As to reality, I think that we all struggle to try and understand it. Scientists want to define it with logic and theologians want to define it with religious belief.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:03 PM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
>
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -> 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 -
0 comments:
Post a Comment