Philosophy or Physics? Which one do you think accurately explains limits of technology?

[Maximum7]

I am obsessed with the speculation that science and technology may reach an endpoint or inversely never end. Philosopher Bernard Stiegler argued that technology is a living form of memory and is constantly advancing. It is almost a law of nature. Yet physicists like Isaac Arthur argue that science and technology has a limit because there are only so many different things you can do with the particles of the universe. Both offer excellent points. Philosophy is the science of thinking of why things are, based on logic. Technology will always advance because logically there will always be stuff we want to create (as long as people are still around of course). However, physics measures things in the universe with cold hard facts and it may be that the universe itself is finite and humans may actually find themselves “retiring” science as a study in 3000 AD or something.

Anyway, which school of thought should I believe? Which one is more likely to be true?

PLEASE. If you have any sources besides Stiegler or Isaac Arthur that touch on this subject; please share with me. I NEED some closure.

[JackDaydream]

@Maximum7

I don't see why you have to make a choice between physics or philosophy as the two can be complementary. Science has been important not simply for making things which we need, but has been central in philosophy. But paradigms change within scientific thinking and the quantum physics of Einstein's thinking has broken down the Cartesian-Newtonian system of thinking about the world and science is evolving. In some ways, aspects of science may be starting to replace the ideas of philosophy in academic and popular thinking, but philosophy is still needed to interpret the findings of the scientists and even physics and other physical sciences make certain metaphysics assumptions and have inherent sets of values.

[Leontiskos]

Physics can accurately explain the physical limits of technology. Philosophy can accurately explain limitations of technology that go beyond physical barriers.

As to the question of whether science and technology have a limit, and whether humans will eventually exhaust the finitude of reality, I do not think it will be exhausted. Humans have an infinite curiosity, and it is also important to remember that humans are themselves finite, limited by their lifespan among other things. There is no such thing as "science and technology" apart from scientists themselves, and scientists have limitations of various kinds. The limitations of scientists are probably far more significant than the limitation of the universe's finitude.

[LuckyR]

I am obsessed with the speculation that science and technology may reach an endpoint or inversely never end. Philosopher Bernard Stiegler argued that technology is a living form of memory and is constantly advancing. It is almost a law of nature. Yet physicists like Isaac Arthur argue that science and technology has a limit because there are only so many different things you can do with the particles of the universe. Both offer excellent points. Philosophy is the science of thinking of why things are, based on logic. Technology will always advance because logically there will always be stuff we want to create (as long as people are still around of course). However, physics measures things in the universe with cold hard facts and it may be that the universe itself is finite and humans may actually find themselves “retiring” science as a study in 3000 AD or something.

Anyway, which school of thought should I believe? Which one is more likely to be true?

PLEASE. If you have any sources besides Stiegler or Isaac Arthur that touch on this subject; please share with me. I NEED some closure.

Science and technology are theoretically limited by the combination of properties of the physical, which of course is a finite number so large, from the human perspective it is functionally infinite. What is a much smaller number is the length of time the total human experience will end up being.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am obsessed with the speculation that science and technology may reach an endpoint or inversely never end. Philosopher Bernard Stiegler argued that technology is a living form of memory and is constantly advancing. It is almost a law of nature. Yet physicists like Isaac Arthur argue that science and technology has a limit because there are only so many different things you can do with the particles of the universe. Both offer excellent points. Philosophy is the science of thinking of why things are, based on logic. Technology will always advance because logically there will always be stuff we want to create (as long as people are still around of course). However, physics measures things in the universe with cold hard facts and it may be that the universe itself is finite and humans may actually find themselves “retiring” science as a study in 3000 AD or something.

Anyway, which school of thought should I believe? Which one is more likely to be true?

I tend to agree with those who have commented before me. Science and philosophy are complementary. Neither one is sufficient in itself: they offer different understandings of life, the universe and everything.

As for limits, and how far we can go, I don't think we will ever stop learning new things about the universe. Someone - Aristotle? - famously opined that the wise man knows how little he knows, and I definitely subscribe to this point of view.

[Nick_A]

https://www.amazon.com/Money-Meaning-Li ... 0385262426

I am obsessed with the speculation that science and technology may reach an endpoint or inversely never end. Philosopher Bernard Stiegler argued that technology is a living form of memory and is constantly advancing. It is almost a law of nature. Yet physicists like Isaac Arthur argue that science and technology has a limit because there are only so many different things you can do with the particles of the universe. Both offer excellent points. Philosophy is the science of thinking of why things are, based on logic. Technology will always advance because logically there will always be stuff we want to create (as long as people are still around of course). However, physics measures things in the universe with cold hard facts and it may be that the universe itself is finite and humans may actually find themselves “retiring” science as a study in 3000 AD or something.

Anyway, which school of thought should I believe? Which one is more likely to be true?

PLEASE. If you have any sources besides Stiegler or Isaac Arthur that touch on this subject; please share with me. I NEED some closure.

Science provides facts and the source of technology. Philosophy is the love of wisdom and the source of wisdom is meaning. But what is meaning? When a person is guided by the relativity of meaning, then they have wisdom

Money represents meaning but why is a dollar meaningful? I know of no better intro to this essential topic you bring than Jacob Needleman's book: https://www.amazon.com/Money-Meaning-Li ... 0385262426

Maybe it can help your need for closure as it helped my need to understand.

[Count Lucanor]

Physics deals with natural laws. Technology is not a natural phenomenon, no matter how hard you try to find examples of other living beings modifying their environment and using tools. It will not do it. The study of technology falls outside the scope of physics.

Technology is always a human issue, so one might expect that philosophy somehow deals with it, however, since there are many issues that would require specialized knowledge from many fields, the methods of philosophy alone are very limited. The best chances of producing interesting insights on the possibilities of technology fall within the scope of social sciences.

[Tegularius]

Physics discovers; philosophy interprets...meaning the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

Physics discovers; philosophy interprets...meaning the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

No, but they might be explained by philosophy (or physics), which is what the title topic asks about.

[Tegularius]

Physics discovers; philosophy interprets...meaning the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

No, but they might be explained by philosophy (or physics), which is what the title topic asks about.

Each of the technological artifacts humans have created are designed with a purpose and implemented accordingly. They don't need to be further explained beyond the motive which created it. Tools don't require a philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

Physics discovers; philosophy interprets...meaning the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

No, but they might be explained by philosophy (or physics), which is what the title topic asks about.

Each of the technological artifacts humans have created are designed with a purpose and implemented accordingly. They don't need to be further explained beyond the motive which created it. Tools don't require a philosophy.

The title asks about explaining the limits of technology, not explaining technology.

[Tegularius]

Physics discovers; philosophy interprets...meaning the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

No, but they might be explained by philosophy (or physics), which is what the title topic asks about.

Each of the technological artifacts humans have created are designed with a purpose and implemented accordingly. They don't need to be further explained beyond the motive which created it. Tools don't require a philosophy.

The title asks about explaining the limits of technology, not explaining technology.

...and I replied directly by writing...the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

Physics discovers; philosophy interprets...meaning the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

No, but they might be explained by philosophy (or physics), which is what the title topic asks about.

Each of the technological artifacts humans have created are designed with a purpose and implemented accordingly. They don't need to be further explained beyond the motive which created it. Tools don't require a philosophy.

The title asks about explaining the limits of technology, not explaining technology.

...and I replied directly by writing...the limits of technology are not determined by philosophy.

...which is what I commented on. We've gone round in a circle. The limits of technology are not determined by philosophy, I agree. But they might be explained by it, which is what this topic asks us to consider.

[Tegularius]

...which is what I commented on. We've gone round in a circle. The limits of technology are not determined by philosophy, I agree. But they might be explained by it, which is what this topic asks us to consider.

Words, their meanings and how they're applied is not exactly fixed in many minds. Different perspectives abound, though the words are the same. This is certainly noticeable in philosophy and philosophy forums unlike the methods imposed by Law and the sciences where meanings are meant to be much more precise.

I take the position if it were possible to explain the limits of technology then that explanation would also determine those limits based on the reasons provided. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether the explanation is correct or not.

To me, an explanation usually leads to at least some kind of intermediate determination on some subject. Though not precisely synonymous, they are connected since something determined is not likely to occur without first being explained.

[FranknBerry]

Neither can provide an accurate explanation. People who declare themselves to exist as either one of such titles can share a perceptual explanation of how technology is limited, yet any notion that such an explanation would be accurate is entirely subjective. Even the concept of "limitation" is subjective in how it's perceivable. Limits of technology are not determined by categories, but instead by individuals. Semantics aside, my perception of what technology is doesn't align with existing concepts shared within either perceived field of study. As such I find myself not leaning toward either direction but rather away from both.