All science is materialistic

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

― Arthur C. Clarke

I would say that Arthur C. Clarke was "not even wrong".  For instance, in Chemistry, there are spin-forbidden reactions, which means that these reactions are impossible.  It's a pithy quote; futurists love it, but, it's Ignorance on Parade.

You’re response has nothing to do with Clarke’s Third Law. For one thing, he was speaking about technology, not science. For another, he did not say anything about ‘impossible’ (although he used the term in the First and Second Laws).

Thirds and lastly, it’s important to remember that ‘sufficiently advanced’ is a culturally relative term. A cell phone, a handheld torch, or a power saw would certainly seem like magic to a culture that had never experienced them.

Boru

[Jehanne]

I would say that Arthur C. Clarke was "not even wrong".  For instance, in Chemistry, there are spin-forbidden reactions, which means that these reactions are impossible.  It's a pithy quote; futurists love it, but, it's Ignorance on Parade.

You’re response has nothing to do with Clarke’s Third Law. For one thing, he was speaking about technology, not science. For another, he did not say anything about ‘impossible’ (although he used the term in the First and Second Laws).

Thirds and lastly, it’s important to remember that ‘sufficiently advanced’ is a culturally relative term. A cell phone, a handheld torch, or a power saw would certainly seem like magic to a culture that had never experienced them.

Boru

What is technology, but applied science?

[Angrboda]

You’re response has nothing to do with Clarke’s Third Law. For one thing, he was speaking about technology, not science. For another, he did not say anything about ‘impossible’ (although he used the term in the First and Second Laws).

Thirds and lastly, it’s important to remember that ‘sufficiently advanced’ is a culturally relative term. A cell phone, a handheld torch, or a power saw would certainly seem like magic to a culture that had never experienced them.

Boru

What is technology, but applied science?

If it's applied, that means that it's possible, so your impossibility caveat would not apply even if it were otherwise valid.

[Jehanne]

What is technology, but applied science?

If it's applied, that means that it's possible, so your impossibility caveat would not apply even if it were otherwise valid.

Consider the last 40+ years of attempts at controlled nuclear fusion. It's possible to do in theory (which is why there is funding for it), and yet, it may be impossible to implement in practice, which means that it will never happen, ever, by anyone here or elsewhere.

[polymath257]

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

― Arthur C. Clarke

I would say that Arthur C. Clarke was "not even wrong".  For instance, in Chemistry, there are spin-forbidden reactions, which means that these reactions are impossible.  It's a pithy quote; futurists love it, but, it's Ignorance on Parade.

I'm always leery when someone says that something is impossible. In this case, there is a conservation law (angular momentum) that is applicable. Whether and when that conservation law is relevant may well depend on a host of other criteria. maybe the angular momentum in the reaction is coupled to that of the system as a whole. allowing the reaction to proceed at a very low level.

In fact, it is frequently the case, especially in quantum systems that reactions are not allowed at one level of approximation and are allowed at a low level at the next,

I'm also reminded that 150 years ago there were two conservation laws: one for energy and one for mass. Now, we know that they can be interconverted and we have a single conservation law. We never know when such a shift will occur because of our investigations.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You’re response has nothing to do with Clarke’s Third Law. For one thing, he was speaking about technology, not science. For another, he did not say anything about ‘impossible’ (although he used the term in the First and Second Laws).

Thirds and lastly, it’s important to remember that ‘sufficiently advanced’ is a culturally relative term. A cell phone, a handheld torch, or a power saw would certainly seem like magic to a culture that had never experienced them.

Boru

What is technology, but applied science?

It is exactly that - the application of science. That’s what Clarke was talking about - the impact the one level of technology would have in a less technologically advanced culture. He wasn’t referring to spin forbidden chemical reactions. Imagine trying to explain - in a single afternoon - wireless technology to a society still gathering their food with throw-sticks and stone clubs. It isn’t that they would be too stupid to understand electromagnetic waves, it’s that they would have no cultural referent for it. To them, it would be ‘magic’.

While science and technology are deeply interrelated, they are not the same thing. Who would you rather have perform your heart surgery - an anatomical theorist or a cardiac surgeon?

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I would say that Arthur C. Clarke was "not even wrong".  For instance, in Chemistry, there are spin-forbidden reactions, which means that these reactions are impossible.  It's a pithy quote; futurists love it, but, it's Ignorance on Parade.

I'm always leery when someone says that something is impossible. In this case, there is a conservation law (angular momentum) that is applicable. Whether and when that conservation law is relevant may well depend on a host of other criteria. maybe the angular momentum in the reaction is coupled to that of the system as a whole. allowing the reaction to proceed at a very low level.

In fact, it is frequently the case, especially in quantum systems that reactions are not allowed at one level of approximation and are allowed at a low level at the next,

I'm also reminded that 150 years ago there were two conservation laws: one for energy and one for mass. Now, we know that they can be interconverted and we have a single conservation law. We never know when such a shift will occur because of our investigations.

Very neatly expressed in Clarke’s First Law:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
   

Boru

[Angrboda]

If it's applied, that means that it's possible, so your impossibility caveat would not apply even if it were otherwise valid.

Consider the last 40+ years of attempts at controlled nuclear fusion.  It's possible to do in theory (which is why there is funding for it), and yet, it may be impossible to implement in practice, which means that it will never happen, ever, by anyone here or elsewhere.

Which has nothing to do with technology. Technology we don't have isn't technology.

[Jehanne]

[quote='polymath257' pid='2133100' dateline='1672674099']Very neatly expressed in Clarke’s First Law:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
   

Boru

Thank you for this quote; it obviates any reservations that I had in viewing Clarke as a futurist crank, perhaps the High Priest of all of them.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

Thank you for this quote; it obviates any reservations that I had in viewing Clarke as a futurist crank, perhaps the High Priest of all of them.

Yeah, he predicted geosynchronous satellites, robotic surgery, medical telemetry, the internet, spam, digital porn, and telecommuting. What a crank.

Boru