[Mind's Eye] Re: New planet discoveries might change our views

Do you think human nature will change- ever? Then it really doesn't
matter about reality.

On May 29, 7:36 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Nanotech is just the implementation of another layer of our understanding of
> the universe. I think we still have a long ways to go before we actually
> have a firm grasp on the true nature of reality.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Menfranco Laws <menfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi everybody!
> > Well said Ash, where is Pat indeed when we need him to say God's
> > things, because for me when you are talking about nanotech makes me
> > thing about God and ask myself this question; Is this nanotech the
> > link between us and God? Perhaps once we have learned enough about
> > this nanotech we be able to understand how God works? Who knows? it is
> > just a thought.
>
> > On May 24, 9:48 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Where's Pat when we need him?
>
> > > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I'm fairly certian this site is not umm being honest.  As far as I
> > > > know we simply have not yet managed to do this.
>
> > > > One of the biggest problems in quantum compting is that old quantum
> > > > chestnut of simply by looking we influence the result.
>
> > > > With Quantum bit (Qbit) computing, the idea is to make use of the
> > > > verious quantum states of a moclucule, so that a Qbit can hold
> > > > possibly 4 (all to do with spin) pieces of data at the same time.  The
> > > > problem comes in retriving this data and ensuring that by 'reading'
> > > > the data it remains unchanged.
>
> > > > On May 20, 10:17 pm, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >> Thanks for providing me with the right key words. And this is the
> > stuff I
> > > >> meant:http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html
>
> > > >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Chuck Bowling<
>
> > > >> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>> Nanotechnology is used in a lot of places but it's still far from
> > reaching
> > > >>> its full potential. Right now most nanotech is just new applications
> > of
> > > >>> materials science. Potentially nanotech could be used to create
> > robots
> > > >>> smaller than a single human cell or for that matter to create new
> > life.
> > > >>> As to quantum physics, it provides insight into microelectronics. But
> > the
> > > >>> hope is that one day we will be able to create computers based on
> > quantum
> > > >>> spin. That still hasn't happened yet.
> > > >>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, gabbydott<gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > > >>>> What? I thought nanotech was already in use in the cosmetics
> > industry and
> > > >>>> quantatech (is that how you call it?) in the computer industry.
> > > >>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chuck Bowling<
> > > >>>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>>>> I'm in agreement about the radical changes that nanotech appear to
> > > >>>>> promise. Changes that could spell doom or a complete redefinition
> > of what it
> > > >>>>> is to be human. It's about the only thing that makes me want to
> > live longer
> > > >>>>> than my allotted time. Just so that I can see what miracles come
> > next.
> > > >>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>   Yeah, I was fear mongering Chuck, a political device. ;-) This
> > is a
> > > >>>>>> favorite topic of mine, it is at the axis of many fields. To
> > accelerate
> > > >>>>>> nanotech development I think we should implement rapid
> > prototyping,
> > > >>>>>> experimentation and analysis systems. When I envision man at the
> > beginning
> > > >>>>>> of this revolution I look for tools that would allow an explosion
> > > >>>>>> (figuratively) of development, being able to catalog and operate a
> > multitude
> > > >>>>>> of experiments in parallel, while building a massive library of
> > modeled
> > > >>>>>> behavior for materials and systems interoperating in the real
> > world to
> > > >>>>>> improve the robustness and diversity of this technology is
> > apparently the
> > > >>>>>> way to go. To think that the behavior of biological systems can be
> > > >>>>>> abstracted and used to formulate dynamic systems guided by expert
> > algorithms
> > > >>>>>> to solve material challenges in real time guided by people over
> > vast
> > > >>>>>> distances, it goes beyond genetics, I am in awe at the potential
> > universe we
> > > >>>>>> are venturing toward. We will also be able to make changes to
> > ourselves and
> > > >>>>>> our experience of this world at a similar rate..
> > > >>>>>> On 5/19/2011 1:41 AM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
> > > >>>>>> I think that with nanotechnology we will be able to synthesize
> > pretty
> > > >>>>>> much anything we want from raw materials in the future. Assuming
> > that any
> > > >>>>>> alien race capable of traveling the trillions of miles to get here
> > would
> > > >>>>>> have at least the same level of technology my guess is that they
> > wouldn't
> > > >>>>>> need anything we'd have to offer.
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>   There is another good reason to develop our technologies as a
> > species,
> > > >>>>>>> think how we are looking at the planets and celestial bodies as
> > vast
> > > >>>>>>> resources. Imagine if something else came through and strip mined
> > the
> > > >>>>>>> resources we would need to develop into a spacefaring species,
> > that would
> > > >>>>>>> suck big time. Like a tribe of humans moving through and picking
> > all the
> > > >>>>>>> nuts we squirrels need, or worse, deciding we were in the way of
> > those
> > > >>>>>>> resources, think what we have done in those situations.. I know
> > it's
> > > >>>>>>> unlikely considering the vast resources out there, but something
> > might have
> > > >>>>>>> it's eye on our pale blue dot too, working faster than us at
> > making the
> > > >>>>>>> leap.
> > > >>>>>>> On 5/18/2011 8:37 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell if a
> > planet
> > > >>>>>>> is rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a relatively
> > massive
> > > >>>>>>> planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the smallest
> > planet
> > > >>>>>>> found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth.
> > > >>>>>>> IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century
> > technology
> > > >>>>>>> allowed humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow and
> > wrought
> > > >>>>>>> with hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is like a
> > new
> > > >>>>>>> continent then we are more like cavemen discovering that a log
> > can float. At
> > > >>>>>>> the rate we're going it might be a thousand years before we can
> > actually
> > > >>>>>>> mount an expedition to another star.
> > > >>>>>>> I think the primary reason we are so far from actually exploring
> > other
> > > >>>>>>> stars is mainly political rather than technological. But, I think
> > you are
> > > >>>>>>> right. It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could just
> > make the
> > > >>>>>>> damn politicians see it that way... ;)
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets
> > enough like
> > > >>>>>>>> ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land.  They claim
> > there
> > > >>>>>>>> is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current space
> > travel
> > > >>>>>>>> speeds.  One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere near
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>> position of 'Columbus'.  Our current 'tin-foil' technology won't
> > do,
> > > >>>>>>>> but at this kind of distance we are talking about something
> > other than
> > > >>>>>>>> worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in which
> > > >>>>>>>> distance is an illusion.
> > > >>>>>>>> For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and
> > quite
> > > >>>>>>>> likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of
> > evolution
> > > >>>>>>>> not just ending through catastrophe), there is an opportunity to
> > > >>>>>>>> believe in something distant in time and a need for us to direct
> > > >>>>>>>> ourselves towards it.  A time, perhaps in which a form of
> > conscious
> > > >>>>>>>> life can live very differently from now, and a project worth
> > attaching
> > > >>>>>>>> to - perhaps a reason for spirituality.  Comments on this or the
> > > >>>>>>>> technology welcome.- Hide quoted text -
> > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -