What would disprove the notion of exponential technology? I

>>8902223
what is exponential technology?

>>8902226
The myth as it were, that all technologies will always improve as long as sufficient capital is spent.

Having spoken with my grandparents and done quite a bit of research on the history of technology, i know almost for certain that this is not the case. technology comes from exploiting natural phenomena, and given that there are only four fundamental forces in the universe, the number of exploitable natural phenomena is likely also limited and much smaller than most people would think.

I'm just looking for input on how others would falsify the hypothesis.

>>8902230
We don't even understand the human brain at the physical level yet so there is clearly a lot more out there.

>>8902230
If you could control these 4 said natural phenomena you take advantage of, couldn't you whittle away the liabilities involved in taking advantage of them?

>>8902230
>I'm just looking for input on how others would falsify the hypothesis.

If AI is able to "bootstrap" itself to ever higher levels of intelligence and calculation.

If we find some weird hard limit to the power of computing machines, well....

>>8902223
Thinking to the absolute extremes, the speed of light.

>>8902223
>What would disprove the notion of exponential technology?
It's not said seriously, you misunderstood. It just means Industrial Revolution 3.?beta

>>8902253
Yes we do.

>>8902255
How would you take control of them though? That would imply something beyond them.

>>8902307
>If AI is able to "bootstrap" itself to ever higher levels of intelligence and calculation.
>If we find some weird hard limit to the power of computing machines, well...
An AI is just as constrained by the lack of available physical phenomena as we are. They will just hit diminishing returns a little faster.

>>8902321
But the industrial revolution hinged entirely upon chemistry existing. All we did was exploit already existing phenomena. What phenomena do we hope to exploit in the future? Faithium?

>>8902230
> Integers comes from sticking digits together, and given that there are only ten digits in the universe, the number of integers is likely also limited and much smaller than most people would think.

>>8902363
Numbers don't exist though.

>>8902409
Neither do you then.

>>8902411
I meant in an objective sense. Two apples aren't a distinct thing.

>>8902357
>But the industrial revolution hinged entirely upon chemistry existing. All we did was exploit already existing phenomena. What phenomena do we hope to exploit in the future? Faithium?

We're probably due for a long series of slow and steady applications of unique metamaterial properties as people figure out ways to make them useful.

>>8902253
if human brain was simple to be understood by us, we wouldn't be able to understand it.
-me, 2018

File: life_growth.jpg (88KB, 1240x782px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1240x782px

>>8902223
When any life form is placed in a closed system (Solar system is closed system), they will first do lag phase (adapting to the environment), then grow exponentially, then - after reaching the carrying capacity of their environment - remain stationary, and finally either DIE or compete with another species.

Humans grow exponentially until they reach the capacity of Sun-Earth system. That will be about 12-15 billion people, depending on to what other activities we use energy for.

Btw we will never leave the Solar system

>>8902223
I want to live in that picture

>>8902567

>there's a fuckton of nitrogen floating everywhere outside the planetary gravitational wells
>50 years is a reasonable amount of time to reach another star
>nevar evar leaving

-t. edgelord contrarian

you must really feel special now, that you wen against everyone's expectations, huh?