On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 at 07:12:06 UTC, Tony wrote:
One thing that comes to mind to refute the contention that senescence would be insignificant at the age of 50 is notable technical achievement.

If we were to list the mathematical and scientific discoveries of the past - like calculus and theory of relativity, etc. - how many would have been done by someone at the age of 50 or older? How many milestones in computing history were achieved by someone 50 or older? How many were done by someone over 40? And I think most of the aging process isn't even quality (what would most impact notable discovery) - it's quantity (that is, slower clock cycle). And companies probably have more concerns about quantity of thought than quality.

There has been a significant prime number discovery made by a 50+ guy on prime number recently (on the spacing pattern between them). I can't recall his name.

Alleged inventor of bitcoin is 44 years old. It is not 50+ but it is much closer than 25.

Ivan Godard, behind the Mill is more than 60.

I thin what you are looking at here is that youngster are more willing to take risk. When Einstein say that time is relative and ether doesn't exists, that mass and energy is that same thing and that energy exchange is quantized, he takes the risk of looking like a fool big time. But he has no reputation to loose, and he has no involvement in existing theories.

Later in life, either you were not talented and most likely not made it, or you were talented and busy capitalizing and what you made younger.

Later in his life, he is going to deny quatum physics, not because he has gone mad, but because the more you invest into something (relativity in his case) the harder it is to let go. That's due to cognitive dissonance.

Reply via email to