See you at the coordinates of the 10 dimension.

But some argue that we can- and do- travelacross time, or “planes”. It can thus be argued that there is no “future”- for if it exists right now and I can travel to it, then what is so “future” about it, except in the subjective construction of our sense of time? And to prove the subjectivity of time, witness the survey of different calendars which were guided both by the science understood at the time and the ideals and narratives of the caledarial architects. And ultimately, time as we know it may be an Earthling construction. Sylvia Brown was right on the dot about this one, even if fraulent CNN exposed her as a fraud.

“I propose journalism be made illegal.”

O Farangi, why such lengthy hate against journalism?

Spray-painting all over journalism in its entirety- in name, idea, principle, theory, and practice- with the mourning colors of black is misguided. Yes! It is misguided and misdirected. For we shall not hate journalism per se, but hate the practices that crop up in our realities. Rejecting journalism just because of bad journalism is tantamount to my pointing out that academia in reality is one big intellectual orgy house, and thus, academia in its totality should be abolished. Or that just because some laws are bad, we don’t need laws at all (although The Prophet Al Mustafa [pbuh] may disagree and tell the village people so).

I’ll set up a paper that has your ideals and visions. Only thing I’m lacking is capital. Would you, guy of good intentions with a broadband connection, give me some cash?

Ahistorically:

“most of the rest is repetition: material copied from somewhere else, or the quotidian “passing on” of information from elsewhere which adds nothing to our actual knowledge base.”

Yeah, like when you try to go to a variety of news sources to get differing takes on a situation, but notice that the same AP article has been reproduced on all 13.

“Truly creative, new information is a relatively rare thing”

Yes. There are two reasons for this:

1. conglomeration, so that you see the same articles on the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, except for a few differing articles. LAT is rarely about Los Angeles.

2. Downsizing. You lay off as many writers as possible, keep a handful or no full time staff writers and outsource the substantial stuff to freelance journalists (or to writers in India), who are few and live and work in a precarious situation themselves. Then, those few that are full time journalists are completely overworked, leaving little for them to do other than meet their 7-10 deadlines per day. [American Journalism 101].

Though I don’t entirely disagree with the premise of the escalation of scientific knowledge, but I take your post in that light. Enjoy the apocalypse!

I think the concept of “information doubling” is absurd and irrelevant: the majority of this “new” information is lists of data which are of no use to anyone the vast majority of the time and so get ignored; most of the rest is repetition: material copied from somewhere else, or the quotidian “passing on” of information from elsewhere which adds nothing to our actual knowledge base. Truly creative, new information is a relatively rare thing; what you’re describing is the kind of information access which, as Dave Davisson points out will make some questions easier to answer, but will still require extraordinary effort to make meaningful.

Maybe I’m nitpicking, but I’m an historian and I have a problem envisioning the transition — mostly because none of the pro-singularity people you cite have any idea what it’ll look like, and the history of futurism is awash with scenarios that turn out to have massive blind spots. Mostly I’m having trouble envisioning the economics: how this society will function at a fundamental level. As John Rich said,
“If everyone contemplates the infinite instead of fixing the drains, many of us will die of cholera.”

Yes, I noticed. I just wanted to find a way to throw in the tidbit about sharing 98% of our DNA with Michael’s pet chimp, that’s all.

Also, wanted to speak about bonobos, for whom I have a tender spot for.

“Why don’t we just agree that I’m right, and be done with it, and get on to loving one another?”

Ok, I love you.

Lay off the Ganesh Particle, will you. It’s real, it exists. It’s not hocus pocus or quack science. Once upon a time, people hung those who argued that the earth was round. The Big Bang theory was one big ass joke even in science circles-how can huge, gigantic planets with immense complexities and intricate systems emerge of NOTHING? And we are NOT monkeys, that’s ridiculous! Sure Bonobos are very similar to us superior humans and we share 98% of our DNA with Michael Jackson’s chimp, but we’re not related! And now, it is a respectable fact (except for folks living out in Kansas and other Christian American fundamentalists. Oh, and also for Harun Yahya).

I see the words “journalism” and “journalist” in your post. But am too tired now, and post is too very long. Will read post later and come back to fight more.

Please forgive: in skimming these, I never got around to reading the review on your homepage. You do, in fact, claim that Wolfram has gone off the deep end. I sit corrected.

My training is as an historian and my default mode is nitpicking, so I’m trying to restrain myself and play along.

But I’m having trouble envisioning the transition, largely because you’re not sure — no futurist is — what order these changes might take place in, and how they will be limited or restricted by law, custom and money. Yeah, money: there’s an alterative economics under this somewhere, but I don’t see it.

I also think that the whole “doubling of information” thing is a crock: the majority of recorded information is meaningless compilations of usage and billing data which can easily be ignored by the vast majority of people; an awful lot of the rest is repetition: the same texts in different forms, the same ideas about the same old texts, etc..

The complexity of high-order information is reaching a collapsing point, though: as you point out, physics is bending towards cosmology in a frightfully unscientific fashion, and all of us use technologies which we don’t understand constantly.