Are all man’s inventions doomed to fail?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some examples of each invention, poorly made or improperly used implements, old models, worn materials, often fail.
Some inventions do not perform according the inventor's intention.
Most inventions do not fail.
However, nearly all of them, including shoes and spoons, can and will be put to some nefarious purpose.
 
foghorn said:
What invention will replace pipes and hoses?
I'm not saying they will be around forever.
Teleporting.
Click to expand...
Jeeves said:
Some examples of each invention, poorly made or improperly used implements, old models, worn materials, often fail.
Some inventions do not perform according the inventor's intention.
Most inventions do not fail.
However, nearly all of them, including shoes and spoons, can and will be put to some nefarious purpose.
Click to expand...
If one invention could be so highly evolved that it performs all the inventors intentions and last forever is it then still man’s invention?
 
Nature
Galaxies
Elements
Particles

have longer longevity than man’s inventions. Is that idea not worth searching for?
 
Beaconator said:
If one invention could be so highly evolved that it performs all the inventors intentions and last forever is it then still man’s invention?
Click to expand...
Inventors don't usually have infinite intentions. They make a gizmo that's designed to perform one particular function. If the gizmo started 'evolving' - becoming something else, or reproducing itself, we would probably destroy it before it got smart and big enough to destroy us. So, chances are, we'll never know: the machines won't evolve or we won't be around. Besides, if some thing lasted even a dozen generations, who'd remember the inventor or his intention?
 
Beaconator said:
Since when has the definition of a word really explained it’s usefulness?
Click to expand...
?? The definition of a word explains its definition. For example, the term "invention" means "something, typically a process or device, that has been invented." Failure means "the omission of expected or required action." So if you invent a new battery, and it is expected to work for a year, and it does in fact work for a year, it is a successful invention.

An invention does not have to be useful, long lived or rugged to be successful. For example, fireworks were certainly an invention - but last only seconds. And they are rarely useful for anything other than making people go "oooh aaaah."

Nor does an invention describe how durable it is. You could get a patent for a specific cure for cancer, and it would an amazing and useful invention indeed. Even if the preparation required lasted only minutes before degrading.
durability and longevity are increasing factors of efficiency. the fact that they are doomed to break is no fault of mine.
Click to expand...
Nor is it the fault of the inventor.
nobody mentioned successful…
Click to expand...
Fireworks were a successful invention.
and I disagree, most successful inventions are durable.
Click to expand...
Nope. Again, fireworks.
And the processes that makes them are efficient.
Click to expand...
No. You may believe that, but that's not reality.
 
Jeeves said:
Inventors don't usually have infinite intentions. They make a gizmo that's designed to perform one particular function. If the gizmo started 'evolving' - becoming something else, or reproducing itself, we would probably destroy it before it got smart and big enough to destroy us. So, chances are, we'll never know: the machines won't evolve or we won't be around. Besides, if some thing lasted even a dozen generations, who'd remember the inventor or his intention?
Click to expand...
Like the first inventor of shoes! Nobody has his name… might not even have had a name.
 
billvon said:
?? The definition of a word explains its definition. For example, the term "invention" means "something, typically a process or device, that has been invented." Failure means "the omission of expected or required action." So if you invent a new battery, and it is expected to work for a year, and it does in fact work for a year, it is a successful invention.

An invention does not have to be useful, long lived or rugged to be successful. For example, fireworks were certainly an invention - but last only seconds. And they are rarely useful for anything other than making people go "oooh aaaah."

Nor does an invention describe how durable it is. You could get a patent for a specific cure for cancer, and it would an amazing and useful invention indeed. Even if the preparation required lasted only minutes before degrading.

Nor is it the fault of the inventor.

Fireworks were a successful invention.

Nope. Again, fireworks.

No. You may believe that, but that's not reality.
Click to expand...
Fireworks like torpedos typically last until they are used. So they are in fact built to be durable…

your definition of invention doesn’t define the process of invention, in fact it relates itself to the same root word.

if the inventor purposely makes inventions that break. I’m sorry but that is his fault. But it’s a free market and you can sell what you like.
 
Beaconator said:
Fireworks like torpedos typically last until they are used. So they are in fact built to be durable.
Click to expand...
OK. So if they last as long as they are designed to last, you consider them durable.

In that case, almost all inventions are durable. The FLASH memory in phones, for example, is only made to last 10-100K read/write cycles. If it lasts that long, they are in fact durable by your definition.
your definition of invention doesn’t define the process of invention
Click to expand...
Right, because you haven't talked about the process, just about the result (i.e. they are all doomed.)
if the inventor purposely makes inventions that break. I’m sorry but that is his fault.
Click to expand...
Like fireworks or crash barriers or fire sprinklers? Yes, that is his "fault" - and is a reason his invention is successful.
 
billvon said:
So nothing that is patented can be an invention? What a silly claim.
Click to expand...
Err no… I don’t know where you got that whole idea from but it is certainly not what I’m thinking.

for example the shortest an object made of every element would last 42 minutes, because francium lasts only that amount of time. But the invention itself would last much longer without it.
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
Err no… I don’t know where you got that whole idea from but it is certainly not what I’m thinking.
Click to expand...
If "the true meaning of invention" is that it has to be thought, not told, then patents (the telling of an idea) are not inventions.
for example the shortest an object made of every element would last 42 minutes, because francium lasts only that amount of time.
Click to expand...
?? Copernicium has a half life of 10 seconds. Livermorium (a metal) has a half life of 18 milliseconds. And that's just the elements that have been discovered so far.

However, it would also be silly to claim that inventions based on these elements are not really inventions, or are poor inventions. For example, the invention of radioactive tracers for radiology was a momentous invention indeed - but a common tracer (technetium-99m) not only does not exist in nature, it has a half life of 6 hours.
 
Beaconator said:
for example the shortest an object made of every element would last 42 minutes, because francium lasts only that amount of time. But the invention itself would last much longer without it.
Click to expand...
And, with this last piece of false science, I think it is time to close this thread.

The whole thing is a waste of time, anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top