The Singularity is more analogous to the event horizon of a black hole; that used to be called the Schwartzschild singularity, but since its singular behaviour was an artifact of co-ordinate systems (as was first clearly shown by David Finkelstein), this terminology has fallen out of use.
Calling an “event horizon” a “singularity” would be pretty bonkers.
No—the commonly-cited justification is that so our model of the spacetime supposedly breaks down in the middle of black holes, so the model of the future breaks down when contemplating smarter-than-human intelligences.
Personally, I think that is nonsense. Some people are proposing busted models, is all. If your model is broken, that is hardly a cause for celebration—you should instead return to the drawing board, and build a better model.
The event horizon is a co-ordinate singularity—like the North Pole. (Wikipedia has an article on the types of ‘mathematical’ singularity. I haven’t read it, so I don’t know how good it is.) Yes, in some sense it was a mistake to call the event horizon a ‘singularity’; that’s why they stopped.
Otherwise, we appear to agree. As you say, ‘If you divide by zero in your model, that just shows that your model is broken.’ I share your interest in good terminology; but it looks to me like it’s probably far too late to get rid of ‘The Singularity’. So I just adopt it, but with a certain air of amused detachment. Sure, it’s just a co-ordinate singularity at most.
I wonder if Ulam was thinking of the Schwarzschild singularity in 1958; that’s the same year Finkelstein’s co-ordinates were introduced, so he may or may not have absorbed the illusory nature of the horizon at that point, but probably he wasn’t thinking of the singularity at the centre of the hole. But I’m not much of an historian, and would welcome corrections from those better informed.
I share your interest in good terminology; but it looks to me like it’s probably far too late to get rid of ‘The Singularity’.
I expect marketers to play along—but probably not scientists—or at least not serious ones in the relevant fields.
There are already a few exceptions, though. For example, Robin Hanson is apparently trying to rechristen the agricultural and industrial revolutions as being “singularites”. However, I think most historians will go the other way around. The “industrial singularity” will just sound like crazy talk to most people.
Calling an “event horizon” a “singularity” would be pretty bonkers.
No—the commonly-cited justification is that so our model of the spacetime supposedly breaks down in the middle of black holes, so the model of the future breaks down when contemplating smarter-than-human intelligences.
Personally, I think that is nonsense. Some people are proposing busted models, is all. If your model is broken, that is hardly a cause for celebration—you should instead return to the drawing board, and build a better model.
The event horizon is a co-ordinate singularity—like the North Pole. (Wikipedia has an article on the types of ‘mathematical’ singularity. I haven’t read it, so I don’t know how good it is.) Yes, in some sense it was a mistake to call the event horizon a ‘singularity’; that’s why they stopped.
Otherwise, we appear to agree. As you say, ‘If you divide by zero in your model, that just shows that your model is broken.’ I share your interest in good terminology; but it looks to me like it’s probably far too late to get rid of ‘The Singularity’. So I just adopt it, but with a certain air of amused detachment. Sure, it’s just a co-ordinate singularity at most.
I wonder if Ulam was thinking of the Schwarzschild singularity in 1958; that’s the same year Finkelstein’s co-ordinates were introduced, so he may or may not have absorbed the illusory nature of the horizon at that point, but probably he wasn’t thinking of the singularity at the centre of the hole. But I’m not much of an historian, and would welcome corrections from those better informed.
I expect marketers to play along—but probably not scientists—or at least not serious ones in the relevant fields.
There are already a few exceptions, though. For example, Robin Hanson is apparently trying to rechristen the agricultural and industrial revolutions as being “singularites”. However, I think most historians will go the other way around. The “industrial singularity” will just sound like crazy talk to most people.