Modal realism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism 

Modal realism is the view propounded by the philosopher David Lewis that all possible worlds are real in the same way as is the actual world: they are "of a kind with this world of ours." It states that possible worlds exist, possible worlds are not different in kind from the actual world, possible worlds are irreducible entities, and the term actual in actual world is indexical, i.e. any subject can declare their world to be the actual one, much as they label the place they are "here" and the time they are "now".

Extended modal realism is a form of modal realism that involves ontological commitments not just to possible worlds but also to impossible worlds. Objects are conceived as being spread out in the modal dimension, i.e., as having not just spatial and temporal parts but also modal parts. This contrasts with Lewis' modal realism, according to which each object only inhabits one possible world.

Common arguments for modal realism refer to their theoretical usefulness for modal reasoning and to commonly accepted expressions in natural language that seem to imply ontological commitments to possible worlds. A common objection to modal realism is that it leads to an inflated ontology, which some think runs counter to Occam's razor. Critics of modal realism have also pointed out that it is counterintuitive to allow possible objects the same ontological status as actual objects. This line of thought has been further developed in the argument from morality by showing how an equal treatment of actual and non-actual persons would lead to highly implausible consequences for morality, culminating in the moral principle that every choice is equally permissible.

"Possible world"

Main article: Possible world

The term goes back to Leibniz's theory of possible worlds, used to analyse necessity, possibility, and similar modal notions. In short, the actual world is regarded as merely one among an infinite set of logically possible worlds, some "nearer" to the actual world and some more remote. A proposition is "necessary" if it is true in all possible worlds, and "possible" if it is true in at least one.

Main tenets

At the heart of David Lewis's modal realism are several central doctrines about possible worlds:

• Possible worlds exist — they are just as real as our world.
• Possible worlds are the same sort of things as our world — they differ in content, not in kind.
• Possible worlds cannot be reduced to something more basic — they are irreducible entities in their own right.
• Actuality is indexical. When we distinguish our world from other possible worlds by claiming that it alone is actual, we mean only that it is our world.
• Possible worlds are unified by the spatiotemporal interrelations of their parts; every world is spatiotemporally isolated from every other world.
• Possible worlds are causally isolated from each other.

Details and alternatives

In philosophy, possible worlds are usually regarded as real but abstract possibilities (i.e., Platonism), or sometimes as a mere metaphor, abbreviation, or as mathematical devices, or a mere combination of propositions.

Lewis himself not only claimed to take modal realism seriously (although he did regret his choice of the expression modal realism), he also insisted that his claims should be taken literally:

By what right do we call possible worlds and their inhabitants disreputable entities, unfit for philosophical services unless they can beg redemption from philosophy of language? I know of no accusation against possibles that cannot be made with equal justice against sets. Yet few philosophical consciences scruple at set theory. Sets and possibles alike make for a crowded ontology. Sets and possibles alike raise questions we have no way to answer. [...] I propose to be equally undisturbed by these equally mysterious mysteries.

How many [possible worlds] are there? In what respects do they vary, and what is common to them all? Do they obey a nontrivial law of identity of indiscernibles? Here I am at a disadvantage compared to someone who pretends as a figure of speech to believe in possible worlds, but really does not. If worlds were creatures of my imagination, I could imagine them to be any way I liked, and I could tell you all you wished to hear simply by carrying on my imaginative creation. But as I believe that there really are other worlds, I am entitled to confess that there is much about them that I do not know, and that I do not know how to find out.

Extended modal realism

Main article: Extended modal realism

Extended modal realism, as developed by Takashi Yagisawa, differs from other versions of modal realism, such as David Lewis' views, in several important aspects. Possible worlds are conceived as points or indices of the modal dimension rather than as isolated space-time structures. Regular objects are extended not only in the spatial and the temporal dimensions but also in the modal dimension: some of their parts are modal parts, i.e. belong to non-actual worlds. The concept of modal parts is best explained in analogy to spatial and temporal parts. A person's hand is a spatial part of them just as their childhood is a temporal part, according to four-dimensionalism. These intuitions can be extended to the modal dimension by considering possible versions of the person which took different choices in life than they actually did. According to extended modal realism, these other selves are inhabitants of different possible worlds and are also parts of the self: modal parts.

Another difference to the Lewisian form of modal realism is that among non-actual worlds within the modal dimension are not just possible worlds but also impossible worlds. Yagisawa holds that while the notion of a world is simple, being a modal index, the notion of a possible world is composite: it is a world that is possible. Possibility can be understood in various ways: there is logical possibility, metaphysical possibility, physical possibility, etc. A world is possible if it doesn't violate the laws of the corresponding type of possibility. For example, a world is logically possible if it obeys the laws of logic or physically possible if it obeys the laws of nature. Worlds that don't obey these laws are impossible worlds. But impossible worlds and their inhabitants are just as real as possible or actual entities.

Arguments for modal realism

Reasons given by Lewis

Lewis backs modal realism for a variety of reasons. First, there doesn't seem to be a reason not to. Many abstract mathematical entities are held to exist simply because they are useful. For example, sets are useful, abstract mathematical constructs that were only conceived in the 19th century. Sets are now considered to be objects in their own right, and while this is a philosophically unintuitive idea, its usefulness in understanding the workings of mathematics makes belief in it worthwhile. The same should go for possible worlds. Since these constructs have helped us make sense of key philosophical concepts in epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, etc., their existence should be accepted on pragmatic grounds.

Lewis believes that the concept of alethic modality can be reduced to talk of real possible worlds. For example, to say "x is possible" is to say that there exists a possible world where x is true. To say "x is necessary" is to say that in all possible worlds x is true. The appeal to possible worlds provides a sort of economy with the least number of undefined primitives/axioms in our ontology.

Taking this latter point one step further, Lewis argues that modality cannot be made sense of without such a reduction. He maintains that we cannot determine that x is possible without a conception of what a real world where x holds would look like. In deciding whether it is possible for basketballs to be inside of atoms we do not simply make a linguistic determination of whether the proposition is grammatically coherent, we actually think about whether a real world would be able to sustain such a state of affairs. Thus we require a brand of modal realism if we are to use modality at all.

Argument from ways

An often-cited argument is called the argument from ways. It defines possible worlds as "ways how things could have been" and relies for its premises and inferences on assumptions from natural language, for example:

(1) Hillary Clinton could have won the 2016 US election.

(2) So there are other ways how things could have been.

(3) Possible worlds are ways how things could have been.

(4) So there are other possible worlds.

The central step of this argument happens at (2) where the plausible (1) is interpreted in a way that involves quantification over "ways". Many philosophers, following Willard Van Orman Quine, hold that quantification entails ontological commitments, in this case, a commitment to the existence of possible worlds. Quine himself restricted his method to scientific theories, but others have applied it also to natural language, for example, Amie L. Thomasson in her easy approach to ontology. The strength of the argument from ways depends on these assumptions and may be challenged by casting doubt on the quantifier-method of ontology or on the reliability of natural language as a guide to ontology.

Criticisms

A number of philosophers, including Lewis himself, have produced criticisms of (what some call) "extreme realism" about possible worlds.

Peter Forrest argues that modal realism gives us reason to doubt the method of induction, as according to modal realism, there is a world where we are deceived by our senses and we may be in this world.

James F. Ross argues that when Lewis states that counterfactual utterances are true in the sense that it is the case in another world that such a thing occurred, he "parses away our counterfactual utterances into what we do not mean". Hilary Putnam likewise writes "one doesn't have to think of a 'way' the world could have been as another world" and asks why "one couldn’t say that a 'way' the world could be is just a property, a characteristic, however complicated, that the whole world could have had, rather than another world of the same sort as our own".

Lewis's own critique

Lewis's own extended presentation of the theory (On the Plurality of Worlds, 1986) raises and then counters several lines of argument against it. That work introduces not only the theory, but its reception among philosophers. The many objections that continue to be published are typically variations on one or other of the lines that Lewis has already canvassed.

Here are some of the major categories of objection:

• Catastrophic counterintuitiveness. The theory does not accord with our deepest intuitions about reality. This is sometimes called "the incredulous stare", since it lacks argumentative content, and is merely an expression of the affront that the theory represents to "common sense" philosophical and pre-philosophical orthodoxy. Lewis is concerned to support the deliverances of common sense in general: "Common sense is a settled body of theory – unsystematic folk theory – which at any rate we do believe; and I presume that we are reasonable to believe it. (Most of it.)" (1986, p. 134). But most of it is not all of it (otherwise there would be no place for philosophy at all), and Lewis finds that reasonable argument and the weight of such considerations as theoretical efficiency compel us to accept modal realism. The alternatives, he argues at length, can themselves be shown to yield conclusions offensive to our modal intuitions.
• Inflated ontology. Some object that modal realism postulates vastly too many entities, compared with other theories. It is therefore, they argue, vulnerable to Occam's razor, according to which we should prefer, all things being equal, those theories that postulate the smallest number of entities. Lewis's reply is that all things are not equal, and in particular competing accounts of possible worlds themselves postulate more classes of entities, since there must be not only one real "concrete" world (the actual world), but many worlds of a different class altogether ("abstract" in some way or other).
• Too many worlds. This is perhaps a variant of the previous category, but it relies on appeals to mathematical propriety rather than Occamist principles. Some argue that Lewis's principles of "worldmaking" (means by which we might establish the existence of further worlds by recombination of parts of worlds we already think exist) are too permissive. So permissive are they, that the total number of worlds must exceed what is mathematically coherent. Lewis allows that there are difficulties and subtleties to address on this front (1986, pp. 89–90). Daniel Nolan ("Recombination unbound", Philosophical Studies, 1996, vol. 84, pp. 239–262) mounts a sustained argument against certain forms of the objection; but variations on it continue to appear.
• Island universes. On the version of his theory that Lewis strongly favours, each world is distinct from every other world by being spatially and temporally isolated from it. Some have objected that a world in which spatio-temporally isolated universes ("island universes") coexist is therefore not possible, by Lewis's theory (see for example Bigelow, John, and Pargetter, Robert, "Beyond the blank stare", Theoria, 1987, Vol. 53, pp. 97–114). Lewis's awareness of this difficulty discomforted him; but he could have replied that other means of distinguishing worlds may be available, or alternatively that sometimes there will inevitably be further surprising and counterintuitive consequences – beyond what we had thought we would be committed to at the start of our investigation. But this fact in itself is hardly surprising. Alvin Plantinga also wonders why we would think that possibility is grounded in some other multi-verse counterpart to me if we were to discover other universes. If not, then why think the same would apply to possible worlds as a whole?

Finally, some of these objections can be combined. For example, one can think that modal realism is unnecessary because multiverse theory can do all the modal work (e.g. many "worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics).

A pervasive theme in Lewis's replies to the critics of modal realism is the use of tu quoque argument: your account would fail in just the same way that you claim mine would. A major heuristic virtue of Lewis's theory is that it is sufficiently definite for objections to gain some foothold; but these objections, once clearly articulated, can then be turned equally against other theories of the ontology and epistemology of possible worlds.

Stalnaker's response

Robert Stalnaker, while he finds some merit in Lewis's account of possible worlds, finds the position to be ultimately untenable. He himself advances a more "moderate" realism about possible worlds, which he terms actualism (since it holds that all that exists is in fact actual, and that there are no "merely possible" entities). In particular, Stalnaker does not accept Lewis's attempt to argue on the basis of a supposed analogy with the epistemological objection to mathematical Platonism that believing in possible worlds as Lewis imagines them is no less reasonable than believing in mathematical entities such as sets or functions.

Kripke's response

Saul Kripke described modal realism as "totally misguided", "wrong", and "objectionable". Kripke argued that possible worlds were not like distant countries out there to be discovered; rather, we stipulate what is true according to them. Kripke also criticized modal realism for its reliance on counterpart theory, which he regarded as untenable. Specifically, Kripke states that Lewis' modal realism implies that when we refer to possibilities regarding persons like you or me, we're not referring to you or me. Instead, we're referring to counterparts who are similar to us but not identical. This seems problematic because it seems like when, for example, we say that, 'Humphrey could have become President', we are talking about Humphrey (and we're not talking about a person that is like Humphrey). Lewis responds by saying this objection (i.e. The Humphrey Objection) wouldn't apply to modal realists who believe that the identity of persons can "overlap" in multiple worlds, even though Lewis thinks that view is problematic. Secondly, Lewis doesn't seem to share the intuition that there is any problem, as evidenced by the fact that he calls it an "alleged" intuition.

Argument from morality

The argument from morality, as initially formulated by Robert Merrihew Adams, criticizes modal realism on the grounds that modal realism has very implausible consequences for morality and should therefore be rejected. This can be seen by considering the principle of plenitude: the thesis that there is a possible world for every way things could be. The consequence of this principle is that the nature of the pluriverse, i.e. of reality in the widest sense, is fixed. This means that whatever choices human agents make, they have no impact on reality as a whole. For example, assume that during a stroll at a lake you spot a drowning child not far from the shore. You have a choice to save the child or not. If you choose to save the child then a counterpart of you at another possible world chooses to let it drown. If you choose to let it drown then the counterpart of you at this other possible world chooses to save it. Either way, the result for these two possible worlds is the same: one child drowns and the other is saved. The only impact of your choice is to relocate a death from the actual world to another possible world. But since, according to modal realism, there is no important difference between the actual world and other possible worlds, this shouldn't matter. The consequence would be that there is no moral obligation to save the child, which is drastically at odds with common-sense morality. Worse still, this argument can be generalized to any decision, so whatever you choose in any decision would be morally permissible.

David Lewis defends modal realism against this argument by pointing out that morality, as commonly conceived, is only interested in the actual world, specifically, that the actual agent doesn't do evil. So the argument from morality would only be problematic for an odd version of utilitarianism aiming at maximizing the "sum total of good throughout the plurality of worlds". But, as Mark Heller points out, this reply doesn't explain why we are justified in morally privileging the actual world, as modal realism seems to be precisely against such a form of unequal treatment. This is not just a problem for utilitarians but for any moral theory that is sensitive to how other people are affected by one's actions in the widest sense, causally or otherwise: "the modal realist has to consider more people in moral decision making than we ordinarily do consider". Bob Fischer, speaking on Lewis' behalf, concedes that, from a modally unrestricted point of view of morality, there is no obligation to save the child from drowning. Common-sense morality, on the other hand, assumes a modally restricted point of view. According to Fischer, this disagreement with common-sense is a cost of modal realism to be considered in an overall cost-benefit calculation, but it is no knockdown argument.

Mathematical universe hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis 

In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark. According to the hypothesis, the universe is a mathematical object in and of itself. Tegmark extends this idea to hypothesize that all mathematical objects exist, which he describes as a form of Platonism or modal realism.

The hypothesis has proven controversial. Jürgen Schmidhuber argues that it is not possible to assign an equal weight or probability to all mathematical objects a priori due to there being infinitely many of them. Physicists Piet Hut and Mark Alford have suggested that the idea is incompatible with Gödel's first incompleteness theorem.

Tegmark replies that not only is the universe mathematical, but it is also computable.

In 2014, Tegmark published a popular science book about the topic, titled Our Mathematical Universe.

Description

Tegmark's MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics—specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".

The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

Tegmark claims that the hypothesis has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out. Thus, he reasons, it is preferred over other theories-of-everything by Occam's Razor. Tegmark also considers augmenting the MUH with a second assumption, the computable universe hypothesis (CUH), which says that the mathematical structure that is our external physical reality is defined by computable functions.

The MUH is related to Tegmark's categorization of four levels of the multiverse. This categorization posits a nested hierarchy of increasing diversity, with worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions (level 1), physical constants (level 2), quantum branches (level 3), and altogether different equations or mathematical structures (level 4).

Criticisms and responses

Andreas Albrecht when at Imperial College in London called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".

Definition of the ensemble

Jürgen Schmidhuber argues that "Although Tegmark suggests that '... all mathematical structures are a priori given equal statistical weight,' there is no way of assigning equal non-vanishing probability to all (infinitely many) mathematical structures." Schmidhuber puts forward a more restricted ensemble which admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs; e.g., the Global Digital Mathematics Library and Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, linked open data representations of formalized fundamental theorems intended to serve as building blocks for additional mathematical results. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program, due to the undecidability of the halting problem.

In response, Tegmark notes that a constructive mathematics formalized measure of free parameter variations of physical dimensions, constants, and laws over all universes has not yet been constructed for the string theory landscape either, so this should not be regarded as a "show-stopper".

Consistency with Gödel's theorem

See also: Consistency and Gödel's incompleteness theorem

It has also been suggested that the MUH is inconsistent with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. In a three-way debate between Tegmark and fellow physicists Piet Hut and Mark Alford, the "secularist" (Alford) states that "the methods allowed by formalists cannot prove all the theorems in a sufficiently powerful system... The idea that math is 'out there' is incompatible with the idea that it consists of formal systems."

Tegmark's response is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Gödel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence. This drastically shrinks the Level IV multiverse, essentially placing an upper limit on complexity, and may have the attractive side effect of explaining the relative simplicity of our universe." Tegmark goes on to note that although conventional theories in physics are Gödel-undecidable, the actual mathematical structure describing our world could still be Gödel-complete, and "could in principle contain observers capable of thinking about Gödel-incomplete mathematics, just as finite-state digital computers can prove certain theorems about Gödel-incomplete formal systems like Peano arithmetic." In he gives a more detailed response, proposing as an alternative to MUH the more restricted "Computable Universe Hypothesis" (CUH) which only includes mathematical structures that are simple enough that Gödel's theorem does not require them to contain any undecidable or uncomputable theorems. Tegmark admits that this approach faces "serious challenges", including (a) it excludes much of the mathematical landscape; (b) the measure on the space of allowed theories may itself be uncomputable; and (c) "virtually all historically successful theories of physics violate the CUH".

Observability

Stoeger, Ellis, and Kircher note that in a true multiverse theory, "the universes are then completely disjoint and nothing that happens in any one of them is causally linked to what happens in any other one. This lack of any causal connection in such multiverses really places them beyond any scientific support". Ellis specifically criticizes the MUH, stating that an infinite ensemble of completely disconnected universes is "completely untestable, despite hopeful remarks sometimes made, see, e.g., Tegmark (1998)." Tegmark maintains that MUH is testable, stating that it predicts (a) that "physics research will uncover mathematical regularities in nature", and (b) by assuming that we occupy a typical member of the multiverse of mathematical structures, one could "start testing multiverse predictions by assessing how typical our universe is".

Plausibility of radical Platonism

See also: Philosophy of mathematics § Mathematicism

The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality. However, Jannes argues that "mathematics is at least in part a human construction", on the basis that if it is an external reality, then it should be found in some other animals as well: "Tegmark argues that, if we want to give a complete description of reality, then we will need a language independent of us humans, understandable for non-human sentient entities, such as aliens and future supercomputers". Brian Greene argues similarly: "The deepest description of the universe should not require concepts whose meaning relies on human experience or interpretation. Reality transcends our existence and so shouldn't, in any fundamental way, depend on ideas of our making."

However, there are many non-human entities, plenty of which are intelligent, and many of which can apprehend, memorise, compare and even approximately add numerical quantities. Several animals have also passed the mirror test of self-consciousness. But a few surprising examples of mathematical abstraction notwithstanding (for example, chimpanzees can be trained to carry out symbolic addition with digits, or the report of a parrot understanding a "zero-like concept"), all examples of animal intelligence with respect to mathematics are limited to basic counting abilities. He adds, "non-human intelligent beings should exist that understand the language of advanced mathematics. However, none of the non-human intelligent beings that we know of confirm the status of (advanced) mathematics as an objective language." In the paper "On Math, Matter and Mind" the secularist viewpoint examined argues that math is evolving over time, there is "no reason to think it is converging to a definite structure, with fixed questions and established ways to address them", and also that "The Radical Platonist position is just another metaphysical theory like solipsism... In the end the metaphysics just demands that we use a different language for saying what we already knew." Tegmark respond that "The notion of a mathematical structure is rigorously defined in any book on Model Theory", and that non-human mathematics would only differ from our own "because we are uncovering a different part of what is in fact a consistent and unified picture, so math is converging in this sense." In his 2014 book on the MUH, Tegmark argues that the resolution is not that we invent the language of mathematics, but that we discover the structure of mathematics.

Coexistence of all mathematical structures

Don Page has argued that "At the ultimate level, there can be only one world and, if mathematical structures are broad enough to include all possible worlds or at least our own, there must be one unique mathematical structure that describes ultimate reality. So I think it is logical nonsense to talk of Level 4 in the sense of the co-existence of all mathematical structures." This means there can only be one mathematical corpus. Tegmark responds that "This is less inconsistent with Level IV than it may sound, since many mathematical structures decompose into unrelated substructures, and separate ones can be unified."

Consistency with our "simple universe"

Alexander Vilenkin comments that "The number of mathematical structures increases with increasing complexity, suggesting that 'typical' structures should be horrendously large and cumbersome. This seems to be in conflict with the beauty and simplicity of the theories describing our world". He goes on to note that Tegmark's solution to this problem, the assigning of lower "weights" to the more complex structures seems arbitrary ("Who determines the weights?") and may not be logically consistent ("It seems to introduce an additional mathematical structure, but all of them are supposed to be already included in the set").

Occam's razor

Tegmark has been criticized as misunderstanding the nature and application of Occam's razor; Massimo Pigliucci reminds that "Occam's razor is just a useful heuristic, it should never be used as the final arbiter to decide which theory is to be favored".

Collapsology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapsology 

The term collapsology or collapse studies are neologisms used to designate the transdisciplinary study of the risks of collapse of industrial civilization. It is concerned with the general collapse of societies induced by climate change, as well as "scarcity of resources, vast extinctions, and natural disasters."

Although the concept of civilizational or societal collapse had already existed for many years, collapsology focuses its attention on contemporary, industrial, and globalized societies.

Background

The word collapsology has been coined and publicized by Pablo Servigne [fr] and Raphaël Stevens in their essay: Comment tout peut s'effondrer. Petit manuel de collapsologie à l'usage des générations présentes (How everything can collapse: A manual for our times), published in 2015 in France. It also developed into a movement when Jared Diamond's text Collapse was published. Use of the term has spread, especially by journalists reporting on the deep adaptation writings by Jem Bendell.

Collapsology is based on the idea that humans impact their environment in a sustained and negative way, and promotes the concept of an environmental emergency, linked in particular to global warming and the biodiversity loss. Collapsologists believe, however, that the collapse of industrial civilization could be the result of a combination of different crises: environmental, but also economic, geopolitical, democratic, and others.

Recent literature reviews have shown the maturation of collapsology as an academic field. Archaeologist Guy Middleton argues that collapse studies have evolved into "a more nuanced, self-critical, and sophisticated field" that moves beyond environmental determinism and apocalyptic narratives. This evolution has led to applied collapsology, which draws from archaeology and ancient history to inform contemporary sustainability policies and climate change adaptation strategies, making collapse research increasingly relevant for resilience planning. Moreover, Brozović's comprehensive analysis of over 400 academic works identified five key scholarly conversations within collapse research: past collapses (historical and archaeological studies), general explanations of collapse (theoretical frameworks), alternatives to collapse (resilience and adaptation strategies), fictional collapses (speculative fiction and dystopian literature), and future climate change and societal collapse (predictive and scenario-based studies). Additionally, Shackelford and colleagues developed innovative methodologies for systematically reviewing the growing body of existential risk literature, including risks of human extinction and civilizational collapse, using crowdsourcing and machine learning techniques to handle the overwhelming volume of relevant research.

Etymology

The word collapsology is a portmanteau derived from the Latin collapsus, 'to fall, to collapse' and from the suffix -logy, logos, 'study', which is intended to name an approach of scientific nature.

Since 2015, several words have been proposed to describe the various approaches dealing with the issue of collapse: collapsosophy to designate the philosophical approach, collapsopraxis to designate the ideology inspired by this study, and collapsonauts to designate people living with this idea in mind.

Distinction from eschatology

Further information: eschatology, global catastrophic risk, flood myth, and apocalyptic literature

Unlike traditional eschatological thinking, collapsology is based on data and concepts from contemporary scientific research, primarily human understanding of climate change and ecological overshoot as caused by human economic and geopolitical systems. It is not in line with the idea of a cosmic, apocalyptic "end of the world", but makes the hypothesis of the end of the human current world, the "thermo-industrial civilization".

This distinction is further stressed by historian Eric H. Cline by pointing out that while the whole world has obviously not ended, civilizations have collapsed over the course of history which makes the statement that "prophets have always predicted doom and been wrong" inapplicable to societal collapse.

Scientific basis

As early as 1972, The Limits to Growth, a report produced by MIT researchers, warned of the risks of exponential demographic and economic growth on a planet with limited resources.

As a systemic approach, collapsology is based on prospective studies such as The Limits of Growth, but also on the state of global and regional trends in the environmental, social and economic fields (such as the IPCC, IPBES or Global Environment Outlook (GE) reports periodically published by the Early Warning and Assessment Division of the UNEP, etc.) and numerous scientific works as well as various studies, such as "A safe operating space for humanity"; "Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere", published in Nature in 2009 and 2012, "The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration", published in 2015 in The Anthropocene Review, and "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene", published in 2018 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. There is evidence to support the importance of collective processing of the emotional aspects of contemplating societal collapse, and the inherent adaptiveness of these emotional experiences.

History

Precursors

Even if this neologism only appeared in 2015 and concerns the study of the collapse of industrial civilization, the study of the collapse of societies is older and is probably a concern of every civilization. Among the works on this theme (in a broad sense) one can mention those of Berossus (278 B.C.), Pliny the Younger (79 AD), Ibn Khaldun (1375), Montesquieu (1734), Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834), Edward Gibbon (1776), Georges Cuvier, (1821), Élisée Reclus (1905), Oswald Spengler (1918), Arnold Toynbee (1939), Günther Anders (1956), Samuel Noah Kramer (1956), Leopold Kohr (1957), Rachel Carson (1962), Paul Ehrlich (1969), Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1971), Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows & Jørgen Randers (1972), René Dumont (1973), Hans Jonas (1979), Joseph Tainter (1988), Al Gore (1992), Hubert Reeves (2003), Richard Posner (2004), Jared Diamond (2005), Niall Ferguson (2013).

Arnold J. Toynbee

In his monumental (initially published in twelve volumes) and highly controversial work of contemporary historiography entitled A Study of History (1972), Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975) deals with the genesis of civilizations (chapter 2), their growth (chapter 3), their decline (chapter 4), and their disintegration (chapter 5). According to him, the mortality of civilizations is trivial evidence for the historian, as is the fact that they follow one another over a long period of time.

Joseph Tainter

In his book The Collapse of Complex Societies, the anthropologist and historian Joseph Tainter (born 1949) studies the collapse of various civilizations, including that of the Roman Empire, in terms of network theory, energy economics and complexity theory. For Tainter, an increasingly complex society eventually collapses because of the ever-increasing difficulty in solving its problems.

Jared Diamond

The American geographer, evolutionary biologist and physiologist Jared Diamond (born 1937) already evoked the theme of civilizational collapse in his book called Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, published in 2005. By relying on historical cases, notably the Rapa Nui civilization, the Vikings and the Maya civilization, Diamond argues that humanity collectively faces, on a much larger scale, many of the same issues as these civilizations did, with possibly catastrophic near-future consequences to many of the world's populations. This book has had a resonance beyond the United States, despite some criticism. Proponents of catastrophism who identify themselves as "enlightened catastrophists" draw from Diamond's work, helping build the expansion of the relational ecology network, whose members believe that man is heading toward disaster. Diamond's Collapse approached civilizational collapse from archaeological, ecological, and biogeographical perspectives on ancient civilizations.

Modern collapsologists

Since the invention of the term collapsology, many French personalities gravitate in or around the collapsologists' sphere. Not all have the same vision of civilizational collapse, some even reject the term "collapsologist", but all agree that contemporary industrial civilization, and the biosphere as a whole, are on the verge of a global crisis of unprecedented proportions. According to them, the process is already under way, and it is now only possible to try to reduce its devastating effects in the near future. The leaders of the movement are Yves Cochet and Agnès Sinaï of the Momentum Institute (a think tank exploring the causes of environmental and societal risks of collapse of the thermo-industrial civilization and possible actions to adapt to it), and Pablo Servigne and Raphaël Stevens who wrote the essay How everything can collapse: A manual for our times.

Beyond the French collapsologists mentioned above, one can mention: Aurélien Barrau (astrophysicist), Philippe Bihouix (engineer, low-tech developer), Dominique Bourg (philosopher), Valérie Cabanes (lawyer, seeking recognition of the crime of ecocide by the international criminal court), Jean-Marc Jancovici (energy-climate specialist), and Paul Jorion (anthropologist, sociologist).

In 2020 the French humanities and social science website Cairn.info published a dossier on collapsology titled The Age of Catastrophe, with contributions from historian François Hartog, economist Emmanuel Hache, philosopher Pierre Charbonnier, art historian Romain Noël, geoscientist Gabriele Salerno, and American philosopher Eugene Thacker.

Even if the term remains rather unknown in the Anglo-Saxon world, many publications deal with the same topic (for example the 2017 David Wallace-Wells article "The Uninhabitable Earth" and 2019 bestselling book of the same name, probably a mass-market collapsology work without using the term). It is now gradually spreading on general and scientific English speaking social networks. In his book Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, Ted Kaczynski also warned of the threat of catastrophic societal collapse.

Chemical revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_revolution 

Geoffroy's 1718 Affinity Table: at the head of each column is a chemical species with which all the species below can combine. Some historians have defined this table as being the start of the chemical revolution.

In the history of chemistry, the chemical revolution, also called the first chemical revolution, was the reformulation of chemistry during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which culminated in the law of conservation of mass and the oxygen theory of combustion.

During the 19th and 20th century, this transformation was credited to the work of the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (the "father of modern chemistry"). However, recent work on the history of early modern chemistry considers the chemical revolution to consist of gradual changes in chemical theory and practice that emerged over a period of two centuries. The so-called Scientific Revolution took place during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries whereas the chemical revolution took place during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Primary factors

Several factors led to the first chemical revolution. First, there were the forms of gravimetric analysis that emerged from alchemy and new kinds of instruments that were developed in medical and industrial contexts. In these settings, chemists increasingly challenged hypotheses that had already been presented by the ancient Greeks. For example, chemists began to assert that all structures were composed of more than the four elements of the Greeks or the eight elements of the medieval alchemists. The Irish alchemist, Robert Boyle, laid the foundations for the Chemical Revolution, with his mechanical corpuscular philosophy, which in turn relied heavily on the alchemical corpuscular theory and experimental method dating back to pseudo-Geber.

Earlier works by chemists such as Jan Baptist van Helmont helped to shift the belief in theory that air existed as a single element to that of one in which air existed as a composition of a mixture of distinct kinds of gasses. Van Helmont's data analysis also suggests that he had a general understanding of the law of conservation of mass in the 17th century. Furthermore, work by Jean Rey in the early 17th century with metals like tin and lead and their oxidation in the presence of air and water helped pinpoint the contribution and existence of oxygen in the oxidation process.

Other factors included new experimental techniques and the discovery of 'fixed air' (carbon dioxide) by Joseph Black in the middle of the 18th century. This discovery was particularly important because it empirically proved that 'air' did not consist of only one substance and because it established 'gas' as an important experimental substance. Near to the end of the 18th century, the experiments by Henry Cavendish and Joseph Priestley further proved that air is not an element and is instead composed of several different gases. Lavoisier also translated the names of chemical substance into a new nomenclatural language more appealing to scientists of the nineteenth century. Such changes took place in an atmosphere in which the Industrial Revolution increased public interest in learning and practicing chemistry. When describing the task of reinventing chemical nomenclature, Lavoisier attempted to harness the new centrality of chemistry by making the rather hyperbolic claim that:

We must clean house thoroughly, for they have made use of an enigmatical language peculiar to themselves, which in general presents one meaning for the adepts and another meaning for the vulgar, and at the same time contains nothing that is rationally intelligible either for the one or for the other.

Precision instruments

Much of the reasoning behind Antoine Lavoisier being named the "father of modern chemistry" and the start of the chemical revolution lay in his ability to mathematize the field, pushing chemistry to use the experimental methods utilized in other "more exact sciences." Lavoisier changed the field of chemistry by keeping meticulous balance sheets in his research, attempting to show that through the transformation of chemical species the total amount of substance was conserved. Lavoisier used instrumentation for thermometric and barometric measurements in his experiments, and collaborated with Pierre Simon de Laplace in the invention of the calorimeter, an instrument for measuring heat changes in a reaction.

In attempting to dismantle phlogiston theory and implement his own theory of combustion, Lavoisier utilized multiple apparatuses. These included a red-hot iron gun barrel which was designed to have water run through it and decompose, and an alteration of the apparatus which implemented a pneumatic trough at one end, a thermometer, and a barometer. The precision of his measurements was a requirement in convincing opposition of his theories about water as a compound, with instrumentation designed by himself implemented in his research.

Despite having precise measurements for his work, Lavoisier faced a large amount of opposition in his research. Proponents of phlogiston theory, such as Keir and Priestley, claimed that demonstration of facts was only applicable for raw phenomena, and that interpretation of these facts did not imply accuracy in theories. They stated that Lavoisier was attempting to impose order on observed phenomena, whereas a secondary source of validity would be required to give definitive proof of the composition of water and non-existence of phlogiston.

Antoine Lavoisier

The latter stages of the revolution was fuelled by the 1789 publication of Lavoisier's Traité Élémentaire de Chimie (Elements of Chemistry). Beginning with this publication and others to follow, Lavoisier synthesised the work of others and coined the term "oxygen". Antoine Lavoisier represented the chemical revolution not only in his publications, but also in the way he practiced chemistry. Lavoisier's work was characterized by his systematic determination of weights and his strong emphasis on precision and accuracy. While it has been postulated that the law of conservation of mass was discovered by Lavoisier, this claim has been refuted by scientist Marcellin Berthelot.

Earlier use of the law of conservation of mass has been suggested by Henry Guerlac, noting that scientist Jan Baptist van Helmont had implicitly applied the methodology to his work in the 16th and 17th centuries. Earlier references of the law of conservation of mass and its use were made by Jean Rey in 1630. Although the law of conservation of mass was not explicitly discovered by Lavoisier, his work with a wider array of materials than what most scientists had available at the time allowed his work to greatly expand the boundaries of the principle and its fundamentals.

Lavoisier also contributed to chemistry a method of understanding combustion and respiration and proof of the composition of water by decomposition into its constituent parts. He explained the theory of combustion, and challenged the phlogiston theory with his views on caloric. The Traité incorporates notions of a "new chemistry" and describes the experiments and reasoning that led to his conclusions. Like Newton's Principia, which was the high point of the Scientific Revolution, Lavoisier's Traité can be seen as the culmination of the Chemical Revolution.

Lavoisier's work was not immediately accepted and it took several decades for it gain momentum. This transition was aided by the work of Jöns Jakob Berzelius, who came up with a simplified shorthand to describe chemical compounds based on John Dalton's theory of atomic weights. Many people credit Lavoisier and his overthrow of phlogiston theory as the traditional chemical revolution, with Lavoisier marking the beginning of the revolution and John Dalton marking its culmination.

Méthode de nomenclature chimique

Antoine Lavoisier, in a collaborative effort with Louis Bernard Guyton de Morveau, Claude Louis Berthollet, and Antoine François de Fourcroy, published Méthode de nomenclature chimique in 1787. This work established a terminology for the "new chemistry" which Lavoisier was creating, which focused on a standardized set of terms, establishment of new elements, and experimental work. Méthode established 55 elements which were substances that could not be broken down into simpler composite parts at the time of publishing. By introducing new terminology into the field, Lavoisier encouraged other chemists to adopt his theories and practices in order to use his terms and stay current in chemistry.

Traité élémentaire de chimie

One of Lavoisier's main influences was Étienne Bonnet, abbé de Condillac. Condillac's approach to scientific research, which was the basis of Lavoisier's approach in Traité, was to demonstrate that human beings could create a mental representation of the world using gathered evidence. In Lavoisier's preface to Traité, he states

It is a maxim universally admitted in geometry, and indeed in every branch of knowledge, that, in the progress of investigation, we should proceed from known facts to what is unknown. ... In this manner, from a series of sensations, observations, and analyses, a successive train of ideas arises, so linked together, that an attentive observer may trace back to a certain point the order and connection of the whole sum of human knowledge.

Lavoisier clearly ties his ideas in with those of Condillac, seeking to reform the field of chemistry. His goal in Traité was to associate the field with direct experience and observation, rather than assumption. His work defined a new foundation for the basis of chemical ideas and set a direction for the future course of chemistry.

Humphry Davy

Humphry Davy was an English chemist and a professor of chemistry at the London's Royal Institution in the early 1800s. There he performed experiments that cast doubt upon some of Lavoisier's key ideas such as the acidity of oxygen and the idea of a caloric element. Davy was able to show that acidity was not due to the presence of oxygen using muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) as proof. He also proved that the compound oxymuriatic acid contained no oxygen and was instead an element, which he named chlorine.

Through his use of electric batteries at the Royal Institution Davy first isolated chlorine, followed by the isolation of elemental iodine in 1813. Using the batteries Davy was also able to isolate the elements sodium and potassium. From these experiments Davy concluded that the forces that join chemical elements together must be electrical in nature. Davy also opposed the idea that caloric was an immaterial fluid, arguing instead that heat was a type of motion.

John Dalton

John Dalton was an English chemist who developed the idea of atomic theory of chemical elements. Dalton's atomic theory of chemical elements assumed that each element had unique atoms associated with and specific to that atom. This was in opposition to Lavoisier's definition of elements which was that elements are substances that chemists could not break down further into simpler parts. Dalton's idea also differed from the idea of corpuscular theory of matter, which believed that all atoms were the same, and had been a supported theory since the 17th century.

To help support his idea, Dalton worked on defining the relative weights of atoms in chemicals in his work New System of Chemical Philosophy, published in 1808. His text showed calculations to determine the relative atomic weights of Lavoisier's different elements based on experimental data pertaining to the relative amounts of different elements in chemical combinations. Dalton argued that elements would combine in the simplest form possible. Water was known to be a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, thus Dalton believed water to be a binary compound containing one hydrogen and one oxygen.

Dalton was able to accurately compute the relative quantity of gases in atmospheric air. He used the specific gravity of azotic (nitrogen), oxygenous, carbonic acid (carbon dioxide), and hydrogenous gases as well as aqueous vapor determined by Lavoisier and Davy to determine the proportional weights of each as a percent of a whole volume of atmospheric air. Dalton determined that atmospheric air contains 75.55% azotic gas, 23.32% oxygenous gas, 1.03% aqueous vapor, and 0.10% carbonic acid gas.

Jöns Jacob Berzelius

Jöns Jacob Berzelius was a Swedish chemist who studied medicine at the University of Uppsala and was a professor of chemistry in Stockholm. He drew on the ideas of both Davy and Dalton to create an electrochemical view of how elements combined together. Berzelius classified elements into two groups, electronegative and electropositive depending which pole of a galvanic battery they were released from when decomposed. He created a scale of charge with oxygen being the most electronegative element and potassium the most electropositive. This scale signified that some elements had positive and negative charges associated with them and the position of an element on this scale and the element's charge determined how that element combined with others.

Berzelius's work on electrochemical atomic theory was published in 1818 as Essai sur la théorie des proportions chimiques et sur l'influence chimique de l'électricité. He also introduced a new chemical nomenclature into chemistry by representing elements with letters and abbreviations, such as O for oxygen and Fe for iron. Combinations of elements were represented as sequences of these symbols and the number of atoms were represented at first by superscripts and then later subscripts.

Fourth Industrial Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Industrial_Revolution 

 

Robots in a grocery warehouse

 

Augmented reality information about a painting

 

Illustrated understanding of the Internet of things in battlefield setting

 

Amazon Go, a cashierless store

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, also known as 4IR, Industry 4.0 or the Intelligence Age, is a neologism describing rapid technological advancement in the 21st century. It follows the Third Industrial Revolution (the "Information Age"). The term was popularized in 2016 by Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum founder and former executive chairman, who asserts that these developments represent a significant shift in industrial capitalism.

A part of this phase of industrial change is the joining of technologies like artificial intelligence, gene editing, to advanced robotics that blur the lines between the physical, digital, and biological worlds.

Throughout this, fundamental shifts are taking place in how the global production and supply network operates through ongoing automation of traditional manufacturing and industrial practices, using modern smart technology, large-scale machine-to-machine communication (M2M), and the Internet of things (IoT). This integration results in increasing automation, improving communication and self-monitoring, and the use of smart machines that can analyse and diagnose issues without the need for human intervention.

It also represents a social, political, and economic shift from the digital age of the late 1990s and early 2000s to an era of embedded connectivity distinguished by the ubiquity of technology in society that changes the ways humans experience and know the world around them. It posits that we have created and are entering an augmented social reality compared to just the natural senses and industrial ability of humans alone. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is sometimes expected to mark the beginning of an imagination age, where creativity and imagination become the primary drivers of economic value.

History

The phrase Fourth Industrial Revolution was first introduced by a team of scientists developing a high-tech strategy for the German government. Klaus Schwab, former executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), introduced the phrase to a wider audience in a 2015 article published by Foreign Affairs. "Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution" was the 2016 theme of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland.

On 10 October 2016, the Forum announced the opening of its Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco. This was also subject and title of Schwab's 2016 book. Schwab includes in this fourth era technologies that combine hardware, software, and biology (cyber-physical systems), and emphasizes advances in communication and connectivity. Schwab expects this era to be marked by breakthroughs in emerging technologies in fields such as robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, the internet of things, the industrial internet of things, decentralized consensus, fifth-generation wireless technologies, 3D printing, and fully autonomous vehicles.

In The Great Reset proposal by the WEF, The Fourth Industrial Revolution is included as a strategic intelligence in the solution to rebuild the economy sustainably following the COVID-19 pandemic.

First Industrial Revolution

Main article: Industrial Revolution

The First Industrial Revolution was marked by a transition from hand production methods to machines through the use of steam power and water power. The implementation of new technologies took a long time, so the period which this refers to was between 1760 and 1820, or 1840 in Europe and the United States. Its effects had consequences on textile manufacturing, which was first to adopt such changes, as well as iron industry, agriculture, and mining–although it also had societal effects with an ever stronger middle class.

Second Industrial Revolution

Main article: Second Industrial Revolution

The Second Industrial Revolution, also known as the Technological Revolution, is the period between 1871 and 1914 that resulted from installations of extensive railroad and telegraph networks, which allowed for faster transfer of people and ideas, as well as electricity. Increasing electrification allowed for factories to develop the modern production line.

Third Industrial Revolution

Main article: Information Age

The Third Industrial Revolution, also known as the Digital Revolution, began in the late 20th century. It is characterized by the shift to an economy centered on information technology, marked by the advent of personal computers, the Internet, and the widespread digitalization of communication and industrial processes.

A book by Jeremy Rifkin titled The Third Industrial Revolution, published in 2011, focused on the intersection of digital communications technology and renewable energy. It was made into a 2017 documentary by Vice Media.

Characteristics

In essence, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is the trend towards automation and data exchange in manufacturing technologies and processes which include cyber-physical systems (CPS), internet of things (IoT), cloud computing, cognitive computing, and artificial intelligence.

Machines improve human efficiency in performing repetitive functions, and the combination of machine learning and computing power allows machines to carry out increasingly complex tasks.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution has been defined as technological developments in cyber-physical systems such as high capacity connectivity; new human-machine interaction modes such as touch interfaces and virtual reality systems; and improvements in transferring digital instructions to the physical world including robotics and 3D printing (additive manufacturing); "big data" and cloud computing; improvements to and uptake of off-grid: solar, wind, wave, hydroelectric and the electric batteries (lithium-ion renewable energy storage systems and EV).

It also emphasizes decentralized decisions – the ability of cyber physical systems to make decisions on their own and to perform their tasks as autonomously as possible. Only in the case of exceptions, interference, or conflicting goals, are tasks delegated to a higher level.

Distinctiveness

Proponents of the Fourth Industrial Revolution suggest it is a distinct revolution rather than simply a prolongation of the Third Industrial Revolution. This is due to the following characteristics:

• Velocity – exponential speed at which incumbent industries are affected and displaced
• Scope and systems impact – the large amount of sectors and firms that are affected
• Paradigm shift in technology policy – new policies designed for this new way of doing are present. An example is Singapore's formal recognition of Industry 4.0 in its innovation policies.

Critics of the concept dismiss Industry 4.0 as a marketing strategy. They suggest that although revolutionary changes are identifiable in distinct sectors, there is no systemic change so far. In addition, the pace of recognition of Industry 4.0 and policy transition varies across countries; the definition of Industry 4.0 is not harmonised. One of the most known figures is Jeremy Rifkin who "agree[s] that digitalization is the hallmark and defining technology in what has become known as the Third Industrial Revolution". However, he argues "that the evolution of digitalization has barely begun to run its course and that its new configuration in the form of the Internet of Things represents the next stage of its development".

Components

Self-driving car

The application of the Fourth Industrial Revolution operates through:

• Mobile devices
• Location detection technologies (electronic identification)
• Advanced human-machine interfaces
• Authentication and fraud detection
• Smart sensors
• Big analytics and advanced processes
• Multilevel customer interaction and customer profiling
• Augmented reality/wearables
• On-demand availability of computer system resources
• Data visualisation

Industry 4.0 networks a wide range of new technologies to create value. Using cyber-physical systems that monitor physical processes, a virtual copy of the physical world can be designed. Characteristics of cyber-physical systems include the ability to make decentralised decisions independently, reaching a high degree of autonomy.

The value created in Industry 4.0 can be relied upon in electronic identification, in which the smart manufacturing requires set technologies to be incorporated in the manufacturing process to thus be classified as in the development path of Industry 4.0 and no longer digitisation.

Trends

Smart factories

Main article: Smart manufacturing

The Fourth Industrial Revolution fosters "smart factories", which are production environments where facilities and logistics systems are organised with minimal human intervention.

The technical foundations on which smart factories are based are cyber-physical systems that communicate with each other using IoT. An important part of this process is the exchange of data between the product and the production line. This enables more efficient supply chain connectivity and better organisation within a production environment.

Within modular structured smart factories, cyber-physical systems monitor physical processes, create a virtual copy of the physical world, and make decentralised decisions. Over the internet of things, cyber-physical systems communicate and cooperate with each other and with humans in synchronic time both internally and across organizational services offered and used by participants of the value chain.

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) has a wide range of applications across all sectors of the economy. It gained prominence following advancements in deep learning during the 2010s, and its impact intensified in the 2020s with the rise of generative AI, a period often referred to as the "AI boom". Models like GPT-4o can engage in verbal and textual discussions and analyze images.

AI is a key driver of Industry 4.0, orchestrating technologies like robotics, automated vehicles, and real-time data analytics. By enabling machines to perform complex tasks, AI is redefining production processes and reducing changeover times. AI could also significantly accelerate, or even automate software development.

Some experts believe that AI alone could be as transformative as an industrial revolution. Multiple companies such as OpenAI and Meta have expressed the goal of creating artificial general intelligence (AI that can do virtually any cognitive task a human can), making large investments in data centers and GPUs to train more capable AI models.

Robotics

Humanoid robots have traditionally lacked usefulness. They had difficulty picking simple objects due to imprecise control and coordination, and they wouldn't understand their environment and how physics works. They were often explicitly programmed to do narrow tasks, failing when encountering new situations. Modern humanoid robots, however, are typically based on machine learning, and in particular reinforcement learning. In 2024, humanoid robots are rapidly becoming more flexible, easier to train, and versatile.

Predictive maintenance

Industry 4.0 facilitates predictive maintenance, due to the use of advanced technologies, including IoT sensors. Predictive maintenance, which can identify potential maintenance issues in real time, allows machine owners to perform cost-effective maintenance before the machinery fails or gets damaged. For example, a company in Los Angeles could understand if a piece of equipment in Singapore is running at an abnormal speed or temperature. They could then decide whether or not it needs to be repaired.

3D printing

Main article: 3D printing

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is said to have extensive dependency on 3D printing technology. Some advantages of 3D printing for industry are that 3D printing can print many geometric structures, as well as simplify the product design process. It is also relatively environmentally friendly. In low-volume production, it can also decrease lead times and total production costs. Moreover, it can increase flexibility, reduce warehousing costs and help the company towards the adoption of a mass customisation business strategy. In addition, 3D printing can be very useful for printing spare parts and installing it locally, therefore reducing supplier dependence and reducing the supply lead time.

Smart sensors

Sensors and instrumentation drive the central forces of innovation, not only for Industry 4.0 but also for other "smart" megatrends, such as smart production, smart mobility, smart homes, smart cities, and smart factories.

Smart sensors are devices which generate the data and allow further functionality from self-monitoring and self-configuration to condition monitoring of complex processes. With the capability of wireless communication, they reduce installation effort to a great extent and help realise a dense array of sensors.

The importance of sensors, measurement science, and smart evaluation for Industry 4.0 has been recognised and acknowledged by various experts and has already led to the statement "Industry 4.0: nothing goes without sensor systems."

However, there are a few issues, such as time synchronisation error, data loss, and dealing with large amounts of harvested data, which all limit the implementation of full-fledged systems. Moreover, additional limits on these functionalities represent the battery power. One example of the integration of smart sensors in the electronic devices, is the case of smart watches, where sensors receive the data from the movement of the user, process the data and as a result, provide the user with the information about how many steps they have walked in a day and also converts the data into calories burned.

Agriculture and food industries

Hydroponic vertical farming

Smart sensors in these two fields are still in the testing stage. These connected sensors collect, interpret and communicate the information available in the plots (leaf area, vegetation index, chlorophyll, hygrometry, temperature, water potential, radiation). Based on this scientific data, the objective is to enable real-time monitoring via a smartphone with a range of advice that optimises plot management in terms of results, time and costs. On the farm, these sensors can be used to detect crop stages and recommend inputs and treatments at the right time, as well as controlling the level of irrigation.

The food industry requires more and more security and transparency and full documentation is required. This new technology is used as a tracking system as well as the collection of human data and product data.

Accelerated transition to the knowledge economy

Main article: knowledge economy

Knowledge economy is an economic system in which production and services are largely based on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to an accelerated pace of technical and scientific advance, as well as rapid obsolescence. Industry 4.0 aids transitions into knowledge economy by increasing reliance on intellectual capabilities rather than on physical inputs or natural resources.

Challenges

Challenges in implementation of Industry 4.0:

Economic

• High economic cost
• Business model adaptation
• Unclear economic benefits/excessive investment
• Driving significant economic changes through automation and technological advancements, leading to both job displacement and the creation of new roles, necessitating widespread workforce reskilling and systemic adaptation.

Social

• Privacy concerns
• Surveillance and distrust
• General reluctance to change by stakeholders
• Threat of redundancy of the corporate IT department
• Loss of many jobs to automatic processes and IT-controlled processes, especially for blue-collar workers
• Increased risk of gender inequalities in professions with job roles most susceptible to replacement with AI

Political

• Lack of regulation, standards, and forms of certifications
• Unclear legal issues and data security

Organizational

• IT security issues, which are greatly aggravated by the inherent need to open up previously closed production shops
• Reliability and stability needed for critical machine-to-machine communication (M2M), including very short and stable latency times
• Need to maintain the integrity of production processes
• Need to avoid any IT snags, as those would cause expensive production outages
• Need to protect industrial know-how (contained also in the control files for the industrial automation gear)
• Lack of adequate skill-sets to expedite the transition towards Industry 4.0
• Low top management commitment
• Insufficient qualification of employees

Country applications

Many countries have set up institutional mechanisms to foster the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies. For example,

Australia

Australia has a Digital Transformation Agency (est. 2015) and the Prime Minister's Industry 4.0 Taskforce (est. 2016), which promotes collaboration with industry groups in Germany and the USA.

Brazil

Brazil's embrace of Industry 4.0 technologies has been a slow and inconsistent process. Initial assessments clearly indicated a considerable gap in digital preparedness among the nation's industrial businesses. A significant survey, conducted by the National Confederation of Industry, revealed concerning statistics: 42% of Brazilian companies were completely unaware of how crucial digital technologies are for industrial competitiveness. Furthermore, a substantial 46% either weren't utilizing these technologies or were unsure about their application. These findings collectively underscored a widespread lack of awareness and readiness for digital transformation across the Brazilian industrial landscape.

Germany

See also: Science and technology in Germany

The term "Industrie 4.0", shortened to I4.0 or simply I4, originated in 2011 from a project in the high-tech strategy of the German government and specifically relates to that project policy, rather than a wider notion of a Fourth Industrial Revolution of 4IR, which promotes the computerisation of manufacturing. The term "Industrie 4.0" was publicly introduced in the same year at the Hannover Fair. German professor Wolfgang Wahlster is sometimes called the inventor of the "Industry 4.0" term. In October 2012, the Working Group on Industry 4.0 presented a set of Industry 4.0 implementation recommendations to the German federal government. The workgroup members and partners are recognised as the founding fathers and driving force behind Industry 4.0. On 8 April 2013 at the Hannover Fair, the final report of the Working Group Industry 4.0 was presented. This working group was headed by Siegfried Dais, of Robert Bosch GmbH, and Henning Kagermann, of the German Academy of Science and Engineering.

As Industry 4.0 principles have been applied by companies, they have sometimes been rebranded. For example, the aerospace parts manufacturer Meggitt PLC has branded its own Industry 4.0 research project M4.

In Germany, the impact of the shift to Industry 4.0 (and especially digitisation) on the labour market has been discussed under the heading "Work 4.0".

The federal government in Germany is a leader in the development of the I4.0 policy through its ministries of the German federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and BMWi. Through the publishing of set objectives and goals for enterprises to achieve, the German federal government attempts to set the direction of the digital transformation. However, there is a gap between German enterprise's collaboration and knowledge of these set policies. The biggest challenge SMEs in Germany are currently facing regarding digital transformation of their manufacturing processes is ensuring that there is a concrete IT and application landscape to support further digital transformation efforts.

The characteristics of the German government's Industry 4.0 strategy involve the strong customisation of products under the conditions of highly flexible (mass-) production. The required automation technology is improved by the introduction of methods of self-optimization, self-configuration, self-diagnosis, cognition and intelligent support of workers in their increasingly complex work. The largest project in Industry 4.0 as of July 2013 is the BMBF leading-edge cluster "Intelligent Technical Systems Ostwestfalen-Lippe (its OWL)". Another major project is the BMBF project RES-COM, as well as the Cluster of Excellence "Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries". In 2015, the European Commission started the international Horizon 2020 research project CREMA (cloud-based rapid elastic manufacturing) as a major initiative to foster the Industry 4.0 topic.

Estonia

In Estonia, the digital transformation dubbed as the 4th Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum in 2015 started with the restoration of independence in 1991. Although a latecomer to the information revolution due to 50 years of Soviet occupation, Estonia leapfrogged to the digital era, while skipping the analogue connections almost completely. The early decisions made by Prime Minister Mart Laar on the course of the country's economic development led to the establishment of what is today known as e-Estonia, one of the worlds most digitally advanced nations.

According to the goals set in Estonia's Digital Agenda 2030, the next advances in the country's digital transformation will involve switching to event-based and proactive services, both in private and business environments, as well as developing a green, AI-powered, and human-centric digital government.

Indonesia

See also: Science and technology in Indonesia

Another example is the Indonesian initiative Making Indonesia 4.0, which focuses on improving industrial performance.

India

See also: Science and technology in India

India, with its expanding economy and extensive manufacturing sector, has embraced the digital revolution, leading to significant advancements in manufacturing. The Indian program for Industry 4.0 centers around leveraging technology to produce globally competitive products at cost-effective rates while adopting the latest technological advancements of Industry 4.0.

Japan

See also: Science and technology in Japan

Society 5.0 envisions a society that prioritizes the well-being of its citizens, striking a harmonious balance between economic progress and the effective addressing of societal challenges through a closely interconnected system of both the digital realm and the physical world. This concept was introduced in 2019 in the 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan for Japanese Government as a blueprint for a forthcoming societal framework.

Malaysia

See also: Science and technology in Malaysia

Malaysia's national policy on Industry 4.0 is known as Industry4WRD. Launched in 2018, key initiatives in this policy include enhancing digital infrastructure, equipping the workforce with 4IR skills, and fostering innovation and technology adoption across industries.

South Africa

See also: Science and technology in South Africa

South Africa appointed a Presidential Commission on the Fourth Industrial Revolution in 2019, consisting of about 30 stakeholders with a background in academia, industry and government. South Africa has also established an Inter ministerial Committee on Industry 4.0.

A nationwide survey of 577 lecturers in Technical Engineering at 52 TVET college campuses across South Africa found that 52.3% of participants were unaware of technological advancements in their area of specialization and their potential impact on technical training. These findings indicate that South African TVET lecturers have limited awareness of the technological advancements needed to participate effectively in the 4IR era. Accordingly, South African Minister of Higher Education, Blade Nzimande, placed the upskilling of TVET lecturers' 4IR-related skills high on the ministry's agenda.

South Korea

See also: Science and technology in South Korea

The Republic of Korea has had a Presidential Committee on the Fourth Industrial Revolution since 2017. The Republic of Korea's I-Korea strategy (2017) is focusing on new growth engines that include AI, drones, and autonomous cars, in line with the government's innovation-driven economic policy.

Uganda

See also: Science and technology in Uganda

Uganda adopted its own National 4IR Strategy in October 2020 with emphasis on e-governance, urban management (smart cities), healthcare, education, agriculture, and the digital economy; to support local businesses, the government was contemplating introducing a local start-ups bill in 2020 which would require all accounting officers to exhaust the local market prior to procuring digital solutions from abroad.

United Kingdom

See also: Science and technology in the United Kingdom

In a policy paper published in 2019, the UK's Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, titled "Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution", outlined the need to evolve current regulatory models to remain competitive in evolving technological and social settings.

United States

See also: Science and technology in the United States

The Department of Homeland Security in 2019 published a paper called 'The Industrial Internet of things (IIOT): Opportunities, Risks, Mitigation'. The base pieces of critical infrastructure are increasingly digitised for greater connectivity and optimisation. Hence, its implementation, growth and maintenance must be carefully planned and safeguarded. The paper discusses not only applications of IIOT but also the associated risks. It has suggested some key areas where risk mitigation is possible. To increase coordination between the public, private, law enforcement, academia and other stakeholders the DHS formed the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC).

Industry applications

The aerospace industry has sometimes been characterised as "too low volume for extensive automation". However, Industry 4.0 principles have been investigated by several aerospace companies, and technologies have been developed to improve productivity where the upfront cost of automation cannot be justified. One example of this is the aerospace parts manufacturer Meggitt PLC's M4 project.

The increasing use of the industrial internet of things is referred to as Industry 4.0 at Bosch, and generally in Germany. Applications include machines that can predict failures and trigger maintenance processes autonomously or self-organised coordination that react to unexpected changes in production. in 2017, Bosch launched the Connectory, a Chicago, Illinois based innovation incubator that specializes in IoT, including Industry 4.0.

Industry 4.0 inspired Innovation 4.0, a move toward digitisation for academia and research and development. In 2017, the £81M Materials Innovation Factory (MIF) at the University of Liverpool opened as a center for computer aided materials science, where robotic formulation, data capture, and modelling are being integrated into development practices.

Criticism

With the consistent development of automation of everyday tasks, some saw the benefit in the exact opposite of automation where self-made products are valued more than those that involved automation. This valuation is named the IKEA effect, a term coined by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School, Daniel Mochon of Yale, and Dan Ariely of Duke. Another problem that is expected to accelerate with the growth of IR4 is the prevalence of mental disorders, a known issue within high-tech operators. Also, the IR4 has sparked significant criticism regarding AI bias and ethical issues, as algorithms used in decision-making processes often perpetuate existing social inequalities, disproportionately impacting marginalized groups while lacking transparency and accountability.

Future

Industry 5.0

Industry 5.0 has been proposed as a strategy to create a paradigm shift for an industrial landscape in which the primary focus should no longer be on increasing efficiency, but rather on promoting the well-being of society and sustainability of the economy and industrial production. This shift in production that appears more "human friendly" is the expected outcome of Industry 4.0 (less labor, less facilities, less materials) evolving towards smaller localized flexible JIT manufacturing facilities since long distance transportation and distribution will become the greater remaining costs to reduce.