saturation theory

College Confidential Community
1

<p>it seems that A LOT of improvements eventually saturate over time. after all, the universe is a finite universe with lots of patterns and redundancy. our growth in knowledge cannot be combinatorial. rather, it usually follows a logistic curve towards some limit.</p>

<p>can graphics improvements in computer games really improve that much more now? Our senses don’t really absorb that much detail and there’s eventually a point where adding more detail isn’t going to change our perceptual view of the game (especially since our perceptions demand attention that could distract us from the actual gameplay). it is well known that working class memory and attentional capacity are limited, in that attentional capacity towards one area will inevitably reduce attentional capacity in another area.</p>

<p>What about advances in math/science? There’s an interesting viewpoint that has now been proposed: Horganism (you can google it). basically, it’s that we won’t be seeing any major new fundamental discoveries in the next 100 years - as most of the fundamental ones have been made in the last century. No new theories at the level of relativity or electromagnetism. It’s now well known that in the last 30 years, theoretical physics hasn’t really made that much progress, other than the discovery of the top quark in 1995. String theory, while appealing, has not led to testable predictions. And even if string theory is right - well - then what is it going to lead to (other than closure?)? It’s really the offshoots of string theory that apply to the real world that are applicable (and that we can use).</p>

<p>Of course, nanotech and biotech will be booming over the next 100 years. But that’s because we’ve barely scratched the surface of those two areas. Eventually, our discoveries in those areas will also start to saturate. </p>

<p>In a sense, there aren’t any major new philosophical theories either. That we find the Greeks to be so insightful of the world pretty much says that the ancient Greeks have covered most of the major philosophical issues and that there haven’t been any major new “discoveries” in philosophy ever since.</p>

<p>What about other areas? Moore’s law. It’s not going to hold on forever, as eventually there is a lower limit of molecules that you really do need for a transistor. </p>

<p>Human life expectancy improvements with age have saturated in industrialized countries. The Flynn effect has started to saturate in Scandinavia and Britain. The effective benefits of any supplement or drug saturate after some particular dose (which is why megadoses of B vitamins or Vitamin C aren’t going to do you extra good). if you fill up an area with an air brush and keep on pressing on the area - eventually the amount of new paint/unit of time is going to decrease as new paint gets painted on top of paint of the color of the new paint (aka redundancy). From Weber’s Law…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>increases in the amount of money you devote to a project will eventually lead to wasted money (as you only need so much money for a project - but even as you approach the limit - more of the money gets wasted as it gets directed to non-essential ends and since people have less incentive to be efficient)</p>

<p>The most obvious example of saturation theory: your score on a certain test and the hours you spend in studying. eventually, there is a point where increased studying leads to diminishing returns. as we all know from the collegeboard’s score report, most people’s sat scores don’t improve that much at all when they retake the test.</p>

2

<p>Why do I need to make an observation of saturation theory, when most people are more or less implicitly aware of it?</p>

<p>Because saturation theory doesn’t always apply to all situations. It’s key to identify which situations saturation theory is relevant to - and which situations saturation theory isn’t so relevant to. Saturation theory is very relevant to increases in life expectancy in industrialized countries, but it isn’t so for increases in life expectancy for non-industrialized countries. It also may not be relevant for the possibility of changing the body’s cells so that they will no longer age. The key fact here is that saturation theory comes from the constraints that the system forces upon us - but that sometimes, we have the means to modify those constraints. but so long as those constraints still exist,then saturation theory applies.</p>

3

<p>wasn’t it albert michelson who thought that there were going to be no major discoveries in physics in the 1900’s? so…is this supposed to be more of an informative post? just fyi?</p>

4

<p>it was just random thoughts (that could yield unexpected insightful replies)</p>

5

<p>IK do you believe that the universe will end as soon as all the usable energy is converted into unusable sources.</p>

6

<p>Keep in mind that Moore’s law has essentially been holding since before the integrated circuit. Different technologies (quantum computing, etc.) can pick up the torch where that lets off.</p>

<p>As far as your statements about philosophy, I disagree strongly. Honestly, I think modern philosophers (post-Descartes, basically) are way better than Greek philosophers, except in basic areas like philosophy of logic. In any case, it may seem like there aren’t many really good works of philosophy being written now, but that’s only because philosophy is a slow-moving field, where the process of recognition sometimes takes many years. David Hume’s first work was almost entirely ignored at the time, even though it seems groundbreaking now.</p>

<p>Science in general may seem like it’s making less fundamental discoveries, but it is in reality just becoming more specialized, with ever-more branching fields of study. At one point there weren’t any branches of science, just “natural philosophy”. Don’t see many new natural philosophy discoveries, right? It’s just branching into more specific things, such as nanotechnology and whatnot.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Haha insightful reply there. I don’t think that the universe is going to end per se - it’s just that we all know that the universe will be a desolate and bleak eternity by then.</p>

<p>==

</p>

<p>That’s true. Though with quantum computing, even there are limits (as you can’t get smaller than the size of subatomic particles). </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Haha, I made that statement about Greek philosophers just to get another reply/view on this (actually it’s hard to say - as philosophy really is slow-moving). For some reason, philosophy is a field where most people read the ancient Greeks, rather than 20th century works (for some reason)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah it’s becoming more specialized. But within each level of specialization, there are levels of specialization as well. But since our world is finite, eventually the “discoveries” as going to be trends in data collection, rather than trends in fundamental principles.</p>

8

<p>Wrt Moore’s Law though, my observation still applies, as
“The key fact here is that saturation theory comes from the constraints that the system forces upon us - but that sometimes, we have the means to modify those constraints. but so long as those constraints still exist,then saturation theory applies.”</p>

<p>So we have to change the constraints to avoid saturation (aka transfer from silicon to quantum based computing)</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>Who can define fundamental? Fundamental depends on the context … people never would have found computers to be fundamental 200+ years ago … or even wheels, for that matter.</p>

10

<p>What is wrong with saturation if all needs are satisfied? Why do you buy into the idea of greed and false progress, IK? :D</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Many of your theories are rather implicit. Not that that’s a bad thing.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s an issue that I’m <em>really</em> trying to debate with myself with. “Fundamental” is probably relative to some more fundamental thing. Like, physical theories are fundamental in OUR universe,but they are not fundamental when applied to multiple universes. There are MANY fundamental physical theories that can apply, only one which applies to our universe. But since our universe is a single one (a single solution to, say, string theory equations), we have fundamental constants like Planck’s constant or the speed of light (which could be different in different universes). They are fundamental ONLY WRT our universe.</p>

<p>==
Similarly, we have fundamental rules of biology. But they’re only fundamental with respect to our physical theories (and the way life developed on the earth). since frankly carbon and oxygen are fundamental to biology on earth (but they may not be fundamental to life elsewhere - for example, silicon-based biology)</p>

<p>==
But what exactly is fundamental? Math cannot be fundamental - it’s based on SOCIALLY DEFINED AXIOMS (we define them as fundamental ONLY UPON accepting some axioms). But even then, our universe could be considered an axiom. So our physical theories are only based on accepting our universe as axiomatic.</p>

<p>gargh ga though, I can’t find a good definition. And the definitions on encyclopedias and dictionaries are not the ones I’m looking for.</p>

<p>==

See, I’m scared of death. I’d do anything to make myself live longer. Eternal nothingness really scares me a lot. And saturation theory makes me concerned about it.</p>

<p>(also, pleasure too). Like, maybe my pleasure is fundamentally limited by the limitations of my brain. And I’m not finding pleasure in things I used to find pleasure in, say, 5 years ago. because everything is becoming repetitive.</p>

<p>==
So say, our fundamental constraints are those in which we are constrained within brains governed by biological theories. But maybe we could expand those constraints with bioengineering. It’s an intriguing possibility. hm. Our brain sizes are fundamental only when we accept them as so. They are not fundamental if we so desire to modify them.</p>

13

<p>Characteristics of fundamental differences:</p>

<p>Immutability</p>

<p>hmkm</p>

14

<p>now, this theory is pretty much equivalent with the law of diminishing marginal utility.</p>

<p>There is a KEY difference however.</p>

<p>Saturation implies a 100% mark. Diminishing marginal utility could mean an increase that goes along with the logarithm (aka it increases to infinity, but at a decreasing rate throughout)</p>