/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15848016
>>Cold Fusion
This has been solved. It's just called "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" now because people like inventing new jargon.

Your retarded principle assumes that its take a certain amount of time and people to solve a certain problem so it can't be a principle when said assumption remains unverifiable. Maybe you can put it in your little list as an additional impossible problem, oh wait its one of those p vs np problems.

>>15848016
You should add dark matter and black holes to this list.

>>15848030
You should add "i'm a faggot" to that list.

>>15848018
It's close enough.

That "principle" is just wrong. Big problems get solved constantly.
For example Othello, a game that is more than 100 years old and has long be thought to be too complex to be solved, has just been solved less than 2 weeks ago.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19387

>>15848141

I find it amazing that within 100 years, hyperbolic geometry was hammered out, then maxwell got his equations for EM and no one could find an aether, then einstein published relativity. Seems like a fortuitious chain of events against the scale of human history. That compels me to think that the things you mentioned aren't hopeless, just that we might or might not see them in our lifetimes. The obvious rebuttal that we have massively more money, technology, and human effort being put into science nowadays is countered by the low-hanging fruit argument.

>>15848141
How many geniuses have really tried to solve this “othello”? I’ve never heard even about this game.

>>15848157
Exactly. The “low hanging” fruit is gone. The rest is beyond human intellect. There have been basically no advancement in physics for the last 70 years

>>15848204
I'll agree that the easy problems were solved, and nowadays every theory is more of a reach than the last one, and all are equally untestable, but I think a problem with the low-hanging fruit analogy is that implies that this pattern of diminishing returns is on a consumable, that you'd better move to a different tree if you don't want to starve. I guess advancements in science/engineering could be seen as consumables in the context of a nation having a technological advantage over another nation for a period of time before they also figure out the technology, but I think the US is currently comfortable at the top simply because of our higher GDP. Russia and China have the natural resources, technology, population, and trade routes to surpass the US, but no amount of science/tech can fix their internal problems. So, if research in the US uses a negligible amount of the gov's discretionary spending ($1.6 trillion), and research in EU uses who cares how much they have NATO protecting them, then objectively I don't see a problem with billions being given to these fart sniffers.

>>15848016
>It states that we’ve thrown enough geniuses at enough problems that if a problem hasn’t been solved or an invention hasn’t been invented it’s most likely impossible.
yeah but for how long? when does the timer run out on issues?

>>15848346
The timer doesn’t run out, we are still going to seek solutions because that’s the only thing we can do, just don’t get your hopes up for anything life chnaging.

We’ve reached a point in technological advancement where it will be like the middle ages, every generation will live in a world more or less the same as their ancestors that is unless some catastrophe kills civilization.

Reminder that the vast majority of high IQ people have been wrangled into working for glorified adware companies. Beyond that, another very significant segment of that population slaves away in fintech, finding new exotic ways to cause economic collapse while they (or their employer) siphon away more and more overhead from productivity.
There's very little intellectual capital left to go around for any other use. Just look at the wasteland that academia has become to see one of the many negative outcomes from this. But at least the new craPhone includes an seventh camera that can see ghosts or some shit.

>>15848390
Good.

>>15848141
There's been quite a bit of debate if Othello was really solved or not since they took a bunch of shortcuts by declaring most outcomes unlikely.

>>15848390
You got any evidence or stats to back this up? How many IMO medalists are working in these adware companies?

Trust me genuises are working on the hard probelms, it’s just that there aren’t any more meaningful breakthroughs to be had, we are scraping the limits of technology and human ingenuity. But enjoy your neural network porn.

>>15848394
Basically there's a field there and it requires more than one input in one action to function properly. You upload what you wanna do before it processes for example but there's more. The image of the small gun with the red ammo has symbology to this on Starfield art book, there's about six things you want to simultaneously input.

>>15848036
No that's actually pretty much solved, just have to figure out how to get my dick out of his ass, ill probably get a gangrene due to lack of blood flow if i can't manage to get it unstuck soon

>>15848016
The Incomplete Principle
We don't know if can actually be solved, but we know that it's a sunken costs fallacy to pursue it.

>>15848016
if progress is at least partially cumulative, the basis for the principle is invalid. it would only be valid if geniuses didn't write down what they tried for future geniuses to read first and get a head start.

>>15848016
The principle of the remaining problem
The incompleteness principle
The principle of low hanging fruit