[deleted]
The Risk of Discovery
261–270 of 344 posts
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you say dismissing alchemy is probably a bad thing too. Alchemy was the search for the ability to transform matter (particularly Pb->Au). I rather think that nuclear fusion/fission are still consider worthy fields and that creation/discovery of an alchemist's stone - a way to convert readily between different forms of matter - would still be considered a worthy development. I agree too with your synopsis. Physics…
> faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. Perhaps you do. What does not require faith, however, is observation - at least to the limits to which we can test and trust our observations. Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, it's an observation that we don't experience any supernatural forces interacting…
[deleted]
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#263For people who wonder why YC and pg are okay with some of Peter Thiel's more extreme behavior, this is why. It's pretty interesting that pg describes the possible outcomes of contrarian ideas as either positive for society or merely a waste of time. Even though the pursuit of risky and contrarian ideas can also be hugely harmful for society.
By definition contrarian ideas are pretty harmless, since pursuing an idea in a society that disagrees with you is like pushing a boulder up a hill. The results are also very hard to predict - sometimes you think about the weird behaviour of light and set the stage for the atomic bomb, and other times you start out making explosives for Nazi Germany and end up feeding the third world. Finally, they can be the product of their environment as much as a single intellect, as with Newton/Leibniz. For those reasons, which make genuinely contrarian ideas unpredictable and unstoppable, I think trying to prevent them is a bit of a red herring.
Peter Thiel isn't like Haber or Einstein, because most of his potentially dangerous ideas are only contrarian in our little bubble. When he challenges democracy, he's on the side of millennia of kings and queens and emperors and chieftains, as well as everyone who has ever said "if I were king for a day..."; when he manages to be the highest profile Trump supporter in the tech world, he is backed by nearly half the voters in America; when he says that a monopoly is exactly what a company should aim for, a great many CEOs and HN readers privately nod. His genuinely contrarian ideas aren't frightening, they're considered laughable, which is why the media mocks him so much for seasteading and "vampirism".
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#264I honestly think that Newton was well aware of the unlikelihood of making breakthroughs in theology and alchemy[1]. In physics he had a lower[2] benefit but much higher probability of progress. 1. Plus he went a little mad from chemical fumes. 2. Really. Imagine[3] making a real breakthrough in alchemy or theology! 3. I can't imagine it and you almost certainly can't either.
Nuclear science can be considered a breakthrough in alchemy. We can even create new elements!
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#265Graham's casual dismissal of 'useless' theology demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the demise of the secularization hypothesis.
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The study of God" is useless, but the study of people believing in God or gods is useful and quite interesting. These are two different things! The theology of Newton was the former - he literally believed the Bible was the word of God, and by interpreting it he could foresee how the world would end. It was a waste of time because we know now the Bible is actually written by humans.
> "The study of God" is useless With respect, "God" is just a term referring to a being that has supreme powers that humans imagine to be the best of the best - and different people define these powers and other attributes differently. So even if you are an atheist, the study of Gods can still be an interesting reflection of people and society!
The study of the belief in astrology can be an valuable anthropological research. Actually thinking you can predict the future through horoscopes is a waste of time.
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#267"Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time." I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). Alchemy is obviously a waste of time -- I won't dispute that, and I suspect that "most people" would agree with that assertion. Being…
It being popular you say, implies it's good? Wouldn't you have to instead weigh the good results vs. the bad results to know the net value to society?
"It being popular you say, implies it's good?"
^ I never said "popularity of belief" in any way implies the correctness of belief. I could find and list many popular beliefs that I am certain are blatantly false.
I merely pointed out that the essay seems (to me) to imply that "most people" in the world discount the study of theology as "crazy" and "a waste of time". The reference to the popularity of the Bible ( as "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world." ) was in support of my assertion that the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just guessing here, but I suspect PG doesn't care what "most people" think about theology. He is probably writing from the perspective from an educated person who see the enormous influence of Newtonian physics, and see absolutely no benefit from his theological thinking. Seriously, who today even knows what Newtons theological theories were?
Although theological beliefs are rarely falsifiable, that doesn't mean they don't matter or render no benefit.
Yeah, just because they don't say anything about the world does not mean they can not be used. The theology of Luther and Calvin changed the world. Even today you can start your own cult or church and get power over lots of people and get rich.
But Newton did none of those things. His theology did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time, except for the personal gratification he gained from it.
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#269I'm not sure that those lines of study were actually considered separate at the time. A century earlier than Newton's time, math and geometry were considered subfields of astronomy; and astronomy was considered the observation of the realm of the divine. Not only was there not a divide between physics and theology, people actually thought that math was a tool for studying theology (one of Copernicus' sources of incom…
Yeah alchemy seem like a completely different field than astronomy today, but at the time it was considered deeply connected - the metals was corresponding to the planets and so on. Because the heavenly order was considered reflected in the earthly materials and vice versa, studying one would lead you to greater understanding of the other. For a modern viewpoint it might seem like Newton was "hedging his bets" by con…
Also worth mentioning that his knowledge of alchemy got him an important job as Master of the Mint, where he worked to eliminate counterfeit coins. (Metallurgy is a branch of alchemy, and the purity of metals a major research area for alchemy.) Perhaps not as earth-shattering as principia, but from a personal perspective his investment in alchemy paid of handsomely.
Re: The Risk of Discovery
#270I love this insight. I have often experienced in my life seeing someone come up with something really useful in the midst of spouting complete rubbish. Oddly it is about 50/50 internal and external, where half the time they stop in the middle of what they are saying and realize they have a really good idea, and half the time someone else stops them and says "hey, that could really work." or something like that. The c…
A stronger version of this, which is how I interpreted PG's post, is dare to spend years of your life grinding away (in relative isolation) on something that seems crazy, with no guarantee of any success, but full of promise.
I think there are actually very few people who would take such a risk, even though I think it's a necessary risk if you want to be part of "huge, if true."