Technological and Scientific Predictions

From here.

[E]ngineers working on quantum computing at both Google and IBM say that a quantum “dream machine” capable of solving computing’s most vexing problems might still be decades away. 

So much for all the hype about Quantum Computers. Press accounts always wildly overstate the progress of scientific discoveries, technology etc. Quantum Computers are just around the corner? No one will be driving cars soon? Earth-like planets are being discovered left, right and centre? Conscious robots indistinguishable from humans will soon be here? We'll soon be able to upload our consciousness to computers and achieve immortality? Man will soon land on Mars? The singularity is almost upon us?

It's all nonsense. All of it. Be very cynical of reports of rapid technological progress.



Conscious robots? Well, for a kick off they're assuming that brains produce consciousness.  So if brains can do this, and we replicate their function, then we should, in principle, be able to eventually have conscious computers too. But how do we know that brains produce consciousness?



I stress to add that I do think certain technological breakthroughs will eventually happen. Autonomous cars for example. I predicted 4 years ago that all cars on the roads will be autonomous by 2060. But 2060! That's a long time away. Also I think Virtually Reality will eventually completely change everything.

Underdetermination of Scientific Theory

How do we make sense of change in the world? We need to dream up a theory that explains what we see. We can understand why the black dots move in the way they do if we hypothesize that the dots reside on the apexes of invisible moving equilateral triangles. We might not be able to perceive the triangles, perhaps not even in principle, but we can confidently infer their existence.

But wait!

The movement of the black dots is equally explicable if we imagine the dots reside at the apexes of invisible moving squares. Or, if they are moving along the lines constituting a star shape. If we are unable, perhaps even in principle, of perceiving any of these shapes, then how could we know which theory is correct? Indeed, perhaps none of them are?


Likewise, change in our world is accounted for by the existence and interactions of subatomic particles. We cannot see these particles, not even in principle, but we can infer their existence, just as we can infer triangles for the movement of the black dots. So, does this mean that what we see with our naked eyes could appeal to quite different entities to explain what we see? I think so.


This is a problem in science since all possible evidence we could have radically underdetermines which theory is the correct one. This is called the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence. It also invites the question of whether our theories that utilize entities that can never be directly observed, actually depict a literal state of affairs.