Justice League: Grudge Match

[clearspira]

The problem of course with this analogy is that we are not Renaissance-era or even Cold War-era scientists. We are Information-era scientists. We are a people who are on the verge of cracking the secrets of quantum physics, of fusion power, of inter-planetary travel, of the building blocks of the universe, of true artificial intelligence. We can split the atom, we can make robots the size of atoms, we can engineer people from the ground up and we can communicate vast distances in the blink of an eye. And the stuff we can't do? Normally it is for a logistical, legal or physical reason rather than some lack of understanding. A lack of energy for example or the ethics of genetic tampering.

The human race today is insanely smart - or at least, our top level scientists and engineers are. I have no doubt that we could ''Stargate SG-1'' most pieces of alien hardware at this point because we are at the point of being a civilization that only a few decades ago would have been found only in the realm of sci-fi.

So, sorry. I do not buy the ''caveman with a TV'' argument. I also do not like the self-destruction argument as it falls foul of the slippery slope fallacy. You can after all make that argument about any invention since we harnessed fire. Technology is not evil, its how we use it. Nuclear weapons could kill us all, nuclear energy could save the planet and allow us to see the stars. Its all relative.

[Riedquat]

The problem of course with this analogy is that we are not Renaissance-era or even Cold War-era scientists. We are Information-era scientists. We are a people who are on the verge of cracking the secrets of quantum physics, of fusion power, of inter-planetary travel, of the building blocks of the universe, of true artificial intelligence. We can split the atom, we can make robots the size of atoms, we can engineer people from the ground up and we can communicate vast distances in the blink of an eye. And the stuff we can't do? Normally it is for a logistical, legal or physical reason rather than some lack of understanding. A lack of energy for example or the ethics of genetic tampering.

The human race today is insanely smart - or at least, our top level scientists and engineers are. I have no doubt that we could ''Stargate SG-1'' most pieces of alien hardware at this point because we are at the point of being a civilization that only a few decades ago would have been found only in the realm of sci-fi.

So, sorry. I do not buy the ''caveman with a TV'' argument. I also do not like the self-destruction argument as it falls foul of the slippery slope fallacy. You can after all make that argument about any invention since we harnessed fire. Technology is not evil, its how we use it. Nuclear weapons could kill us all, nuclear energy could save the planet and allow us to see the stars. Its all relative.

What difference does that make? What basic, fundamental concepts do we have today that we did not then? Once you've got the scientific method then there's really not that much difference in mentality and approach. A scientist from 50 years ago isn't facing any more barriers than understanding future technology than we are; they're slightly behind in what they already know, but if that's a barrier to understanding that technology then where we are now probably is too.

[McAvoy]

The problem of course with this analogy is that we are not Renaissance-era or even Cold War-era scientists. We are Information-era scientists. We are a people who are on the verge of cracking the secrets of quantum physics, of fusion power, of inter-planetary travel, of the building blocks of the universe, of true artificial intelligence. We can split the atom, we can make robots the size of atoms, we can engineer people from the ground up and we can communicate vast distances in the blink of an eye. And the stuff we can't do? Normally it is for a logistical, legal or physical reason rather than some lack of understanding. A lack of energy for example or the ethics of genetic tampering.

The human race today is insanely smart - or at least, our top level scientists and engineers are. I have no doubt that we could ''Stargate SG-1'' most pieces of alien hardware at this point because we are at the point of being a civilization that only a few decades ago would have been found only in the realm of sci-fi.

So, sorry. I do not buy the ''caveman with a TV'' argument. I also do not like the self-destruction argument as it falls foul of the slippery slope fallacy. You can after all make that argument about any invention since we harnessed fire. Technology is not evil, its how we use it. Nuclear weapons could kill us all, nuclear energy could save the planet and allow us to see the stars. Its all relative.

What difference does that make? What basic, fundamental concepts do we have today that we did not then? Once you've got the scientific method then there's really not that much difference in mentality and approach. A scientist from 50 years ago isn't facing any more barriers than understanding future technology than we are; they're slightly behind in what they already know, but if that's a barrier to understanding that technology then where we are now probably is too.

50 years ago you are right. The basics of out current technology is already there. Manufacturing a perfect replica though would take time but doable.

But introduce a computer to anyone let's say before 150 years ago it would take them a very long time if never to make a rudimentary computer. Not mechanical mind you.

They would first have to figure out how to create electricity to even power the thing. You have to create the actual science behind it. You have to create the science behind how a computer works.

At best you could have someone be able to replicate a crude combustion engine. At least that's mechanical and relatively easy to understand.

You introduce the basics of flight they would easily be able to create a glider.

[CharlesPhipps]

Lex Luthor making a mind-control device is a ten minute job for him. He is also already working on a bigger plotline with Brainiac. I actually kind of like that he just basically threw some of his old stuff Roulette's Way and let her play with it.

[McAvoy]

Lex Luthor making a mind-control device is a ten minute job for him. He is also already working on a bigger plotline with Brainiac. I actually kind of like that he just basically threw some of his old stuff Roulette's Way and let her play with it.

General rule with comic books Marvel or DC is that they are more advanced than real life.

Something as simple as Batman's grappling hook gun while doable with our technology easily enough, would be way too big to just hang off of Batman's belt. His is basically slightly bigger than an actual gun.

[Riedquat]

The problem of course with this analogy is that we are not Renaissance-era or even Cold War-era scientists. We are Information-era scientists. We are a people who are on the verge of cracking the secrets of quantum physics, of fusion power, of inter-planetary travel, of the building blocks of the universe, of true artificial intelligence. We can split the atom, we can make robots the size of atoms, we can engineer people from the ground up and we can communicate vast distances in the blink of an eye. And the stuff we can't do? Normally it is for a logistical, legal or physical reason rather than some lack of understanding. A lack of energy for example or the ethics of genetic tampering.

The human race today is insanely smart - or at least, our top level scientists and engineers are. I have no doubt that we could ''Stargate SG-1'' most pieces of alien hardware at this point because we are at the point of being a civilization that only a few decades ago would have been found only in the realm of sci-fi.

So, sorry. I do not buy the ''caveman with a TV'' argument. I also do not like the self-destruction argument as it falls foul of the slippery slope fallacy. You can after all make that argument about any invention since we harnessed fire. Technology is not evil, its how we use it. Nuclear weapons could kill us all, nuclear energy could save the planet and allow us to see the stars. Its all relative.

What difference does that make? What basic, fundamental concepts do we have today that we did not then? Once you've got the scientific method then there's really not that much difference in mentality and approach. A scientist from 50 years ago isn't facing any more barriers than understanding future technology than we are; they're slightly behind in what they already know, but if that's a barrier to understanding that technology then where we are now probably is too.

50 years ago you are right. The basics of out current technology is already there. Manufacturing a perfect replica though would take time but doable.

But introduce a computer to anyone let's say before 150 years ago it would take them a very long time if never to make a rudimentary computer. Not mechanical mind you.

They would first have to figure out how to create electricity to even power the thing. You have to create the actual science behind it. You have to create the science behind how a computer works.

At best you could have someone be able to replicate a crude combustion engine. At least that's mechanical and relatively easy to understand.

You introduce the basics of flight they would easily be able to create a glider.

The technology wasn't there 150 years ago and there's nothing they could've made of a current chip, but the concepts were, but how's that any different from us? Why do we seem to believe now that we've got the basic tools to understand future technology, that it'll be similar enough to what we've already got, just a fancier version, yet we only look back 150 years ago and point out how they'd have struggled to make anything of it then?

And what would the top minds of 150 years ago said? They'd have probably said similar - people 150 years before them would struggle, but they'd be in a position to understand it, without outside help and a big pile of instructions (with said instructions they'd probably be able to grasp it - after all, we're born without any knowledge and can now, but would still require acceleartion of the development of the wider world to make any use of it, which quite possibly wouldn't have been doable within a lifetime, considering how fast things were going then anyway).

[McAvoy]

The problem of course with this analogy is that we are not Renaissance-era or even Cold War-era scientists. We are Information-era scientists. We are a people who are on the verge of cracking the secrets of quantum physics, of fusion power, of inter-planetary travel, of the building blocks of the universe, of true artificial intelligence. We can split the atom, we can make robots the size of atoms, we can engineer people from the ground up and we can communicate vast distances in the blink of an eye. And the stuff we can't do? Normally it is for a logistical, legal or physical reason rather than some lack of understanding. A lack of energy for example or the ethics of genetic tampering.

The human race today is insanely smart - or at least, our top level scientists and engineers are. I have no doubt that we could ''Stargate SG-1'' most pieces of alien hardware at this point because we are at the point of being a civilization that only a few decades ago would have been found only in the realm of sci-fi.

So, sorry. I do not buy the ''caveman with a TV'' argument. I also do not like the self-destruction argument as it falls foul of the slippery slope fallacy. You can after all make that argument about any invention since we harnessed fire. Technology is not evil, its how we use it. Nuclear weapons could kill us all, nuclear energy could save the planet and allow us to see the stars. Its all relative.

What difference does that make? What basic, fundamental concepts do we have today that we did not then? Once you've got the scientific method then there's really not that much difference in mentality and approach. A scientist from 50 years ago isn't facing any more barriers than understanding future technology than we are; they're slightly behind in what they already know, but if that's a barrier to understanding that technology then where we are now probably is too.

50 years ago you are right. The basics of out current technology is already there. Manufacturing a perfect replica though would take time but doable.

But introduce a computer to anyone let's say before 150 years ago it would take them a very long time if never to make a rudimentary computer. Not mechanical mind you.

They would first have to figure out how to create electricity to even power the thing. You have to create the actual science behind it. You have to create the science behind how a computer works.

At best you could have someone be able to replicate a crude combustion engine. At least that's mechanical and relatively easy to understand.

You introduce the basics of flight they would easily be able to create a glider.

The technology wasn't there 150 years ago and there's nothing they could've made of a current chip, but the concepts were, but how's that any different from us? Why do we seem to believe now that we've got the basic tools to understand future technology, that it'll be similar enough to what we've already got, just a fancier version, yet we only look back 150 years ago and point out how they'd have struggled to make anything of it then?

And what would the top minds of 150 years ago said? They'd have probably said similar - people 150 years before them would struggle, but they'd be in a position to understand it, without outside help and a big pile of instructions (with said instructions they'd probably be able to grasp it - after all, we're born without any knowledge and can now, but would still require acceleartion of the development of the wider world to make any use of it, which quite possibly wouldn't have been doable within a lifetime, considering how fast things were going then anyway).

No. Someone 150 years ago would struggle far far more and possibly wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of a computer. The science just isn't there for them.

And if you jump another 150 years from that point as you suggest, you will find that someone from 300 years ago will have a better understanding of the technology of 150 years ago. Why? Because for the most part not alot has changed. Yes, the steam engine is now around and that would be the big one. But the concept of using fire to create steam to drive an engine? Not that hard for someone to figure out 300 years ago.

Future or aline technology could end up being the same thing. Something totally alien to our current technology level that we will have to create new sciences to understand it. This future or alien technology could use something totally different than our current electrical system to power it. It could use whole different computer system than what we have now.

In either case, this isn't something that you could reverse engineer in a year or two, but decades especially if it's something totally new.

This isn't some case of giving someone from the 1960's a cell phone and have them figure it out. They will. The basic understanding is past the point of where they can understand it.

I always was skeptical about how humans will always understand how future or alien technology works after an hour or two of playing with it. Stargate SG-1 did this alot.

[Riedquat]

That's exactly my point.

Explain the principles of a computer to someone 150 years ago (well, a scientist), and they'd understand them, in terms of high level architecture Babbage's designs weren't all that different, although they wouldn't have the tools to make any sense or attempt at reverse engineering one; by the time they did they'd have had to build enough to make one anyway, so at most you'd get a bit of an advance. And that's my point about future tech, there's no reason to believe we'd be any better now with technology from 150 years in the future than someone 150 years ago would be with current technology, I don't buy the "we're advanced enough to understand everything because we've got all the sufficient tools now" argument that was being given.

FWIW I think that the last really significant steps in physics, the fundamental understanding of the universe, were made around 100 years ago anyway. I'm not saying that there have been none since but I wouldn't say we've had anything the equivalent of relativity and quantum mechanics since (that must've been a really exciting time to be a physicist).