At what point will we not need to advance scientifically? Is there an endgame?

[RainbowSingularity]

In an unfolding environment with infinite enfolded potential, the artistry of mathematically emergent patterns will keep us busy till eternity.

inverse proportional exponential convergence

 

[Yazata]

Relatively speaking , the gap of which absolutely nothing is known is relatively the same size gap as exists between lifesize and 10-16 in size!!!!

I think that the question in this thread is why anyone cares, or should care, about stuff like that. Does our desire to know, our seeming dissatisfaction at not knowing stuff, represent a lack, an emptiness that we are always trying to fill, an example of what the Buddhists might call dukkha (often translated as suffering)? Will human beings ever reach the point where they will just kick back, relax and be satisfied with not knowing?

Would that be good? Would it be a desirable state? Or would it reduce man to the condition of a stone?

I suppose that one answer would be that if there is no dissatisfaction and no desire, then we wouldn't experience anything wrong with living life like a stone. In constant never ending satori, bliss, the beatific vision or Krishna consciousness. Needing nothing, wanting nothing. (It's a bit suggestive of getting high on drugs.)

IMHO, it [scientific curiosity] will never stop, it is part of the evolutionary process.

I very much agree. We pretty clearly evolved our curiosity in order to be motivated to be better informed about what's happening around us and hence better able to survive. It has selective value.

But that doesn't really answer the question, does it?

I guess that I'm inclined to think that curiosity isn't a lack, an emptiness or a source of suffering. It can be just the opposite, a source of personal meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe, something very akin to a spiritual path in its own right.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I mean, I think it is at a stage where humans can simply chill, and enjoy.

Yes and I have for some time now☺.

We do need to continue stem cell research which no doubt will bring us immortality and we need to build battle stars....both to fulfill biblical prophesy....live forever in heaven☺.

God has already been elected president so things should start falling into place soon.

Science needs to establish conclusively that the universe is eternal so as to eliminate the crazy idea of a creator from the mind of humanity so it can free itself from the crippling bronze age superstition currently holding humanity back from a wonderous future.

I do think more should be done with body transformation. ..for example I would like some beautiful wings and perhaps some gills to get to go where I please.

Science can deliver all this and more.

Science is wonderful and will show us all the answers.

So far science has done so much but primarily has showed us that we have no need of made up gods or a crazy world view made up by folk who did not know where there Sun went at night or that all the human god stories are just a con.

Alex

 

[TheFrogger]

With the advancement of binary computing, it seemed they could do anything. Now we have quantum computing.

Incidentally technology has advanced exponentially (With statistical significance) since the Roswell crash...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Learning more about the universe.
Improving conditions for humanity everywhere.
Being a good steward of the Earth - the planet that's keeping us alive.

Don't think there are currently enough resources to accomplish that task?
What more could we do to achieve that?

Silly to think that there will never be any more beneficial/important advances, but at least you are in good company.

???

Letter to the editor, 1825: "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
Charles Duell, Commissioner of US patent office, 1899: "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Simon Newcomb, 1900: "“Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.”
1903: “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad.”
1909: "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."
NYT, 1936: "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Boeing, 1937: "There will never be a bigger plane built." (referring to the Boeing 247 which held 10 passengers.)
Lee De Forrest, 1957: "I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage [to the Moon] will never occur regardless of all future advances."
FCC commissioner, 1961: "There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television or radio service inside the United States."
Ken Olson, 1977: "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."

As a side note. I think you should leave ''theism'' out of this discussion.

I hear what you're saying.
Do you think mankind would have perished, or be less happy, if we didn't have computers, or aeroplanes?

If scientific advancement is ultimately for the benefit of humankind, then there should at least be a goal, which leads to that end.
So at what point do you envisage such an end?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It isn't necessarily advancement, and that isn't necessarily the point.
People are inquisitive; they'll keep nudging and poking and trying to find things out.
If they're comfortable, they look outward. If they're hurting, they look for solutions to their problems.
Either way, knowledge comes of their efforts - for good or ill.

I think that is a good point.
It is within the nature of man to keep trying to understand more.
The problem with that, is that it is not consistent. It is not all humans who share this curiosity.
We can attribute scientific advancement as a cultural pursuit. It has been mainly Europeans, or European type educative systems, which really advances science and technology. Other cultures tend to be more attuned to simple living, although have been influenced by scientific advancement.

With scientific advancement, there has been much advancement in medicine, and medical treatment in general. But scientific advancement brings with it, more ailments. Isn't it best to educate people on actually living, especially eating? Rather that chasing an ever increasing detriment of health due to unhealthy lifestyles?

Do you think we are at the point where we could achieve this goal?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In an unfolding environment with infinite enfolded potential, the artistry of mathematically emergent patterns will keep us busy till eternity.

Is the point of our existence to just keep learning about the universe?

jan.

 

[iceaura]

Is the point of our existence to just keep learning about the universe?

Works for me.

 

[TheFrogger]

How far will we advance? Will genetic engineering allow a dolphin to mate with a dog?? Will a banging computer one day be me: can we download ourselves onto a machine?? These are questions that have yet to be answered.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Here are a few points:

1. Human beings gotsta know stuff.
2. Scientific advancement tends, on average, to promote human happiness and wellbeing. For instance, human life expectancy is, on average, far greater than it used to be, even as recently as 100 years ago.
3. Humanity has some problems. Many of these are of our own making, but we can't really hope to solve them without scientific advancement. At least, not without massive and avoidable loss of life and diminishment of happiness and wellbeing (see 2, above).
4. Viewed from a non-human perspective, or from the perspective of the uncaring universe as a whole, there might be no "point".
5. Human beings create our own meaning. The "point" is therefore whatever we decide it is, at any given time.
6. If you're religious and you don't believe in things like evolution, then the chances of you understanding the point are slim.

1. Human beings inherently know stuff.
It would seem all life forms inherently know how to survive in their particular atmosphere.
So why is it that humans have to excessively know more than they know, when other creatures don't?

2. Promoting human happiness and well being (whatever that means) is all well and good.
Does that mean happiness and wellbeing is only achieved through scientific advancement?

Is the extension on life, something that makes us happy? If through scientific advancement we could live up to two hundred. Would we be even happier than we are now?

3. Isn’t this a case of the donkey who keeps moving forward in the hope of obtaining the carrot dangling in front of his nose, while tied to him?

6. Does such beliefs and lack of beliefs, make you less than human?

If there is no endgame to scientific advancement, are we simply organisms that thrive on data?

You're lucky to be one of those who is privileged enough to have time to chill and enjoy. Try living on less than a dollar a day for a month or two (as many millions of humans do) and you might reconsider.

I agree. I am fortunate compared to a lot of people. But I find that when I’m happy, content, and free from anxiety, it is despite scientific advancement and technology. Although, don’t get me wrong, I get a lot pleasure and help and assistance, from scientific advancements and technology, which fuels, in a few ways, happiness and contentment. But I wouldn’t go as far as to say it, itself, is the cause of such a condition.

There are people who are happy, in spite of their poverty. Obviously they would like more wealth, but it doesn’t stop them from being happy.

But if the cause of misery and sadness is caused by poverty, then do you think we are in a position, as a rich, technologically advanced, culture, to put an end to that. Right now, as opposed to future scientific advancement and technology?

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

Many moons ago, one of our ancestors saw lightning start a fire and he said to himself, "Hmmm, that could be useful."

Necessity isn't really the mother of invention. Invention is more about finding uses for what we've already discovered. It's impossible to know what the uses will be until after we make the discoveries.

I guess I’m questioning the need to go past basic fundamental needs. Is it a human need, or a cultural need?

Jan

 

[Jeeves]

The problem with that, is that it is not consistent.

That doesn't affect whether or where science ends.

It has been mainly Europeans, or European type educative systems, which really advances science and technology.

Now, there is a statement needs to go up on Trump's big wall. It won't fit on a tractor hat.

With scientific advancement, there has been much advancement in medicine, and medical treatment in general. But scientific advancement brings with it, more ailments.

Sure. Civilization is fraught with trial, error, trial trial again and the pursuit of craziness.

Isn't it best to educate people on actually living, especially eating?

That's good, too. Science isn't preventing that; it's helping.

Rather that chasing an ever increasing detriment of health due to unhealthy lifestyles?

Science isn't promoting, or responsible for, unhealthy lifestyles. Look to the quest for profit, not the quest for knowledge.

Do you think we are at the point where we could achieve this goal?

In theory, yes.
As soon as the global economy collapses under its own unreality, governments can no longer carry their military, state legislatures deadlock and borders break down, nations fragment, chaos and anarchy run rampant. Then the UN will have step in, put Watson III (or Alexa or Colossus, whatever the mega-computer is called) in charge of planning, organization, production and distribution, we'll be fine. The scientists will be free to keep experimenting; the scholars will keep learning; the artists will keep creating; automated factories will produce all our basic needs, including clean, lean, cruelty-free meat; the gardeners will keep growing lovely vegetables and the chefs -- ah, what the chefs will do with the lovely meat and vegetables...!

 

[Write4U]

Is the point of our existence to just keep learning about the universe?

jan.

Is learning all there is? And learning about the universe is just a pastime?

At what point in our existence will we no longer need useless daily prayers to prop up our egos?

 

[sideshowbob]

I guess I’m questioning the need to go past basic fundamental needs. Is it a human need, or a cultural need?

What is a "fundamental need"? Other animals get along without fire and shelter.

 

[Write4U]

So why is it that humans have to excessively know more than they know, when other creatures don't?

You sure have a low expectation of human abilities or destiny, don't you?

God gives you a brain and tells you that you are made in his image and then you insult him by denigrating our ability for abstract thought and our desire to know more about the universe and its great wonders?

Make up your mind. You want keep evolving our unique brains and become like God or do you want to be eternally condemned to be just an animal? Take your pick.

 

[Jeeves]

Curiosity is a fundamental function of the convoluted brain.
Cats and dogs sure like fire. (You can't get near my wood-stove for rampant furry bodies.) All animals seek shelter.
All the bright ones, especially if they're social, learn, experiment and investigate.

 

[DaveC426913]

You sure have a low expectation of human abilities or destiny, don't you?
God gives you a brain and tells you that you are made in his image and then you insult him by denigrating our ability for abstract thought and our desire to know more about the universe and its great wonders?
Make up your mind. You want keep evolving our unique brains and become like God or do you want to be eternally condemned to be just an animal? Take your pick.

This discussion has been quite civil. Maybe we can try to keep it that way as long as possible?

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess I’m questioning the need to go past basic fundamental needs. Is it a human need, or a cultural need?

It could well be economic.

Most people - as citizens at least - might be happy to sit & chill. i.e. research is their job, not their lifestyle.
But a lot of technology is driven by providing more people with more convenience cheaply. So, much research is ultimately driven by consumerism.

Witness the effort currently being put into rocket R&D to facilitate space tourism.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is learning all there is? And learning about the universe is just a pastime?

At what point in our existence will we no longer need useless daily prayers to prop up our egos?

Who is talking about ''prayers'' in this thread?
Stick to the topic at hand.

You sure have a low expectation of human abilities or destiny, don't you?

Why is living a simple, happy life, a low expectation?
Does society need scientific advancement upon scientific advancement?

God gives you a brain and tells you that you are made in his image and then you insult him by denigrating our ability for abstract thought and our desire to know more about the universe and its great wonders?

You don't believe in God.
I'm not discussing God.
So why are you?

Make up your mind. You want keep evolving our unique brains and become like God or do you want to be eternally condemned to be just an animal? Take your pick.

Are you able to have a reasonable discussion?
Or does everything have to descend into a mud fight with you?

jan.

 

[billvon]

Don't think there are currently enough resources to accomplish that task?

There are a fair number of resources being used towards those ends, which is a good thing. We could use a bit more.

Do you think mankind would have perished, or be less happy, if we didn't have computers, or aeroplanes?

We would have less freedom, less perspective and less ability to communicate. You, for example, could not have asked the question you did.

If scientific advancement is ultimately for the benefit of humankind, then there should at least be a goal, which leads to that end.
So at what point do you envisage such an end?

Never; there will always be something new to learn. Goals? Longer/more fulfilling human lives. Better stewardship of our home. Learning how the universe works.

1. Human beings inherently know stuff.
It would seem all life forms inherently know how to survive in their particular atmosphere.
So why is it that humans have to excessively know more than they know, when other creatures don't?

Because the "stuff we know" inherently results in living short, mean, miserable lives. We want more than that for ourselves and for our children.

2. Promoting human happiness and well being (whatever that means) is all well and good.
Does that mean happiness and wellbeing is only achieved through scientific advancement?

It is merely one way. Philosophy is another.

Is the extension on life, something that makes us happy? If through scientific advancement we could live up to two hundred. Would we be even happier than we are now?

A little, yes. Almost everyone desires to live and is happier doing so.

3. Isn’t this a case of the donkey who keeps moving forward in the hope of obtaining the carrot dangling in front of his nose, while tied to him?

The donkey never gets the carrot. We've gotten a LOT of carrots.

If there is no endgame to scientific advancement, are we simply organisms that thrive on data?

Data and understanding are different things. We do thrive on learning and understanding.