There is a general mistake that you are making here which is the idea that if there is a good explanation for something, it must be the only explanation and there can be no other good explanation. But this is false. Let me give an example. There is an object here and it happens to be a chair. Why is it a chair?
1) because it has this precise shape which is the shape of a chair, and it is made of material suitable to be made into a chair
2) because Peter made it into a chair.
Notice that both of these can be completely good explanations, and both of them can be completely true. In the same way, the various trends that Robin discusses can almost certainly be given diverse good explanations. But this does not prevent them from being given a good common explanation as well, probably a mathematical one.
Suppose we discover a new trove of documents from the industrial revolution. Do you expect this to shift our view of the agricultural revolution and of future tech development? Or, if we make uploads earlier or later than expected, will that shift our view of the industrial revolution? All these changes seem fully explained by trends that are local to the change (in terms of time and geography).
And a mathematical common explanation would simply be that a similar model can be used to model all of the revolutions (something I doubt, except in the crudest sense). But this is not something that we can simply assume about a future innovation given a sample size of four; if we have the model, we can check if it applies; if we don’t have the model, we can’t assume that certain trends extend, without knowing why.
Do you expect this to shift our view of the agricultural revolution and of future tech development?
Possibly, depending on details.
Or, if we make uploads earlier or later than expected, will that shift our view of the industrial revolution?
Possibly, depending on details.
All these changes seem fully explained by trends that are local to the change (in terms of time and geography).
Sure. But I am denying that having a full explanation in a local way excludes other explanations, and I gave a specific example.
A mathematical model is the most likely example of a common explanation, but not the only possible one. And I agree that even if your model is valid over four cases, that does not prove there is any necessity to it; nor does it exclude the possibility that it is necessary.
There is a general mistake that you are making here which is the idea that if there is a good explanation for something, it must be the only explanation and there can be no other good explanation. But this is false. Let me give an example. There is an object here and it happens to be a chair. Why is it a chair?
1) because it has this precise shape which is the shape of a chair, and it is made of material suitable to be made into a chair 2) because Peter made it into a chair.
Notice that both of these can be completely good explanations, and both of them can be completely true. In the same way, the various trends that Robin discusses can almost certainly be given diverse good explanations. But this does not prevent them from being given a good common explanation as well, probably a mathematical one.
Suppose we discover a new trove of documents from the industrial revolution. Do you expect this to shift our view of the agricultural revolution and of future tech development? Or, if we make uploads earlier or later than expected, will that shift our view of the industrial revolution? All these changes seem fully explained by trends that are local to the change (in terms of time and geography).
And a mathematical common explanation would simply be that a similar model can be used to model all of the revolutions (something I doubt, except in the crudest sense). But this is not something that we can simply assume about a future innovation given a sample size of four; if we have the model, we can check if it applies; if we don’t have the model, we can’t assume that certain trends extend, without knowing why.
Possibly, depending on details.
Possibly, depending on details.
Sure. But I am denying that having a full explanation in a local way excludes other explanations, and I gave a specific example.
A mathematical model is the most likely example of a common explanation, but not the only possible one. And I agree that even if your model is valid over four cases, that does not prove there is any necessity to it; nor does it exclude the possibility that it is necessary.