The Frontiers of Science

Physics has evolved from a discipline accessible to a postal clerk to one demanding billions of dollars and countless advanced degrees. Yet, the field seems merely to append footnotes to previous discoveries without making real progress. This stagnation extends beyond physics; electromagnetism has been understood since 1873, DNA since 1878, and general relativity since 1915. Concepts of computing emerged in the 1800s with the Difference Engine, and even AI has roots in earlier centuries.

While the technologies built upon this foundational knowledge have advanced significantly, the underlying scientific principles remain unchanged.

The ongoing commodification of science misleads us into believing that fundamental advancements are taking place, but that is not the case. Modern innovations such as aircraft, communication systems, weaponry, medicine, and smartphones are merely applications of scientific principles established over a century ago. The iPhone 14 contains no new physics, much like the millionth obsidian arrowhead. While we may have improved our skills, our understanding remains stagnant.

We have developed numerous tools, yet our conception of possibilities has not expanded. Our inability to create what we cannot envision indicates a collapse of imagination that began last century.

Even contemporary technology lacks fundamental innovation. Electric cars and solar panels have existed since the 1800s, and modern rocketry has its origins in the 1920s. Twitter resembles a rudimentary telegraph, and aviation peaked with the Concorde, which then saw a decline. A time traveler from the past would likely recognize and be disappointed by our technological advancements.

All that exists today could have been envisioned in the previous century, and indeed, they imagined even better alternatives. The absence of flying cars and lunar colonies is a significant failure. Our stagnation is starkly illustrated in our science fiction; films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Back to the Future II are set in a past that lacks any sign of the promised future.

Science has ground to a halt, imposing severe physical limitations on the technologies we can develop. Consider the phenomenon of light; our understanding has yielded increasingly efficient (if often less aesthetically pleasing) applications. However, this comprehension also imposes physical constraints on efficiency improvements, which are nearing their limits.

The efficiency of lighting cannot improve substantially, and the last incremental advancements demand significantly more effort. Even newer technologies, such as solar panels, are approaching their efficiency ceilings. Any emerging technology, like artificial photosynthesis, will also face similar limitations in physics.

In Three Body Problem, extraterrestrial beings wield a more advanced physics, enabling them to manipulate protons to encode a supercomputer within. This diminutive AI is their means of disruption on Earth, with the aliens mocking humanity by referring to them as 'bugs.' As the (fictional) scientist Ding Yi reiterates:

"I wish to highlight this fact: A civilization's technological progress is marked by its capacity to harness and manipulate micro dimensions. Utilizing fundamental particles without engaging with these dimensions is a practice our primitive ancestors began with rudimentary fire. Controlling chemical reactions merely involves manipulating micro particles without addressing the micro dimensions. Of course, this control has evolved from basic to sophisticated: from bonfires to steam engines and then to generators. At present, our ability to manipulate micro particles at the macro level has peaked: we possess computers and nanomaterials. Yet, this has been achieved without unlocking the myriad micro dimensions. To a more advanced civilization, bonfires, computers, and nanomaterials are not fundamentally different; they all represent the same tier. That’s why they perceive humans as mere bugs. Unfortunately, I think they are correct."

In another part of the narrative, Shen Yufei observes a bug on a window:

"Look at it. It strives tirelessly, climbing over bricks, steel, and glass. Through the glass, it sees you and me. It believes it cannot enter because it hasn't yet discovered a crack. It is convinced that a crack must exist. I could provide it with a crack. But it has no other options."

Physics (especially the speed of light) serves as the unyielding barrier confining us within the universe, thermodynamics, and time. We perceive the potential to transcend these limitations, convinced that a crack in the glass must exist somewhere, yet we are fundamentally as trapped as the bug on the window, and equally susceptible to being squashed.

Beyond the Frontiers of Science

I have discussed the physical, financial, and mathematical constraints on growth on Earth, often referred to as the impending collapse of industrial civilization. While I could elaborate further, I recommend Murphy’s textbook, which systematically analyzes all the mathematics, physics, and existing technologies. However, what if we discover new physics? Or acquire it from extraterrestrial sources? What if we access other dimensions and uncover energy that surpasses the nuclear force? Could we harness that energy to expel waste and heat from our planet and colonize the solar system? If we accept the current physical limits as immutable, can we disregard the potential for future physics breakthroughs?

Well, no. We lack knowledge of what those physics might entail. Historically, humanity has a tendency to weaponize new discoveries, which does not bode well. Theoretically, new theories could rejuvenate basic science, fundamentally alter our worldviews, and allow us to wreak further havoc. As Murphy states, "if energy became essentially unlimited through some technology, I shudder to think about the implications for our planet."

While I have attempted to illustrate that the doors to infinite growth are firmly shut, this is one door that must remain ajar. Perhaps a rabbit will emerge from a hat to reignite the magic show after the allure of magic rocks (electromagnetism and radioactivity) wears off. I may not be alone in acknowledging that basic science has stagnated (it has), but even I must concede that a revival is conceivable, albeit improbable. As Murphy observes:

"Having witnessed several rabbits appearing from the hat in the realm of lighting technology, we are conditioned to anticipate more. This will remain true until it no longer is. One way to frame this is that six rabbits do not imply an infinite supply. We should celebrate each new rabbit, but we must not base our future on an endless stream of them."

To me, it is statistically and ethically misguided to believe in infinite rabbits yielding infinite growth, yet it remains a possibility. There may indeed be new physics waiting to be discovered.

I conclude this section not with optimism but with trepidation regarding the potential for new scientific breakthroughs. I no longer view science as inherently 'good'; rather, it is a tool that can be wielded for constructive or destructive purposes. We can use a hammer to build a roof or inflict harm, and new science is often immediately applied to violence. The notion that individuals (particularly Americans) who have unleashed nuclear weapons on civilian populations should be entrusted with even greater power is alarming, not reassuring. The idea of continuing to exploit every other species for growth is equally unsettling. As you may gather, I would likely join the Frontiers of Science, were it not for the alien veneration. To hell with the aliens and the science they bring.

While I acknowledge the potential for groundbreaking scientific discoveries, I question who will lead these discoveries. I suspect that shareholders will persist in developing AI, even if the resultant waste heat suffocates us, relentlessly pursuing growth. But who will they be solving problems for? Addressing the growth dilemma for corporations diverges significantly from tackling it for animals (including humans). If corporate AI 'solves' the growth issue, the vast majority of humanity could find themselves akin to bugs on a windshield.

Ironically, corporate AI is also centuries old, predating the slowdown of scientific progress. But that’s a different narrative.