File talk:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg

RE: Image talk:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg

I'd really like to have some kind of clarity on this page...it's quite nebulous. I do not understand what this chart is actually supposed to show. I'm sure I'm not the only one. What good is imparting knowledge, when most might not understand the delivery method?

Appreciate any elucidation. Best, Kelli Jae Baeli

This image is mathematically trivial, therefore cannot illustrate a "technological singularity" or anything of significance
This image caught my attention for its place in Transhumanism articles, namely for its axes titles. On the vertical axis is "time to next event" and the horizontal is "time to present". As a physicist, plotting two of the same variables against each other is a clear indication that something has gone wrong, and without suitable analysis can indicate that the graph could literally express any relationship one wants. This seems to be the case here.

It doesn't matter how we define an "event", or how far apart we space them in history. Given this assumption, the time between events can be expressed as $$dt$$, but this can also be expressed as $$dy$$ since the "difference in time between events" is also the "time between events", so $$dy = dt$$ which can be solved as (ignoring integration constants) $$y=t$$.

Now the trick is that the author plotted this on a log scale with $$t=0$$ representing the present. This effectively turns the new vertical axis $$z = \log (y) = \log (t)$$, which is a singularity at $$t=0$$. Therefore, if we plotted the graph simply linearly, it would be a trivially-obvious linear graph where the time between events becomes 0 at present. This graph therefore proves nothing except that the "time between events" is equal to the time between events.

I ask, given this information, that this graph be removed from all articles unless used as an example of triviality. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The theory has its flaws, but you have pointed out the wrong ones. One axis is about the "density" of events in time. Similary you could plot prime gaps over prime numbers to get a somewhat similar graph – and prove that there is a singularity somewhere around zero!
 * The real problem is the selection of events. Humans tend to have a selective memory, puting too much emphasis on recent events. It could thus be argued, that the shown effect is mainly caused my this selectivenes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not pointing out "flaws" in a "theory". I am not attacking the concept of the Technological Singularity. I am unambiguously PROVING that these graphs are crap and cannot be presented in expository articles because they will mislead people. There are no opinions, no theories - only fact that can be argued here, and unless you have a basic background in mathematics and calculus (and can remember all of it) you cannot participate in this discussion. The vertical axis does not plot "density", it plots "difference". The end result is trivial. And the crime is that a singularity will always appear at time 0 - it doesn't matter if this graph was made in 500AD, in 1810, or in 2354 - there will ALWAYS be a singularity at the "present". So it says absolutely nothing about the Singularity, and therefore should be removed and probably deleted from Wikipedia entirely. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I you want to prove something, write a book, ...or find some other Internet forum. Wikipedia is not the place for proofs or original research. --Petri Krohn (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These graphs are within the scope of a number of WP policies: WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV (see "Obvious Pseudoscience"), and Don't_draw_misleading_graphs for good measure. The fact that they are unambiguously bogus is enough to have them fall squarely within the first two categories. Again, this isn't about the article, but about the graphs. Also, it should follow that if it takes some "expertise" to understand what the graphs actually mean (from which the triviality becomes naturally apparent), then deference to such expertise is appropriate. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's concentrate the discussion at Talk:Technological singularity. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)