/sci/ - Science & Math

I'd hope cognitive enhancement would be working in full force by then. So no, it does not bug me.

>>1617749
Thread's over.

No, because without us they couldn't of gotten where they are

LOLOLOL in 300 years current physics will be mean the same as astrology mean to us today.

>>1617751

What are you implying?

Did I win a "/thread"?

I'm still waiting for the average person to know more about physics than the most educated people 2000 years ago.

Sorry, I'm from the future. The theocracy doesn't allow scientific knowledge. Thankfully I was able to steal a time machine before all major technology was smashed to bits.

How long do you think it'll take for the average person to know more about physics than Archimedes of Syracuse?

>>1617742
No, because in 300 years I hope to still be alive.

>>1617770

Same. We both have a rather odd coping mechanism don't we?

Some have God, now we have science.

I sure hope so, do you think newton is mad that average people know more than him?

>>1617753
Expanding this.. if you study the foundational concepts of physics you would realize is no different from classic newtonian physics in the way that it still deterministic. Furthermore, you can argue that we get to the moon and other discoveries that physics achieve by analyzing deterministic simple systems. But i think if physics wants to make a huge leap in the way it describes physical phenomena a different approach must be taken. An approach that focuses in order and not in matter, a Holistic approach, and stop ignoring chaotic/complex systems because those systems are more general compared to the special orderly systems we have been studying so far.

Systems Theory, Complexity and Chaos Theory provides the correct scope. I believe this are the fields that will show the most glorious discoveries of the 21th century. And adapting our current disciplines towards this way of analysis will be the common rule. When we look back to the 20th century we might appreciate what we have done at that time, but also it will be remembered in the History of science as the moment that we face the limits of simple systems.

>>1617754
Your answer was the correct answer. Further discussion is unnecessary.

>>1617780

I wouldn't say they know more than him, they KNOW OF more things.

No. If that's true, I find it hopeful.

Actually, they will pobably know less, given how creationism is being pushed into public schools and science is not present in homeschooling books.Unschooling may even become a popular idea.

>>1617752
>would of
Yeah sure, retardo.

>>1617794

I see. Do you actually know of various techniques that have the potential to wildly increase human cognition? Deep Brain Stimulation and "brain chips" have recently caught my attention. Nootropics also have possibilities. One is under development that will be suppressing the production of Kynurenic Acid. You could Google it.

I plan on majoring in cognitive neuroscience to do research on cognitive enahncement.

>>1617810
Creationism is down to 43% of the public and practically none of the standard curriculum. The kids who are being homeschooled now will realize it's not the right choice when they're taking my order and the kids who went to real school get into real colleges and got decent jobs with their understanding of the real world.

>>1617810
You're ignoring a retarded amount of evidence based on some scare tactics that christians use.

Also, unschooling will cease when individuals realize that a formal education is irreplaceable.

the way a noraml person "knows more about physics" than newton is not a good indicator if youre noraml you will agree.

op does it annoy you that 300 years ago and even further back, mathematicians devised theorems that you'll never understand? i personally don't because a lot of them have every day uses for engineers and molded the world we live in. i'll let the asians worry about that stuff.

No, it doesn't bother me, because there are two possibilities. 1.) I will be dead, so it does not and will not affect me or 2.) I will still be alive, and reaping benefits of said knowledge.

Then again, what you are proposing seems overly optimistic to me. The general populous all being intelligent? Ok lol.

Not really. Imagine newton looking down from heaven right now with a blackboard, working through hawkings equations, nodding thoughtfully as hawking proposes deadly aliens and kaku talks about invisibility cloaks and teleportation.

>implying that in 300 years I wont still be alive and zipping around the galaxy in my spaceship.

Not really, I think it is called progress. The only other option would be for only the smartest people to know things while the average person is still struggling with concepts like the wheel and fire.

How does it feel?

It feels good, knowing that humanity hasn't destroyed itself in 300 years.

>>1617770

So I was watching some show with some dude from Cambridge university or some shit, and he said that it could be possible for the escape velocity of life extension to be reached withing 30 years (although he said that was probably the minimum)

Is he legit, or is just like when people were predicting we'd have robots and moon bases and jet-packs by now?now

>>1617964
Do you really think people will be ok with life extension when you have crazy religious people causing uproar over simple stuff like cloning or dna altering. If we ever find a way to transfer consciousness and we can clone ourselves then it is possible to live indefinitel. However whether this will be available to the majority is highly questionable. The world is already over populated in a lot of areas and life extension without some form of population control could be disastrous

>>1617964

its like jetpacks

>>1617979

Have any science backing your claim up? Have you read "why" the predictions are so soon?

It's probably not true, since the average person knows pretty much nothing about physics today. I imagine that the most educated people in 300 years will know much more about physics than we could ever imagine, but the average person in 300 years will be almost as dumb as ever. (If we're still around in 300 years)

>>1617975
I wish I could believe that "everyone can only have two kids, none (except to replace people killed in accidents) if you are living forever" wouldn't be a clusterfuck of morons screaming "HUURRRRR DURRRR MY REPRODUCTIVE RIGHS".

>>1618059

Exactly, which is the main reason why even if we do figure out some kind of great life extension process it will not be available to the general populace. My guess would be that it would end up being insanely expensive so only the richest could afford it. Seriously, what is the point in extending some random rednecks life indefinately, they are pretty expendable and replaceable.

>>1618059
>>1617825

You two, see this.


>>1618085


Cognitive enhancement and anti-aging go together quite well!

>>1618102

As much as I would love that to be the case, the chances of the world in 300 years being populated by 6+ billlion super geniuses who never die is extremely slim. Chances are it will be exactly the same as it is now, the vast majority living their lives with a little access to the convenience that science grants while the powerful minority gets all the rewards. It is more likely that people will still do the same menial tasks regardless of intelligence levels except this time they will live longer so probably won't get to retire until about 120 or something. There is no reason for cognitive enhancement to be applied to the majority simply because they do not need it.

that's not true, i forgot when calculus was invented but i'm sure it was a long time ago, and I don't know shit about calculus

>>1618208

It regards the average person, you are obviously of less than average inteligence then if you can't understand calculus

no. why would it annoy you

>>1618216
Not really. Calculus was not part of curriculums outside of science, engineering and math until relatively recently. It is not useful to people outside of those disciplines, and any application of calculus outside of those disciplines could simply be taught without teaching theory.