On 5/29/2011 8:36 PM, Chuck Bowling 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 <menfranco@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.
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -> 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 -
0 comments:
Post a Comment