Challenge Match. Memoryshock v NYK537: Been There, Done That

The topic for this debate is "Exponential advancement by humankind will eventually leave humans no further advances which are possible and no further questions which can be answered".

Memoryshock will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
NYK537 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points, the loser will lose 2 ranking points.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner. This debate will have no judge- outcome is determined entirely by star-count.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

MemoryShock is a highly experienced veteran of this forum. He has a debate ranking of 9, and is tied for 3rd highest rank among active fighters. Having gone at it with him twice, I can assure you that this is not a fighter to be taken lightly.

NYK537 is a promising newcomer. His debate ranking of 4 may very well make him the most under-rated fighter in this forum. His low ranking is owed to a tough first round match in the last tournament, and was the single greatest argument for the seeding of future tournaments.

This promises to be among the best clashes this forum has recently seen. Good luck gentlemen.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by The Vagabond]

I would like to express thanks to nyk537 and The Vagabond for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

"Exponential advancement by humankind will eventually leave humans no further advances which are possible and no further questions which can be answered".

Now I would like to centralize what is implied by the debate topic…which I invite my colleague to encounter and add/detract at desire.

‘Exponential advancement by humankind’ refers to not only the accumulation of scientific data and its’ application but is contingent on the human population growth as well. This is important to realize when factored in with statistics that relate the ‘lower upper’ and middle(all three) classes to the propensity for educated /professional careers…an aspect of our scientific/economic society that I may define further at a later point in this debate.

‘No further advances’ suggests that once we have reached the apex of scientific comprehension there will be no technological application that is more efficient than that which is/has been available. An advancement in technology would not qualify as an advancement if the application would provide an undue amount of stress on its’ users.

‘No further questions which can be answered’ is a generalized statement applied to the whole of humanity; subjective questions such as ’What if?’ are philosophical in nature and not covered by the premise of ’Exponential advancement’ as well as they can be answered in the same subjective capacity as allotted by natural human dialogue. The answers to such philosophical questions will always be variant amongst the population.


Now, the advancement of humankind has seen an influx in the last century or two. Essentially, as a society and in such an historically short time frame, we have evolved from horse and carriage to V8 engines; not to mention nuclear power, space exploration, as well as the digital revolution which promises more computing power with the utilization of smaller surface area and nanotechnology. We have also stopped the speed of light, which was considered a physical constant.

The universe can be described in mathematics. Everything, from the rate of movement in an ice molecule to the behaviour of human beings(game theory) can be predicted using mathematical models. There is nothing we can't figure out. Nothing. Our knowledge has evolved from sticks and stones to intricate molecular manipulations. All basically stemming from our use of a fundamental formula which has allowed us to apply truths where before existed only questions:

The Scientific Method.

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. [snip]

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

phyun5.ucr.edu...

The scientific method is a basic illustration of the process undergone by today's scientists and students. Put even simpler, the process can be described as 'Cause and Effect. That which has transpired must have had a reason to do so. By using the objective process as described above the scientific method (a process that is relevant only if it can be recreated by a third party(ies)), we have essentially agreed on a basic tenet: everything that occurs in our universe must have a reason and that reason can be described. Further more, once a physical occurrence has been reasoned, its' application(s) can then be worked out by the institutions of commerce. The increasing amount of international competition in every aspect of the sciences, when factored in with the increasing human population makes the debate subject a foregone conclusion....there is no end to the capacity of the human mind to comprehend that which does not yet have a recorded answer.

It took all of human history until 1830 for world population to reach one billion. The second billion was achieved in 100 years, the third billion in 30 years, the fourth billion in 15 years, and the fifth billion in only 12 years. In 2005, world population exceed 6.5 billion people, growing by nearly 80 million per year [snip]

www.populationinstitute.org...

Every mind has an almost infinite capacity to retain and present information. As the transition from an agrarian society (about 150-200 years ago) to an industrialized/digital one has occurred, the opportunity for an average human mind to encounter a progressive education has increased as well. This has allotted the opportunity for the 'exponential' increase in human understanding of the physical world to increase. As more people are born and raised, invariably, the amount of people who will seek a scientific background and participate in the accumulation of scientific data will increase.

There is even a precedent for the government hiring scientists to work with screenwriters’ to help Hollywood depict the sciences as a more exciting career choice to expedite the above participation I described:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This merely suggests that the timetable is being affected by us. The more we utilize the most important resource available to us, the human resource, the faster we can achieve scientific comprehension and apply them for the improvement of our daily lives by introducing more efficient means by which to accomplish our daily tasks.

Suffice to say, at this point, it is really just a matter of time rather than if.

As always, a big thank you to Memoryshock and The Vagabond for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Now, moving on to the centralization of the topic as brought forth by my colleague, I would like to offer that the assessment of the topic at hand is completely accurate and should be the basis for our impending discussion. I detract nothing from this analysis and would like to commend Memoryshock on the thoughtful and detailed description.

Human advancement has indeed grown in leaps and bounds over the course of the last century, and it is my assertion that this trend will continue with no end in sight. The human mind is that of an inquisitive nature; and one in which no answer will ever be definitive. The quest for knowledge and advancement has propelled our planet into the technological marvel that it is today.

As my colleague has already touched upon, everything in our universe can be explained and described using mathematics. This obviously leads one to believe that there is no question that can not be solved and no stone that could possibly be left unturned; naturally, this is a true statement.

Where I will disagree with my opponent is that I do not believe that this will lead to the end of exponential advancement. My assertion is that no matter how much we achieve and how much we learn, that knowledge will only produce more questions for us to answer.

Looking back into history we can find several examples of this exact scenario.

The Atom

Take fore example the atom. After years of study it was eventually determined that the atom consisted of several basic parts. Thinking we had learned all we could about the atom itself, it was eventually discovered that there is yet another component to the atom; the quark.

Do you think that eventually we will not discover more about this most basic property of life? Will there ever be an end to the things we can discover about our world? I propose the answer to that question is a resounding no.

Do not discard the evidence brought forth by my colleague however; there is truth in everything said here. You will hear no argument from me that the utilization of the human resource will lead to greater scientific understanding that we will use to improve our lives exponentially. Where you will hear an argument from me stems from this theory though.

No matter how much we come to comprehend and understand, it will only lead to a need for further comprehension and understanding. Whatever technological advancement we reach, there will always be someone with an idea to improve upon it and discover new things.

I do not believe that the human mind is something that can ever be satisfied. As long as there are human beings in this universe, there will be exponential advancement.

As my colleague said, it really is a matter of time until we reach a new plateau of understanding. From there, however, we will only be looking ahead to the next.

To the next..or the variant?

According to my colleague’s source, the earliest reference to the Atom has been found in Ancient India….but since modern Western society has taken the concept we have not only split the atom but we have applied it in the form of various technologies…I contend that we are observing exponential advancement in our modern day and that we will in fact answer every question we have regarding the physical world…once we have all the answers, we can only offer variety, changing our personal realities on whim much as a homeowner would choose to change the color scheme in said home...

Pierre and Marie Curie are best known for their pioneering work in the
study of radioactivity, which led to their discovery in 1898 of the
elements radium and
polonium.

www.phy.hr...

I do not assume that anyone here needs such a history lesson, rather I
would like to draw attention to the approximate date of the onset of
radioactivity as a concept in our 'collective recorded science'; as a
measurable unit of our reality. Since then, about 109 years, we have seen the use of
this discovery as a means by which to create energy, a means by which
to prolong the freshness of our food, as well as many applications for
the heating or measuring in much of our industry and medicine. Not to mention what can be arguably be called the mother of all booms. All in about a century.
www.aboutnuclear.org...

I would like now to reference the periodic table of elements….





The most recently discovered element has been named ununoctium. The heaviest element recorded thus far, it has only existed under man-made conditions and for fractions of a second at that…

This produced ununoctium-294, an isotope with a half-life of about 0.89 milliseconds (0.00089 seconds), and three free neutrons.

education.jlab.org...

Indeed, we have the capacity already to create elements in laboratory conditions. We not only have 'split' the atom to find more distinct parts…we are well on our way to being able to predict the combinations needed to create variations of our most basic aspect of reality/life.

Originally posted by nyk537
Where I will disagree with my opponent is that I do not believe that
this will lead to the end of exponential advancement.

I ask my colleague, what is exponential advancement? Because we are in the midst of being able to describe every aspect of our physical world. Not only are we adding elements to our recorded science that have existed in our reality for less than a second at a time, but we have already begun to apply our knowledge of the physical world into combinations…I offer synthetic plastics…a reality only this century, but an industry that has exploded onto the scene.
www.metmuseum.org...

The link above is really just an interesting read, there isn't much more I would like to devote any time to it other than the fact that we have already taken chemistry and physics to produce many varieties of material that are not normally found in nature. One could argue that we are indeed in the midst of 'exponential advancement'; we are currently in the position on an international level to 'try out all the combinations'. Granted, there are a lot of combinations to experiment with. But there is nothing in the debate topic that stipulates a time frame for when we will have achieved the answers to 'all physically applicable' questions.

Before I get entrenched in describing what has already been accomplished, I would like to redirect our focus to how information gets communicated. It began with conversation, then evolved to the written word. As more and more people became ‘literate’(educationally relative to the time), the need for traversing the written word became necessary. The sending of letters with waxen envelopes(the time of delivery at times being months) has evolved throughout the years to the Pony Express, which has evolved to the almost instantaneous transport of the verbal word via telecommunications(telegraph) and has since evolved to the instantaneous communication of verbal and written via the internet. The internet is not only a vast resource for the communication of everyday social happenings, but also an immense library that allows the communication of the ‘next great discovery’ for mankind to be accessed by colleagues all around the world. What is a question one hundred years ago that took weeks to be heard, much less recreated, that is now able to be a step by step process collaboration with a multitude of people around the world in less than a second? As well, due to population growth(in a nutshell) the persons encountering any given ‘question/project’ are more qualified to assist in the collaboration and ultimate definition of such…as opposed to a mere century ago.

I submit that we are indeed in the midst of exponential advancement. And if the physical world can be defined in terms of x,y, and z, then it is really a matter of ‘mixing and matching’, of trial and error. There are only so many combinations that we can try out, only so many advancements that can be derived from the fraction of possible combinations that can prove to advance the daily lives of humankind in such a fashion as to be more efficient than what we have now.

To answer the question I set to my colleague earlier in this post, there of course has to be an end to exponential advancement. There are theoretical models describing the most profitable time in a corporations life; when it has the most profit to cost ratio, the human life itself reaches an apex of activity; after which there is an obvious decline. Indeed, a bowl of room temperature water can be said to reach an exponential advancement after a fire has been lit underneath it….but once the water begins to boil it is all down hill from there…

X,Y,Z are not at all difficult to define. It's really just a matter of observing and calculating.

The participants have agreed to a brief "operational pause" due to an outside circumstance. We thank you, the readers, for your patience and encourage you to pray for a good outcome to whatever situation it is that has called our friend and fellow fighter away from the debate.

Once again my colleague raises excellent points about the state of advancement today. His arguments for the end of exponential advancement are strong and based in fact, however, they also open up doors to the contrary.

My colleague makes the point that we are reaching a state where we may soon know all there is to know about our planet. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but that is not the issue.

This statement raises a new question on my behalf. Do you think that once we learn all there is to know on our own planet, that we will not set our sights on other plants? This is a legitimate question because the situation presented to us was not whether or not humanity would reach an end to exponential advancement on this planet, but in general.

Now, let’s take a minute to look back at the history of humankind on this planet. Going all the way back to primitive man, how many thousands of years has it taken us to reach the level of knowledge we have today? How much more do we still have to learn on this planet, and how much time will that take? Obviously the latter cannot yet be answered, but look for a minute now to the future.

Let's say in the near future new advancements in technology allow us to man a mission to another planet such as Mars. What kinds of new questions will be raised on this new planet? Do you think there will be enough new things to learn to fill up another thousand years? How many new elements and physical and chemical properties will be discovered? Now look even farther into time and say new advancements from this knowledge allow us to travel even further into space, to yet another new planet. The cycle of new things to learn and discover repeats itself.

Now let's take a step back for a moment and consider the absolutely gigantic size of our universe. For all we know today, it is infinite, stretching in every direction for eternity. Assuming we are always advancing and learning new things and developing new technologies, we have an infinite reservoir of things to learn. We could even take this a step further by throwing some string theory into the mix, in which case even our own universe would not be the end of things to discover.

Multiverse

Another point my colleague brings forth is that the physical world is finite and can be defined in terms of x, y, and z. The human mind, however, is not finite. I agree that eventually certain technologies will reach their maximum potential for a time. My colleague points out that scientists are now able to create new elements and particles in laboratory settings. Do you not think that once a certain technology reaches its peak, that we will not be able to create a new element or process that will allow us to find new advancements previously thought impossible?

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how much we think we know about our world or universe, there is always something new to discover. How many times in history has it appeared that we were coming close to knowing all there is to know, only to be set back in great leaps and bounds?

The world around is an extremely complex and ever evolving entity that we will never be able to catch up with. After all, it's got a 13 billion year head-start on us.

What kind of questions are we talking about?

The debate topic is such that we are trying to determine whether or not the human race can have a question that is 'unanswerable'. There will always be a question for the individual...however, the establishment of basic physical properties and how they interact with each other is basically an observable, and subsequently recorded and calculated, entry into our almanacs.

There will always be a 'question' for the individual. A new planet, as my colleague has defined, offers the possibility of unrefined terrain. We will always encounter this possibility as long as we are capable of traversing the stars. The universe is huge. There is much space out there, but the amount of combinations that our defined elements are finite. To re-reference the periodic table of elements, the newest elements have existed in our recorded reality for less than a second. There may indeed be applications for said 'heavy elements' in a different gravity ratio, but it is nothing that we can't observe, calculate, and subsequently act upon.

We know the 'x,y,z' of our physical world...what is to say that we can't work out the 'x,y,z' of different physical environments? 'Exponential Advancement' is the capacity of our species to create the means by which to measure our physical environment.

Let us suppose that we have indeed mastered space exploration and have sent a colonization expedition for a planet that exists out of our solar system....a habitable planet that we have established from calculations here on earth
origins.jpl.nasa.gov...

The above link tells us that we have alreay begun the search for other worlds. And we can assess the capacity for human hospitable conditions from here on Earth. The conclusion that can be reached is that the physical conditions of our universe is indeed finite and well within our current capacity to define.

I ask...what important questions can we possibly encounter that haven't already been answered in some way shape or form? I submit that the only questions that we will invariably have are ones that are merely variant from the first time that 'subject' was encountered.

Originally posted by nyk537
The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how much we think we know about our world or universe, there is always something new to discover.

The simple fact is that there is all the time in the world for us to measure and calculate the physical world around us. At some point, since time is ever continuous, and we are discussing recorded science(our knowledge detailed and stored for use by future generations) that we will have answered every question. What we will encounter are new environments and different ways to construct current (relatively speaking) technologies.

That does not translate into new questions. That does not translate into an undefinable quandry. We already have the capacity to detail physical components of universal bodies light years away.....we can answer every question.

NYK537 is late and will forfeit this response. Memoryshock may post again.

I am of course disappointed to see that nyk537 has indeed missed his post, and hope that all is well.

To continue along with what I was describing in my last post, we can ascertain the physical composition of planets outside of our own solar system. We have been able to describe the physical components of the atom and classified our elements by physical and chemical properties. We have, in a relatively short period of time, applied what we know about our own world into various technologies that bridge every facet of our daily lives. And on the horizon(I’ve heard estimates that mathematical confirmation and the beginnings of application will be had in as little as a decade) the classification(s) of dark matter and dark energy, We currently do not know what they are, despite the fact that they theoretically represent about 96 percent of our universe.
www.sciencedaily.com...


As of today, we have not answered every question., as evidenced by the above subject. But we are in the process of unraveling the mysteries that would detail the very fabric of our universe. The following quote (taken from the link above) illustrates that two University of Berkeley scientists believe that we indeed have the tools necessary to solve this ….

Eric Linder and Saul Perlmutter write, "The field of dark energy is very young and we may have a long and exciting period of exploration ahead before it matures."my emphasis

And what of the intricate nature of our brains? We seem to be well on our way to demonstrating how intricate our own knowledge is regarding our enigmatic organ…





futurefeeder.com...

The above pictures are reconstructed images taken from…

177 cells in a cat’s brain.

We are already experimenting with ways to recreate neuronal activity into functional observations that communicate exactly how our brains work, merely one step in the process to detail a functional recreation of the many cellular actions that take place in our bodies. Some believe a full comprehension could be manifested in the form of a fully autonomous humanoid A.I.

To take another direction in this post, I would like to draw a bit of attention to an aspect of my colleague’s most recent argument…

Originally posted by nyk537
[Snip]in which case even our own universe would not be the end of things to discover.

My colleague proposes the multiverse as a potentially continuous reservoir of ‘questions”, but I would like to point out that his own link suggests that there is a current debate on the possibility of observing a universe outside of our own…

However, these speculations cannot be tested experimentally since, by definition, other universes cannot interact with our own.my emphasis

en.wikipedia.org...-lumrouk99

To revisit the debate topic, we see that the second portion of the premise is as follows…

“…no further questions which can be answered".

To establish that another universe exists, and to state that it is impossible(based on all relevant mathematical models) to observe would indeed satisfy the second part of our debate topic with regards to some questions that can be posed as a result of multiple universes . To ponder and make attempts at how another universe interacts is essentially an exercise of a philosophical nature…and invariably will receive many different, and unsubstantial, answers.

Exponential Advancement, as I have stated, is correlative with our population growth but indeed we will eventually peak in the onset of new discovery and technical application. We will indeed answer all the questions that we could possibly have and we will have a fully accessible compilation of information that can be used for the refinement of new experience, much like the internet now and hopefully(that would rock!) something akin to the interactive“Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy”.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

When will this happen?

Who knows, but we have evolved as an intelligent species precisely because we are curious creatures. Where there is a question (and potential to make money and/or make life easier for ourselves) there is an answer. And as long as we keep popping more of us into our world and subsequently further into the observable universe, we will have more and more capacity to quickly reach a complete understanding of our physical environment(s).

Because U2Us seeking to get this debate back underway have not been returned, I regretfully announce that NYK537 is disqualified. Memoryshock wins by default.

I am disappointed to win in this fashion. I thought that nyk presented well, but I was waiting for the Evolution Bomb, something that would have been tough to defend against.

nyk537: A worthy opponent, but I think that you agreed with me too much...

...I would like to offer that the assessment of the topic at hand is completely accurate...

I detract nothing from this analysis

Do not discard the evidence brought forth by my colleague however; there is truth in everything said here

His arguments for the end of exponential advancement are strong and based in fact

I am not saying that having an even report with an opponent is not to be had; rather it should be tempered. In trying to respond to your posts, I found that I had to re-read them to get beyond the fact that all I could remember were the agreeances.

As well, when found in a tough spot, a mild attack not only wastes word count, but focuses the reader on your presentation, rather than your opponents. Mild (yet professional) attacks are an essential part of debating.

Just a thought. This was a difficult debate to get emotionally involved with and I am disappointed that we ended without a full completion.

Good luck in the debate series, nyk..

Also, any comments by the readers would be welcome...seeing as we didn't quite make it that far (I noticed that nyk has a two star lead over me.. )


[edit on 18-12-2007 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by MemoryShock]