of mankind and science I have now the feeling that not only the amount of wat they knew (in the relation to what they needed to know to be able to understand (and sustain) their existence) has been encreasing but the amount of what they did not know was encreasing in the same tempo. (Simlpy rephrased the amount of what we know is encreasing in the same meassure as the amount of we do not know). If this is true, (if this is really true) has the development of knowledge (and science) sense?

Let me guess -- you're high?

- Warren

The way Einstien expressed this idea is (and this is a paraphrase, I dont remember the exact quote) "as the circle of light increases so does the perimeter of darkness".
In an infinite universe the more you know, the more there is left to know. Of course we are talking about empirical knowledge here.
The really interesting thing about this idea is that the perimeter of darkness is where hypotheses formation necessarily takes place, between the known and the unknown.
Consider also that in any given situation there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses available for testing. It isnt possible to test an infinite number of hypotheses. Which hypothesis are tested are determined by the training, culture and individual predjudices of the scientists who test them. What this means is that every bit of empirical knowledge has to pass through several subjective filters before its expermentially verified.
So to a large degree we are making the universe up as we go :D

He is still making more sense than hemmingway.

The way Einstien expressed this idea is (and this is a paraphrase, I dont remember the exact quote) "as the circle of light increases so does the perimeter of darkness".

Fantastic: So we can say: the more we know about the universe the less we know about the universe. Science is (basically) a kamikaze mission.

(Did Einstein elaborate on this? (I have searched the web but found nothing))

Exponentiality at it's best: once you have an answer to a
question, you usually have more questions. Once you get the
next answers, more questions... ad infinitum. It never ends ;)

Hope it makes sense; I haven't slept in 24 hours...
:D

Science is (basically) a kamikaze mission.
(I have searched the web but found nothing))

I wouldnt say its a kamakaze mission. Its just that everything is so interrelated, every new piece of knowledge touches so many other pieces, some of which may not yet be in the light. No doubt there is some overarching meta principle of interrealtions that might allow us to address the universe as just THAT, we just havent discovered it yet :)
How about just thinking about it in the interim as just bringing a little more of the universe to conciousness?

As far as the qoute here is what I found:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22as+the+circle+of+light+increases%22

Its attributed to pasteur on one of the results.

I first heard this in a science class film in I think junior high, a long time ago :)

It may be that some massive development of knowledge (eg. such as Greek Enlightenment) is followed by a period of distrust of "knowledge" and people then turn to mysticism (the Greek Enlightenment was followed by the centuries of Dark Ages). It may be that that the Old Greeks (unknowingly) caused the the darkness of the following period because they had enlarged not only the knowledge of the mankind but also the "unknowledge".
I see no other reason why the Greek Enlightenment didn't continue - why should such a great era of knowledge end such as it did.

The problem is all people are born essentially ignorant. Each generation has more it needs to be taught to understand history and technology.

For example: World history is constantly growing and It is a must children must know it. To understand tech you need an ever increasing amount of background information.

Causes problems due to our short life-span.

It may be that there are two levels of knowledge: knowledge and "metaknowledge".

The statement of Einstein would apply only to the first level. (The more you know the Universe the less you know the Universe).

On the second level "metaknowledge" (a note to Chroot: not related to met(h)anol this time) does not comply to the first level (the more the less) This metaknowledge would presuppose the existence of some leading principles of the structures of the Universe, (a theory of "all"?) the knowledge of which would enable us to understand the whole before knowing the details.

Remember: The default setting for humans is total ignorance. Humans will eventually get to the point we wont be able to live long enough to master a scientific field. THis means scientific advancement will be hobbled.

I think you have a point. Maybe you wil find this interesting: (takes about twenty minutes to watch..)

<a href=http://www.kubrick2001.com/>www.kubrick2001.com</a>

I don't think that we will ever reach a point where it's impossible to make advancements. We'll just continue to get more and more specialized. Look at chemistry; a few hundred years ago virtually all chemists knew the same things and worked to solve the same sorts of problems. Now chemistry is so specialized that an organic chemist knows very little about the work of a physical chemist, and vice versa. We'll probably just continue down this road.

Impossible? That will take a LONG time to come up. We wont even be identifyable as humans by then.

Unbearably slow on the other hand may come up in the next thousand years. At that time we would be advancing only by accident.

If the human lifespan is lengthened or we can get uploadable memories this problem will be bypassed though.

Another possibility is increased computer aid in research. As it is, organic chemists are using computer programs written by computational chemists to aid them in their research. The organic chemists don't really understand the principles that allow the programs to work, and the computational chemists don't really understand what the organic chemists need to programs for.

Who know...maybe soon we'll be able to just let the computers do the research for us.

It may be that the capacity of the brain wil be encreasing as the time goes on. Up till now the man was pretty adjustable. (It could be interesting to see if the IQ is encreasing as the brain is more and more challenged (in general population)). As the man has developed from the ape to his present form, why shouldn't this proces go on? From today's man into the future man. I am affraid, Clockwood, that your vision is too static...

Haha...no, I dont see this as a problem. The human brain has incredible potential; even moreso than we already know. We dont a lot about it as it is - there are still unknowns.

Also, as we come to understand more we'll be able to throw out more and more of our old ideas that were wrong.

Quote is from my own entry at the "Is altering time impossible?" thread at this forum:

C.G. Jung (in his late years) developed a theory that the man has a connection to the "general knowledge of mankind" (of all time) This knowledge center didn't necessarily have to reside in the brain, Jung didn't place it. His theory presuposes that the knowledge which you yourself experience is "coded" as your knowledge and is fully accessible to you. The "general knowledge of mankind" is differently coded, normally you cannot access it. Only if there is some mistake in the codes you get to different part of the knowledge (of somebody else). Some people (convicingly) have knowledge of things they normally could not know. (Details of Medieval Klosters...) " This theory was ever tested in GB and Australia the result was (if I remember that correctly) that if the rats of some specified sort learn to handle a maze (to get to their food) in Australia, then GB rats (of the same sort) learn to handle the maze one third faster.

After it is expleined to you the first time any idiot can understand and make a pulley or a lever or a wheel. It is subconsiously knownby everyone anyway.

Not many people REALLY know how an internal combustion engine works, even though they drive a car. They might have a vague idea about expanding gasses and pistons but they couldnt build one if their life depended on it.

It is like that nowadays. To understand one piece of information you must unterstand many more precedeing pieces. Soon enough it takes your entire life to learn how to make a light speed engine.

It seems that you consider it necessary for one person to understand “the whole thing” (this was e.g. the case in philosophy from the Old Greeks (Plato + Aristotle) up till Hegel and Marx – they could follow and comprehend the scientific knowlede of their time). This is no longer the case (for enybody in any field of knowledge) so the time you are refering to has already come. (You haven’t noticed it coming though because we have accepted the dependence on the knowledge of others with ease). Let’s face it: The individual person has lost the control over the knowledge in the last two centuries (which means that the knowledge wil follow its own traject and no individual person kan control it (e.g. direct it towards some desired global goal…(should we find one...)

To make a computer you must know the behavior of electricity, the laws of thermodynamics, properties of numerous materials, dataflow, and endless other things. It takes hoards working together to make one. Think of that in comparison to to making a water mill. I am sure this trend will go on until it takes all the knowledge of the world just to make one computer.

Scientific knowledge is per deffinition reproduceable: if you use the correct procedure you can reproduce what knowledge has achieved. These procedures are described and can be used. You are insisting that the lifespan wil become too short to contain and further develop the knowledge - you are limiting the process to ONE person - which (as I am repeatedly trying to explain) is not the case even now. We add lifespans of many induviduals togeather so that there is and always will be enough (added)lifspan(s) to develope knowledge further.

I am sure that people (togeather) can add up enough lifespan to develop "<b>a light speed engine</b>"

I am sure you know that as a computer becomes more complex it becomes both "smarter" and slower and more power wasteful. Energy is lost to friction and the speed is limited by the speed of light (signals need to get from point a to point b) Though we find ways to minaturize them and thus reduce these negative aspects you only have a limited number of ways to do so. They also get more expensive.

A similar thing happens with the human race. It takes more and more people to manage relavent data and more supplies to "fule" them. As bits of info are bounced around things are forgotten, jumbled, or corrupted. The data has to pass through more and more people and thus slows the mob's functions. Eventually nobody would be able to contain the overall plan in their head so everyone would be working half blind.

The data has to pass through more and more people and thus slows the mob's functions.

OK. You have a strong point here. (This probably explains why Germany could rebuild itself in a couple of years after being devastated in WWII - knowledge of how the things work was mostly in peoples heads while it took Korea decenia to develop to some comparable level (knowledge there came in technological description....)

Well, the buzillion dollars that the US sent over to Europe after the war to fund rebuilding projects probably helped too.

The roman empire was a good example of waste in large systems. The larger it got the more worthless beurocracy and infrastructure it needed to stay coherent. That means higher tax rates and lower productivity while more of a military was needed to keep out invaders. Problems grow faster than solutions.

A similar thing will happen in any dynamic system.

There was a time once when we were all about exploration, conquest and colonization - we can now be defined as a civilization that focuses on internal problems that will or can never be completely solved.

A cold shudder or chill may go up your spine looking at old black and white photographs of people, events, machines, inventions, proposals and visionary schemes from the early half of the century.

To see what could have and should have been is sobering to say the least. That generation of yesteryear believed so firmly in science, technology and the progress of Western Man in all areas of life, it is easy to see why they have been called The Greatest Generation. They believed that science (understanding) and technology (application) would lead to a higher standard of living, which it did. They believed in letting technology solve its own problems. They believed in grand projects of engineering.

Somewhere along the way we became complacent and if not complacent downright lazy. We allowed Giovernments to decide what could be researched and what couldn't. Not a new phenomenon. Governments once ran the majority of research efforts globally and I guess they are now taking it back from corporations. The car was virtually banned in Britain at the turn of the century. Under the terms of the Red Flag law cars were restricted to 4km an hour for many years. Horses were seen as far more sensible you see. The British Car Manufacturing Industry is still trying to catch up with Europe and the US as a consequence. The British Admiralty saw no value in submarines. Much to the glee of German Uboat commanders some years later on. It goes way back, this kind of Governmental shortsightedness. Perhaps if China had been more creative after inventing gun powder they might not have been so shocked at the arrival of foreign troops wielding repeater rifles. History will keep on repeating the message to us but I doubt governments will ever learn. You ban or ignore any technology and theres a very good chance it will come back later to bite you in the arse.

Excellent post, cosmicdisturbance. Welcome to sciforums.

Cannot agree with your vieuw. Why do you think the goverment is bad and companies good? Look at Enron, World Com etc. Goverment is people. Get/aducate your people better and you wil get better goverment (Hegel). Your singling out the govermenrt as the bad guy is artificial. Look at the companies who deny AIDS medicine to dying Africans. Maybe a new Einstain is dying there now..If that be the case the development of knowledge will have be slowed for decenias - more devastating effect on the world than a couple of stupid decisions...

It could have been the dolars. But Clockwoods vision is still an impressive possibility.

I haven't pigeonholed anyone as either good or evil. Theres a little of both in all of us. Governments mean well. They just have a tendency to treat the masses like children. Life is not about eliminating all risk. Its about balancing risks. Of all the animals on Earth Humans are the most exploratory opportunistic critters to be found. You can largely divide the animal kingdom up into opportunists and specialists. Specialists are Koala Bears, Anteaters and Giraffes. Very specialised and highly susceptible to environmental change. Opportunists on the other hand are more adaptable. They generally live on their wits. Gamblers every one but clever gamblers. Theres no telling where the next meal may be coming from in the wild so anything new has to be scrutinised carefully as a potential food source. This curiosity is a dangerous game. We may end up eaten ourselves. So we tap our memory banks for similar experiences and if the risk seems in our favour we go for it. First hand experience is therefore essential to the development of intelligent thinking. Unfortunately, in the interests of keeping children 'safe' we can be overprotective. Starving our juvenile population of first hand knowledge and replacing it with second hand knowledge. Junk food for the brain. Governments are just making the same mistake. Treating us more like cattle than intelligent primates that thrive on challenges. They think it is in our best interests to ban any field of endeavour which is a little scary. Such as cloning or nuclear power. You know, all the cutting edge stuff. To me it is far scarier that we are leaving these doors unopened for others to discover.

Thankyou for the warm welcome Wet1. Are you in the navy? Just curious about the handle.

Cosmic:The best thing you can do would be to be both. Be a specialist in whatever is most profitable but somehow "remember" how to do other things. That skill is recalled when your current role becomes less preferable.

Of course current genetics doesnt work like that. People do at times, however.

cosmicdisturbance,

You may click on my net name for a profile that explains the why of it.

While I do not agree with your viewpoints, you have had something to say and given reasons for saying it. As such you have my respect for contributing a "reasoning" post. Something that we seem to have lost along the way when a lot of our members post. I thought you deserved a congradulations as a new member for the post.

Clockwood.

We are the greatest opportunists on Earth. Unfortunately, we may be turning into specialists. With any luck a big Asteroid will come along and set us back on the path of progress. Without challenge animals invariously become specialised and that is an evolutionary deadend. Once you get too far along the path of specialisation there is no turning back should the need arise and extinction is usually the result. We became smart because we were the elite explorers. The greatest opportunists. The cleverest gamblers. Sheep will never rule the Earth.
Unfortunately there are few remaining frontiers and we are making little effort to open them. Specialisation may be death but by the time this becomes apparent we will likely be too stupid to realise it. I think human intelligence peaked centuries ago. Thats when it gradually lost significance as a survival trait among the masses. With burgeoning populations, welfare, diminishing mortality rates and the loss of any competing fauna we are now on the path of retrogression. Sure, we know a lot more than the ancients but we only built on what those sage thinkers gave us. how many people actually know how a TV works? A diesel engine? Concrete skyscraper construction, airplane wings, computers. Few can be bothered finding out despite the knowledge being freely available. Read through a couple of ancient greek philosophisings and you will see what I mean. We are evolving into idiots and its hardly surprising.

Originally posted by cosmicdisturbance
Without challenge animals invariously become specialised and that is an evolutionary deadend. Once you get too far along the path of specialisation there is no turning back should the need arise and extinction is usually the result.
I see you are as adept with biology as you are with space engineering. Do you even know what the precise genetic definiton of 'evolution' is?
We are evolving into idiots and its hardly surprising.
Actually, every study done so far has indicated that the average human intelligence has been rising steadily for hundreds of years. Anecdotes from your experience of people's understanding of modern inventions is not evidence of anything.

- Warren

Thankyou Chrooty. I read widely. As a child I spent every weekend trudging tens of kilometres along open shorelines. Sometimes scrambling over rocks or scaling cliffs to save turning back. My fossil collection was only surpassed by my mountains of cheap second books on Palaeontology. Yes, I know you spell it differently in the US. When I eventually left England at the age of eighteen to emigrate by myself to Australia I knew I had to leave my boxes of treasures behind. It broke my heart. I went to visit my friend Miss Smith, the curator of Norwich Museums Natural History department. A woman I had been beachcombing with on occasion and was an inspiration to me. I will never forget that time. Helping to clean a Mammoth tusk. Discussing such finds as a neolithic scraper I had uncovered. Donated along with everything else my searches had revealed. This was all long before Jurassic Park nearly made Palaeontology a household word. I have a passion for science. I don't know everything but then nobody does. If they did there would be nothing to learn and no point in living.

Quote
"Actually, every study done so far has indicated that the average human intelligence has been rising steadily for hundreds of years. Anecdotes from your experience of people's understanding of modern inventions is not evidence of anything."

I am assuming you are putting some value to IQ testing. Modern day snake oil. Now, while I enjoy solving the types of puzzles that usually appear on IQ tests, I don't really care for the tests themselves. I was thinking about the arbitrary nature of standardized testing a few years back at a MENSA meeting. All an IQ test does is measure a persons ability to do IQ tests. They are meaningless for any other purpose. The first IQ test was institutionalised for schools before its fraudulently recorded research results came to light. My experience of peoples understanding of modern innovation is subjectual evidence I admit and only my own opinion. Thats self evident and I usually wouldn't have to waste time spelling it out as obvious. It was my own personal observation. Our population has surpassed 6 billion globally and science is being pursued by our youth in ever decreasing percentages. The schooling system may be part if not most of the cause. Increasingly mediocre minds might also play a role. My opinion is only one of many out there. In a litter of young there is much genetic variation to be found. Complex intricate systems are also variable. One individual may be smart. Another quite dim. Which will survive? They both do ofcourse. When two intelligent people have children, those kids tend to have slightly duller minds. Partners at the other end of the bell curve tend to have slightly smarter kids. Do you see where this is leading? Average Intelligence remains static. Assuming ofcourse we are outside of evolution which we are not. I see the influences of societal laws dumbing us down. Perhaps you do not. Many people don't. Thats another personal observation. Yes, my own opinion and not a concrete law of physics.