|
| Thread: Singularity |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 14, 2009 03:37 AM |
|
|
Death:
Usually I understand what you're trying to say, even thought it's wrong. But now... what? Who cares if you disturb something that's not alive anyway? (Unless it has a significant impact on others, of course.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 14, 2009 03:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Who cares
The question that is the cause of all selfishness   (no, really!)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2009 05:00 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2009 08:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You can make D an integer, but that will make C irrational, not a problem since both are numbers (I never said only integers).
But yeah good point about not knowing C... I would say, you could either measure it (impossible to do it mathematically precise!), or use a shape with N sides, where N gets to infinity (more and more sides become a circle). That's how most algorithms are based these days (on computation of Pi).
Or you could go with trigonometric functions but then, radians are expressed in Pi so unless you use Taylor series, you're in trouble.. complicated stuff 
but still a number, that was my point. 
And your point is wrong because it's not "still a number". It - and all others like it - are a different kind of number, which have a different quality than those you can build by ratios of integers (note that Pythagoras thought that "everything is number", with "number" being just that, the ratios between integers or what is called Q.
Pi and all those other irrational and (complex) numbers are the quality leaps I mentioned (to steer this back to the original topic).
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 14, 2009 04:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We create hammers, and thus as selfish species, we want to make them our slaves.
In a thousand years, Black & Decker will be seen as slave traders. 
lol
What a great post  
I have responses to the soul and god and pi discussions but I fear that they will derail the thread.
I'd rather just bask in spooky and imaginative thoughts of future technology
(ps. i lied i don't have anything to add to the pi discussion)
The Death are you opposed to the creation of AI?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted June 14, 2009 04:48 PM |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what counts as life, but it's evil to create it to make it suffer.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 02:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The Death are you opposed to the creation of AI?
Is that a trick question? I'm supporting them more than you could ever dream because you would make them slaves, I wouldn't.
Actually I support AIs primarily for the reason that they'll either teach us a lesson, or make us change and be less selfish... and most certainly not "proud to be selfish"  
Quote:
And your point is wrong because it's not "still a number". It - and all others like it - are a different kind of number, which have a different quality than those you can build by ratios of integers (note that Pythagoras thought that "everything is number", with "number" being just that, the ratios between integers or what is called Q.
Pi and all those other irrational and (complex) numbers are the quality leaps I mentioned (to steer this back to the original topic).
There is nothing special about irrational numbers (other than they can't be expressed as a ratio, but a ratio is also just a value) -- because they just represent values. Simple values, that fall between two other values.
I agree about complex numbers though, since there you can't talk about simple values anymore. There is no "comparison" operand available with complex numbers. Is i greater than -i? What about 1? Is it greater or smaller? (you can't take the magnitude because that would make i=-i=1=-1 etc which is obviously false).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 04:44 AM |
|
|
The Death you talk of inanimate objects, but I think of AIs as just as animate as fancy clockwork or a DVD.
They move but that doesn't mean that they should be able to vote, or whatever.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 07:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is nothing special about irrational numbers (other than they can't be expressed as a ratio, but a ratio is also just a value) -- because they just represent values. Simple values, that fall between two other values.
I agree about complex numbers though, since there you can't talk about simple values anymore. There is no "comparison" operand available with complex numbers. Is i greater than -i? What about 1? Is it greater or smaller? (you can't take the magnitude because that would make i=-i=1=-1 etc which is obviously false).
This is going into the offtopic now, and thank heavens it's irrelevant for the sake of this thread and the reasoning that you are wrong, but it's enough that you at least partly see what this is about. Because you can make faster and better computers until doomsday (try to solve the equations x>2=2 or X>2=-1 witin the body of Q), you won't get far without making a qualitative leap into something new.
Processor technology tells us, that miniaturization will need ultra-clean assembly conditions, and this will obviously be true for any "nano"-technology. At a certain point of miniaturization quantum mechanics will come into effect, and I have my doubts that we are near any technology able to manage that.
At this point, while we have a lot of medical technology available, here AS WELL the "ultra-clean" conditions needed are obviously the problem. If you combine normal life with technological-artificial components (switch biological with artificial parts), you'll have that problem.
The other option is to try and control life itself by designing bacteria or virusses that change the composition of people in the short run and their genetic structure in the long run. The problem here is of course that this runs a certain danger of unwished-for by-products that may be irrevocable.
Both need quality jumps in insights we are as far away from as 3.14 is away from Pi.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 03:21 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Processor technology tells us, that miniaturization will need ultra-clean assembly conditions, and this will obviously be true for any "nano"-technology. At a certain point of miniaturization quantum mechanics will come into effect, and I have my doubts that we are near any technology able to manage that.
We're a lot closer than you might think. We can already make single molecule switches, transistors, junctions, wires, and other electronic devices. Hell I've made some myself. At this point it's mostly an engineering problem. A large engineering problem, yes. Durability and assembly, that's what needs to be solved.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 03:58 PM |
|
|
Assembly of what EXACTLY, Corribus? Artificial life with an artificial intelligence? Nanobots or artificial "bacteria"?
It's a long way from the wheel to a motorized, self-steering vehicle.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Assembly of what EXACTLY, Corribus? Artificial life with an artificial intelligence? Nanobots or artificial "bacteria"?
It's a long way from the wheel to a motorized, self-steering vehicle.
I mean, truly functioning molecular-scale electronics.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 04:07 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, sure, miniaturization goes on, but even if the assembly problem can be solved, where are the DEVICES? I mean, a cellphone is great and a pc is great, and having both in the size of pocket calculator is fine, but that's hardly a new age.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 04:35 PM |
|
|
Well, you said:
Quote:
At a certain point of miniaturization quantum mechanics will come into effect, and I have my doubts that we are near any technology able to manage that.
I'm saying we're already there. We're already using quantum effects to design molecular scale electronic devices. We can use quantum effects to turn a single molecule into an optical switch, electrical wire, transistor or rectifier. There are still a number of hurdles to overcome - quantum effects cause some of these molecular electronic devices to work is slightly different ways than devices constructed out of more traditional bulk materials. There's also the matter of durability. But as I said, a lot of these are engineering issues. I guess the point is that I don't really think it's going to be "that long" before we see molecular electronics beginning to replace traditional semiconductor based technology in a variety of commercial products.
Being able to visualize and manipulate the properties of single molecules and atoms is not really science fiction anymore. I've personally seen fluorescence from a single molecule. I built an instrument to do it myself. A German company now sells such an instrument that anyone (well, anyone with a half a million bucks) can buy and run right out of the box. The technique is being used in medicine and biology today. We can tag single fluorescent molecules to other targeting molecules and attach them to specific organelles in a cell; and then we can use single molecule fluorescence and microscopes capable of resolving light down to dimensions of the diffraction limit in order to draw a high resolution picture of pre-specified cellular components, and actively observe cellular processes and disease! I just read a report published in the journal Nano Letters about someone who created nanoscale cobalt-covered silicon particles with corkscrew-tails, that, in the presence of a magnetic field, can actually translate in any desired direction. Molecules with nanopropellers!
Single-molecule technology is everywhere. It's only a matter of time until it's driving your iPOD or laptop.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 04:39 PM |
|
|
|
No doubt about it, but where are the new devices? The things that will turn the future upside down?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 04:54 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:07, 15 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
No doubt about it, but where are the new devices? The things that will turn the future upside down?
You mean, where's my new molecular iPOD? I don't know. That's for the engineers to figure out. Besides, I think the days of scientific revolution are behind us. My guess is that future innovation will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I could be wrong, of course.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 05:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think the days of scientific revolution are behind us. My guess is that future innovation will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I could be wrong, of course.
Did you just say that?
Corribus, I'm very, very disappointed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 05:08 PM |
|
|
Well, that's exactly what I objected to in my first post.
I think that the "acceleration" in development is a kind of delusion that mistakes quantitave developments, like making every faster pcs and making them available for the consumer, with qualitative breakthrough things.
We had computer technology with everything associated, and I guess the next one will have to do with genetics and molecular biology.
Wastefree engines (at least free of dangeroues waste) would be a necessary one.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 15, 2009 05:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Did you just say that?
Corribus, I'm very, very disappointed.
Damn, you're right! Fixed it. Phew!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 16, 2009 04:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Processor technology tells us, that miniaturization will need ultra-clean assembly conditions, and this will obviously be true for any "nano"-technology. At a certain point of miniaturization quantum mechanics will come into effect, and I have my doubts that we are near any technology able to manage that.
Well even without the stuff Corribus said, in semiconductors (not molecular-based building) Intel ran into problems already with quantum effects on their 45nm, and will get into more with 32nm... I mean they even changed the transistor design which was unchanged for 50 years!
And sorry I get what you meant with Pi now , but I have to say it was a terrible analogy
The point is that I think this "singularity" doesn't necessarily mean we have to understand humans and combat all diseases, not sure why many people think that. It's just about creating something more capable than us at designing "the next" something. When that's the case, we can retire.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
|
|
