Some say the world will end in fire.

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice

Then, from what I know of hate

I'd say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

Robert Frost, "Fire and Ice"

One might claim that to ask about what might result from the sciences in the future is a theoretical scientific question that would require another Kuhnian effort. Khan's answer suggests another question: at the universal scale, how do we define (even aesthetically) the difference between  Marxian base and superstructure? One kind of superstructure or base could be defined as the constant results of physical research: cosmological, Hubble, Plank's, velocity of light, etc. Are these things needed to produce the universe or are they the non-productive results of a base?

Interesting that you note that sci-fi describes a dystopia of "new superior relations of production." Sci -fi movies must currently employ "new superior relations of production" between live action and animation. If science fiction's vision is the base, then the movie production is a superstructure which curiously creates an economic base and superstructure, a movie industry and a Hollywood lifestyle.

So I am always a bit confused (even by Raymond Williams) about the criteria one should use to identify these Marxian components. But let's consider for a moment the shape of the knowledge (as such) that Khan describes. It is probably necessary to survival down the road (at least theoretically). The developing knowledge of the cosmos is then a base upon which space programs and sci-fi movies are constructed. As we can see in both space programs and science fiction, military applications consistently become part of the superstructure. I would argue that those efforts and their motives are more cultural than essential (and maybe Khan agrees). So my answer to your ethical question, are our ethical standards sufficient, is "no."

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/10955/did-the-producers-of-stargate-universe-ever-reveal-what-the-superstructure-wa

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?t=166218

The matter in the Universe with which we are all familiar is Baryonic. In the standard model of the evolution of the universe, superstructures as the Great Wall form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter. It is thought that this dark matter dictates the structure of the Universe on the grandest of scales. Dark matter gravitationally attracts baryonic matter, and it is this "normal" matter that astronomers see forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters. Though, existence of non-baryonic dark matter is proposed of the necessity as a possible to explain the total amount of mass in the universe.

Astrophysicists hypothesised dark matter because of discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies by Vera Rubin in the 1960s–1970s, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and more recently the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterised type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.

The mass scales sequence connected by a large number A, especially the superstructure scale, is helpful in the understanding of the Hubble constant and the cosmological constant. The concept of large number was introduced by P. A. M. Dirac. The large number A connects microcosms with macrocosms by a sequence of mass scales, and also contributes to probe the precise structure of nucleon. Under the framework of physics, there is no possibility for stable NBDMP with heavy mass as the dominant component of the universe at the present time. If heavy mass NBDMP exist in the halo region of our galaxy by a violent relaxation process, why would our galaxy be a spiral galaxy instead of an elliptical galaxy? If these heavy particles (perhaps SUSY particles) are not recognised in the experiments during the next decade (as the present status about 17 keV neutrinos or monopoles), the NBDMP discussed, the cold universe will be progressively researched again.

It is an argument against increasing entropy and exhaustion of energy and for an eternal world.

There is another question, when nature and concept of gravity itself is disputed and is not settled either way, how can one think of gravitational effects?

As far as Marx's superstructures are considered, they relate to human beliefs and institutions and apparently have no-connection except both are atheistic.

Hello Mohammed,

thank you for your deep insights you brought to this discussion. I found a book from James Samuel Coleman written for social scientists. Unfortunately it is a german translation and not the original text written in english. And so I need to retranslate it. I just hope I don't mess it up.

Coleman points out:

"From these both processes of change - from natural to constructed physical environment and from natural to constructed social environment -  comes into being a need for new knowledge domains, disciplines that create a base from which the future can be build upon... The constructed social environment, targeted social organisations which encompass and inform meanwhile the life of so many humans creates likewise a need for new knowledge domains, disciplines that deliver a new base and superstructure of knowledge which can be helpfull to shape our future...not only a search for knowledge enabling aesthetic  delight of its discoverer...but a search for knowledge supposed to serve the reformation of society. While horizons expand and possible directions of social progress are multiplied knowledge about the self and society as well as its connections gets a new meaning and immediacy."

You are right that at this level of dicovery there seems to be no apparent connection right now between what has been lately discovered and society. But I guess this is only so because we cannot see any practical use in it right now. However this might change very quick in nearby future.   

Some say the world will end in fire.

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice

Then, from what I know of hate

I'd say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

Robert Frost, "Fire and Ice"

One might claim that to ask about what might result from the sciences in the future is a theoretical scientific question that would require another Kuhnian effort. Khan's answer suggests another question: at the universal scale, how do we define (even aesthetically) the difference between  Marxian base and superstructure? One kind of superstructure or base could be defined as the constant results of physical research: cosmological, Hubble, Plank's, velocity of light, etc. Are these things needed to produce the universe or are they the non-productive results of a base?

Interesting that you note that sci-fi describes a dystopia of "new superior relations of production." Sci -fi movies must currently employ "new superior relations of production" between live action and animation. If science fiction's vision is the base, then the movie production is a superstructure which curiously creates an economic base and superstructure, a movie industry and a Hollywood lifestyle.

So I am always a bit confused (even by Raymond Williams) about the criteria one should use to identify these Marxian components. But let's consider for a moment the shape of the knowledge (as such) that Khan describes. It is probably necessary to survival down the road (at least theoretically). The developing knowledge of the cosmos is then a base upon which space programs and sci-fi movies are constructed. As we can see in both space programs and science fiction, military applications consistently become part of the superstructure. I would argue that those efforts and their motives are more cultural than essential (and maybe Khan agrees). So my answer to your ethical question, are our ethical standards sufficient, is "no."

Hello Scott,

I would like to add something maybe not everyone knows:

http://www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/

"The benefits of a collaborative relationship are clear. For filmmakers, science advisers add a sense of realism and legitimacy to their creative vision. But perhaps even more important, scientists provide a window into the clear array of real-life science stories that are happening around us every day - all of which have the capacity to provide the inspiration for fresh, unique, and compelling narratives.

And for scientists, The Exchange offers an opportunity to expand the reach of their work, moving their research out of the lab and into the public eye, offering the promise to improve attitudes toward science and galvanizing interest in further discovery."

Dear Mohammad,

„As far as Marx's superstructures are considered, they relate to human beliefs and institutions and apparently have no-connection except both are atheistic.”

As to Marx’s atheistic views, some of them regarding the idea on the welfare of people are very similar to some practical Christian ambitions. I think one of the main objectives of science must be serving the human welfare.

Dear Carmen,

I think our (theoretical) ethical standards are sufficient but their practical manifestations – from point of view of power availability and collective and just decision making – is uncertain and often go to the wrong direction.

From Scott’s observation “Interesting that you note that sci-fi describes a dystopia of "new superior relations of production." Sci -fi movies must currently employ "new superior relations of production" between live action and animation. If science fiction's vision is the base, then the movie production is a superstructure which curiously creates an economic base and superstructure, a movie industry and a Hollywood lifestyle.”

And from Carmen’s quote, "The benefits of a collaborative relationship are clear. For filmmakers, science advisers add a sense of realism and legitimacy to their creative vision. But perhaps even more important, scientists provide a window into the clear array of real-life science stories that are happening around us every day - all of which have the capacity to provide the inspiration for fresh, unique, and compelling narratives.

And for scientists, The Exchange offers an opportunity to expand the reach of their work, moving their research out of the lab and into the public eye, offering the promise to improve attitudes toward science and galvanizing interest in further discovery."

I draw conclusion, that Si-fic not only create base and superstructure of “movie industry and a Hollywood Lifestyle” but also superstructure of “Science” in putting goals of it and determining its direction of progress as religion and establishments, ethics etc. guide capitalist economy.

Also see the link which has reference t0 Einstein as well as some interesting opinion about dark matter:

http://www.newscientist.com/special/challenging-einstein?cmpid=EMP|NSNS|2015-2102-AUS-febemi6_apac|content&utm_medium=EMP&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=FebEmi6_APAC&utm_content=content