Talk:Singularity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redirect to Technological Singularity?[edit]

I suggest "singularity" and "Singularity" auto-direct to Technological Singularity; this singularity has raised much more popularity than the others, and its popularity is only rising. If no one dissents, I'll make the change eventually.

I humbly disagree. Technological Singularity is a recent term coined AFTER the singularity of "others" why should "the last, wipe out the previous?"
Why should "the last wipe out the previous?" That's just the nature of singularities! But seriously, I also think redirecting to Techonological Singularity is not a good idea. Perhaps the "singularity" page could provide more information about the general concept of a singularity? I do agree that it is currently problematic that the link to "Technological Singularity" has equal presence with television episodes named "Singularity". Could there be a link at the top saying "The term singularity is most often applied to "'Technological Singularity'.", or something to that effect, if indeed it is true? - Masongl 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the policy is that it needs to be shown that one usage is meant much more than any other, When someone says "singularity" (by itself generally), do they, much more than any other usage, mean "technological singularity"? I'd think that that isn't the case. And really, until that that can be shown, technological singularity won't be the default page from Singularity. In order to determine which usage is meant "more" (but not necessarily "much more") than any other, one such test is a google test singularity does bring up the wikipedia article on tech singularities, but after wikipedia, is a page about technological singularities. So there is at least some merit to the claim. I think the real problem here is the google bias towards technological articles. I'm fairly sure that if you ask a physicist what a "singularity" is, he'll think of the black-hole related concept. Mathematician's will likely think of the math concept. A computer scientist? probably depends on whether or not they think about math or physics more? IT? I dunno. McKay 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I look up things on Wikipedia to find out the different meanings of a word, its history. In order to understand a term it is very useful to know where it comes from. Memes are volatile. We shouldn't allow pop culture to squat a word that already means very concrete things for a fashion item, no matter how many googles it gets. The film Titanic shouldn't supersede the article about the real ship, or the article about the Titans myth. The singer with the trademark Madonna shouldn't supersede the article about the Virgin Mary myth. Much less should a fuzzy concept in science fiction obliterate a well-defined scientific term.--87.162.40.71 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The classification under "science fiction and pseudoscience"[edit]

Ray Kurzweil does not write science fiction. The derogatory term "pseudoscientific" does not express a neutral point of view. Criticisms of the idea of a Technological Singularity should be in the article itself. [for what it's worth, I find the prospect unlikely - and expect to live to see its falsification.] --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes Science fiction as " a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. Science fiction often explores the potential consequences of futuristic scientific innovations, thus making it a 'literature of ideas'" and pseudoscience as "a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" which prefectly describes the current state of the concept of the singularity. Futurology is "the scientific forecasting of future trends in science, technology or society" which doesn't fit the technological singularity due to there being no clear and quantifiable road map to scientifically test that were are currently on track or failing to met it to assert his hypothesis. He does has a vague timeline of future events in his works but most of it is unfocused and repeated fails to happen. I'm aware that Kurzweil chose not to classify his book as science fiction but the content speaks for itself. Linket (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Linket, I promise I'm sympathetic to your critique; I've made it myself. But multiple authors have used the term "Technological Singularity" in the sense of "a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence". Perhaps see the peer-reviewed essays in the recent Springer Singularities volume. A Wikipedia classification should express a neutral point of view, not a critique - justified or otherwise. --Davidcpearce (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Movable singularity[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Movable singularity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found several references for the phrase, but multiple phrasing differences between sources and this article make impossible to Validate the accuracy of the article content

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)