Thursday, July 12, 2018

Extraterrestrials in literature

Extraterrestrials can only appear in two types of literary works: in essays, or in novels, and in the latter only in the genre of science fiction. If an extraterrestrial appears in any novel, the novel automatically becomes science fiction.
Science fiction literature shows very many types of extraterrestrials:
  • Fully humanoid, such as the red men in the Mars series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, who are so humanoid that they are even fertile when mating with terrestrials, as shown by the two sons of John Carter and Dejah Thoris, despite the fact that Martian women are oviparous (!!!) To this group also belong the aliens of The People series by Zenna Henderson, who are only different from us by their mental abilities, and those of Perelandra by C.S.Lewis, also titled Voyage to Venus.
  • Partially humanoid, such as those in Star Ways by Poul Anderson, whose women are also capable of falling in love with terrestrials. This novel develops a typical Anderson argument: extraterrestrials who differ culturally from us in their ecological view of the world, but who are fated to be defeated when confronting terrestrials, who are much more active and aggressive than they are.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Is Physics science or literature?

Freeman Dyson, who proposed a way
to extract energy from stars
We usually assume that physics is the most rigorous of the experimental sciences, the closest to mathematics, which serve as the fundamental basis for all sciences. However, some recent developments raise doubts about this. In other articles I have spoken of a few: the theories of the multiverse, time travel, that usually provide appealing headers in the media, but cannot be considered scientific theories, not because they cannot be verified, but because they cannot be proved false.
A recent article published in the high-profile journal Science News can be classified within this group, and in my opinion adds fuel to the fire, endangering the prestige of physics as a rigorous science and turning it into science fiction literature. This publication refers to an article recently published in arXiv, whose title is quite indicative: Life versus Dark Energy: How an Advanced Civilization Could Resist the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe. This article has been classified in the category Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

What is a good historical novel

Battle of Borodino, by Louis-François Lejeune
In the previous post I mentioned War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy as a paradigmatic example of a good historical novel. In my opinion, the three golden rules for good historical novels are the following:
1.      The main characters are fictitious: In the case of War and Peace those characters are Pierre, Natasha, Prince André and their relatives, friends and spouses.
2.      The real historical characters are secondary: In War and Peace the historical characters are Napoleon, Alexander I of Russia and General Kutuzov. These characters act in the novel exactly as they did in reality. Regarding them, facts are not invented, they are interpreted.
3.      The lives of both groups of characters are intertwined perfectly.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Is History science or literature?

Allegory of Science, by Sebastiano Conca
There are different kinds of sciences. Some are rigorous and have great predictive power, others less, others practically none. Let us look at a classification of the sciences:
·         Formal sciences: They start from axioms or postulates, more or less unassailable, and use deduction as the main method of reasoning. A few play the role of fundamental basis for other sciences. In this group, we can include mathematics, logic and theoretical computer science.
·         Natural sciences: They use induction as the main method of reasoning. Their objective is to discover fundamental laws that explain the working of the world. They rely more or less on logic and mathematics. These sciences include (in order of decreasing rigor) physics and astronomy; chemistry; biology, geology and paleontology.
·         Social Sciences: They use abduction as the main method of reasoning (see an earlier article in this blog). Their object of study is man or society. These sciences include psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, politics, archeology and history.
·         Finally, the applied sciences, whose objective is to develop practical applications from the theoretical knowledge provided by the experimental and social sciences. They usually associate under the name of technology, although there are some disciplines that fall outside that umbrella, such as legal sciences, applied economics, medicine, or applied psychology.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Mistakes in popular science in the media: Stephen Hawking didn’t discover everything

Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking has been in the last decades a scientific icon for the media. His painful personal situation turned him into a celebrity who inevitably attracts attention. Therefore, the media have a tendency to exaggerate his scientific work, attributing to him achievements that weren’t his, which he would be the first to repudiate, if he were still among us.
For example, on the occasion of his death, the following headlines appeared in several media:
         ElTiempoHoy: Creador de la teoría del Big Bang y los agujeros negros: fallece Stephen Hawking a los 76 años. (Creator of Big Bang’s theory and black hole theory: Stephen Hawking dies at 76).

Thursday, June 7, 2018

Gödel and realism

Kurt Gödel

Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) was one of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century. In 1931, when he was 25, he rose to fame with his mathematical proof that the attempt to build a complete axiomatic system, from which one can deduce all the arithmetic of natural numbers or any equivalent system, is doomed to failure.
His first incompleteness theorem says the following:
Every consistent formal system as powerful as elementary arithmetic is not complete (it contains true undecidable propositions).
Let us look at a simplified informal demonstration:
Let theorem G say the following: This theorem G cannot be proved from the axioms and rules of system S.
    • If we assume that Theorem G is false, system S is inconsistent, since a false theorem can be proved from the axioms and rules of S.
    • Then if S is consistent, G must be true, and therefore cannot be proved from the axioms of S.
Gödel’s theorem shows that every axiomatic formalization of arithmetic is either inconsistent (it allows false theorems to be proved), or incomplete (it contains true theorems that cannot be proved).

Thursday, May 31, 2018

The 528th digit of Pi

Gotfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
Two posts ago I mentioned that the best simple fractional approximation of the value of p is 355/113 = 3.14159292..., which was discovered in the West in the 16th century. Later, better approximations were obtained, but no longer in the form of a fraction, rather as the sum of a series. Several infinite series of terms are known whose sum is p. So it is enough to add a sufficiently large number of terms to obtain as many digits of p as we want, as long as we have time to do the sums. The first to propose one of these series was the French mathematician François Vieta. As his series was quite complicated, we give here the much better known series proposed in 1673 by the German mathematician and philosopher Gotfried Wilhelm von Leibniz:

The more terms we add of this series, the closer we will come to the value of p. The following table shows the advances made over time in the calculation of the successive approximations of this number, using different series, formulas or procedures.

Thursday, May 24, 2018

The mystery of the Great Pyramid

The Great Pyramid of Giza, also called Pyramid of Cheops or Pyramid of Jufu, was built to be the tomb of the pharaoh Jufu (called by the Greeks Cheops), of the fourth dynasty, the high point of the Ancient Egyptian Empire. The reign of Jufu is usually dated in the 26th century before Christ, over 4500 years ago.
The current height of the Great Pyramid is 138.8 meters, but the pyramid is truncated, having lost its top. It is easy to calculate that its original height was about 8 meters higher: 146.7 meters, or 280 Egyptian cubits. The base of the pyramid is a square with a side of 230.34 meters, or 440 Egyptian cubits.
Observe a curious point: the semi-perimeter of the pyramid (twice the side of the base) is equal to 880 cubits. If we divide it by the height of the pyramid, we get the following:
(880/220) = (22/7) = 3.142857...

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Are the digits of Pi real?

Martin Gardner
In an article published in Discover magazine in 1985, Martin Gardner wrote this:
As it happens, the thousandth decimal of pi is 9... The question: Was [this assertion] true before the 1949 calculation? To those of the realist school, the sentence expresses a timeless truth whether anyone knows it or not... [Others] prefer to think of mathematical objects as having no reality independent of the human mind.
This problem is quite old, as we have been discussing it for over two thousand years. The question about whether mathematical objects really exist or are a pure creation of our mind is a particular case of another problem, much more general, that debates whether ideas and concepts (like the dog species) really exist, or just this dog and that dog exist. This is the problem of universals, famous in the Middle Ages, which has not yet been solved to everyone’s satisfaction. In fact, at present, this debate is more virulent than ever.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

What’s a scientific theory

Karl Popper
Although it is fashionable to assert that Karl Popper’s theories about the evolution of science are outdated, his definition of what is a scientific theory is unassailable:
A theory is scientific if and only if it is possible to design an experiment that proves that this theory is false.
A paradigmatic case is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen designed an experiment that could prove this theory false. A few months later, Niels Bohr published another article in the same magazine, in answer to the previous article. Almost 30 years later, as I explained in another post in this blog, the EPR experiment, which up to that point had been mental, could be carried out and confirmed Bohr’s predictions, rather than Einstein’s. As this theory was able to resist an attempt to prove it false, it must be considered a scientific theory.
Of course, this success of the theory does not imply that it should automatically be considered correct or true. Scientific theories (always according to Popper) never become so. This theory has successfully withstood an attempt to prove it false, but the next attempt could do it.

Thursday, May 3, 2018

The standard cosmological model

Map of the Cosmic Background Radiation
In 1927, the Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître discovered Hubble’s law.
Yeah that’s right. Hubble did not discover the law until 1929. What happened was that Lemaître published it in French in a low-impact journal (Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles), while Hubble published it two years later in English in the Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, received much more publicity and his name got associated with the discovery.
Combined with Einstein’s cosmological equation, Lemaître-Hubble’s law implies that the universe is expanding. In an article published in 1931 in Nature, Lemaître drew the consequence by proposing the Big Bang theory, so called in derision by its opponent Fred Hoyle in 1950. The name caught on.
In 1948, Ralph Alpher, George Gamow and Robert Herman made two surprising predictions, based on the Big Bang theory: the average composition of the mass of the cosmos (three quarters hydrogen and one quarter helium), and the existence of the cosmic background radiation. Both were confirmed during the sixties. From that point, the Big Bang theory became the standard cosmological theory.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Evolution in the twenty-first century

A little over thirty years ago, during the eighties, some of the fundamental concepts of evolution seemed to be quite clear. Let us look at a few:
  • The DNA of every living being is an encrypted message that perfectly describes how to build the corresponding phenotype (the adult individual). All the information is in the genes. (Mechanistic reductionism).
  • Most DNA is unnecessary (junk DNA) and has been accumulated due to errors and repetitions in the transcription of the genomes of living beings.
  • The best metaphor to represent the organization of a genome is a set of beads on a string.
  • Genes are the repositories of inheritance, and each gene specifies a biological function.
  • Evolutionary processes take place through random mutations that act on a single gene, which are subject to natural selection, which results in small incremental increases in the adaptation of living beings to the environment.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

The end of the selfish gene

The German biologist August Weismann (1834-1914) was one of the most influential biologists of the late nineteenth century. His most important contribution was the theory of germinal plasma, also called in his honor Weismannism. According to this theory, there are two classes of cells in all multi-cellular living organisms (see Figure 1):
Figure 1
  • Somatic cells, represented in the figure by an S, that make up most of the body and do not play any role in inheritance.
  • Germ cells, represented in the figure by a G: the gametes, ovules and sperm, which pass the genetic information to the next generation.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Epigenesis and epigenetics

Fertilization of the egg by the sperm
In the previous post we saw that at the beginning of the 19th century the theory of epigenesis seemed to have won the game. However, after 1850, and for just over a century, a cascade of new discoveries tipped again the balance towards the theory of preformation. Let us see what they were:
  1. The existence of a nucleus within animal and plant cells.
  2. The confirmation that the nuclei of the male and female gametes are fused during fertilization. This put an end to spermism and ovism and made it clear that the new being begins in the zygote.
  3. The confirmation that certain structures (the chromosomes) appear during cell reproduction inside the nucleus of the cell, which seem to play a very important role. It was also found that in the chromosomal endowment of the zygote, half of the chromosomes come from the father and the other half from the mother.
  4. A new science (Genetics) was originated in the experiments of Thomas Hunt Morgan, who showed that the chromosomes are linked to Mendelian inheritance.
  5. The works of Oswald Avery, who showed that DNA, a nucleic acid that appears in chromosomes, is the basis of Mendelian inheritance.
  6. The discovery of the structure of DNA (a double helix), made in the early 1950’s by Francis Crick, James Watson and Rosalind Franklin.
  7. The deciphering of the genetic code, which took place during the 1950s and the 1960s.

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Preformation and epigenesis

The history of the evolution of scientific theories about embryonic life (the origin of living beings) is very curious. I will try to summarize it in a couple of posts.
Throughout the history of science, the problem of the embryonic development of multicellular organisms has been one of the most arcane mysteries that man has tried to solve. Faced with this problem, two conflicting solutions have essentially been proposed:
         Preformation: During embryonic development there is just a growth of the pre-formed embryo, whose constitution and composition are completely ready-made from its origin. Everything is done from the beginning, whether in the egg, the sperm or the zygote.
         Epigenesis: Embryonic development is a process. Not everything is decided from the beginning; everything happens because something - a vital force, or an external or internal action - forces the embryo to develop in one way, rather than another.

Thursday, March 29, 2018

About the social order

In a comment to the Spanish version of a previous article in this blog, JI Gs wrote this:
All societies have an explicit social order, whether they are fundamentally believers or not in the immaterial; even animal societies, let alone insects, have a strict social order and the immaterial has no need to act to generate it or to maintain it.
I have two considerations to make:
Solitary bee (Megachile) and social bee (Apis)
  • Comparing human societies with insect societies is a false step. The human social order is based on a set of moral rules that has remained fairly constant over time, except in relation to sexual morality (see the appendix to The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis). The social order of insects is programmed in their genes and their nervous system. While in the human species it is possible, even frequent, that one or more members of society rebel against one or more rules, or even attempt to overthrow the entire social order, the members of insect societies cannot rebel. In other words, man is conscious and free, insects are not. Any comparison between them is out of place, because they are based on totally different structures.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Can there be life without the weak interaction?

Beta and neutron decay

On January 30, 2018, the Science News magazine commented on an article recently published in arXiv which states that in a universe without the weak interaction, life would still be possible. When I read the Science News article, I immediately thought of an objection that could ruin both the thesis of the original article and its popularization. The first thing I did was looking up the original article, to see if my objection was mentioned or denied, but there was not a word about it. Next I detailed my objection in a comment in the web version of the Science News article, but so far no one has answered me. However, I think the objection is quite strong, and unless I am answered satisfactorily, in my opinion these articles are discredited.
According to the standard cosmological model and the standard model of particle physics, there are four fundamental interactions or forces in the universe: gravitation, electromagnetic interaction, and the strong and weak interactions, which regulate the work of atoms and elementary particles. In particular, the weak interaction affects all the elementary particles: leptons and hadrons, unlike the strong interaction, which affects only hadrons.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Dark energy again

Albert Einstein
In a previous article I mentioned that Einstein introduced a third term in the right side of his cosmological equation, to force this equation to have as solution a stationary cosmos, that would not expand or contract. The attempt was unsuccessful, for such a cosmos would have been in unstable equilibrium, and the smallest variation would have pushed it to either expanding or contracting. The term in question depends on a constant (L, the cosmological constant), which we don’t really know what it is.
Einstein's cosmological equation
For most of the twentieth century, it was assumed that the value of the cosmological constant must be zero. In other words, the third term of the Einstein equation would not exist, wouldn’t be necessary. However, in 1998 it was discovered that the universe seems to be expanding rapidly. At least, this seems to be indicated by the study of supernovas in very distant galaxies, about one billion light-years away from us. To explain this discovery, the cosmological constant term was resurrected, but giving it a sign opposite to that proposed by Einstein, so that rather than the expansion being counteracted, it would be accelerated. This proposal has become the standard cosmological model, in which the first term of the equation, which represents the effect of the mass, currently counts as 31%, while the third, that of the cosmological constant, counts as 69%. In this model, the second is assumed to be zero. I leave apart the question that the mass term does not match, so it has been necessary to assume that there is also a dark matter, that we don’t know what it is.

Thursday, March 8, 2018

One hundred years since The Decline of the West

Oswald Spengler
This year it will mark one century since the publication in 1918 of the first volume of the book The Decline of the West, by Oswald Spengler. The second volume was published five years later, in 1923. This book was the first to raise the idea that our famed Western civilization is in decline. What can we say about it, a hundred years later?
The great historian of the twentieth century, Arnold J. Toynbee, agreed with Spengler on his fundamental idea, although not in the details. For Toynbee, Western civilization collapsed in the twentieth century, when the two world wars proved its inability to face new challenges. Of course, for Toynbee, the collapse of a civilization does not mean its disappearance, it does not even prelude it. We still have ahead - according to him - a few centuries of what Toynbee calls the Universal Empire, linked, however, to a certain cultural stagnation.
The first thing we have to notice is: if Spengler actually managed to detect the decadence of our civilization, it means that the decline had begun much earlier. Evolutionary movements, both biological and cultural, are imperceptible at the beginning. When they become visible, they are quite advanced in their development.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

The problem of human intentionality

A few weeks ago I had in another blog a debate that confronted me with three militant atheists who stood for materialist monism, which holds, among other things, that we are determined by our neurons, that consciousness is an irrelevant epiphenomenon and that free will is an illusion. In another post in this blog I have touched on that topic, mentioning the four philosophical theories that try to explain the conscience, one of which is materialist monism.
This is the argument I offered to defend dualism against materialistic monism:
Let’s tackle the problem of human intentionality. When I say: I'm going to lend money to the bank, so I’ll be paid interest, I’m saying that the reason why I’ll lend money to the bank is to get interest. This is the kind of cause that Aristotle called a final cause, because it is the goal toward which my action is directed, something that is located in the future. On the other hand, materialist monism says that the only cause of our actions is in the electric discharges of our neurons. This is what Aristotle called an efficient cause. Therefore, to explain the same phenomenon (my lending money to the bank), we are suggested two different causes: my intention and the sparks in my neurons, this second located in the present, the first in the future. Is this possible?

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Chaos and catastrophes

Michael Crichton's novel Jurassic Park is an allegation against the unreasonable use of science. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, one of the characters in the book:
Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something. They conveniently define such considerations as pointless. If they don't do it, someone else will. Discovery, they believe, is inevitable. So they just try to do it first. That's the ga me in science. Even pure scientific discovery is an aggressive, penetrative act... Discovery is always a rape of the natural world. Always.
This problem arises especially in the scientific field that serves as the basis for Crichton's novel, genetic engineering, which poses many important ethical problems. There are many things that we can already do, or are close to achieving, but should they be done? I will mention a few:

Thursday, February 15, 2018

The star of Bethlehem

Giotto - Adoration of the Magi
Chapter 2 of St. Matthew’s Gospel begins with these words:
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
First, a few considerations about this text:
  • Magi is a term with different meanings. Strictly speaking, it was applied to the priests of Mazdayasna, the religion of Zoroaster. Zoroastrian magi were frequently devoted to astrology (the name then given to the science we now call astronomy). So, in a broad sense, the word magi could be applied to anyone who worked in that science. The New Testament does not say that they were kings. That is a later tradition.
  • It will be noted that the text does not say that they were three. They must be at least two, since the term is plural, but later thinkers have discussed whether they were two, three, or even six. The three magi is also a later tradition.
  • It is explicitly stated that King Herod was alive. When did Herod die? Since Emil Schürer (1896) it has been assumed that he died in the year 750 ab Urbe condita (a.U.c., since the founding of Rome), which corresponds to year 4 b.C.e. (before the Christian era). From this, many historians deduced that Jesus Christ must have been born before that date. Therefore Dionysius Exiguus, author of the idea of ​​numbering the years since the birth of Christ, would have made a mistake in assigning the year 754 a.U.c. to his birth. But some modern historians think that Herod could have died in the year 753 a.U.c. (year 1 b.C.e.), and that his sons pushed back the beginning of their own reign, thus causing the discrepancy and leading Emil Schürer to a wrong conclusion. Consequently, the most probable date for the birth of Christ would be between the year 7 b.C.e. and the year 2 b.C.e.

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Scientific questions in Blade Runner

Philip K. Dick's sci-fi novel Do androids dream with electric sheep? was published in 1968 and quickly became a cult book, with many supporters and not a few detractors, among them myself. Fourteen years after its publication, its adaptation to the cinema with the title Blade Runner multiplied the number of its supporters.
In another post in this blog I mentioned that, in my opinion, the film is much better than the novel. When I read the latter, I did not like it. The time has come to explain why. This is the plot:
In a future world, in the year 2019, the advance of technology makes it possible to build androids (replicants in the film), beings of appearance identical to a human being, endowed with intelligence, but who have not been born in the usual way; they have been built. This future society tries to keep replicants segregated, so that they won’t mix with traditional humans. To achieve this, a new profession is invented: the killer of replicants who try to pass themselves off as humans. As soon as they detect a replicant doing this, the destroyer pursues and kills the replicant in cold blood, without a trial.
The above summary can be applied almost equally to the novel and to the film. So far, the argument is interesting, original and attractive. Why then did I say that I did not like the novel, but did like the movie?

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Chance or pseudo-chance?

Gregory Chaitin
In computer programming, certain algorithms (called pseudo-random) generate series of numbers that meet the conditions required by statistics to decide on the randomness of a sequence. These algorithms are used frequently to simulate chance.
However, these algorithms have been designed by someone (the programmer who invented them). In fact, they are not usually random, in the sense that, if they are executed several times in a row, they always give the same results.
We have a similar case with the digits of p. Ten trillion digits of p are currently known, and their number is constantly growing. So far, the digits of p have met all statistical randomization tests. However, it is evident that they cannot be truly random, that they are designed. There are simple algorithms that generate them one after another, in the correct order.
Let us go back to the mental experiment of the previous post in this blog. If intelligent beings were to emerge in an artificial life experiment,
Would these beings be able to distinguish between chance and design as the origin of their own existence?

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Chance or design?

Tree of life
In this context, we must distinguish three things:
  1. The scientific theory of evolution, which is strongly supported by data from other sciences, such as embryology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, or molecular biology (DNA analysis).
  2. The claim that evolution is a consequence of pure chance, which is not a scientific theory, but philosophical, although its supporters claim that it is scientific.
  3. The assertion that evolution is an example of design, which is not a scientific theory either, but philosophical. The supporters of intelligent design argue that it is scientific.
To solve this dilemma we would have to answer one of the following questions:
         Is there a way to prove scientifically that evolution is a consequence of chance, rather than design?
         Is there a way to prove scientifically that evolution is a consequence of design, rather than chance?

Thursday, January 18, 2018

How the eye evolved

Let us reason about this problem by answering a few questions.
  1. Which part of the eye is most essential? The answer is obvious: the retina. If light cannot be detected, the remainder of the eye is useless.
  2. Can a retina, on its own, without the rest of the eye, play a useful role? Obviously, yes. Many groups of not too complex animals have ocelli, photo-receptor cells that just react to the presence of light, but cannot form images. Of course, perceiving the presence of light offers advantage against being totally blind. The proof of this: ocelli have appeared independently in at least 40 different animal groups.
  3. What is the next step? We also have traces among current animals. The Planaria is a Platyhelminth (flatworm) whose ocelli are located at the bottom of a concavity in its body. Thanks to this, the Planaria not only detects the presence of light, but also, to some extent, the direction it comes from. It is also obvious that being able to perceive the direction of light provides advantage to those who can, against those who cannot.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

The eye as an argument about evolution

Schematic diagram of the human eye
The vertebrate eye consists of five parts: cornea (a transparent insulating layer); aqueous humor; crystalline lens (a lens surrounded by muscles that make it possible to achieve a variable focal length); vitreous humor; and retina. The light passes through the cornea and the aqueous humor, is focused by the lens, goes through the vitreous humor and impacts on the nerve cells of the retina, which generate electric signals that the optic nerve transmits to the brain, which forms from them an image of the external world, where the light rays came from. The brain even turns the image around, as it is inverted when projected on the retina.
The complex structure of the eye has always been a problem for evolutionists, and an argument for those opposed to the theory of evolution. Darwin, in Chapter 6 of The Origin of Species, whose title is significant (Difficulties of the theory) dealt with the problem of the evolution of the eye in the following words:

Thursday, January 4, 2018

What happened to the predictions for 2017?

At the end of every year, many predictions are made about the following year. This applies especially to politics and the technological field. In this blog we are not interested in politics, so we’ll talk a little about technological predictions. What happened to those that were made for 2017 near the end of 2016? Have they been fulfilled?
This question is difficult to answer satisfactorily (with a yes or no), for those who make predictions usually do them on purpose in an ambiguous way, so the next year they’ll be able to say that they were right. For instance: