You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 05 2025 at 16:07):I've been consistently impressed by the philosophy of category theorists, including Mac Lane, Lawvere, and now recently Grothendieck (in particular this essay "The New Universal Church"). This general impression of philosophical competence amongst category theorists got me brave enough to ask this question.
When I think about music, "beauty" is supported by "reason". When I think about science "reason/empiricism" is supported by "beauty". Both these aspects are very important to me, in both activities.
When I prioritize "beauty", There's a risk my understanding regresses into making "mystical" mistakes. A representative example includes believeing any conclusions I make, are simply reinterpretations of ancient thinker's ideas (prisca sapientia). Training in the "classics" often has this value as a subtext, or even a supertext.
Scientific thought out grew this by solving ancient scientific problems. So one solution to avoiding mystical thinking, is to throw out beauty first thinking entirely, by sticking to the subject that got itself sorted.
Personally, I can't throw out beauty first thinking. When folks claim songs are "merely" fun to listen to, or are an evolutionary accident, I defend them as ways to understand life.
But I don't want to indulge in the deepest mistakes of mystical thinking either.
I'm not a philosopher, but my superficial impression is Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and even Grothendieck, essentially summarized my struggle as a difficulty with "scientism". But, it seems they mainly stated the problem.
Are folks aware of notable thinkers, books, or courses that discuss how to "think with less scientism, but still carefully"?
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 16:57):I've never read this essay "A New Universal Church". Can you point me to it?
I think the best scientists have never been "scientistic" in the sense of falling into the trap of "scientism" - by which I guess you mean the trap of thinking that all important questions can be settled by the methods that science has managed to formalize so far.
A lot of the best ones carefully extended science into questions that seemed beyond the reach of science. "Carefully" in the sense that they managed to tackle new topics, not biting off too much more than they could chew. (The later Newton, and the later Grothendieck, seem to have bitten off more than they could chew.)
Also, a lot of the best scientists have been keenly aware of the importance of beauty.
So, I think one good way to learn to "think with less scientism, but still carefully" is to study people like Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin, Einstein, etc. They didn't spend most of their time talking about how to think better - although they did some of that too. They were mainly busy trying to actually do it. So I try to learn from what they actually did.
Short of actually reading their papers, it seems one reasonably good way to do this is read detailed biographies that talk about these people's work.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 05 2025 at 17:12):I found out about "A New Universal Church" from Wikipedia's article on Scientism, which linked this: https://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/univ.pdf
What little clarity I got on my question was after a small bit of science History. I'm not a historian so I'm always a bit nervous trying to figure it out on my own, but I'll keep going in the absence of more accessible options.
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 17:22):I find the detailed study of the lives and work of specific exemplary individuals more inspiring than studying science history "in general", though that's good too. For example after I understood quantum mechanics and general relativity I reread Abraham Pais' biography of Einstein, which goes into great detail of how Einstein figured things out, and I was struck by how Einstein's many shocking discoveries weren't the result of magic or divine inspiration, but very persistently assembling the key bits of evidence, thinking about them very carefully, being willing to drop assumptions everyone else took for granted, being utterly convinced that nature is beautiful, and being completely unwilling to accept as fundamental a theory that's not beautiful.
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 17:24):I mention this because you talk about "beauty first thinking". Einstein wrote:
The ideals that have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. Without the sense of kinship with men of like mind, without the occupation with the objective world, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific endeavors, life would have seemed empty to me. The trite objects of human efforts -- possessions, outward success, luxury -- have always seemed to me contemptible.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 05 2025 at 17:26):Thank you for the recommendation, I'll check it out, and that is encouraging.
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 17:27):Unfortunately if you don't know quantum mechanics and general relativity quite well, Pais' biography of Einstein will just seem bewildering and a bit dull. That was my first experience of reading it. So I wasn't actually recommending it.
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 17:29):It's difficult reading, because you watch Einstein slowly fighting his way through some difficult puzzles, without the benefit of the beautiful theory that came later.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 05 2025 at 17:31):Coming from you that somehow makes it sound both more compelling and intimidating.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 05 2025 at 17:32):It's good motivation to understand general relativity and quantum mechanics more deeply.
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 17:51):There could be biographies of scientists that explain their working methods without sinking into a morass of detail, but Pais was Einstein's assistant at the Institute for Advanced Studies, and he wanted to completely document all the details of what Einstein did, which was an excellent thing for him to do.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 05 2025 at 17:53):It sounds like a nice book to have, even if it's hard to understand
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 17:55):When I was young I venerated Einstein but I never thought much about how he figured things out - it just seemed magic. So, it was great to learn that no, the ideas didn't just come to him by magic, he was just tons better than most of us at following the clues. This made me respect him even more!
John Baez (Aug 05 2025 at 18:17):Not to be mysterious, the book is called Subtle is the Lord.
And digressing still further, two other things I learned from it are:
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 06 2025 at 14:01):I thought about what you wrote here. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your commentary was very helpful.
John Baez (Aug 06 2025 at 14:16):Thanks! Grothendieck's essay A new universal church was interesting.
I'm still hoping other people will give other answers to your question.
Kevin Carlson (Aug 06 2025 at 16:58):I don’t really understand what “thinking with scientism” would mean. It seems to me that scientism is at best a way to avoid thinking. Are you really drawing a connection between scientism and a bias towards beauty?
Kevin Carlson (Aug 06 2025 at 17:01):Yeah, I think I don’t have quite enough to hang onto here as you’ve phrased it. You’ve named some very different philosophers and summarized certain of their arguments in a single word that I’m not sure any of them actually used. Maybe you could point to some more particular “statements of the question” if this question still feels live to you?
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 06 2025 at 17:23):I guess here's what I think a concrete example of this looks like.
I got very interested in "Digital audio workstations" when I was younger. In particular I enjoyed being able to synthesize sounds, and imagining the possibilities it added to my music.
But when I talked to people about the sort of features they thought were really cool in these tools, it was stuff like "undo", "copy and paste", "rhythm machines", "pitch correct", etc.
This raised alarm bells in my head, but I couldn't articulate why until many years later. I figured maybe I was being a Luddite.
When machine learning based statistical models of songs came out, In a way I actually felt less alarmed than other people, because "the danger" it portended seemed to already be here from my point of view.
Folks were already trying to avoid making a song themselves. They were assuming the parts of music making they didn't like could simply be replaced by a sufficiently sophisticated technology.
To me this is a special case of "thinking with scientism". Technology is replacing musical thinking rather than supporting musical thinking.
Machine learning song systems, that make a song given a sentence - to me, look like the obvious advancement of this attitude.
In my mind, making music as a way of understanding the world, is being assaulted by this attitude.
So, assuming I believe this, what do I do?
The "obvious but wrong" choice is to give up technology entirely and live on a farm. That is, adopt an extremely regressive life style and world view. That's the analog here for "mystical thinking".
I don't want to assume there's something intrinsically magic about music the AI isn't doing, but I also don't want to give up perspectives musical thinking provides. For whatever reason, it seems too easy to be black and white about this.
The essay Grothendieck wrote, in my opinion, anticipates this. For example the music writing technology becomes an implicit record of the technology maker's assumptions about what music is. Which is fine, but if we culturally decide it's where most of our music should come from, perhaps by using only a handful of AI models in most social services - then it creates an "elite in charge" of music, that don't necessarily know much about music. That's how I see this connected to scientism as he defines it.
But I'm not trying to solve that big problem, I'm just trying to look for advice on navigating this tension. Baez's answer to study Einstein's life, and that it's okay to keep beauty at the center, is a really nice answer to this question.
But I still think other folks could have nice things to add.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 06 2025 at 17:33):In particular though, I'm assuming folks responded to, or expanded on Grothendieck's thoughts in that essay for example.
I was hopeful someone might be aware of responses, or a larger academic context I could explore, to help me articulate and develop my thoughts on this more. I like how category theorists think about these issues, I wouldn't have brought this up if I didn't see Grothendieck's essay.
John Baez (Aug 06 2025 at 19:36):Kevin Carlson said:
Are you really drawing a connection between scientism and a bias towards beauty?
I thought @Alex Kreitzberg was claiming the opposite: that scientism leads to prizing 'rationality', narrowly defined, at the expense of valuing beauty:
one solution to avoiding mystical thinking, is to throw out beauty first thinking entirely, by sticking to the subject that got itself sorted.
Personally, I can't throw out beauty first thinking.
Kevin Carlson (Aug 06 2025 at 20:09):Right, thanks. That’s much clearer. One major thing that helps a lot with avoiding the downsides of overly mystic approaches to scientific work is having a community. The broader the group, and more deserving of your respect, that agrees with you that something you’re thinking about is beautiful, the less likely you are to be on a wild goose chase that’ll only ever seem of value inside your own idiosyncratic mind. I think this principle applies in the arts and spirituality as much as the sciences, that this “be in community” principle is the biggest thing a lot of “cranks” are missing, and that it’s a fundamentally different attitude than a scientism which says you have to follow a particular ossified methodology or something like that.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 07 2025 at 19:00):Regarding community, Grothendieck talked a bit about "being alone", I'm assuming he's overstating how difficult it was to communicate with others right? Weren't there a lot of mathematicians who really liked Grothendieck's work while he was working?
Kevin Carlson (Aug 07 2025 at 21:08):Yes, he had a strong community in the '50s and '60s, although he decided after the fact that even some of the closest members like Deligne hadn't "really" been with him in that, for instance, Deligne was willing to finish off the Weil conjectures in a way that seemed unaesthetic (probably not a strong enough word) to Grothendieck.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 08:15):I think that even while Grothendieck worked intensively with a group of great mathematicians, lecturing to them almost every weekday, he felt they didn't "really get it" - that is, get his working methods and philosophy.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 08:23):His book Reapings and Sowings tries among other things to explain his approach to doing mathematics and how it was different from others. Anyone who really wants to understand Grothendieck has to read this.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 08:33):For example:
As I've often said, most mathematicians take refuge within a specific conceptual framework, in a "Universe" which seemingly has been fixed for all time - basically the one they encountered "ready-made" at the time when they did their studies. They may be compared to the heirs of a beautiful and capacious mansion in which all the installations and interior decorating have already been done, with its living-rooms , its kitchens, its studios, its cookery and cutlery, with everything in short, one needs to make or cook whatever one wishes. How this mansion has been constructed, laboriously over generations, and how and why this or that tool has been invented (as opposed to others which were not), why the rooms are disposed in just this fashion and not another - these are the kinds of questions which the heirs don't dream of asking . It's their "Universe", it's been given once and for all! It impresses one by virtue of its greatness, (even though one rarely makes the tour of all the rooms) yet at the same time by its familiarity, and, above all, with its immutability.
When they concern themselves with it at all, it is only to maintain or perhaps embellish their inheritance: strengthen the rickety legs of a piece of furniture, fix up the appearance of a facade, replace the parts of some instrument, even, for the more enterprising, construct, in one of its workshops, a brand new piece of furniture. Putting their heart into it, they may fabricate a beautiful object, which will serve to embellish the house still further.
Much more infrequently, one of them will dream of effecting some modification of some of the tools themselves, even, according to the demand, to the extent of making a new one. Once this is done, it is not unusual for them make all sorts of apologies, like a pious genuflection to traditional family values, which they appear to have affronted by some far-fetched innovation.
The windows and blinds are all closed in most of the rooms of this mansion, no doubt from fear of being engulfed by winds blowing from no-one knows where. And, when the beautiful new furnishings, one after another with no regard for their provenance, begin to encumber and crowd out the space of their rooms even to the extent of pouring into the corridors, not one of these heirs wish to consider the possibility that their cozy, comforting universe may be cracking at the seams. Rather than facing the matter squarely, each in his own way tries to find some way of accommodating himself, one squeezing himself in between a Louis XV chest of drawers and a rattan rocking chair, another between a moldy grotesque statue and an Egyptian sarcophagus, yet another who, driven to desperation climbs, as best he can, a huge heterogeneous collapsing pile of chairs and benches!
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 19:39):Alex Kreitzberg said:
When I think about music, "beauty" is supported by "reason". When I think about science "reason/empiricism" is supported by "beauty". Both these aspects are very important to me, in both activities.
When I prioritize "beauty", There's a risk my understanding regresses into making "mystical" mistakes. A representative example includes believing any conclusions I make, are simply reinterpretations of ancient thinker's ideas (prisca sapientia). Training in the "classics" often has this value as a subtext, or even a supertext.
Beauty is very subjective, especially when it comes to science and scientific theories. For example, many string theorists think that string theory is very beautiful. Many other physicists think that string theory is a very ugly complex mess. And string theory currently has zero empirical support so the philosophical debate over string theory's value tends to end up in aesthetics (beauty, simplicity, etc).
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 19:51):Right, but you can't throw it away when writing a song because that's generally the point of the song. Moreover, I don't believe songs are only pretty, I think they help us actually understand the world life.
If you extend your philosophy of science to music, than the natural conclusion is that music is merely aesthetic, because "that's all beauty is".
I think that's very bad, and maybe that's worth talking about.
I just know it can be easy to talk around in circles about this which is why I hoped Grothendieck had more engagement with his essay (I'll admit I'm a little disappointed there wasn't much engagement with the essay )
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 19:56):Alex Kreitzberg said:
If you extend your philosophy of science to music, than the natural conclusion is that music is merely aesthetic, because "that's all beauty is".
I don't know if you're using "you" as a synonym as "one / a person" or if you're specifically addressing me here.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:02):I should've wrote "If one extends your...", I didn't mean to imply what you believe your philosophy means in music.
I believe discrediting beauty as a general heuristic implies discrediting it in the arts, which I think is bad.
Obviously beauty isn't a perfect heuristic, especially as a postfacto justification for a failed idea.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 20:03):Alex Kreitzberg said:
I just know it can be easy to talk around in circles about this which is why I hoped Grothendieck had more engagement with his essay (I'll admit I'm a little disappointed there wasn't much engagement with the essay).
Engagement by whom - us here?
You might like to read this:
It's from a collection of chapters on Grothendieck's spirituality. I don't know who wrote them, but they're on Leila Schneps' website. (She was one of the last people to see Grothendieck alive, and she plays a big role in the Grothendieck Circle.)
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:06):Oh thank you! Carlson implied they didn't think there were many responses to Grothendieck's essay, that looks like a great resource to dig into to find more context.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:06):Alex Kreitzberg said:
I should've wrote "If one extends your...", I didn't mean to imply what you believe your philosophy means in music.
I believe discrediting beauty as a general heuristic implies discrediting it in the arts, which I think is bad.
Even in music, you will have some people believing that a song or instrumental piece is beautiful and other people believing that it is terrible.
Also, subjectivity of beauty doesn't mean that beauty is discredited, it just means that people have different opinions on what is beautiful and what isn't. And that can lead to endless vicious philosophical arguments, as we have seen in philosophy in the past, and in music and in science.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:07):So while it is good to aim for beauty, just remember that your belief of what is beauty might not be the same as anybody else's.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:09):Oh sure, I hope I didn't give the impression I thought beauty was "objective." I just think it's useful (and had it binned in my head as distinct from scientific thinking, which Baez pushed against)
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:10):As for managing scientism, my current problem isn't really rationalism vs beauty, but rather how much evidence / anomalies / contradictions is enough evidence to give up on a theory or the current paradigm and start looking for an alternative.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:14):For example, with all the new data coming out of the James Webb Space Telescope and other astronomy observatories and telescopes leading to new anomalies and tensions that refuse to go away, when does belief in the validity of say Lambda CDM stop being science and start becoming "scientism"?
If you want a 20th century analogue, when did belief in Newtonian physics stop being science and start being "scientism" and if you wanted to move on to actual science, it was time to move on to believe in relativity?
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 20:15):I suspect you and Alex have quite different ideas of what counts as "scientism".
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:16):Perhaps.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 20:16):You seem to be talking about clinging to bad theories. Wikipedia says "scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality", and that's what I thought Alex was worrying about.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:20):Yeah that's the definition I was using, Maybe I should pull in a quote from the essay
The Wikipedia summarizes Grothendieck's framing in his essay, very well I think:
Grothendeick predicted that "in coming years, the chief political dividing line will fall less and less among the traditional division between 'right' and 'left', but increasingly between the adherents of scientism, who advocate 'technological progress at any price', and their opponents, i.e., roughly speaking, those who regard the enhancement of life, in all its richness and variety, as being the supreme value".
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:22):The Wikipedia article and the Merriam-Webster dictionary both say that "scientism" can also be used in the sense of "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:23):I've been using it in the sense of "an exaggerated trust in the current dominant scientific theories of our society".
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:24):You know I read multiple articles and all of them carefully defined "Scientism" in the same way, so I assumed it was safe to use, maybe that was the opposite take I should've had :sweat_smile:
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:25):Alex Kreitzberg said:
the adherents of scientism, who advocate 'technological progress at any price',
You see, now that to me is another definition of scientism that is different from the two given on the scientism Wikipedia article.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 20:25):Alex Kreitzberg said:
Grothendieck predicted that "in coming years, the chief political dividing line will fall less and less among the traditional division between 'right' and 'left', but increasingly between the adherents of scientism, who advocate 'technological progress at any price', and their opponents, i.e., roughly speaking, those who regard the enhancement of life, in all its richness and variety, as being the supreme value".
This reminds me of Marc Andreesen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto, of which I quote just a portion:
Truth
Our civilization was built on technology.
Our civilization is built on technology.
Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress, and the realization of our potential.
For hundreds of years, we properly glorified this – until recently.
I am here to bring the good news.
We can advance to a far superior way of living, and of being.
We have the tools, the systems, the ideas.
We have the will.
It is time, once again, to raise the technology flag.
It is time to be Techno-Optimists.
Technology
Techno-Optimists believe that societies, like sharks, grow or die.
We believe growth is progress – leading to vitality, expansion of life, increasing knowledge, higher well being.
We agree with Paul Collier when he says, “Economic growth is not a cure-all, but lack of growth is a kill-all.”
We believe everything good is downstream of growth.
We believe not growing is stagnation, which leads to zero-sum thinking, internal fighting, degradation, collapse, and ultimately death.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:27):Belief that "science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality" really has nothing to do with whether society should progress technologically at any price. One can believe in the former and still think that the latter is a terrible idea.
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:29):What Baez quotes is imo what Grothendieck predicted. I think that's why Wikipedia quotes Grothendieck the way they did.
Grothendeick also defines "scientism" in the usual way, and then proceeds to defend the connection:
From his essay "A new universal church"
The Credo of Scientism
Myth 1: Only scientific knowledge is true or real knowledge; that is, only knowledge
which can be expressed quantitatively, or formalized, or repeated at will under
laboratory conditions, can be the content of true knowledge. “True” or “real” knowledge,
sometimes called “objective” knowledge, may be defined as universal knowledge, which
holds at all times, places, and for all people, independently of societies and particular
forms of culture.
...
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:31):It feels rude to tell people to just read the essay so I tried to ask my question in a self contained way. But I think that made it more confusing
Alex Kreitzberg (Aug 08 2025 at 20:33):Anyways I also don't think you have to believe Grothendieck saw a real connection here, but I do, and felt Grothendieck didn't really provide solutions. I was hopeful somebody else maybe did, so tried to ask a question.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:34):I'm wondering, when was Grothendieck's "A new universal church" first published? I'm wondering where his works lined up, relative to the publications of the likes of Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Polanyl?
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:36):Seems that "A new universal church" was in Survivre et vivre issue 9, which was published in August–September 1971 according to Wikipedia.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:41):Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions appeared in 1962, Polanyl's Science, Faith and Society appeared in 1946 and Personal Knowledge appeared in 1958, Feyerabend's Against Method appeared in 1975 and Science in a Free Society appeared in 1978, and Lakatos's The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes also appeared in 1978, all addressing various issues in science and "scientism" in the scientific community.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 20:43):Madeleine Birchfield said:
Belief that "science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality" really has nothing to do with whether society should progress technologically at any price. One can believe in the former and still think that the latter is a terrible idea.
I agree. And maybe conversely!
It would be nice if there were some pro-science, anti-technology organizations, just to broaden out the realm of views that people discuss. (I'm not saying I agree; it's just that some but not all positions get a lot of publicity.)
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:45):John Baez said:
I agree. And maybe conversely!
A lot of people believe in religion or the occult and simultaneously in technological progress at all cost.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:49):John Baez said:
It would be nice if there were some pro-science, anti-technology organizations, just to broaden out the realm of views that people discuss. (I'm not saying I agree; it's just that some but not all positions get a lot of publicity.)
Not even anti-technology, perhaps just anti-our current technologies. There are probably lots of other technologies out there that haven't been explored yet by humanity, because we have been shoehorned down this dependency on electricity and fossil fuels.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 20:58):Alex Kreitzberg said:
Anyways I also don't think you have to believe Grothendieck saw a real connection here, but I do, and felt Grothendieck didn't really provide solutions. I was hopeful somebody else maybe did, so tried to ask a question.
Just try to keep an open mind on everything, and be open to the possibility that anything you currently believe might end up being wrong.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 21:03):John Baez said:
"scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality"
Now, a critique of scientism in this sense.
How does one justify scientism? One would have to use the scientific method to show that the scientific method is the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality at every single location in the universe at all times. Absent time travel, this is physically impossible for any human being and any human civilization, so one doesn't know for sure and the belief is unjustified.
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 21:08):Another text that may be worth reading, this article on the social aspects of scientific knowledge:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/
Madeleine Birchfield (Aug 08 2025 at 21:11):One thing that I have had to deal with in the past 15 years is the realization that science is an ongoing process that occurs in the context of various scientific communities, rather than just the contents of the scientific theories themselves.
John Baez (Aug 08 2025 at 21:54):Madeleine Birchfield said:
There are probably lots of other technologies out there that haven't been explored yet by humanity, because we have been shoehorned down this dependency on electricity and fossil fuels.
Indeed, I think that if our civilization manages to keep advancing we eventually look back on our current technologies as incredibly crude, clumsy and wasteful. For a bit of evidence, notice that you can plant a small apple seed in some soil, give it water and sunlight, and eventually get apples. But if we tried to make apples using chemical engineering the process would probably use a lot of energy and create a lot of waste material. Or notice that the human brain operates at a power of less than 90 watts. Biology has had time to find 'technologies' that humans don't really understand yet. I think someday we could understand them and do wonderful things.
(Right now we are so messed up that if we partially figure them out we may do terrible things.)