Is there any evidence to suggest that there is no limit to technology?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of novums, which are innovative ideas such as faster-than-light travel and gene splicing. There is a belief that while science may impose certain limits, human creativity is boundless, allowing for an unlimited potential for technological progress. The distinction between science and technology is emphasized, noting that scientific limits do not necessarily constrain technological advancements. The argument suggests that the number of potential novums exceeds what any individual can comprehend, reinforcing the idea that technological innovation can continue indefinitely. For further exploration of this topic, sources discussing the philosophy of technology and creativity could provide deeper insights.
Maximum7
Messages
124
Reaction score
11
I am currently obsessed with futurism but I am terrified I will run out of novums to contemplate about. A novum is an idea like “FTL travel” or “Gene splicing”. I was wondering if their is any proof that their is an unlimited amount of ideas that humans can come up with. My uncle was reading Bernard Stiegler before he died and Stiegler said that technology is a law of nature and it is always progressing. I didn’t 100% buy that and I was wondering if anyone could direct me to a source that could help convince me that technological progress and ideas are unlimited.

Please provide a reliable source if you can find one.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Science and technology are not the same, and science is the one with the limits. Scientific limits can apply to technology, but their applicability is negotiable and varies. There is no limit to human creativity, so there is no ultimate limit to technological progress. The limits provided by science are specific means and methods.
 
  • Like
Likes Fervent Freyja
You only need to demonstrate that there are more potential novums than any reader can keep track of.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
LLMs and AIs have a bad reputation at PF, and I share this opinion. I have seen too much nonsense they produced, and too many "independent researchers" who weren't so independent after all, since they used them. And then there is a simple question: If we had to check their results anyway, why would we use them in the first place? In fact, their use is forbidden by the rules. I tend to interpret the reason for this rule because nobody wants to talk to a machine via PF. Those who want to can...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
5K