Random posts

[PC101]

[PC101]

[Moosey]

python fans might appreciate this:

monty camel.PNG (60.4 KiB) Viewed 5161 times

[goldenratio]

Chromebooks are bad

Fun fact: nobody in the forums ever wrote "chromebook" as a word until now

Also how is the VesselLife topic still my most active topic? How much did I possibly contribute?

[Hunting]

Chromebooks are bad

Fun fact: nobody in the forums ever wrote "chromebook" as a word until now

Also how is the VesselLife topic still my most active topic? How much did I possibly contribute?

Well you did bumped it and advertised it a lot

VesselLife is overrated

(No offense)

python fans might appreciate this:
monty camel.PNG

C'mon let's scream very loudly

Code: Select all

,.Ajax,.Puck,.Act I:.Scene I:.[Exeunt][Enter Ajax and Puck]
Ajax:You is the sum ofthe cube ofa big big cat a cat.Speak thy.Let usAct I.

@JP21 Eponym

Pony is supposedly the eponym of eponym

[goldenratio]

IMO basically every isotropic rule with 3+ pages on the OCA board is overrated

Except maybe snowflakes or ATPP

[wwei23]

Me in 2015 playing with an online Life editor: Why isn't my table-on-table working?

Code: Select all

x=5, y=3, rule=B3/S23
ooboo$bobo$ooboo!

[goldenratio]

x0_thismakesaglider

Code: Select all

x = 16, y = 5, rule = B3/S23
2o9bobobo$2bob2obobo2bob2o$o2b2ob3o2bob2o$o2bobob3o3b3o$5obobob3o2bo!

[goldenratio]

New York City is closer to Greenland than California.
St. Petersburg is closer to Boston than the other side of Russia.
Houston is closer to the Hudson Bay than Puerto Rico.
West Africa is closer to Florida than the other side of Africa.
And guess which European country is closest to the US? Iceland.

(sorry I have a new interest in geography)
Also random posts is now my most active topic

[Entity Valkyrie 2]

New York City is closer to Greenland than California.
St. Petersburg is closer to Boston than the other side of Russia.
Houston is closer to the Hudson Bay than Puerto Rico.
West Africa is closer to Florida than the other side of Africa.
And guess which European country is closest to the US? Iceland.

(sorry I have a new interest in geography)
Also random posts is now my most active topic

Natal in Brazil is closer to Dakar in West Africa than western Brazil.
Batman in Turkey is closer to Jerusalem than Istanbul.
Melbourne is closer to Antarctica than Darwin.

[Saka]

[gameoflifemaniac]

Congratulations Saka for creating the most popular topic on the whole site!

[MathAndCode]

This is what I originally thought was meant by the snark being color-preserving and the syringe-based reflector that I included being color-changing.

Code: Select all

x = 79, y = 100, rule = Immigration
75.A$73.3A$35.2A11.A6.2A15.A$35.2A10.A.A4.A2.A14.2A$47.A.A3.A.3A2.2A$
46.2A.2A.A.A6.A$50.A.A3.2A3.A.A$46.2A.A2.4A.A4.2A$46.2A.A.A3.A$50.A.A
3.A$51.A.A3.A$52.A3.2A14.A$71.A.A$72.A2$43.2A11.B$43.2A9.3B$28.2A24.B
.B$27.A2.A23.B$26.A.2A42.2A$26.A45.2A$25.2A$40.2A$40.A$41.3A$43.A5.2A
$48.A.A$48.A$47.2A$25.2B$24.B.B$26.B44.2A$49.A3.2A16.A.A$49.A5.A17.A$
49.A.A3.A17.2A$50.2A.2A4.2A$50.3A6.A.A$50.3A8.A$61.2A$3.2A$4.A$2.A$2.
5A14.2A46.B$7.A13.A45.3B$4.3A12.A.A44.B$3.A15.2A45.2B$3.4A$.2A3.A3.2A
$A2.3A4.2A62.2B$2A.A71.B$3.A71.B.2B$3.2A62.2B4.3B2.B$67.2B3.B3.2B$72.
4B$11.2A45.2B15.B$12.A44.B.B12.3B$9.3A45.B13.B$9.A46.2B14.5B$76.B$74.
B$74.2B$16.2B$17.B8.3B$17.B.B6.3B$18.2B4.2B.2B$4.2B17.B3.B.B$5.B17.B5.
B$5.B.B16.2B3.B$6.2B44.A$52.A.A$52.2A$30.2B$30.B$28.B.B$28.2B5.B$35.3B
$38.B$37.2B$52.2B$5.2B45.B$5.2B42.2B.B$24.A23.B2.B$22.A.A24.2B$22.3A9.
2B$22.A11.2B2$6.B$5.B.B$6.B14.2B3.B$21.B3.B.B$22.B3.B.B$23.B3.B.B.2B$
15.2B4.B.4B2.B.2B$15.B.B3.2B3.B.B$17.B6.B.B.2B.2B$17.2B2.3B.B3.B.B$5.
2B14.B2.B4.B.B10.2B$6.B15.2B6.B11.2B$3.3B$3.B!

python fans might appreciate this:
monty camel.PNG

Many questions can be answered that way. Assyria had seven capitals.

x0_thismakesaglider

x0_thismakesagliderandblinker
x0_thismakesagliderandaship
x0_this makes a loaf and sparks
x0_thisbecomestwentysevencells
x0_thisbecomestwenty-sevencells
x0_this becomes a block
x0_this becomes four cells
x0_this becomes seven cells
x0_this makes two types of objects
x0_thismakestwotypesofobjects
x0_thismakesblocksandaglider
x0_this makes a honey farm and a loaf

[SquishyBoi]

as i'm writing this

3 posts in the forums include the word "yeet"
6 posts in the forums include the word "television"
10 posts in the forums include the word "bruh"
14 posts in the forums include the word "duck"
88 posts in the forums include the word "meme"
264 posts in the forums include the word "mango"
360 posts in the forums include the word "sandbox"
448 posts in the forums include the word "lol"
623 posts in the forums include the word "loafer"
644 posts in the forums include the word "wickstretcher"
782 posts in the forums include the word "cordership"
809 posts in the forums include the word "wick"
1775 posts in the forums include the word "blinker"
1802 posts in the forums include the word "conway"
2309 posts in the forums include the word "rake"
2808 posts in the forums include the word "people"
3453 posts in the forums include the word "yes"
3510 posts in the forums include the word "puffer"
3772 posts in the forums include the word "automata"
5733 posts in the forums include the word "oscillator"
5944 posts in the forums include the word "block"
9065 posts in the forums include the word "spaceship"
9805 posts in the forums include the word "b3"
11119 posts in the forums include the word "no"
13912 posts in the forums include the word "glider"
19405 posts in the forums include the word "so"
22630 posts in the forums include the word "have"
29288 posts in the forums include the word "but"
32816 posts in the forums include the word "be"
43104 posts in the forums include the word "that"
45530 posts in the forums include the word "for"
45685 posts in the forums include the word "and"
46009 posts in the forums include the word "in"

and probably the most common i could find using the search bar without saying it was too common to be searched for is..

46028 posts in the forums include the word "it"

[PC101]

⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠⃠









































































ٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴI ٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴI ٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴٴI

[MathAndCode]

For any discipline, people cannot make new discoveries until they have learned (or taught themselves) a certain baseline of facts that all new discoveries must be based on. If they try to discover right away, then they will simply be rediscovering what is already known.
It will take any individual a nonzero amount of time to learn all of these baseline facts.
As each generation discovers more facts, this baseline becomes ever-higher, so it will take each generation longer to reach the edge of the current body of knowledge and be able to go beyond that, i.e. discover new things.
Humans have a finite lifespan before they die.
Therefore, each discipline has a knowledge cap above which humans cannot discover new things because they will not have enough time in their lives to learn everything below that.

[praosylen]

For any discipline, people cannot make new discoveries until they have learned (or taught themselves) a certain baseline of facts that all new discoveries must be based on. If they try to discover right away, then they will simply be rediscovering what is already known.
It will take any individual a nonzero amount of time to learn all of these baseline facts.
As each generation discovers more facts, this baseline becomes ever-higher, so it will take each generation longer to reach the edge of the current body of knowledge and be able to go beyond that, i.e. discover new things.
Humans have a finite lifespan before they die.
Therefore, each discipline has a knowledge cap above which humans cannot discover new things because they will not have enough time in their lives to learn everything below that.

The key assumption there is that humans have a finite lifespan bounded at all times by some constant value — if humans' maximum lifespan is continually increasing as humanity's knowledge level does (which may well be plausible, depending on how medical knowledge specifically advances), even if no individual human has an infinite lifespan the body of all human knowledge may not necessarily have a maximum size, or at least governed by lifespan. (Although at some point I would imagine a human brain couldn't store enough knowledge to make advances... but I suspect transhumanism would ruin my argument long before that would..)

[PC101]

For any discipline, people cannot make new discoveries until they have learned (or taught themselves) a certain baseline of facts that all new discoveries must be based on. If they try to discover right away, then they will simply be rediscovering what is already known.
It will take any individual a nonzero amount of time to learn all of these baseline facts.
As each generation discovers more facts, this baseline becomes ever-higher, so it will take each generation longer to reach the edge of the current body of knowledge and be able to go beyond that, i.e. discover new things.
Humans have a finite lifespan before they die.
Therefore, each discipline has a knowledge cap above which humans cannot discover new things because they will not have enough time in their lives to learn everything below that.

The key assumption there is that humans have a finite lifespan bounded at all times by some constant value — if humans' maximum lifespan is continually increasing as humanity's knowledge level does (which may well be plausible, depending on how medical knowledge specifically advances), even if no individual human has an infinite lifespan the body of all human knowledge may not necessarily have a maximum size, or at least governed by lifespan. (Although at some point I would imagine a human brain couldn't store enough knowledge to make advances... but I suspect transhumanism would ruin my argument long before that would..)

Even if a human's maximum lifespan is continually increasing, if the rate of the increase is slower than the rate of discovery then we will still reach and possible surpass the point where lifespan < amount of knowledge in a particular subject, but it will just take a little longer relatively speaking to reach that limit.

Also, we don't know if we know all there is to know. If we could accurately predict the future we could determine how many discoveries are left for us. If there aren't that many discoveries left in the future (relatively speaking), and if we discover all there is to discover, and we finally know that we know everything there is to know before we reach that limit, then we wouldn't have to worry about that limit. We would probably only need to worry about increasing the maximum lifespan of a human to increase the amount of time they have that isn't learning about previous discoveries.

We would also have to worry about preserving history and the knowledge of the discoveries themselves. We have already invented technology that can preserve knowledge for thousands of years, and maybe more. But if knowledge is lost to a certain degree, we won't be able to know if we already discovered something or not, and if we haven't we would hesitate to do so because we don't know if someone else has already done it. The burning of the Library of Alexandria is an example of knowledge we can't find or discover/re-discover because records the knowledge itself is lost to history. IMO, we have to make sure that in the future something like the burning of the Library of Alexandria doesn't happen if we don't want to slow or even halt the rate of discovery.

(I hope I said my points correctly)

[wwei23]

Well, computer searches are much faster, there's no real reason why one can't be connected to a database of known stuff to check if stuff is known.

[Moosey]

For any discipline, people cannot make new discoveries until they have learned (or taught themselves) a certain baseline of facts that all new discoveries must be based on. If they try to discover right away, then they will simply be rediscovering what is already known.
It will take any individual a nonzero amount of time to learn all of these baseline facts.
As each generation discovers more facts, this baseline becomes ever-higher, so it will take each generation longer to reach the edge of the current body of knowledge and be able to go beyond that, i.e. discover new things.
Humans have a finite lifespan before they die.
Therefore, each discipline has a knowledge cap above which humans cannot discover new things because they will not have enough time in their lives to learn everything below that.

The key assumption there is that humans have a finite lifespan bounded at all times by some constant value — if humans' maximum lifespan is continually increasing as humanity's knowledge level does (which may well be plausible, depending on how medical knowledge specifically advances), even if no individual human has an infinite lifespan the body of all human knowledge may not necessarily have a maximum size, or at least governed by lifespan. (Although at some point I would imagine a human brain couldn't store enough knowledge to make advances... but I suspect transhumanism would ruin my argument long before that would..)

transhumanism would probably be necessary for lifespans to inflate to arbitrary length anyways

I doubt there is a knowledge cap, because if it existed it would probably be much farther along than discoveries that would loophole their way around said cap.

Speaking of transhumanism, the wikipedia article is fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

[Layz Boi]

You wouldn't have to extend ones life span nearly as much if they could simply learn at a much faster rate. You could also teach some individuals more in less time, if lessons were tailored for them, instead of the lowest-common denominator. Jacob Barnett comes to mind.

I suppose it also should be considered, how you're extending someone's life span. How are you affecting their brain in particularly? Because peoples' cognitive abilities in general are on a significant decline after middle age. Keeping a brain alive in a jar, hooked up to a machine body would become moot at some point, if the sole intention is that they'd be some great scientist after 1,000 years.

Even if the brain is some how kept young and plastic in a human body, only so many neurons can fit inside that skull.

[MathAndCode]

The key assumption there is that humans have a finite lifespan bounded at all times by some constant value — if humans' maximum lifespan is continually increasing as humanity's knowledge level does (which may well be plausible, depending on how medical knowledge specifically advances), even if no individual human has an infinite lifespan the body of all human knowledge may not necessarily have a maximum size, or at least governed by lifespan. (Although at some point I would imagine a human brain couldn't store enough knowledge to make advances... but I suspect transhumanism would ruin my argument long before that would..)

You bring up a good point with medical advances. I figured that human lifespan would be bounded by the Hayflick limit if nothing sooner, but with new DNA-editing technology, humanity may be able to pass that. However, if humanity develops an indefinitely long lifespan, that poses the risk of overpopulation unless the population develops birth control, and I'm sure that other questions will be raised as well.
Your idea of the human brain storing enough knowledge to make advances is also a good point, although I doubt that we' re as close to that limit as we are to the lifespan limit. The idea of limitations on the human brain also brings up the possibility of senility and dementia placing the same limit on how long people have to make discoveries, but a society medically advanced enough to postpone death for arbitrarily long can likely also deal with those.

Even if a human's maximum lifespan is continually increasing, if the rate of the increase is slower than the rate of discovery then we will still reach and possible surpass the point where lifespan < amount of knowledge in a particular subject, but it will just take a little longer relatively speaking to reach that limit.

The problem with that is that the closer we get to the postulated knowledge cap, the less time each generation will have to discover new things, so the rate of increase of knowledge will slow. In an ideal simulation, even if the maximum lifespan is static, humanity will never reach the knowledge cap, but the distance between will decay exponentially.

Also, we don't know if we know all there is to know. If we could accurately predict the future we could determine how many discoveries are left for us. If there aren't that many discoveries left in the future (relatively speaking), and if we discover all there is to discover, and we finally know that we know everything there is to know before we reach that limit, then we wouldn't have to worry about that limit. We would probably only need to worry about increasing the maximum lifespan of a human to increase the amount of time they have that isn't learning about previous discoveries.

Ah, yes; the same ideas as in your signature. History appears to have shown that answering questions typically raises more new questions than were answered. We might reach that point in some fields (although I doubt it), but there are some fields where I'm pretty sure that that will never happen.

We would also have to worry about preserving history and the knowledge of the discoveries themselves. We have already invented technology that can preserve knowledge for thousands of years, and maybe more. But if knowledge is lost to a certain degree, we won't be able to know if we already discovered something or not, and if we haven't we would hesitate to do so because we don't know if someone else has already done it. The burning of the Library of Alexandria is an example of knowledge we can't find or discover/re-discover because records the knowledge itself is lost to history. IMO, we have to make sure that in the future something like the burning of the Library of Alexandria doesn't happen if we don't want to slow or even halt the rate of discovery.

In the era of electronic preservation of technology, losing information isn't a problem. Searching through all of the pieces of knowledge to figure out whether or not something has already been discovered might become a problem, but I don't think that that will be likely due to technological advancements.

You wouldn't have to extend ones life span nearly as much if they could simply learn at a much faster rate. You could also teach some individuals more in less time, if lessons were tailored for them, instead of the lowest-common denominator.

Yes; better educational methods and specialization are two things that I already thought of that could extend the knowledge cap, but I believe that each can only do so much.

[praosylen]

Buy some today from www.septunicates.com!

[Saka]

tunicates are so cool, thanks for reminding me they exist.

[Moosey]

been aa, some asinine loveless term.