| From: | Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Speculation (was Re: OICW Block 4) |
| Date: | Mon, 24 Aug 1998 14:51:40 -0700 |
>from 1938 extrapolating about today; all they'd have to do is project
>their knowledge ahead 60 years, then modify it somewhat due to the
>probable fall of Europe under Hitler. (A lot of SF stories were in fact
>written that way.) Care to explain exactly how "projecting knowledge
>ahead" several decades is supposed to work?
Best guess? Did I say it was science?
Ever heard of someone named Jules Verne? He speculated from the late 18th
century. How about Leonardo Da Vinci? Example, counterexample.
By the way Psychohistory is a real science, it's just that rather than the
nifty meaning ascribed to it by Isaac Asimov, it is, rather, the more
mundane of the psychological aspects of history.
>(I was going to say "And why you're more qualified for it than, say, my
>iguana?" but decided that's unnecessary. My iguana can't type, giving you
>a distinct advantage when it comes to publishing.)
I would say, for a start, that being current on (and participating in)
scientific research helps to at least provide some background material for
where advances might go, what the current shortfalls are, and how one might
test to verify them. Also, degrees in Physics and Engineering and graduate
work in Physics tends to help with the picky, niggly details. That tends to
give me another advantage over your iguana. ;-)
(Also, not saying something in parentheses doesn't count as not saying)
Believe it or not, science tends to be rather conservative ... they are
still verifying Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and noting where
it has flaws that might be fixed. Also, if you study such things,
mathematics does not generally tend to change, nor do basic physical
principles. In fact, a requirement of Quantum mechanics (which *has*
changed many underlying assumptions of physics) was that it mesh into
Newtonian mechanics at the macroscopic scale.
Regardless, technological and scientific advancements is of two types:
evolutionary and revolutionary. You can predict one, you have no idea about
the other. By definition revolutionary advances change everything. But
also, by definition, they tend to provide new insights into old things
without necessarily invalidating previous knowledge.
Checked out automobiles lately? Advances are evolutionary and incremental.
The Internet? Revolutionary. Does the Internet invalidate physics? No.
Would the next hyperplanar P-brane Theory of Everything? Again, no.
In the future? The pace of change in the Internet may slow down to being
more like evolutionary. Perhaps not. Who can say? But, isn't it fun to play
"What if?"
I enjoy speculation. Sorry to rain on your parade if you don't. Just make
sure not to let your iguana read my posts. ;-)
>Have Fun,
> - Steve Eley
> sfeley@***.net
--Adam
acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
