Physics Does advancement of computers mean physicists are obsolete?

[abdullahi abass]

The one thing that most people forget is that there is a difference between science itself, and being a scientist. I've always said that while it may be possible for one to learn about a particular subject simply by learning from books, papers, lectures, etc., one doesn't become a scientist that way. Being a scientist involved many aspect of social and cultural activities, not least of which is pleading the importance of your case, especially to funding agencies. Because of this, a scientist needs to know the difference between what is important, versus what is interesting. Those two are not always mutually inclusive! Something may be "interesting" because it is an unsolved problem. A computer may be able to detect that it is an unsolved problem. But how would a computer know that it is "important"?

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...rs-mean-physicists-are-obsolete.805104/page-2

when our jobs are reduced to simply guiding the computer to what is important and what is not, and providing simple parameters of thinking for computers. Then you'll be more of a humble guide than a physicist or scientist. You won't be replaced as a person but your job would have been taken.

 

[ZapperZ]

when our jobs are reduced to simply guiding the computer to what is important and what is not, and providing simple parameters of thinking for computers. Then you'll be more of a humble guide than a physicist or scientist. You won't be replaced as a person but your job would have been taken.

But I don't see it being reduced to just that! Read the entire post!

Zz.

 

[abdullahi abass]

But I don't see it being reduced to just that! Read the entire post!

Zz.

Let's use Isaac Newtons famous works to remind ourselves of the basic definition of a physicist: He studies nature and brings out the underlying mathematical principles. If programs like "eureka" can already do that and if they do get better as all computers are. Then its only logical the think that the main idea of being a physicist would have been taken away.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This old gem of an essay is still relevant:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t...e&q=computers are the ruin of science&f=false

 

[ZapperZ]

Lets use Isaac Newtons famous works to remind ourselves of the basic definition of a physicist: He studies nature and brings out the underlying mathematical principles. If programs like "eureka" can already do that and if they do get better as all computers are. Then its only logical the think that the main idea of being a physicist would have been taken away.

As I've said, show me a computer that can derive superconductivity.

Since since when did Newton defined what a physicist is, and should be, 100 years beyond him?

Zz.

 

[tom aaron]

Well, only if you are religious. Or, if your definition of a computer is limited by our current technology. Surely our brains are nothing like our computers, as of yet. Surely our brains are made of stuff, and therefore machines, not magic.

True.

Biology is just a way of explaining some physical activity. Life has no special status apart from other chemistry. The dichotomy between life and non life is artificial. There had never been a carbon atom that acted one way because it was in an organism and another way because it was was not.

To the question...just a matter of time. However, nothing in our lifetimes to make our brains redundant in many fields.

 

[abdullahi abass]

I still think the human mind is overrated. No mind can actually conceive an idea that has no clue whatsoever in the world around us. Here's what I mean: "imagine a color that doesn't exist" or ponder this: if you were trapped in a box all your life with no sight, feel, sound or smell, would you have an "imagination"? , what would you imagine? No human can conceive a concept without prior information, so I see no reason to criticize a computer because it can't do the same

 

[donpacino]

I still think the human mind is overrated. No mind can actually conceive an idea that has no clue whatsoever in the world around us. Here's what I mean: "imagine a color that doesn't exist" or ponder this: if you were trapped in a box all your life with no sight, feel, sound or smell, would you have an "imagination"? , what would you imagine? No human can conceive a concept without prior information, so I see no reason to criticize a computer because it can't do the same

If you think the human mind is overrated, what do you think of computers?
a computer simply does what it is told. It is a piece of hardware. a human mind is much more complicated... if you want more reasons refer to earlier posts in this thread

 

[Almeisan]

when our jobs are reduced to simply guiding the computer to what is important and what is not, and providing simple parameters of thinking for computers. Then you'll be more of a humble guide than a physicist or scientist. You won't be replaced as a person but your job would have been taken.

Don't think so, as you will be doing important work, being in charge of many computers. Thus, you are still being productive in a work where computers do all the work. Compare that to a person who doesn't have the skill to, or rather isn't better than the next person at, direct computers. They will have no job at all, in a workd where labour has no cost. It will be a very productive economy. (Or an economy where labour has no cost and pollution/resources will be the major cost.) So those people that are productive will have a slice of a very big pie.Best job is to collect profits from companies you own, of course.

 

[abdullahi abass]

If you think the human mind is overrated, what do you think of computers?
a computer simply does what it is told. It is a piece of hardware. a human mind is much more complicated... if you want more reasons refer to earlier posts in this thread

How are you sure you just don't do what you're told, after all many scientists including Steven hawking argue that humans don't have free will. He says in the book "the grand design" that if he had adequate information about the cells in your body and the calculating power, he would predict every single decision you make. Maybe were all just robots with complex programming.