Clarke’s third Law

Upon watching an episode of Star Trek Discovery in one episode after the discovery crew “spore jumped” into another part of the universe they found a colony who pre-dates warp drive. The crew, dumbfounded on how this colony arrived without sufficient advanced technology pondered Clarke’s Third Law which states:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

British science fiction writer wrote three adages concerning the future of technology and the explanation of phenomena.

The other two laws state:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Which I personally believe these are wonderful principles to go by in exploring the unknown. But as curiosity would have me, Clarke’s third law shows some semblance to Ockam’s Razor. So in the episode Captain Pike stated that in proceeding debate concerning Clarke’s third Law theologians and scientist alike redefined the third Law which they would state:

“Any sufficiently advanced alien intelligence is indistinguishable from God.”

So my question to all here is, with the future advancement of human ingenuity and alien influence upon human society is such a third law true?

Somehow this famous quote seems to cross-section all of these things. Its still around for 60 years. Does Quantum String Theory or Relativity accurately describe gravity, so I assume no one has enough space gravity experience of black matter to decide, in which the Relativity scientist suggests God doesn't create something as random as Quantum mechanics.

MikeDwight said:

Somehow this famous quote seems to cross-section all of these things. Its still around for 60 years. Does Quantum String Theory or Relativity accurately describe gravity, so I assume no one has enough space gravity experience of black matter to decide, in which the Relativity scientist suggests God doesn't create something as random as Quantum mechanics.

Click to expand...

The "Old One" meaning the Creator?

Edit:

Einstein did say this:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

One of Einstein's most famous quotes is often completely misinterpreted

President Eisenhower and Einstein are probably imagination buddies. If so, God is your every day supreme ruler in the upwards direction, that is the democratic basis of western civilization, that includes a buddhist who threw the buddha up realy high , in the sky, In God We Trust. Nazi Germany...!

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from God.”

That sound much alike "I can't explain this, therefore god.". That is the definition of the god of the gaps. It gets smaller and smaller as knowledge advances and has to hide in the cracks of our ignorance. Is that your definition of "god"?

Heyo said:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from God.”

That sound much alike "I can't explain this, therefore god.". That is the definition of the god of the gaps. It gets smaller and smaller as knowledge advances and has to hide in the cracks of our ignorance. Is that your definition of "god"?

Click to expand...

Exactly. "The God of the Gaps", (a term coined by one of my professors at university, I recently found out) is well-known as a kind of naive theological fallacy. More thoughtful concepts of God avoid this trap.

Epic Beard Man said:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from God.”

So my question to all here is, with the future advancement of human ingenuity and alien influence upon human society is such a third law true?

Click to expand...

Since we don't know what we don't know, we know that we don't know whether this is true or not.

exchemist said:

Exactly. "The God of the Gaps", (a term coined by one of my professors at university, I recently found out) is well-known as a kind of naive theological fallacy. More thoughtful concepts of God avoid this trap.

Click to expand...

Richard Bube at Stafford?

Darkforbid said:

Richard Bube at Stafford?

Click to expand...

You mean Stanford? I don't know Bube or what he had to say about the God of the Gaps. I see from looking him up that he was a defender of "theistic evolution", which is, in its usual form, a fairly standard Christian view that does not conflict with science.

The prof I was referring to was Charles Coulson, who lectured on mathematics for chemists and quantum theory when I was an undergraduate*. It appears he was the first to coin the phrase, though of course the concept, as a philosophical trap to avoid, was something established long before. He was an FRS and was for a time chairman of Oxfam, as well as being very influential in the Methodist church.


* Catchphrase: "We integrate this beggar[sic] here......."

ratiocinator said:

Since we don't know what we don't know, we know that we don't know whether this is true or not.

Click to expand...

Heyo said:

That sound much alike "I can't explain this, therefore god.".

Click to expand...

No, it actually means any technology that we would see as divine couldn’t be indistinguishable from what truly is divine. If something beamed you up in a brilliant light would you think it was God or alien technology?

The problem is for some they would think it would be divine elevation, to others a fear of an unknown power, to some, aliens would be beaming them up. The point is the very act itself would be indistinguishable from divine providence.

Heyo said:

Is that your definition of "god"?

Click to expand...

I didn’t know every thread I had to define God. I was quoting something said in a movie. Apparently according to Star Trek God is seen as this omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient personal deity that created all the multiverse.

Edit to those participating I made a grave error in the redefinition made in the movie. Please see the edit in the original OP that was my intention I see why people are making the mistake of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

ratiocinator said:

Since we don't know what we don't know, we know that we don't know whether this is true or not.

Click to expand...

Epic Beard Man said:

Click to expand...

Since we don't know how much we don't know, in other words, what the limits of technology are, we can't know if it is possible for technology to be advanced enough to be indistinguishable from god (from our current perspective).

As an added complication, we'd also have to ask what we think would count as "indistinguishable from god".

ratiocinator said:

Since we don't know how much we don't know, in other words, what the limits of technology are, we can't know if it is possible for technology to be advanced enough to be indistinguishable from god (from our current perspective).

As an added complication, we'd also have to ask what we think would count as "indistinguishable from god".

Click to expand...

See post #11