The first development of the electronic circuit would have been a case of a complex technological system that worked, but was not based fundamentally upon existing simpler machines. The first use of chemical propulsion—gunpowder / rocketry—might have been a similar case.
(EDIT: Upon further consideration, chemical propulsion is based upon the simpler technologies of airtight confinement and incendiary materials. However, I still think the electronic circuit was effectively the rise of a new fundamental device with complex behavior unconnected to more basic technologies. If anyone thinks they can reduce the circuit to simpler working devices I would be fascinated to explore that.)
It’s a good question. I’m turning over various possibilities in my mind.
Do you still hold that the space shuttle falsifies it?
If so, I’d be interesting in hearing your reasoning, and other examples you consider similar.
The first development of the electronic circuit would have been a case of a complex technological system that worked, but was not based fundamentally upon existing simpler machines.
Electroplating and electrolysis of water both involve a circuit, but aren’t overwhelmingly complex. Samuel Thomas von Sommering’s electrochemical telegraph was based on electrolysis. It’s not like someone pulled doped silicon semiconductors straight out of the lightning-struck sand.
However, I still don’t see the circuit as reducible to simpler working components. Regardless of the medium across which the current flows, it still seems to me that the circuit is a simple machine—a basic device like the pulley, joint, inclined plane, or lever.
In considering this, I also think that chemical fuels are simple machines and belong on that list, as they are ostensibly devices (can be used by an agent to do work) but also aren’t reducible to simpler working components.
The first development of the electronic circuit would have been a case of a complex technological system that worked, but was not based fundamentally upon existing simpler machines. The first use of chemical propulsion—gunpowder / rocketry—might have been a similar case.
(EDIT: Upon further consideration, chemical propulsion is based upon the simpler technologies of airtight confinement and incendiary materials. However, I still think the electronic circuit was effectively the rise of a new fundamental device with complex behavior unconnected to more basic technologies. If anyone thinks they can reduce the circuit to simpler working devices I would be fascinated to explore that.)
It’s a good question. I’m turning over various possibilities in my mind.
Do you still hold that the space shuttle falsifies it?
If so, I’d be interesting in hearing your reasoning, and other examples you consider similar.
Electroplating and electrolysis of water both involve a circuit, but aren’t overwhelmingly complex. Samuel Thomas von Sommering’s electrochemical telegraph was based on electrolysis. It’s not like someone pulled doped silicon semiconductors straight out of the lightning-struck sand.
True, +1 for a thoughtful answer.
However, I still don’t see the circuit as reducible to simpler working components. Regardless of the medium across which the current flows, it still seems to me that the circuit is a simple machine—a basic device like the pulley, joint, inclined plane, or lever.
In considering this, I also think that chemical fuels are simple machines and belong on that list, as they are ostensibly devices (can be used by an agent to do work) but also aren’t reducible to simpler working components.