Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 22-26 August 2011 (1996-2000)
Boradis:
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 26 Aug 2011, 18:11 ---1. They've been waiting for that major advancement for years. Right along side Mr. Fusion and Transflux Capacitors.
--- End quote ---
Those are pure SF -- goofy SF at that. A space elevator or orbital tether system is theoretically possible. We know what would be needed but lack a strong enough material. Carbon and boron nitride nanotubes are real, a decent bet to achieve the needed tensile strength (see the third graph of preceding link), and development of them is proceeding rapidly
As for the issue of waiting years for a major advancement or breakthrough all I can say is "Welcome to the universe." Science moves in small steps and we'll all be long dead before many of the things we would like to see get discovered. I'm just grateful I'm alive at the dawn of the information age and don't have to shit in a chamber pot.
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 26 Aug 2011, 18:11 ---2. You want someone to start heading to the moon like it's no one's business? Have them discover one of two things up there: Gold or Oil.
--- End quote ---
How about a planet made of diamond?
There are plenty of natural resources closer to home too. But chemical rockets are still not cost effective or reliable enough to go get them.
Skewbrow:
Well, I don't know how to put it in a useful and clear way, but I guess I should try anyway. Mathematical theorems are absolute certainties. But they come together with a scope, and do not really claim anything, if we are studying objects outside that scope.
Einstein: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
[Edit]
I believe Einstein was referring to the statistical nature of quantum mechanics when he said the above, but I may be wrong. Einstein had philosophical problems with QM ("God doesn't play dice!"), and it was a bit dangerous of me to present this quote out of context, because he most certainly didn't want to undermine the effectiveness and accuracy of the mathematical theories he was using himself. [/Edit]
So a result derived with infallible mathematical rules is extremely useful even if its validity is guaranteed only within a certain scope (in the present discussion in a model of computations, in physics in a model of how a part of the universe works). If you want to go around it, you need to be familiar with the scope in order to invent something outside that (fully knowing that the conclusion of the said result may still be valid in many an extended scope leaving you still constrained in the same way). IOW: Don't hold your breath, if you are basing your hopes on the existence of something that might be able to circumvent known facts. I will balance Einstein's statement with another quote
Randall Munroe: "(Science) It works, bitches!"
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: Boradis on 26 Aug 2011, 16:59 ---If this is a religious belief of yours I'll back off.
We aren't magical. If it can be done with wetware it can be done with hardware/software.
--- End quote ---
No, not religious. Just forty-five years in programming and other aspects of computing (mostly in a medical environment), plus a detailed awareness of genetics and the like, makes me feel that the mismatch between our capabilities and what's required is still almost inconceivably wide. Sure, we can imitate some behaviours tolerably well, and that may have huge practical usefulness, and even change our world; but to make a device that is in some way equivalent to a living being requires hugely more. Of course, I'm not just talking of the AI aspects here - because the AI can't be complete without all the surrounding means of gaining experience and operating on the world. Think about energy storage and conversion, and the capability to scavenge for energy sources; the range of sensors for both internal and external monitoring; the information storage, and search and association mechanisms; the mobility; the growth and self-repair mechanisms; the self-reproducing capabilities. We are seriously barely at the starting line with most of those, and it's not just a matter of a few breakthroughs, I think. Not until all that is in place will the AI have the possibility to approach complete emulation of humanity.
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: Method of Madness on 26 Aug 2011, 17:58 ---
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 26 Aug 2011, 16:17 ---OIC: "dubs" as in "double-u"
--- End quote ---
Yep. Is it ok if I call you that? It amuses me.
--- End quote ---
Whatever. In 65 years, it's the closest anyone's come to making a nickname out of my name.
jwhouk:
Mr. Hodges: It's only taken about 16-17 years for me to suddenly be referred to as JW by relative strangers - thanks to my original ISP.
The real basis of most Sci-Fi is the concept that one, seemingly overwhelming and impossible to overcome, problem has been figured out. Time travel, AI robotics, faster-than-light travel, genetics - it's usually one little thing that makes the difference.
In the BTTF universe, it was the discovery of the Transflux capacitor. In Star Trek, it was the discovery of trilithium and the concept of warp drive. In the QC universe, someone apparently found a way to get past the sentience barrier - a "someone" whom I suspect has the last name of Ellicott-Chatham.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version