From: cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Subject: Re: so called cyberspace conferences
Date: 17 Dec 90 18:01:55 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science



In article <1990Dec15.073629.20435@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> sharp@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucalg
ary.ca (Maurice Sharp) writes:
>
>Hiya,
>
>    A reply to the reply...
>
>In article <12979@milton.u.washington.edu> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) wri
t
>es:
>>
>>
>>In article <1990Dec13.093343.8402@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> sharp@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucal
g
>a
>[stuff about ref to how information technology develops]
>>
>>We just got an off-scale reading on the good ol' bogometer here.  70 years?
>
>Sorry, my mistake, the actual quote is (p 392) :
>
>"The line of product innovation marks the practical availability of
>the various stages of new technology, and it lags the line of
>invention by 16 years, and in its turn is lagged by the line of low
>cost products by 16 years. Thus there is a 16-year gap between
>invention and significant application, and a 32-year gap between
>invention and mass production"

Okay, that's better.  But I still want to know - where does he get his
numbers? (sorry, no time to read the paper)  Does he make a list of
revolutionary inventions, and average them, noting that the standard
deviation is sufficiently small to make his conclusions statistically
valid?  Or does he read some computer history books, say, "hmm, 16, 32, nice
round numbers, seems like things go about that speed?"  Is this science, or
just plain numerology?  Even great men are sucked into such traps, when
there are no facts around to work with.  Not sure if I have the astronomer
right, but I think Kepler spent many of his later years looking at the
numerological consequences of his theories.

>First, yes it is 50 years, 1940 as the start time. Second, the 'Gaines
>guy' as you put it is TOP in his field (Knowledge Acquisition), and a
>recognized expert on social effects of technology. Not exactly a
>freshwater professor, unless you call a PhD. from Cambridge
>freshwater. And as to vague stages, I am sure most of your stuff looks
>vague when quoted. Try reading the paper, that is how research and
>science works.

As I say, I don't really have time to read the paper.  So I'll just strain
your patience by asking you to defend it.  As for the qualifications...
well, Joan Quigley is one of the top people in astrology these days.  But
would you buy a used car from her?  Your argument is ad hominem in the
reverse direction.

And sure, my stuff is vague.  Part of it is because I don't have time or
space to define all my terms.  But mostly it's because I'm trying to present
a meta-theory: that all theorizing about this subject is inherently bullshit.

>
>As to the other stuff you presented. Try reading the paper before
>commenting on the vague terms. Perhaps the key factor I left out is
>why thing have followed cycles as described. Take your example of
>hardware development.

no, No, NO!  This is NOT the scientific method.  There are two methods of
doing science: the inductive, and the deductive.  Since the 1800s, the
deductive method has been abandoned for everything except mathematically
provable sciences - that is to say, math and physics.  In all fields where
propositions cannot be stated in mathematical terms, it is necessary to use
the inductive method.  So we can't ask "why?", only "what" and "whether."

>
>If you plot the devices per chip versus year as a linear graph, you
>get almost nothing from 1956 to 1980. Then it curves up like crazy.
>This makes it look like there was one innovation. This is just not
>true. If you plot it as a series of linear graphs, taking each major
>change in density as breaking points, it clearly shows several
>innovations. 1956-1959 0 to 1 device, 1959-1964 1 to 20 devices,
>1964-1972 20 to 5,000 devices, 1972-1980 5,000 to 500,000 devices,
>1980-1988 500,000 to 20,000,000 devices. A slight adjustment in point
>of view, and bingo, the idea makes more sence.
>
>The bottom line is, if you take the stages given, you can show a
>revolutionary change in every generation of computers (the 5 above,
>now the 6th).
>

Bollocks.  Gaines is looking at things bass-ackwards; he's only seeing the
results, not the causes.  "0 to 1 device, 1 to 20 devices" is not an
innovation, or even a "breaking point."  "Development of an ultraviolet
photolithographer" is an innovation.  Now if you want to look at chip
densities... the history of increasing integration is the history of
developments in condensed matter physics, and chemical and mechanical
engineering.  These are fields which move extremely smoothly.  There hasn't
been just one innovation in ICs since 1956; there haven't been six.  More
like six thousand.  This is an inherently evolutionary field which has been
advancing at a continuously exponential rate for a long time, and shows no
signs of stopping.  Gaines's theory of "revolutionary change" bites the dust
on this one, and it makes me very suspicious of him; I know next to nothing
about condensed matter physics, but I am beginning to get this creeping
feeling that Gaines wouldn't know a chip if he sat on one.

>The paper even predicts cyberspace/vr ideas, before there was even a
>conference !!

So did Gibson.  And what does Gibson know about computers?  Nothing, by his
own admission.
>
>>falsifiable - which means they're meaningless.  Read Popper.
>
>I have read Popper, and I like it :-) I am suprised that you did not
>get a copy of a paper before criticising it. Read it, he presents the
>argument in more detail, and more convincingly than I can.

Sorry, no time.  Obviously I'm missing something - Gaines can't be that dumb.
But then again I'm in a terribly optimistic mood this morning...

>
>The bottom line is it is still too early for hard theories of
>cyberspace and VR. Wait for 10 or 15 years, then we may see some.
>Until then, we will have to be happy with design principles. More an
>art of cyberspace/VR creation than a science.

Well, I partially agree.  It's not a science.  But I don't think we'll ever
see any theories.  Maybe it's just my cold, cynical heart coming back to
haunt me...

>        maurice
>2500 University Drive N.W.            sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA

Curtis

"I tried living in the real world
 Instead of a shell
 But I was bored before I even began." - The Smiths