File talk:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg

This image is mathematically trivial, therefore cannot illustrate a "technological singularity" or anything of significance
This image caught my attention for its place in the Technological Singularity article, 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) 19:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


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


 * You are making a huge mistake by assuming that the date mentioned by Ray Kurzweil (2045) is the result of extrapolating this chart. Of course Ray Kurzweil wouldn't do that - it's unscientific and in fact in his response (see []) to Kevin Kelly's 'The Singularity Is Always Near' he criticizes Kevin Drum and Kevin Kelly for extrapolating a similar graph. The closer we get to the singularity, the more precise we will be able to predict when it will occur. When we reach infinite predictive accuracy we will reach the singularity. It is a fallacy to extrapolate it beyond our predictive capabilities, which until now has narrowed the time-frame to around 2030-2045 if you accept Kurzweil's evidence. The only ways (I can see) to deny the singularity is
 * - to dismiss all of Kurzweil's data (as dismissing some data will only result in delaying the singularity) as not being evidence of an exponential increase in complexity, or
 * - to describe a mechanism by which all observable exponential growth would stop in the immediate, near or distant future.


 * It should be said that the graph merely illustrates, and that extrapolating more accurately than the data allows is not possible. It should also be stressed that the data supporting the law of accelerating returns is increasing exponentially, so predicting the singularity will become increasingly accurate. Sources: any book or article on the singularity, there are lots of citations already. 84.53.74.196 (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will admit that I dont understand what I am looking at here. The explanation may need to be brought into layman's terms -Sam D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.137.180 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll interpret it for ya
What this graph shows, is that when people think back about events that alter the future most significantly, the further back they are thinking, the more significant the event must have been.

This is logical because, more significant events have a greater chance of occurring over longer periods of time.

Because of this, a similar relationship will exist in the time distance until the next event; people thinking further back will think of something much more significant.

What you really end up with is a graph that shows that people think they are living in really, really important times. Which is logical, given that they stand the most chance of changing their own lives in the present, rather than anyone's at any other time.

In other words, its trivial. Zaphraud (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sagan?
The image lists Carl Sagan as the green circles. Where is the reference to his datapoints? The first in the reference list only mentions a Dorian Sagan, en:John R. Skoyles, Dorian Sagan, Up From Dragons... But I don't see a Carl Sagan JabberWok (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to clarify
Great job on the graph. The description is not clear, and I rewrote it a little to the extent that it made sense. We must have a link to the actual lists, otherwise the graph is far less meaningful. I found that on the bottom, but it needs to be emphasized ("here are the lists:"). Also, what was Kurzweil's part vs. Modis' part? It said they both compiled it, but it looks like one compiled and one graphed. Or, did Modis do everything, and Kurzweil just regraphed it? If that is the case, we shouldn't mention Kurzweil, because he did not do the original work in this, just mention where the graph (that this graph is based on) came from. Also, I reordered things. As far as I'm concerned, the "intersting aside" needs to be deleted. I don't like to step on too many toes at once, so if the changes stick, I'll delete that part later. Overall, we need to make this much more clear, and simplify and standardise it as much as possible.

NittyG (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)