I work with physicists and engineers. The physicists think the equipment is miserable because it doesn't fit their idealized models. The engineers think that their tech is the best because nobody is doing it better. As a mathematician, I can see that both groups are consistent in the application of their assumptions, and both sets of assumptions have utilitarian foundations.

This is literally a discussion about detecting interstellar civilisations using black holes for near light speed travel, and similar technologies we might develop in the future. I am posting in that context.

me too since we developed a framework to think about ways to detect more advanced civilizations than us that may not exist. My context is that we are very advanced. But you seem convinced that we are miserable and I guess our difference is pessimistic vs optimistic rather than objective.

At every point in human history, current Human technology has been the best technology ever developed. It's a completely useless perspective because it always gives you the same answer under every circumstance that has ever existed.

The discussion we are having now gives an eternal objective reference point - the technology required to exploit the gravitational energy of binary black holes. How advanced would you say our current technology is, compared to that reference point?

I don't find this fruitful. Compared to infinite possible intelligence that creatures could conceivably reach either here or other worlds or machines, Einstein was extremely stupid. What good of a convo does it make?