Tech levels and the end of the universe

[Sword of Spirit]

As in, apply the formula every 500 years from 3000 BCE. Determine that the estimated data changes by A1% from the 3000 - 2500 dates, then by A2% for the next sample, etc. Then figure out a pattern to project that type of change into the future. The number will probably become a moving target if extended into the future. Then some other sort of formula or methodology could attempt to estimate the likelihood of an end point from there.

I'd have more confidence in that sort of model, even though it would still be nothing more than an estimate.

 

[Alzrius]

I'd have more confidence in that sort of model, even though it would still be nothing more than an estimate.

I'd have significantly less confidence in such a model, since it would be presuming that the nature of advances that were paradigm-changers for the entire human race was something that could be taken as a semi-predictable pattern.

The problem is that using the method you cite means that you can take into account only the changes that actually happened, without needing to account for the changes that were predicted (or otherwise suggested by the data) that turned out to be wrong. Making a probabilistic argument about what's going to happen doesn't have that luxury - it needs to account for either virtually every possible unforeseen advance (which is exactly as contradictory as it sounds) or none of them. Hence why the latter makes more sense.

 

[Storminator]

Making a probabilistic argument about what's going to happen doesn't have that luxury - it needs to account for either virtually every possible unforeseen advance (which is exactly as contradictory as it sounds) or none of them. Hence why the latter makes more sense.

Meh. That's simply not true. Why do I need to account for every possible advance when I am trying to predict, for example, increases in life expectancy (I choose this metric because it's a key variable in the Doomsday Argument)? I can assume there will be some, unspecified, advances that result in an increase in life expectancy. I can't think of a reason, a priori, that "life expectancy never improves again" is a better starting point than "future life expectancy increases mirror past increases".

PS

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'd have significantly less confidence in such a model, since it would be presuming that the nature of advances that were paradigm-changers for the entire human race was something that could be taken as a semi-predictable pattern.

Well, can they? The math would either give us good reason to believe they can or they can't using this system.

The problem is that using the method you cite means that you can take into account only the changes that actually happened, without needing to account for the changes that were predicted (or otherwise suggested by the data) that turned out to be wrong. Making a probabilistic argument about what's going to happen doesn't have that luxury - it needs to account for either virtually every possible unforeseen advance (which is exactly as contradictory as it sounds) or none of them. Hence why the latter makes more sense.

If we can derive a semi-predictable pattern in paradigm-changers, then we can apply that to the future and get a better model than if we assume there will be no paradigm-changing events. Heck, we can even go a step further and determine the frequency of past paradigm-changing events and extend that to determine how likely it is that we will have any such events in the future. Given that we've also derived a pattern for the effects of such events, we can now add a probability--based on current conditions and past experience with paradigm-changing events--that our model will be anywhere near accurate.

At the very least, that seems more interesting to me than saying, "assuming everything stays the same, here's a really good estimate for doomsday."

 

[Alzrius]

Meh. That's simply not true. Why do I need to account for every possible advance when I am trying to predict, for example, increases in life expectancy (I choose this metric because it's a key variable in the Doomsday Argument)? I can assume there will be some, unspecified, advances that result in an increase in life expectancy. I can't think of a reason, a priori, that "life expectancy never improves again" is a better starting point than "future life expectancy increases mirror past increases".

You're moving the goalposts here - simply changing the average life expectancy isn't the same thing as trying to compute major changes to the total human population, to the extent that the number of humans alive at a given time will double (or more) because we'll be colonizing other planets. As it is, the basic DA argument holds that the average lifespan in the future will be around 80 years old. If you just want to adjust that number slightly, that's just a slight tweak of the formula, nothing more.

Well, can they? The math would either give us good reason to believe they can or they can't using this system.

It seems self-evident that they can't.

If we can derive a semi-predictable pattern in paradigm-changers, then we can apply that to the future and get a better model than if we assume there will be no paradigm-changing events. Heck, we can even go a step further and determine the frequency of past paradigm-changing events and extend that to determine how likely it is that we will have any such events in the future. Given that we've also derived a pattern for the effects of such events, we can now add a probability--based on current conditions and past experience with paradigm-changing events--that our model will be anywhere near accurate.

At the very least, that seems more interesting to me than saying, "assuming everything stays the same, here's a really good estimate for doomsday."

Unfortunately, there's no real way to posit that such a pattern exists. By all means, if you think that you can find one, please work it out and make it known here, though I suspect that you'll have your work cut out for you.

Likewise, how interesting something is isn't the best metric for coming up with a scientific analysis of something, and not just because interest is relative.

 

[Thondor]

It's not a civilization simulator, though. How it got to where it is doesn't need rules - invent any backstory you like! What matters is right now it's a level 9 civilization.

So what exactly are you looking for feedback on?
Your opening post seemed to suggest that you were thinking that the 'scale' progressed to rapidly, meaning that every sentient species would quickly acquire the top levels of tech before any solar or galactic calamities could threaten them. . .

You have seemed to give some fairly dismissive answers, which state that what a commentator has said is irrelevant without really clarifying what is relevant.
Really, I'm just trying to figure out what it is as the OP, that you want to discuss . . .

I can comment on a specific item in your tech table; but I am also not sure this is what you are looking for . . . but I'll do it anyway:

At level 6 you have 'solar system colonization' 21st centrury
At level 7 you have 'nearby system colonization' 22nd century
At level 8 you have 'early FLT travel' 23rd century

The progression here is so quick that it makes 'generation ships' redundant. Assuming tech level 7 could build a ship that travels at 50% the speed of light it would take ~45 to ~80 years to reach the nearest likely habitable planet (depending on what planets you think are viable candidates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_terrestrial_exoplanet_candidates.)
With your scale, we'd send a few exploratory vessels, and then we'd have FTL.

In my opinion this is far too quick, and cuts out a huge swath of the stories told in hard science-fiction.

 

[Morrus]

So what exactly are you looking for feedback on?
Your opening post seemed to suggest that you were thinking that the 'scale' progressed to rapidly, meaning that every sentient species would quickly acquire the top levels of tech before any solar or galactic calamities could threaten them. . .

You have seemed to give some fairly dismissive answers, which state that what a commentator has said is irrelevant without really clarifying what is relevant.
Really, I'm just trying to figure out what it is as the OP, that you want to discuss . . .
.

Oh, I'm just shooting the breeze. I'm not writing a setting; that was just a thing that occurred to me so I posted thinking aloud. Just a fun conversation.

In my opinion this is far too quick, and cuts out a huge swath of the stories told in hard science-fiction.

I think Sarah Newton's novels deal with this. It's actually quite a cool sci- fi concept. You don't know in advance you'll develop FTL first, so imagine travelling for generations only to discover you've arrived at a fully-fledged human civilization.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think Sarah Newton's novels deal with this. It's actually quite a cool sci- fi concept. You don't know in advance you'll develop FTL first, so imagine travelling for generations only to discover you've arrived at a fully-fledged human civilization.

I would be rather unhappy if they didn't stop the bus to pick me up on the way...

 

[Morrus]

I would be rather unhappy if they didn't stop the bus to pick me up on the way...

I don't recall exactly, but I think there was some reason why they couldn't. Maybe they didn't know exactly where a ship was or something, or it was a jump. I can't remember!

 

[Thondor]

Oh, I'm just shooting the breeze. I'm not writing a setting; that was just a thing that occurred to me so I posted thinking aloud. Just a fun conversation.

Thanks for the clarification

I think Sarah Newton's novels deal with this. It's actually quite a cool sci-fi concept. You don't know in advance you'll develop FTL first, so imagine travelling for generations only to discover you've arrived at a fully-fledged human civilization.

There are also a host of stories that don't have this happen. Firefly off the top of my head (although official sources are sort of cloudy).

Theirs a lot of possibilities with stories where one culture discovers FTL and another hasn't. In this case you can even have the "different" culture be from the same species, or not, as you choose.

Ideally, you'd probably want your rulebook to inspire both possibilities.