In 2013 a new device called the memristor is going to be introduced to the market. The first generation will be in memory devices but will soon lead to computers that handle analog information and that can program themselves.
By 2021 I believe that Quantum Computers that double in power every time you add just one elemental qubit will be powerful enough to increase and engineer nanotechnology.
These plus other forms of computing and technology are going to add new dimensions to knowledge of reality.
Within a decade we will be having thoughtful conversations with human created beings...
QUOTE (Quantum Chaos+Nov 20 2010, 06:15 PM)
Within a decade we will be having thoughtful conversations with human created beings...
I feel insulted
I feel insulted
QUOTE (Quantum Chaos+Nov 20 2010, 06:15 PM)
In 2013 a new device called the memristor is going to be introduced to the market. The first generation will be in memory devices but will soon lead to computers that handle analog information and that can program themselves.
By 2021 I believe that Quantum Computers that double in power every time you add just one elemental qubit will be powerful enough to increase and engineer nanotechnology.
These plus other forms of computing and technology are going to add new dimensions to knowledge of reality.
Within a decade we will be having thoughtful conversations with human created beings...
Though that may be possible we do have a problem in replacing silicon.. we are fast approaching the limits of our use for silicon. I imagine biological computers will be the next breakthrough that will keep us progressing.. something will have to happen in any case in materials.
I think biological processors should be possible.. after all nature has done it we should be able to reproduce it eventually.
By 2021 I believe that Quantum Computers that double in power every time you add just one elemental qubit will be powerful enough to increase and engineer nanotechnology.
These plus other forms of computing and technology are going to add new dimensions to knowledge of reality.
Within a decade we will be having thoughtful conversations with human created beings...
Though that may be possible we do have a problem in replacing silicon.. we are fast approaching the limits of our use for silicon. I imagine biological computers will be the next breakthrough that will keep us progressing.. something will have to happen in any case in materials.
I think biological processors should be possible.. after all nature has done it we should be able to reproduce it eventually.
Of the reasons I believe this is going to happen is because we already have enough computing power to achieve more then human intelligence. That is if the software was programmed correctly and combined everyone's spare power it would lead to a self programming machine that learns rapidly. Software development lags behind hardware but with memristors soon programming will occur much faster.
I think that the problem is that we're allowing ourselves to become dumber. We're not becoming more inventive with each iteration of technological improvement.
This might delay the Singularity, and may even naturally prevent it, out progress might asymptote at too low of a level.
Of course, I could be proven wrong by having more people incorporate new knowledge and new technology into their worlds, to help create feedback effects. i.e., the adoption of knowledge and technology by 'common citizens' in order to speed technological progress.
This might delay the Singularity, and may even naturally prevent it, out progress might asymptote at too low of a level.
Of course, I could be proven wrong by having more people incorporate new knowledge and new technology into their worlds, to help create feedback effects. i.e., the adoption of knowledge and technology by 'common citizens' in order to speed technological progress.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Nov 23 2010, 12:40 PM)
I think that the problem is that we're allowing ourselves to become dumber. We're not becoming more inventive with each iteration of technological improvement.
I would instead argue that the gap between the knows and the know-nots is increasing while the overall median remains about the same.
Technology doesn't seem to be a direct path to knowledge. This is especially the case with mathematics, where calculators have replaced arithmetic for a large percentage of the population. I would argue that technology allows for larger economic diversity, but has no effect on overall intelligence or knowledge.
I would instead argue that the gap between the knows and the know-nots is increasing while the overall median remains about the same.
QUOTE
Of course, I could be proven wrong by having more people incorporate new knowledge and new technology into their worlds, to help create feedback effects. i.e., the adoption of knowledge and technology by 'common citizens' in order to speed technological progress.
Technology doesn't seem to be a direct path to knowledge. This is especially the case with mathematics, where calculators have replaced arithmetic for a large percentage of the population. I would argue that technology allows for larger economic diversity, but has no effect on overall intelligence or knowledge.
What if in the distant future beings could use the expanding space as a way to store an exponentially increasing amount of information. If you precisely positioned your highly evolved matter you could store memory in the sky. A galactic quantum internet system could emulate unimagined worlds... Of course it will slow down as the universe aged and every node was farther apart.
Do these 'predictions' and flights-of-fancy have any bases in reality. I have just as read up on Memristors, having never heard of them before and (esp. as an electronic engineer) they are most interesting, but apart from massively increasing the capabilities and efficiency of memory, I can not see why these devices particularly count as a key element to allow super-intelligent machines.
I would argue that it has been quite sometime since the overwhelming limiting factor to self-deterministic devices has been hardware in particular. The bottom-line is we just don't know yet how to make true Turing machines and that understanding is the real magic involved.
As for stretching space holding and transmitting enormous quantities of superlative information, this is so far in the realms of Sci-Fi as to be of practical insignificance.
I would argue that it has been quite sometime since the overwhelming limiting factor to self-deterministic devices has been hardware in particular. The bottom-line is we just don't know yet how to make true Turing machines and that understanding is the real magic involved.
As for stretching space holding and transmitting enormous quantities of superlative information, this is so far in the realms of Sci-Fi as to be of practical insignificance.
The memristor is profoundly impacting in function. At first publicly available memristors around 2013 will be for memory. It will be surprise to quite a few when a few years later there is evidence of actual intelligence in machines. I believe before 2021 there will be memristor systems using logic operations and analog or digital memory feature plus self programming nature of such system will save billions of man hours in programming at some point. This little device has been shown to be able to calculate all logic operations much more compactly then transistor systems or act as a neuron. That means within the same machine you could do advanced computations while learning to become actually intelligent it will be a runaway process unlike nuclear fusion technology these memristors are not going to perpetually be 20 years away.
Have you ever heard of grammar? Commas? Or a logical train of thought?
Do you mean you will become intelligent while your memristor-based computer completes its calculations?
Do you mean you will become intelligent while your memristor-based computer completes its calculations?
QUOTE
Commas? Or a logical train of thought?
What are these sentence fragments all about, O' wise guest?
Its going to allow for grammar correction like spell check I will simply dictate the train of thought and I could interact with the system to create engineering projects. I could have glasses with video of what I am seeing and a display of information to guide me through what I am doing so that my skills will be greatly enhanced.
A long-established phenomenon: Garbage in, garbage out.
How do you propose to overcome your inability to communicate or reason when programming these miracles you envision?
How do you propose to overcome your inability to communicate or reason when programming these miracles you envision?
Here's one to give QC his next wet dream!
"[IBM] could soon make it possible for supercomputers to perform one million trillion calculations – or an exaflop – in a single second.
Such supercomputers would not only be a thousand times faster than today's most powerful petaflop machines, but for the first time would have the same processing power as the human brain..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1980...ref=online-news
"[IBM] could soon make it possible for supercomputers to perform one million trillion calculations – or an exaflop – in a single second.
Such supercomputers would not only be a thousand times faster than today's most powerful petaflop machines, but for the first time would have the same processing power as the human brain..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1980...ref=online-news
I just read a Q&A with Ray Kurzweil in Time magazine. The guy is a complete idiot.
Here's an excerpt:
Anyone else see a problem with this logic?
Here's an excerpt:
QUOTE
Q: Do you think we'll find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
A: The consensus in the field is that there's somewhere between a thousand and a million technologically advanced civilizations just in our galaxy. But once you get to a point where we are, within a few centuries at most, these civilizations would be doing galaxy-wide engineering. It's impossible we wouldn't be noticing that. So my conclusion is that we may be the first.
A: The consensus in the field is that there's somewhere between a thousand and a million technologically advanced civilizations just in our galaxy. But once you get to a point where we are, within a few centuries at most, these civilizations would be doing galaxy-wide engineering. It's impossible we wouldn't be noticing that. So my conclusion is that we may be the first.
Anyone else see a problem with this logic?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 2 2010, 02:24 PM)
I just read a Q&A with Ray Kurzweil in Time magazine. The guy is a complete idiot.
"Complete idiot" is a bit harsh.
'The guy is a bit arrogant' would be fair.
Being able to recognise the signs of a civilization slightly in advance (relatively) of our own, would be almost as likely as a religious believer claiming to know the mind of God.
"Complete idiot" is a bit harsh.
'The guy is a bit arrogant' would be fair.
Being able to recognise the signs of a civilization slightly in advance (relatively) of our own, would be almost as likely as a religious believer claiming to know the mind of God.
QUOTE (Wilt+Dec 2 2010, 12:12 PM)
"Complete idiot" is a bit harsh.
'The guy is a bit arrogant' would be fair.
Being able to recognise the signs of a civilization slightly in advance (relatively) of our own, would be almost as likely as a religious believer claiming to know the mind of God.
To say he has a tendency to jump to conclusions would be an understatement. He bases his entire belief system on the shaky assumption that technology is advancing exponentially. That assumption is much weaker than many things that we know about the universe, which his statement ignores. First, no matter can travel faster than light. Second, there is not enough matter or energy in the universe to justify the statement "galaxy-wide engineering."
Kurzweil has a background as an inventor and software engineer, not as a physicist, a biologist or a historian.
'The guy is a bit arrogant' would be fair.
Being able to recognise the signs of a civilization slightly in advance (relatively) of our own, would be almost as likely as a religious believer claiming to know the mind of God.
To say he has a tendency to jump to conclusions would be an understatement. He bases his entire belief system on the shaky assumption that technology is advancing exponentially. That assumption is much weaker than many things that we know about the universe, which his statement ignores. First, no matter can travel faster than light. Second, there is not enough matter or energy in the universe to justify the statement "galaxy-wide engineering."
Kurzweil has a background as an inventor and software engineer, not as a physicist, a biologist or a historian.
QUOTE
Second, there is not enough matter or energy in the universe to justify the statement "galaxy-wide engineering."
'Tis true! But GalaxiDecon Inc. will be dismantling the rest of the Milky Way so we could have random metal trusses with Christmas lights attached spanning between Sol and the nearby stars. Who'd like to be on that crew? Hoot!
Ray didn't think. (or doesn't)
QUOTE (CrazyJesse+Dec 2 2010, 09:08 PM)
'Tis true! But GalaxiDecon Inc. will be dismantling the rest of the Milky Way so we could have random metal trusses with Christmas lights attached spanning between Sol and the nearby stars. Who'd like to be on that crew? Hoot!
Ray didn't think. (or doesn't)
I expect the Vorgons could be sub-contracted.
New Memristor technology...
First, do not confuse me with quantum chaos, because I'm not the same person.
Second, FBM, I think you are reading more into the guy's statement than he intended.
While he is being slightly over-exaggerating, in principle, he is correct.
the phrase "Galaxy wide engineering" need not imply something ridiculous like a Borg-like transwarp conduit.
I think he was implying that they should be a type 2.x civilization, in it's most loose definition, within several centuries of our technology level.
So you SHOULD be able to find megastructures similar to Dyson Spheres or at least Dyson Swarms, and relatively easily, if there is anyone out there significantly more intelligent than us, or with a significant "head start" on us. Further, if the civilization has achieved inter-stellar travel, we should be able to detect these megastructures on at least two or three adjacent stars in groups as they would be most likely to hop to the next closest star of similar mass and composition...
As for the reproductive capacity of an alien race, we can't really know. They might reproduce as often as deer or rabbits, or as seldom as Tokien's Elves. A race that reproduces extremely quickly could potentially populate a Dyson Sphere within a few centuries.
Second, FBM, I think you are reading more into the guy's statement than he intended.
While he is being slightly over-exaggerating, in principle, he is correct.
the phrase "Galaxy wide engineering" need not imply something ridiculous like a Borg-like transwarp conduit.
I think he was implying that they should be a type 2.x civilization, in it's most loose definition, within several centuries of our technology level.
So you SHOULD be able to find megastructures similar to Dyson Spheres or at least Dyson Swarms, and relatively easily, if there is anyone out there significantly more intelligent than us, or with a significant "head start" on us. Further, if the civilization has achieved inter-stellar travel, we should be able to detect these megastructures on at least two or three adjacent stars in groups as they would be most likely to hop to the next closest star of similar mass and composition...
As for the reproductive capacity of an alien race, we can't really know. They might reproduce as often as deer or rabbits, or as seldom as Tokien's Elves. A race that reproduces extremely quickly could potentially populate a Dyson Sphere within a few centuries.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 12 2010, 10:58 AM)
I think he was implying that they should be a type 2.x civilization, in it's most loose definition, within several centuries of our technology level.
So you SHOULD be able to find megastructures similar to Dyson Spheres or at least Dyson Swarms, and relatively easily, if there is anyone out there significantly more intelligent than us, or with a significant "head start" on us. Further, if the civilization has achieved inter-stellar travel, we should be able to detect these megastructures on at least two or three adjacent stars in groups as they would be most likely to hop to the next closest star of similar mass and composition...
That's just as ridiculous. Your fetish for megastructures doesn't make them anything more than fantasy.
I don't think population is really the barrier here.
There's not enough metal in the solar system to build anything dyson-related except a vacuum. Those are objects of pure fantasy, with no resemblance to reality. The Kardashev scale is just as useless. It is physically impossible for a civilization to reach type 2.
So you SHOULD be able to find megastructures similar to Dyson Spheres or at least Dyson Swarms, and relatively easily, if there is anyone out there significantly more intelligent than us, or with a significant "head start" on us. Further, if the civilization has achieved inter-stellar travel, we should be able to detect these megastructures on at least two or three adjacent stars in groups as they would be most likely to hop to the next closest star of similar mass and composition...
That's just as ridiculous. Your fetish for megastructures doesn't make them anything more than fantasy.
QUOTE
A race that reproduces extremely quickly could potentially populate a Dyson Sphere within a few centuries.
I don't think population is really the barrier here.
There's not enough metal in the solar system to build anything dyson-related except a vacuum. Those are objects of pure fantasy, with no resemblance to reality. The Kardashev scale is just as useless. It is physically impossible for a civilization to reach type 2.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 12 2010, 10:48 AM)
That's just as ridiculous. Your fetish for megastructures doesn't make them anything more than fantasy.
Ok idiot, then tell that to SETI and tell it to Machio Kaku and other leading physicists who work in these relevant fields, as they are basicly looking for signatures, such as the infrared shift which would be produced by similar megastructures in a Star's emission spectra.
Oh BS.
If you could refine the top two or three asteroids and extract their metals, you could make thousands and thousands of cubic miles worth of enclosures.
If even 1% of the mass of Ceres could be mined and refined, assuming that much is metallic, that would be 9.43 *10^15 metric tons of iron and Nickel, for example, as it almost certainly has an iron/nickel proto-core, or at least a very high concentration of iron and nickel.
You could make something like 32 BILLION Gerald R. Ford class carriers with that much metal. And that's just ONE percent of the mass of ONE object in the Solar system.
If we were to orient that structure into a plane, it would have area of over 320 MILLION square miles on just one side, which is actually slightly larger than the cross-sectional disk of the entire Earth.*
Of course, you coudl make it much, much thicker than that for stability, and primary living space should likely be cubical or cylindrical, but I've made my point.
And this is clearly pessimistic because there are other useful materials available on any dwarf planet: water, silica, copper, titanium, carbon, nitrogen, etc. I was just counting purely the mass of iron and nickel, the most abundant easily processed metals in the solar system.
*Correction:
It's actually slightly more than 6 times the cross sectional disk of the earth.
That's a LOT of solar power that would be available to harvest to power any level of energy needs concievable by those living in the habitats on board.
So we could fold this into a CUBE with walls as thick as an aircraft carrier, and just one side would have slightly more surface area than the cross section of the earth. This structure could house a population of perhaps a billion or more with more than adequate solar energy to support an entire biosphere.
But then, if you want to be "realistic" the panels need not be limited to only being placed on the ultra-thick, triple redundant hull of the vessel, but could be arranged into MUCH LARGER array using space-frame architecture of hollow, metal pipes to support them. You could make array completely collossal compared to the actual living quarters.
Ok idiot, then tell that to SETI and tell it to Machio Kaku and other leading physicists who work in these relevant fields, as they are basicly looking for signatures, such as the infrared shift which would be produced by similar megastructures in a Star's emission spectra.
QUOTE
I don't think population is really the barrier here.
There's not enough metal in the solar system to build anything dyson-related except a vacuum. Those are objects of pure fantasy, with no resemblance to reality. The Kardashev scale is just as useless. It is physically impossible for a civilization to reach type 2.
There's not enough metal in the solar system to build anything dyson-related except a vacuum. Those are objects of pure fantasy, with no resemblance to reality. The Kardashev scale is just as useless. It is physically impossible for a civilization to reach type 2.
Oh BS.
If you could refine the top two or three asteroids and extract their metals, you could make thousands and thousands of cubic miles worth of enclosures.
If even 1% of the mass of Ceres could be mined and refined, assuming that much is metallic, that would be 9.43 *10^15 metric tons of iron and Nickel, for example, as it almost certainly has an iron/nickel proto-core, or at least a very high concentration of iron and nickel.
You could make something like 32 BILLION Gerald R. Ford class carriers with that much metal. And that's just ONE percent of the mass of ONE object in the Solar system.
If we were to orient that structure into a plane, it would have area of over 320 MILLION square miles on just one side, which is actually slightly larger than the cross-sectional disk of the entire Earth.*
Of course, you coudl make it much, much thicker than that for stability, and primary living space should likely be cubical or cylindrical, but I've made my point.
And this is clearly pessimistic because there are other useful materials available on any dwarf planet: water, silica, copper, titanium, carbon, nitrogen, etc. I was just counting purely the mass of iron and nickel, the most abundant easily processed metals in the solar system.
*Correction:
It's actually slightly more than 6 times the cross sectional disk of the earth.
That's a LOT of solar power that would be available to harvest to power any level of energy needs concievable by those living in the habitats on board.
So we could fold this into a CUBE with walls as thick as an aircraft carrier, and just one side would have slightly more surface area than the cross section of the earth. This structure could house a population of perhaps a billion or more with more than adequate solar energy to support an entire biosphere.
But then, if you want to be "realistic" the panels need not be limited to only being placed on the ultra-thick, triple redundant hull of the vessel, but could be arranged into MUCH LARGER array using space-frame architecture of hollow, metal pipes to support them. You could make array completely collossal compared to the actual living quarters.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 12 2010, 10:48 AM)
It is physically impossible for a civilization to reach type 2.
See, stop right there.
Firstly, to reach Type 2 need not require an actual Dyson Sphere. They could reach type 2 by having the total of all of their "Type 1" colonies and Dyson Swarms on several stars equal that of a Dyson Sphere. Although it takes roughly 200 billion Type 1 planets to equal just one Dyson Sphere...
Secondly, you can't even necessarily use our solar system as a guide, because "some" other solar systems might have a higher amount of metals available in their planets and asteroids.
Thirdly, a slightly smaller star would be easier to enclose in a Dyson sphere or swarm.
Extremely difficult? yes.
Impossible? no.
See, stop right there.
Firstly, to reach Type 2 need not require an actual Dyson Sphere. They could reach type 2 by having the total of all of their "Type 1" colonies and Dyson Swarms on several stars equal that of a Dyson Sphere. Although it takes roughly 200 billion Type 1 planets to equal just one Dyson Sphere...
Secondly, you can't even necessarily use our solar system as a guide, because "some" other solar systems might have a higher amount of metals available in their planets and asteroids.
Thirdly, a slightly smaller star would be easier to enclose in a Dyson sphere or swarm.
Extremely difficult? yes.
Impossible? no.
MOre about asteroid mining.
After some further research, officially, Ceres is currently theorized by NASA to contain a "rocky" core. It turns out that if this core is of the type of material they theorize, being similar to c-type or g-type asteroids, which are composed of, among other things, olivine and serpentine, that would mean that roughly 50% of the core is iron by mass.
This would mean that even if the core is "only" rocky, as long as the "rocky core" of Ceres makes up at least 2 or 3 percent of the object's mass, then the total mass of the dwarf planet would still be at least 1% iron. So my scenario above is certainly, easily well within the bare minimum parameters of just this one object.
In reality, the core is probably more like 10 to 25% of the mass, which means Ceres likely contains enough iron to make the hull of at least 3 to 8 of the megastructures I've roughly described above.
Moreover, it contains more water-ice than all the fresh water on earth, which means it contains enough water to support all the terrestrial (continental) life on earth...yeah...
After some further research, officially, Ceres is currently theorized by NASA to contain a "rocky" core. It turns out that if this core is of the type of material they theorize, being similar to c-type or g-type asteroids, which are composed of, among other things, olivine and serpentine, that would mean that roughly 50% of the core is iron by mass.
This would mean that even if the core is "only" rocky, as long as the "rocky core" of Ceres makes up at least 2 or 3 percent of the object's mass, then the total mass of the dwarf planet would still be at least 1% iron. So my scenario above is certainly, easily well within the bare minimum parameters of just this one object.
In reality, the core is probably more like 10 to 25% of the mass, which means Ceres likely contains enough iron to make the hull of at least 3 to 8 of the megastructures I've roughly described above.
Moreover, it contains more water-ice than all the fresh water on earth, which means it contains enough water to support all the terrestrial (continental) life on earth...yeah...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 12 2010, 12:15 PM)
Ok idiot, then tell that to SETI and tell it to Machio Kaku and other leading physicists who work in these relevant fields, as they are basicly looking for signatures, such as the infrared shift which would be produced by similar megastructures in a Star's emission spectra.
And that somehow makes them realistic?
You seem to have a problem with the concept of scale. One thousand cubic miles is only a 10 mile cube, and that's assuming that your ridiculous statement about asteroid mining is correct.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of scale. One thousand cubic miles is only a 10 mile cube, and that's assuming that your ridiculous statement about asteroid mining is correct.
If even 1% of the mass of Ceres could be mined and refined, assuming that much is metallic, that would be 9.43 *10^15 metric tons of iron and Nickel, for example, as it almost certainly has an iron/nickel proto-core, or at least a very high concentration of iron and nickel.
You completely ignore the fuel required to mine an asteroid, and the equipment needed to do the job. It's like looking at the sun and saying "that's all the hydrogen we need!"
Not nearly enough for a Dyson scale object, and this still ignores problems like tensile strength and energy requirements.
Not nearly enough for a Dyson scale object, and this still ignores problems like tensile strength and energy requirements.
but I've made my point
You're an idiot. Point taken.
And that somehow makes them realistic?
QUOTE
If you could refine the top two or three asteroids and extract their metals, you could make thousands and thousands of cubic miles worth of enclosures.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of scale. One thousand cubic miles is only a 10 mile cube, and that's assuming that your ridiculous statement about asteroid mining is correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you could refine the top two or three asteroids and extract their metals, you could make thousands and thousands of cubic miles worth of enclosures. |
You seem to have a problem with the concept of scale. One thousand cubic miles is only a 10 mile cube, and that's assuming that your ridiculous statement about asteroid mining is correct.
If even 1% of the mass of Ceres could be mined and refined, assuming that much is metallic, that would be 9.43 *10^15 metric tons of iron and Nickel, for example, as it almost certainly has an iron/nickel proto-core, or at least a very high concentration of iron and nickel.
You completely ignore the fuel required to mine an asteroid, and the equipment needed to do the job. It's like looking at the sun and saying "that's all the hydrogen we need!"
QUOTE
If we were to orient that structure into a plane, it would have area of over 320 MILLION square miles on just one side, which is actually slightly larger than the cross-sectional disk of the entire Earth.
Not nearly enough for a Dyson scale object, and this still ignores problems like tensile strength and energy requirements.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we were to orient that structure into a plane, it would have area of over 320 MILLION square miles on just one side, which is actually slightly larger than the cross-sectional disk of the entire Earth. |
Not nearly enough for a Dyson scale object, and this still ignores problems like tensile strength and energy requirements.
but I've made my point
You're an idiot. Point taken.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 12 2010, 12:50 PM)
Firstly, to reach Type 2 need not require an actual Dyson Sphere. They could reach type 2 by having the total of all of their "Type 1" colonies and Dyson Swarms on several stars equal that of a Dyson Sphere. Although it takes roughly 200 billion Type 1 planets to equal just one Dyson Sphere...
You forget that FTL travel is impossible. Without reasonably quick transit times, interstellar commerce isn't likely. This is especially true since none of our local stars have habitable planets in orbit. We have 1 civilization, and we will always have 1 civilization.
You forget that FTL travel is impossible. Without reasonably quick transit times, interstellar commerce isn't likely. This is especially true since none of our local stars have habitable planets in orbit. We have 1 civilization, and we will always have 1 civilization.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 12 2010, 01:16 PM)
And that somehow makes them realistic?
You seem to have a problem with the concept of scale. One thousand cubic miles is only a 10 mile cube, and that's assuming that your ridiculous statement about asteroid mining is correct.
I'm well aware of what a thousand cubic miles is.
Solar...power...oh wait....you don't believe in solar panels either, I nearly forgot.
Solar...power...oh wait....you don't believe in solar panels either, I nearly forgot.
Not nearly enough for a Dyson scale object, and this still ignores problems like tensile strength and energy requirements.
Once again, you miss the point. You get the fricken energy from the Sun because as you complete each phase of the operation you have that much more solar panels and other collectors to provide energy for the next phase.
The compressive strength of steel is such that it doesn't fail under it's own weight at earth gravity until close to 1500 miles thickness.
the tensile strength of cast iron is 200 megapascals, while the tensile strength of steel alloys ranges from 400 to 2500 megapascals, depending on alloy.
That's the equivalent of 200 million to 2.5 billion newtons per square meter cross section.
===
Let's say we have a cylinder with radius 160km, and height 160km.
That gives surface area of 321699 km^2.
If the hull is 3 meters thick, then we can get the volume of metal used to make the hull as:
9.65*10^11 cubic meters, which is 7.6*10^15kg of metal, which is like 1/300th the minimum amount that could be in the core of Ceres.
Now this object would have a volume of:
12,867,963.51 cubic kilometers.
Here I would need to scale up the hull thickness slightly, or scale down the habitat slightly, but it is generally in the ball park for the materials available.
===
If you had a cylinder of 1km radius and 1km height, that would be volume = to Pi cubic kilometers.
That would be surface area of 4 pi km^2, or 12,566,370 m^2.
If the hull of this much smaller cylinder were 3 meter thick that would be approximately 37699112m^3 of iron, for a mass of 2.968*10^14kg.
This is obviously much less efficient in terms of volume per unit materials.
Anyway, this isn't as "impossible" as you always like to claim. There is as much material available as anyone cares to bother mining. It's just a matter of making an actual schematic, and then doing it...
You seem to have a problem with the concept of scale. One thousand cubic miles is only a 10 mile cube, and that's assuming that your ridiculous statement about asteroid mining is correct.
I'm well aware of what a thousand cubic miles is.
QUOTE
You completely ignore the fuel required to mine an asteroid, and the equipment needed to do the job. It's like looking at the sun and saying "that's all the hydrogen we need!"
Solar...power...oh wait....you don't believe in solar panels either, I nearly forgot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You completely ignore the fuel required to mine an asteroid, and the equipment needed to do the job. It's like looking at the sun and saying "that's all the hydrogen we need!" |
Solar...power...oh wait....you don't believe in solar panels either, I nearly forgot.
Not nearly enough for a Dyson scale object, and this still ignores problems like tensile strength and energy requirements.
Once again, you miss the point. You get the fricken energy from the Sun because as you complete each phase of the operation you have that much more solar panels and other collectors to provide energy for the next phase.
The compressive strength of steel is such that it doesn't fail under it's own weight at earth gravity until close to 1500 miles thickness.
the tensile strength of cast iron is 200 megapascals, while the tensile strength of steel alloys ranges from 400 to 2500 megapascals, depending on alloy.
That's the equivalent of 200 million to 2.5 billion newtons per square meter cross section.
===
Let's say we have a cylinder with radius 160km, and height 160km.
That gives surface area of 321699 km^2.
If the hull is 3 meters thick, then we can get the volume of metal used to make the hull as:
9.65*10^11 cubic meters, which is 7.6*10^15kg of metal, which is like 1/300th the minimum amount that could be in the core of Ceres.
Now this object would have a volume of:
12,867,963.51 cubic kilometers.
Here I would need to scale up the hull thickness slightly, or scale down the habitat slightly, but it is generally in the ball park for the materials available.
===
If you had a cylinder of 1km radius and 1km height, that would be volume = to Pi cubic kilometers.
That would be surface area of 4 pi km^2, or 12,566,370 m^2.
If the hull of this much smaller cylinder were 3 meter thick that would be approximately 37699112m^3 of iron, for a mass of 2.968*10^14kg.
This is obviously much less efficient in terms of volume per unit materials.
Anyway, this isn't as "impossible" as you always like to claim. There is as much material available as anyone cares to bother mining. It's just a matter of making an actual schematic, and then doing it...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 12 2010, 01:29 PM)
You forget that FTL travel is impossible. Without reasonably quick transit times, interstellar commerce isn't likely. This is especially true since none of our local stars have habitable planets in orbit. We have 1 civilization, and we will always have 1 civilization.
Trade between two neighbouring star systems, as far as material assets, would only be profitable if the materials were extremely valuable, which probably means something fusionable such as helium 3, or extremely rare metals.
Other than that, you're not going to be making round trips to another star anyway.
Trade of "information" would take place over decades and centuries as humans share knowledge and technology for the betterment of all mankind.
Trade between two neighbouring star systems, as far as material assets, would only be profitable if the materials were extremely valuable, which probably means something fusionable such as helium 3, or extremely rare metals.
Other than that, you're not going to be making round trips to another star anyway.
Trade of "information" would take place over decades and centuries as humans share knowledge and technology for the betterment of all mankind.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 12 2010, 03:10 PM)
Solar...power...oh wait....you don't believe in solar panels either, I nearly forgot.
First, that's a strawman argument. I've never said that.
Secondly, solar can't power any kind of rocket motor, and ion drives aren't enough for this kind of work.
Idiot.
Idiot.
The compressive strength of steel is such that it doesn't fail under it's own weight at earth gravity until close to 1500 miles thickness.
For circum-solar structures, the tensile strength of steel is not enough to keep the structure from tearing itself apart. That's why Larry Niven invented a made-up element to fix that problem.
1. There is no reason to build it.
2. You have reframed the object you are proposing from Dyson scale to a mere few hundred kilometers, which I never said was impossible resource-wise. You are just being dishonest.
When you know you're beat, you just change the subject to something more reasonable and claim that I'm wrong. What a liar.
First, that's a strawman argument. I've never said that.
Secondly, solar can't power any kind of rocket motor, and ion drives aren't enough for this kind of work.
QUOTE
Once again, you miss the point. You get the fricken energy from the Sun because as you complete each phase of the operation you have that much more solar panels and other collectors to provide energy for the next phase.
Idiot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again, you miss the point. You get the fricken energy from the Sun because as you complete each phase of the operation you have that much more solar panels and other collectors to provide energy for the next phase. |
Idiot.
The compressive strength of steel is such that it doesn't fail under it's own weight at earth gravity until close to 1500 miles thickness.
For circum-solar structures, the tensile strength of steel is not enough to keep the structure from tearing itself apart. That's why Larry Niven invented a made-up element to fix that problem.
QUOTE
Anyway, this isn't as "impossible" as you always like to claim. There is as much material available as anyone cares to bother mining. It's just a matter of making an actual schematic, and then doing it...
1. There is no reason to build it.
2. You have reframed the object you are proposing from Dyson scale to a mere few hundred kilometers, which I never said was impossible resource-wise. You are just being dishonest.
When you know you're beat, you just change the subject to something more reasonable and claim that I'm wrong. What a liar.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 12 2010, 03:14 PM)
Other than that, you're not going to be making round trips to another star anyway.
So we're going to share this "super civilization" with aliens then? Or are you still planning on sending colony ships to far-off planets?
So we're going to share this "super civilization" with aliens then? Or are you still planning on sending colony ships to far-off planets?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 12 2010, 02:35 PM)
2. You have reframed the object you are proposing from Dyson scale to a mere few hundred kilometers, which I never said was impossible resource-wise. You are just being dishonest.
No i didn't, and certainly not initially.
My last example was a very much scaled down example because I know you're going to criticize pretty much anything that hasn't already been done absolutely anyway.
You apparantly don't know what the term "Dyson Swarm" means, so I'll inform you.
A Dyson Swarm is an object or group of objects which orbits a star and uses that star as the primary power supply. there is no specific size for individual components of such a structure, because you use whatever is available, or build to the size you want. The point is it follows the same basic principle of the idealized sphere, but is scalable to the realistic materials available. Which you seem to either not recognize, or else pretend not to know.
Moreover I was initially showing the amount of material available and how big an area and volume you could contain, which was to say about 32 billion air craft carriers could be constructed with an amount of metal equaling 1% of the mass of Ceres, because you claimed no such structure could be build. I showed there was enough with just 1% of Ceres' mass to make a disk as thick as an aircraft carrier and 6 times the cross sectional area of earth.
By definition, that would easily constitute a "Dyson Swarm," whether it's in one piece, or whether it's hundreds or thousands of smaller scale pieces.
No i didn't, and certainly not initially.
My last example was a very much scaled down example because I know you're going to criticize pretty much anything that hasn't already been done absolutely anyway.
You apparantly don't know what the term "Dyson Swarm" means, so I'll inform you.
A Dyson Swarm is an object or group of objects which orbits a star and uses that star as the primary power supply. there is no specific size for individual components of such a structure, because you use whatever is available, or build to the size you want. The point is it follows the same basic principle of the idealized sphere, but is scalable to the realistic materials available. Which you seem to either not recognize, or else pretend not to know.
Moreover I was initially showing the amount of material available and how big an area and volume you could contain, which was to say about 32 billion air craft carriers could be constructed with an amount of metal equaling 1% of the mass of Ceres, because you claimed no such structure could be build. I showed there was enough with just 1% of Ceres' mass to make a disk as thick as an aircraft carrier and 6 times the cross sectional area of earth.
By definition, that would easily constitute a "Dyson Swarm," whether it's in one piece, or whether it's hundreds or thousands of smaller scale pieces.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 12 2010, 10:04 PM)
Moreover I was initially showing the amount of material available and how big an area and volume you could contain, which was to say about 32 billion air craft carriers could be constructed with an amount of metal equaling 1% of the mass of Ceres, because you claimed no such structure could be build. I showed there was enough with just 1% of Ceres' mass to make a disk as thick as an aircraft carrier and 6 times the cross sectional area of earth.
By definition, that would easily constitute a "Dyson Swarm," whether it's in one piece, or whether it's hundreds or thousands of smaller scale pieces.
I know what a Dyson swarm is. The simplified definition is "a bunch of objects orbiting a star." Talking about the feasibility of such a collection of objects is impossible without specifics. You're just posting other people's ideas and stating "this is possible in 100 years." Bullsh*t.
We aren't anywhere near being able to mine anything in space. We have yet to master anything resembling a self-sustaining space colony. We have no idea how to obtain rocket fuel while in space without resupply from Earth. The ISS is so close to Earth that it's almost within our atmosphere. Space is not the destination of humanity. Barring some kind of free (or very very cheap) energy solution, we are stuck on Earth forever as a species. We may send out a few expeditions, but they will remain infrequent and very very expensive.
I don't care how much raw material exists in Ceres. The hard part is extraction, processing and fabrication in a zero G environment, with limited electricity and even more limited fuel. It's possible, but not economically possible without a major breakthrough in physics.
By definition, that would easily constitute a "Dyson Swarm," whether it's in one piece, or whether it's hundreds or thousands of smaller scale pieces.
I know what a Dyson swarm is. The simplified definition is "a bunch of objects orbiting a star." Talking about the feasibility of such a collection of objects is impossible without specifics. You're just posting other people's ideas and stating "this is possible in 100 years." Bullsh*t.
We aren't anywhere near being able to mine anything in space. We have yet to master anything resembling a self-sustaining space colony. We have no idea how to obtain rocket fuel while in space without resupply from Earth. The ISS is so close to Earth that it's almost within our atmosphere. Space is not the destination of humanity. Barring some kind of free (or very very cheap) energy solution, we are stuck on Earth forever as a species. We may send out a few expeditions, but they will remain infrequent and very very expensive.
I don't care how much raw material exists in Ceres. The hard part is extraction, processing and fabrication in a zero G environment, with limited electricity and even more limited fuel. It's possible, but not economically possible without a major breakthrough in physics.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 12 2010, 11:15 AM)
Oh BS.
If you could refine the top two or three asteroids and extract their metals, you could make thousands and thousands of cubic miles worth of enclosures.
If even 1% of the mass of Ceres could be mined and refined, assuming that much is metallic, that would be 9.43 *10^15 metric tons of iron and Nickel, for example, as it almost certainly has an iron/nickel proto-core, or at least a very high concentration of iron and nickel.
You could make something like 32 BILLION Gerald R. Ford class carriers with that much metal. And that's just ONE percent of the mass of ONE object in the Solar system.
If we were to orient that structure into a plane, it would have area of over 320 MILLION square miles on just one side, which is actually slightly larger than the cross-sectional disk of the entire Earth.*
Of course, you coudl make it much, much thicker than that for stability, and primary living space should likely be cubical or cylindrical, but I've made my point.
No you haven't made your point.
To start with, Ceres is more like a small planet than an asteroid and there is no way to mine anything off of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ceres_Cutaway.jpg
You have to start with what it would take for us to being to mine, smelt and create various building materials on an asteroid before you get to us constructing something that has a larger cross section than the earth.
To build an object the size of one aircraft carrier in space is something that would be a daunting task for us today, and you are talking about buildiing billions of them.
Sheesh.
If you want anyone to pay attention to you, you really need to keep it to things that could possibly happen within a reasonable period of time and at costs that we would be willing to spend to do so.
Arthur
If you could refine the top two or three asteroids and extract their metals, you could make thousands and thousands of cubic miles worth of enclosures.
If even 1% of the mass of Ceres could be mined and refined, assuming that much is metallic, that would be 9.43 *10^15 metric tons of iron and Nickel, for example, as it almost certainly has an iron/nickel proto-core, or at least a very high concentration of iron and nickel.
You could make something like 32 BILLION Gerald R. Ford class carriers with that much metal. And that's just ONE percent of the mass of ONE object in the Solar system.
If we were to orient that structure into a plane, it would have area of over 320 MILLION square miles on just one side, which is actually slightly larger than the cross-sectional disk of the entire Earth.*
Of course, you coudl make it much, much thicker than that for stability, and primary living space should likely be cubical or cylindrical, but I've made my point.
No you haven't made your point.
To start with, Ceres is more like a small planet than an asteroid and there is no way to mine anything off of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ceres_Cutaway.jpg
You have to start with what it would take for us to being to mine, smelt and create various building materials on an asteroid before you get to us constructing something that has a larger cross section than the earth.
To build an object the size of one aircraft carrier in space is something that would be a daunting task for us today, and you are talking about buildiing billions of them.
Sheesh.
If you want anyone to pay attention to you, you really need to keep it to things that could possibly happen within a reasonable period of time and at costs that we would be willing to spend to do so.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 14 2010, 05:21 PM)
No you haven't made your point.
To start with, Ceres is more like a small planet than an asteroid and there is no way to mine anything off of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ceres_Cutaway.jpg
You have to start with what it would take for us to being to mine, smelt and create various building materials on an asteroid before you get to us constructing something that has a larger cross section than the earth.
To build an object the size of one aircraft carrier in space is something that would be a daunting task for us today, and you are talking about buildiing billions of them.
Sheesh.
If you want anyone to pay attention to you, you really need to keep it to things that could possibly happen within a reasonable period of time and at costs that we would be willing to spend to do so.
Arthur
We've already gone over this in the past.
Self assembling mechanisms which are currently being developed and will be developed over the next several years and decades will eventually make construction of megastructures possible at a nearly insignificant fraction of the cost you might imagine if you were shipping thousands of workers to space.
It will be possible to ship a space craft with self replicating system of robots to the planet, moon, or asteroid, and build your automated labor force and factories from the very materials you are mining. You don't need make and launch millions or billions of laborers or robots from earth. You just need a "few" which are launched to the destination, then copy themselves over and over.
the surface gravity of Ceres is quite manageable at just 2.8% of earth surface gravity, and escape velocity of just 0.51km/s, which is less than twice the speed of sound...A rail gun or gas gun would easily launch payloads into space at escape velocity from the surface. A rocket attatched to the container then makes speeding and heading corrections to match that of the megastructure and dock to offload cargo.
To start with, Ceres is more like a small planet than an asteroid and there is no way to mine anything off of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ceres_Cutaway.jpg
You have to start with what it would take for us to being to mine, smelt and create various building materials on an asteroid before you get to us constructing something that has a larger cross section than the earth.
To build an object the size of one aircraft carrier in space is something that would be a daunting task for us today, and you are talking about buildiing billions of them.
Sheesh.
If you want anyone to pay attention to you, you really need to keep it to things that could possibly happen within a reasonable period of time and at costs that we would be willing to spend to do so.
Arthur
We've already gone over this in the past.
Self assembling mechanisms which are currently being developed and will be developed over the next several years and decades will eventually make construction of megastructures possible at a nearly insignificant fraction of the cost you might imagine if you were shipping thousands of workers to space.
It will be possible to ship a space craft with self replicating system of robots to the planet, moon, or asteroid, and build your automated labor force and factories from the very materials you are mining. You don't need make and launch millions or billions of laborers or robots from earth. You just need a "few" which are launched to the destination, then copy themselves over and over.
the surface gravity of Ceres is quite manageable at just 2.8% of earth surface gravity, and escape velocity of just 0.51km/s, which is less than twice the speed of sound...A rail gun or gas gun would easily launch payloads into space at escape velocity from the surface. A rocket attatched to the container then makes speeding and heading corrections to match that of the megastructure and dock to offload cargo.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 14 2010, 06:03 PM)
We've already gone over this in the past.
Self assembling mechanisms which are currently being developed and will be developed over the next several years and decades will eventually make construction of megastructures possible at a nearly insignificant fraction of the cost you might imagine if you were shipping thousands of workers to space.
It will be possible to ship a space craft with self replicating system of robots to the planet, moon, or asteroid, and build your automated labor force and factories from the very materials you are mining. You don't need make and launch millions or billions of laborers or robots from earth. You just need a "few" which are launched to the destination, then copy themselves over and over.
the surface gravity of Ceres is quite manageable at just 2.8% of earth surface gravity, and escape velocity of just 0.51km/s, which is less than twice the speed of sound...A rail gun or gas gun would easily launch payloads into space at escape velocity from the surface. A rocket attatched to the container then makes speeding and heading corrections to match that of the megastructure and dock to offload cargo.
Except that it is FAR more than your as yet undeveloped "self assembling mechanisms".
Making a self assembling mechanism is one thing, but making one that can build the machines needed to mine ore, build the transportation equipment to get that ore to the smelting plant, build a power plant to provide power to the smelting plant, build the smelting plant, built the factories/machines that turn the finished product into the many thousands of individual components necessary, and then take and actually assemble the finished product is many times more complicated then just building a self assembling mechanism, something we have YET to accomplish in its most BASIC form. ie. one that can simply do that, to make a self assembling set of robots that would actually be needed is something which as far as I can see will NEVER be done within my kid's lifetime.
As far as Ceres is concerned you are smoking loco weed.
It has what we believe to be a 100 km-thick mantle (23–28 percent of Ceres by mass; 50 percent by volume, which contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.
So no, we couldn't possibly mine ores like that even if they were on earth.
Arthur
Self assembling mechanisms which are currently being developed and will be developed over the next several years and decades will eventually make construction of megastructures possible at a nearly insignificant fraction of the cost you might imagine if you were shipping thousands of workers to space.
It will be possible to ship a space craft with self replicating system of robots to the planet, moon, or asteroid, and build your automated labor force and factories from the very materials you are mining. You don't need make and launch millions or billions of laborers or robots from earth. You just need a "few" which are launched to the destination, then copy themselves over and over.
the surface gravity of Ceres is quite manageable at just 2.8% of earth surface gravity, and escape velocity of just 0.51km/s, which is less than twice the speed of sound...A rail gun or gas gun would easily launch payloads into space at escape velocity from the surface. A rocket attatched to the container then makes speeding and heading corrections to match that of the megastructure and dock to offload cargo.
Except that it is FAR more than your as yet undeveloped "self assembling mechanisms".
Making a self assembling mechanism is one thing, but making one that can build the machines needed to mine ore, build the transportation equipment to get that ore to the smelting plant, build a power plant to provide power to the smelting plant, build the smelting plant, built the factories/machines that turn the finished product into the many thousands of individual components necessary, and then take and actually assemble the finished product is many times more complicated then just building a self assembling mechanism, something we have YET to accomplish in its most BASIC form. ie. one that can simply do that, to make a self assembling set of robots that would actually be needed is something which as far as I can see will NEVER be done within my kid's lifetime.
As far as Ceres is concerned you are smoking loco weed.
It has what we believe to be a 100 km-thick mantle (23–28 percent of Ceres by mass; 50 percent by volume, which contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.
So no, we couldn't possibly mine ores like that even if they were on earth.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 14 2010, 07:20 PM)
Except that it is FAR more than your as yet undeveloped "self assembling mechanisms".
Making a self assembling mechanism is one thing, but making one that can build the machines needed to mine ore, build the transportation equipment to get that ore to the smelting plant, build a power plant to provide power to the smelting plant, build the smelting plant, built the factories/machines that turn the finished product into the many thousands of individual components necessary, and then take and actually assemble the finished product is many times more complicated then just building a self assembling mechanism, something we have YET to accomplish in its most BASIC form. ie. one that can simply do that, to make a self assembling set of robots that would actually be needed is something which as far as I can see will NEVER be done within my kid's lifetime.
Think about where technology was a few decades ago, or even a century ago, and where it is now. Even if everything plateaus soon, it's difficult to imagine that humans won't be mining these objects eventually. NASA and ESA are actually building prototype engines that 20 years ago weren't even theory, and 10 years ago they were just somebody's pipe dream.
Computers make engineering advancements faster and faster. We know already from experiments done in Australia that Silicon technology is going to allow transistors at least down to the 4nm scale (7 atoms wide,) which will be commercially viable in 10 years based on Moore's law. The real limits of miniaturization aren't very far off the theoretical limits, even if they in fact aren't the same as the theoretical limits. This means the computational power to design these mechanisms is going to be readily available. In fact it's already available. We just need the engineering and the research in the materials at these scales, which as stated, is going to happen over the next 10 to 20 years.
So, you don't think the water itself would be worth mining for usage for biology on Martian and Lunarian colonies, or in Dyson Swarms, seeing as how it would cost 1/35th as much to launch from there?
When we are talking about Type 1 and Type 2 civilization, we all recognize that we are talking about long time scales. So we should realize that over long time the robots could eventually mine out entire asteroids and even dwarf planets.
Next, don't focus on just an example so much that you discard an entire concept. Even if Ceres or a dwarf planet proves to be too hard at first, yoiu can always start with smaller objects that are on the big side for asteroid or comet, but not large enough to label as a dwarf planet.
And I would agree, if these ores were on earth at those depths, you certainly couldn't mine them. But they aren't on earth, they are on an object with 35.71 times less gravity. By the time you count Newton's shell theorem, you should be able to go at LEAST 35.71 times as deep as the deepest mines on earth before you reach pressures too great to be safe.
Making a self assembling mechanism is one thing, but making one that can build the machines needed to mine ore, build the transportation equipment to get that ore to the smelting plant, build a power plant to provide power to the smelting plant, build the smelting plant, built the factories/machines that turn the finished product into the many thousands of individual components necessary, and then take and actually assemble the finished product is many times more complicated then just building a self assembling mechanism, something we have YET to accomplish in its most BASIC form. ie. one that can simply do that, to make a self assembling set of robots that would actually be needed is something which as far as I can see will NEVER be done within my kid's lifetime.
Think about where technology was a few decades ago, or even a century ago, and where it is now. Even if everything plateaus soon, it's difficult to imagine that humans won't be mining these objects eventually. NASA and ESA are actually building prototype engines that 20 years ago weren't even theory, and 10 years ago they were just somebody's pipe dream.
Computers make engineering advancements faster and faster. We know already from experiments done in Australia that Silicon technology is going to allow transistors at least down to the 4nm scale (7 atoms wide,) which will be commercially viable in 10 years based on Moore's law. The real limits of miniaturization aren't very far off the theoretical limits, even if they in fact aren't the same as the theoretical limits. This means the computational power to design these mechanisms is going to be readily available. In fact it's already available. We just need the engineering and the research in the materials at these scales, which as stated, is going to happen over the next 10 to 20 years.
QUOTE
As far as Ceres is concerned you are smoking loco weed.
It has what we believe to be a 100 km-thick mantle (23–28 percent of Ceres by mass; 50 percent by volume, which contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.
So no, we couldn't possibly mine ores like that even if they were on earth.
Arthur
It has what we believe to be a 100 km-thick mantle (23–28 percent of Ceres by mass; 50 percent by volume, which contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.
So no, we couldn't possibly mine ores like that even if they were on earth.
Arthur
So, you don't think the water itself would be worth mining for usage for biology on Martian and Lunarian colonies, or in Dyson Swarms, seeing as how it would cost 1/35th as much to launch from there?
When we are talking about Type 1 and Type 2 civilization, we all recognize that we are talking about long time scales. So we should realize that over long time the robots could eventually mine out entire asteroids and even dwarf planets.
Next, don't focus on just an example so much that you discard an entire concept. Even if Ceres or a dwarf planet proves to be too hard at first, yoiu can always start with smaller objects that are on the big side for asteroid or comet, but not large enough to label as a dwarf planet.
And I would agree, if these ores were on earth at those depths, you certainly couldn't mine them. But they aren't on earth, they are on an object with 35.71 times less gravity. By the time you count Newton's shell theorem, you should be able to go at LEAST 35.71 times as deep as the deepest mines on earth before you reach pressures too great to be safe.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 14 2010, 09:46 PM)
Think about where technology was a few decades ago, or even a century ago, and where it is now.
So? The past is a poor indicator where technology is concerned. Technology advances in ways that are not easy to predict. No-one thought that computers were going to be the future in the 40's and 50's. No-one thought that the internet was going to be the future in the 70's and 80's. Your predictions about the future are just as accurate as the old predictions about flying cars and chrome space ships.
Mars has plenty of water, as does the Moon. Dimwit.
Mars has plenty of water, as does the Moon. Dimwit.
When we are talking about Type 1 and Type 2 civilization, we all recognize that we are talking about long time scales. So we should realize that over long time the robots could eventually mine out entire asteroids and even dwarf planets.
The Kardashev scale is made-up and should not be taken as an indicator of possibility.
So? The past is a poor indicator where technology is concerned. Technology advances in ways that are not easy to predict. No-one thought that computers were going to be the future in the 40's and 50's. No-one thought that the internet was going to be the future in the 70's and 80's. Your predictions about the future are just as accurate as the old predictions about flying cars and chrome space ships.
QUOTE
So, you don't think the water itself would be worth mining for usage for biology on Martian and Lunarian colonies, or in Dyson Swarms, seeing as how it would cost 1/35th as much to launch from there?
Mars has plenty of water, as does the Moon. Dimwit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, you don't think the water itself would be worth mining for usage for biology on Martian and Lunarian colonies, or in Dyson Swarms, seeing as how it would cost 1/35th as much to launch from there? |
Mars has plenty of water, as does the Moon. Dimwit.
When we are talking about Type 1 and Type 2 civilization, we all recognize that we are talking about long time scales. So we should realize that over long time the robots could eventually mine out entire asteroids and even dwarf planets.
The Kardashev scale is made-up and should not be taken as an indicator of possibility.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 14 2010, 08:46 PM)
Think about where technology was a few decades ago, or even a century ago, and where it is now. Even if everything plateaus soon, it's difficult to imagine that humans won't be mining these objects eventually. NASA and ESA are actually building prototype engines that 20 years ago weren't even theory, and 10 years ago they were just somebody's pipe dream.
Computers make engineering advancements faster and faster. We know already from experiments done in Australia that Silicon technology is going to allow transistors at least down to the 4nm scale (7 atoms wide,) which will be commercially viable in 10 years based on Moore's law. The real limits of miniaturization aren't very far off the theoretical limits, even if they in fact aren't the same as the theoretical limits. This means the computational power to design these mechanisms is going to be readily available. In fact it's already available. We just need the engineering and the research in the materials at these scales, which as stated, is going to happen over the next 10 to 20 years.
And that has NOTHING to do with the issues I raised.
Why when I bring up actual issues do you point to how we have made some advancement in earth based technology for which there is a huge amount of money to be made for doing so?
They aren't really that related.
Arthur
Computers make engineering advancements faster and faster. We know already from experiments done in Australia that Silicon technology is going to allow transistors at least down to the 4nm scale (7 atoms wide,) which will be commercially viable in 10 years based on Moore's law. The real limits of miniaturization aren't very far off the theoretical limits, even if they in fact aren't the same as the theoretical limits. This means the computational power to design these mechanisms is going to be readily available. In fact it's already available. We just need the engineering and the research in the materials at these scales, which as stated, is going to happen over the next 10 to 20 years.
And that has NOTHING to do with the issues I raised.
Why when I bring up actual issues do you point to how we have made some advancement in earth based technology for which there is a huge amount of money to be made for doing so?
They aren't really that related.
Arthur
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 14 2010, 08:46 PM)
Next, don't focus on just an example so much that you discard an entire concept. Even if Ceres or a dwarf planet proves to be too hard at first, yoiu can always start with smaller objects that are on the big side for asteroid or comet, but not large enough to label as a dwarf planet.
And I would agree, if these ores were on earth at those depths, you certainly couldn't mine them. But they aren't on earth, they are on an object with 35.71 times less gravity. By the time you count Newton's shell theorem, you should be able to go at LEAST 35.71 times as deep as the deepest mines on earth before you reach pressures too great to be safe.
Oh BS.
You picked the largest asteroid (small planet actually) in the Asteroid belt to try to make your point about building 30+ billion air craft carriers, when the fact is that this one object represents about 1/3 of the mass of the entire asteroid belt and is FAR larger than any other object in it,
BUT
It is in fact totally unusable for the purpose for which you claimed it could be used for.
Which shows that you simply don't really think any of these things through.
And, yes I do know that the gravity is much less.
But that hardly matters when you STILL have to operate 100 km underwater, so even if the gravity is that much less, at the bottom of a 100 km ocean that is still at pressures that we couldn't operate at today, on earth, let alone on a friggin asteroid.
Nor would we, since we have NO IDEA what the core of Ceres contains.
Like I said.
Try being a bit more realistic.
You might consider tackling some of the very difficult issues we have in taking our FIRST steps.
Like the incredibly formidable ones we have to make a sustainable colony on either Mars or the moon, using technology we actually could afford to build in the next few decades.
Arthur
And I would agree, if these ores were on earth at those depths, you certainly couldn't mine them. But they aren't on earth, they are on an object with 35.71 times less gravity. By the time you count Newton's shell theorem, you should be able to go at LEAST 35.71 times as deep as the deepest mines on earth before you reach pressures too great to be safe.
Oh BS.
You picked the largest asteroid (small planet actually) in the Asteroid belt to try to make your point about building 30+ billion air craft carriers, when the fact is that this one object represents about 1/3 of the mass of the entire asteroid belt and is FAR larger than any other object in it,
BUT
It is in fact totally unusable for the purpose for which you claimed it could be used for.
Which shows that you simply don't really think any of these things through.
And, yes I do know that the gravity is much less.
But that hardly matters when you STILL have to operate 100 km underwater, so even if the gravity is that much less, at the bottom of a 100 km ocean that is still at pressures that we couldn't operate at today, on earth, let alone on a friggin asteroid.
Nor would we, since we have NO IDEA what the core of Ceres contains.
Like I said.
Try being a bit more realistic.
You might consider tackling some of the very difficult issues we have in taking our FIRST steps.
Like the incredibly formidable ones we have to make a sustainable colony on either Mars or the moon, using technology we actually could afford to build in the next few decades.
Arthur
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 14 2010, 08:59 PM)
So? The past is a poor indicator where technology is concerned. Technology advances in ways that are not easy to predict. No-one thought that computers were going to be the future in the 40's and 50's. No-one thought that the internet was going to be the future in the 70's and 80's. Your predictions about the future are just as accurate as the old predictions about flying cars and chrome space ships.
You sort of validate my argument, even though you're attempting to refute it. Thanks.
The moon has so little water that it wasn't even detected when we landed on the thing and walked and drove around...six times...Some traces in the bottoms of permanently shaded craters isn't going to supply a permanent human civilization there.
The moon has so little water that it wasn't even detected when we landed on the thing and walked and drove around...six times...Some traces in the bottoms of permanently shaded craters isn't going to supply a permanent human civilization there.
The Kardashev scale is made-up and should not be taken as an indicator of possibility
It is still widely used by leading theoretical physicists and futurists because it uses obvious benchmarks for the energy needs of the respective civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=219YybX66MY
You sort of validate my argument, even though you're attempting to refute it. Thanks.
QUOTE
Mars has plenty of water, as does the Moon. Dimwit.
The moon has so little water that it wasn't even detected when we landed on the thing and walked and drove around...six times...Some traces in the bottoms of permanently shaded craters isn't going to supply a permanent human civilization there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mars has plenty of water, as does the Moon. Dimwit. |
The moon has so little water that it wasn't even detected when we landed on the thing and walked and drove around...six times...Some traces in the bottoms of permanently shaded craters isn't going to supply a permanent human civilization there.
The Kardashev scale is made-up and should not be taken as an indicator of possibility
It is still widely used by leading theoretical physicists and futurists because it uses obvious benchmarks for the energy needs of the respective civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=219YybX66MY
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 11:18 AM)
It is still widely used by leading theoretical physicists and futurists because it uses obvious benchmarks for the energy needs of the respective civilization.
Being used doesn't mean it is correct though.
You can use any metric you want when you are discussing things this far in the future and there is no actual data to either challenge or support your assumptions.
Personally I think it's a poor metric in that the amount of energy we need/use has a lot to do with the size of our population and the efficiency of how we use energy.
Since we may one day have a far smaller population than we do today, we could then use a fraction of the energy we do today but still have far more energy use per capita than we do today.
And discussions of using a Solar systems complete energy is so far into the future that any discussions of it are pointless, since we are only using approximately 0.16% of the total available planetary energy today, and that is a tiny tiny fraction of the entire solar system.
Arthur
Being used doesn't mean it is correct though.
You can use any metric you want when you are discussing things this far in the future and there is no actual data to either challenge or support your assumptions.
Personally I think it's a poor metric in that the amount of energy we need/use has a lot to do with the size of our population and the efficiency of how we use energy.
Since we may one day have a far smaller population than we do today, we could then use a fraction of the energy we do today but still have far more energy use per capita than we do today.
And discussions of using a Solar systems complete energy is so far into the future that any discussions of it are pointless, since we are only using approximately 0.16% of the total available planetary energy today, and that is a tiny tiny fraction of the entire solar system.
Arthur
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 12:18 PM)
You sort of validate my argument, even though you're attempting to refute it. Thanks.
You didn't get what I was saying then. I was saying that your predictions are looking in the wrong direction. There is no reason to think that space travel will magically get cheaper in the future.
The moon's ice is covered by eons of dust from asteroid impacts. There is no way to know how much ice there actually is.
The moon's ice is covered by eons of dust from asteroid impacts. There is no way to know how much ice there actually is.
It is still widely used by leading theoretical physicists and futurists because it uses obvious benchmarks for the energy needs of the respective civilization.
Just like the Psychic Scale is a benchmark for the energy output of psychics?
You didn't get what I was saying then. I was saying that your predictions are looking in the wrong direction. There is no reason to think that space travel will magically get cheaper in the future.
QUOTE
The moon has so little water that it wasn't even detected when we landed on the thing and walked and drove around...six times...Some traces in the bottoms of permanently shaded craters isn't going to supply a permanent human civilization there.
The moon's ice is covered by eons of dust from asteroid impacts. There is no way to know how much ice there actually is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The moon has so little water that it wasn't even detected when we landed on the thing and walked and drove around...six times...Some traces in the bottoms of permanently shaded craters isn't going to supply a permanent human civilization there. |
The moon's ice is covered by eons of dust from asteroid impacts. There is no way to know how much ice there actually is.
It is still widely used by leading theoretical physicists and futurists because it uses obvious benchmarks for the energy needs of the respective civilization.
Just like the Psychic Scale is a benchmark for the energy output of psychics?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 04:19 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqlT8V18wlk...re=more_related
Usually, you are supposed to attach some kind of explanation or description when you post a link. FYI.
Usually, you are supposed to attach some kind of explanation or description when you post a link. FYI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdKyf8fsH6w
This bears incredible similarities to things I have said in the past, having never seen this.
Around 45:00 He's talking about building cars and rockets out of diamond.
This bears incredible similarities to things I have said in the past, having never seen this.
Around 45:00 He's talking about building cars and rockets out of diamond.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 05:14 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdKyf8fsH6w
Do you have a comprehension problem?
I am well aware of modern nanotechnological ambitions. Nothing you have posted aids your statement that self-replicating nano-machines will be able to mine extraterrestrial bodies. YouTube is not an adequate replacement for argument.
Do you have a comprehension problem?
I am well aware of modern nanotechnological ambitions. Nothing you have posted aids your statement that self-replicating nano-machines will be able to mine extraterrestrial bodies. YouTube is not an adequate replacement for argument.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 15 2010, 04:25 PM)
Do you have a comprehension problem?
I am well aware of modern nanotechnological ambitions. Nothing you have posted aids your statement that self-replicating nano-machines will be able to mine extraterrestrial bodies. YouTube is not an adequate replacement for argument.
So, you don't give a damn that a leading specialist in the field gave specific examples regarding space colonization and spacecraft manufacturing applications?
I am well aware of modern nanotechnological ambitions. Nothing you have posted aids your statement that self-replicating nano-machines will be able to mine extraterrestrial bodies. YouTube is not an adequate replacement for argument.
So, you don't give a damn that a leading specialist in the field gave specific examples regarding space colonization and spacecraft manufacturing applications?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 06:03 PM)
So, you don't give a damn that a leading specialist in the field gave specific examples regarding space colonization and spacecraft manufacturing applications?
Where does he mention self-replicating nano-machines? What timecode?
By the way, he's a physicist, not an engineer. Don't ask famous physicists questions about technology, ask an engineer.
Where does he mention self-replicating nano-machines? What timecode?
By the way, he's a physicist, not an engineer. Don't ask famous physicists questions about technology, ask an engineer.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 15 2010, 05:50 PM)
Where does he mention self-replicating nano-machines? What timecode?
By the way, he's a physicist, not an engineer. Don't ask famous physicists questions about technology, ask an engineer.
37 minute mark. He spends quite a while on the subject and uses the example of a tree growing from a seed to show making large object through use of tiny self-replicating machinery...
He gives a few other examples and specifically uses the term "self replications" in several places in this lecture, not just in this particular portion.
Also, you don't think a guy can be both an engineer and a physicist?
Looks like he and his team were doing an aweful lot of "practical" design and testing at the molecular level via computer simulation. That's the stuff of engineering just as much as theoretical physics.
By the way, he's a physicist, not an engineer. Don't ask famous physicists questions about technology, ask an engineer.
37 minute mark. He spends quite a while on the subject and uses the example of a tree growing from a seed to show making large object through use of tiny self-replicating machinery...
He gives a few other examples and specifically uses the term "self replications" in several places in this lecture, not just in this particular portion.
Also, you don't think a guy can be both an engineer and a physicist?
Looks like he and his team were doing an aweful lot of "practical" design and testing at the molecular level via computer simulation. That's the stuff of engineering just as much as theoretical physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2KpYRCUjmQ&feature=related
MOst of this video is about self assembly.
MOst of this video is about self assembly.
So what we are talking about here is the capability to eventually "plant" a nano-machine "seed" and grow a forest of solar panels, artificial plants, one atom at a time through self-replicating nanomachines, using nothing but dirt and sunlight, and then use these to power further manufacturing capabilities.
This means, as he says, a computer the size of a sugar cube that can do a yottaflop, and can stor 10^21 bits in another space the size of a sugar cube, and this will cost a few pennies to make.
This is why he talks about prices plumetting, because you can make an infinite number of solar panels, within the limits of materials available, with no labor cost whatsoever. Then once you have the solar farm, you can make anything else you want: greenhouses, automobiles, aircraft, rockets, macro-robots, etc, without a human worker ever involved.
This means no labor costs to "unskilled" labor. No worker compensation or other insurance, etc.
Everyone will be an engineer or a chemist or physicist, and there will be no need for the "American auto worker" because cars will "grow" themselves from raw materials and a blueprint, via a few self-replicating nano-tools. In fact, we won't even need cars most of the time, because there will be virtually no need to drive to "work," because the only things humans will do any more is design things, which can be done from your PC or hand held computer.
This means, as he says, a computer the size of a sugar cube that can do a yottaflop, and can stor 10^21 bits in another space the size of a sugar cube, and this will cost a few pennies to make.
This is why he talks about prices plumetting, because you can make an infinite number of solar panels, within the limits of materials available, with no labor cost whatsoever. Then once you have the solar farm, you can make anything else you want: greenhouses, automobiles, aircraft, rockets, macro-robots, etc, without a human worker ever involved.
This means no labor costs to "unskilled" labor. No worker compensation or other insurance, etc.
Everyone will be an engineer or a chemist or physicist, and there will be no need for the "American auto worker" because cars will "grow" themselves from raw materials and a blueprint, via a few self-replicating nano-tools. In fact, we won't even need cars most of the time, because there will be virtually no need to drive to "work," because the only things humans will do any more is design things, which can be done from your PC or hand held computer.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 06:57 PM)
Looks like he and his team were doing an aweful lot of "practical" design and testing at the molecular level via computer simulation. That's the stuff of engineering just as much as theoretical physics.
I'm glad to hear that we're on the path toward self-replication, but the applications are not universal. Your idea of sending a bunch of nano-machines to an asteroid or planet and having them mine it for resources is still silly. Nano-scale machines need immediate access to resources in order to self-replicate. A seedling needs to be surrounded by all the resources it needs in order to grow. It can't go looking for what it needs.
I'm glad to hear that we're on the path toward self-replication, but the applications are not universal. Your idea of sending a bunch of nano-machines to an asteroid or planet and having them mine it for resources is still silly. Nano-scale machines need immediate access to resources in order to self-replicate. A seedling needs to be surrounded by all the resources it needs in order to grow. It can't go looking for what it needs.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 15 2010, 07:47 PM)
I'm glad to hear that we're on the path toward self-replication, but the applications are not universal. Your idea of sending a bunch of nano-machines to an asteroid or planet and having them mine it for resources is still silly. Nano-scale machines need immediate access to resources in order to self-replicate. A seedling needs to be surrounded by all the resources it needs in order to grow. It can't go looking for what it needs.
The surface of many of our planets and moons have all the resources you would need, initially.
Consider a tunneling robot could go down to the core of our icy asteroids and dwarf planets and harvest the materials directly, replicating themselves and transporting excess material back to the surface via micro channels, like a plants transport mechanism, where excess materials are staged for launch.
Making your "seed" general purpose is just a matter of designing versatile enough components, the nano-tools which make up your tool chest.
At first we will see simple tools, a mere screw driver, a simple universal joint, a simple molecular motor to move something around.
Eventually, we will see general purpose packages, which will be tool boxes that have all of the basics in one set, controlled by a central processor. The example of all life, all Biology tells us that these "all purpose tool chests" will eventually fit in about the size of a single cell, give or take a few nano-meters.
It will eventually be possible to build a self replicating system that will be within a few nanometers of the size of a fertilized egg, and this system will be programmable to replicate in such a manner and differentiate to make anything at all, based on available materials and the blueprints you specify.
Don't have all the materials available? Make some worker robots of various sizes to go look for materials and bring them back to the manufacturing site...
The surface of many of our planets and moons have all the resources you would need, initially.
Consider a tunneling robot could go down to the core of our icy asteroids and dwarf planets and harvest the materials directly, replicating themselves and transporting excess material back to the surface via micro channels, like a plants transport mechanism, where excess materials are staged for launch.
Making your "seed" general purpose is just a matter of designing versatile enough components, the nano-tools which make up your tool chest.
At first we will see simple tools, a mere screw driver, a simple universal joint, a simple molecular motor to move something around.
Eventually, we will see general purpose packages, which will be tool boxes that have all of the basics in one set, controlled by a central processor. The example of all life, all Biology tells us that these "all purpose tool chests" will eventually fit in about the size of a single cell, give or take a few nano-meters.
It will eventually be possible to build a self replicating system that will be within a few nanometers of the size of a fertilized egg, and this system will be programmable to replicate in such a manner and differentiate to make anything at all, based on available materials and the blueprints you specify.
Don't have all the materials available? Make some worker robots of various sizes to go look for materials and bring them back to the manufacturing site...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 08:28 PM)
So what we are talking about here is the capability to eventually "plant" a nano-machine "seed" and grow a forest of solar panels, artificial plants, one atom at a time through self-replicating nanomachines, using nothing but dirt and sunlight, and then use these to power further manufacturing capabilities.
Self-replicating systems are best at making nearly homogenous macro-scale objects. Each component shares the same basic properties. You can't "grow" a car. That's just stupid, and a complete waste. Cars don't need nanotechnology, and "growing" it would be many times slower than just assembling it. You're not really saving anything on resources. A self-replicating machine on another planet would need immediate access to all the minerals it needs, which is unlikely for something that just dropped out of orbit onto a random patch of soil. You would have to study the composition of the planet and make sure the nano-bots need resources in the same proportions. It's not impossible, but it is a lot further off then what you have stated.
Self-replicating systems are best at making nearly homogenous macro-scale objects. Each component shares the same basic properties. You can't "grow" a car. That's just stupid, and a complete waste. Cars don't need nanotechnology, and "growing" it would be many times slower than just assembling it. You're not really saving anything on resources. A self-replicating machine on another planet would need immediate access to all the minerals it needs, which is unlikely for something that just dropped out of orbit onto a random patch of soil. You would have to study the composition of the planet and make sure the nano-bots need resources in the same proportions. It's not impossible, but it is a lot further off then what you have stated.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 15 2010, 08:30 PM)
Self-replicating systems are best at making nearly homogenous macro-scale objects. Each component shares the same basic properties. You can't "grow" a car. That's just stupid, and a complete waste. Cars don't need nanotechnology, and "growing" it would be many times slower than just assembling it.
1) once you have entire armies of these robots why would it be so hard to comprend this form of mass production?
2) I disagree anyway. We can grow an elephant that weighs more than some cars.
Sure you are. Think about the amount of waste involved in making cars today. Consider if they were made out of something such as the synthetic diamond discussed in the lecture. You wouldn't necessarily need the energy levels of melting metals and molding or machining htem. Instead, atoms are assembled one at a time into the frame of the car and it's individual components. There is no material waste at all, and there are no labor costs at any stage of the assembly. As was discussed in the lecture, since you are controlling everything at the molecular level, any "Waste" materials could be captured and packaged, and then sold to someone who needs that material for the product they are making.
1) once you have entire armies of these robots why would it be so hard to comprend this form of mass production?
2) I disagree anyway. We can grow an elephant that weighs more than some cars.
QUOTE
You're not really saving anything on resources.
Sure you are. Think about the amount of waste involved in making cars today. Consider if they were made out of something such as the synthetic diamond discussed in the lecture. You wouldn't necessarily need the energy levels of melting metals and molding or machining htem. Instead, atoms are assembled one at a time into the frame of the car and it's individual components. There is no material waste at all, and there are no labor costs at any stage of the assembly. As was discussed in the lecture, since you are controlling everything at the molecular level, any "Waste" materials could be captured and packaged, and then sold to someone who needs that material for the product they are making.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 10:21 PM)
2) I disagree anyway. We can grow an elephant that weighs more than some cars.
If you can't see the difference between an elephant and a car, you have problems. It's not the size, it's how it's built.
Soooooo, anything ORIGINAL to contribute?
If you can't see the difference between an elephant and a car, you have problems. It's not the size, it's how it's built.
Soooooo, anything ORIGINAL to contribute?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 15 2010, 10:15 PM)
If you can't see the difference between an elephant and a car, you have problems. It's not the size, it's how it's built.
Soooooo, anything ORIGINAL to contribute?
FBM you just dont get it at all.
When we talk about nano-technology, we are of necessity changing the very nature of the "How" things are built.
The car WILL be built in a manner very similar to the elephant. It may take a few transitional stages as all concepts and technologies become integrated, but at least initially we are going to see individual components constructed in this manner, and then assembled. Eventually we will see entire automobiles made from scratch in this manner.
This isn't just about putting polishing touches on something. It's about fundamentally changing all technology from the most basic levels upward.
did you eevn watch the video, or do you even care? I mean Dr. Merkle even gave an example of growing not just the crops, but GROWING a fully integrated and automated greenhouse from a box that you set in the field. This isn't science fiction, it's a leading expert working directly in the field in question.
Soooooo, anything ORIGINAL to contribute?
FBM you just dont get it at all.
When we talk about nano-technology, we are of necessity changing the very nature of the "How" things are built.
The car WILL be built in a manner very similar to the elephant. It may take a few transitional stages as all concepts and technologies become integrated, but at least initially we are going to see individual components constructed in this manner, and then assembled. Eventually we will see entire automobiles made from scratch in this manner.
This isn't just about putting polishing touches on something. It's about fundamentally changing all technology from the most basic levels upward.
did you eevn watch the video, or do you even care? I mean Dr. Merkle even gave an example of growing not just the crops, but GROWING a fully integrated and automated greenhouse from a box that you set in the field. This isn't science fiction, it's a leading expert working directly in the field in question.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 11:59 PM)
did you eevn watch the video, or do you even care? I mean Dr. Merkle even gave an example of growing not just the crops, but GROWING a fully integrated and automated greenhouse from a box that you set in the field. This isn't science fiction, it's a leading expert working directly in the field in question.
I think YOU missed a few details. The big one being that there are two methods of nano-assembly: layer-by-layer and self-assembly. Layer by layer is ideal for construction of non-homogenous objects, and it allows for much more complex designs without having to design a special molecule to do it. The reason why you wouldn't want to self-assemble a car is that nano-machines don't have the tensile strength and mechanics that a car needs. Mind you that nano-MATERIALS do, but you can't build a computer out of carbon nanotubes and expect it to be super-strong. You aren't really thinking things through. Nano-machines can assemble a car, but the "builders" aren't part of the final product. When the car is done, all those nano-machines are wasted. Why not just have a swarm of machines that assemble a lot of cars, instead of generating a ton of waste each time?
From your comments, it appears that you are unable to distinguish between nanotechnology and magic. Magic does whatever you want it to. Technology is based on very specific rules, not wishful thinking.
I think YOU missed a few details. The big one being that there are two methods of nano-assembly: layer-by-layer and self-assembly. Layer by layer is ideal for construction of non-homogenous objects, and it allows for much more complex designs without having to design a special molecule to do it. The reason why you wouldn't want to self-assemble a car is that nano-machines don't have the tensile strength and mechanics that a car needs. Mind you that nano-MATERIALS do, but you can't build a computer out of carbon nanotubes and expect it to be super-strong. You aren't really thinking things through. Nano-machines can assemble a car, but the "builders" aren't part of the final product. When the car is done, all those nano-machines are wasted. Why not just have a swarm of machines that assemble a lot of cars, instead of generating a ton of waste each time?
From your comments, it appears that you are unable to distinguish between nanotechnology and magic. Magic does whatever you want it to. Technology is based on very specific rules, not wishful thinking.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 15 2010, 11:09 PM)
I think YOU missed a few details. The big one being that there are two methods of nano-assembly: layer-by-layer and self-assembly. Layer by layer is ideal for construction of non-homogenous objects, and it allows for much more complex designs without having to design a special molecule to do it. The reason why you wouldn't want to self-assemble a car is that nano-machines don't have the tensile strength and mechanics that a car needs. Mind you that nano-MATERIALS do, but you can't build a computer out of carbon nanotubes and expect it to be super-strong. You aren't really thinking things through. Nano-machines can assemble a car, but the "builders" aren't part of the final product. When the car is done, all those nano-machines are wasted. Why not just have a swarm of machines that assemble a lot of cars, instead of generating a ton of waste each time?
From your comments, it appears that you are unable to distinguish between nanotechnology and magic. Magic does whatever you want it to. Technology is based on very specific rules, not wishful thinking.
You are a ***** or else a liar. I never said anything about wasting any nano robots, and there's no reason they should be wasted.
In fact, you'd even want to keep some around anyway for maintenance and repair as part of the packaged deal.
My goodness you have issues.
It's pretty obvious you'd reuse the robots.
Also, even in odd cases where a robot wasn't reusable, it would simply be recycled immediately. It's not like it costs you wages or anything to do that, since virtually everything woudl be done by the robots anyway.
I think you continue to miss the point and ignore examples even given in the lecture and other related material.
Oh yeah, what was the quote?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic."
From your comments, it appears that you are unable to distinguish between nanotechnology and magic. Magic does whatever you want it to. Technology is based on very specific rules, not wishful thinking.
You are a ***** or else a liar. I never said anything about wasting any nano robots, and there's no reason they should be wasted.
In fact, you'd even want to keep some around anyway for maintenance and repair as part of the packaged deal.
My goodness you have issues.
It's pretty obvious you'd reuse the robots.
Also, even in odd cases where a robot wasn't reusable, it would simply be recycled immediately. It's not like it costs you wages or anything to do that, since virtually everything woudl be done by the robots anyway.
I think you continue to miss the point and ignore examples even given in the lecture and other related material.
Oh yeah, what was the quote?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic."
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 12:20 AM)
I think you continue to miss the point and ignore examples even given in the lecture and other related material.
There are no examples until the technology exists. Is that so hard to understand? Unlike you, I actually care how things work. I actually think it is important to understand the process. You are happy with just making up magical things you can do with it. You don't understand the difference between a nanotube and a nanomachine. You can't build an axle out of nanobots. No part of a car except for the computer would have any need for actual nano-machines. Do you really enjoy finding the most impractical ways to apply technology? Why don't you find ACTUAL problems and find applications?
There are no examples until the technology exists. Is that so hard to understand? Unlike you, I actually care how things work. I actually think it is important to understand the process. You are happy with just making up magical things you can do with it. You don't understand the difference between a nanotube and a nanomachine. You can't build an axle out of nanobots. No part of a car except for the computer would have any need for actual nano-machines. Do you really enjoy finding the most impractical ways to apply technology? Why don't you find ACTUAL problems and find applications?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 15 2010, 11:42 PM)
There are no examples until the technology exists. Is that so hard to understand? Unlike you, I actually care how things work. I actually think it is important to understand the process. You are happy with just making up magical things you can do with it.
Did you even watch the video?
It was shown that they have TESTED several mechanical devices, including an actual molecular motor, in computer simulations that render real-world physics at the molecular level, and they work, and further, there is no reason why they won't work in the "real world".
Yes I do you *****, and apparantly a lot more than you do.
A nano machine is something like a molecular screwdriver, a molecular motor, drill, laser, arm, gear, wheel, saw, clamp, etc.
In this presentation, he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about nano-tubes, he's talking about molecular tools and robots building products such as computers, cars, and rockets, one atom at a time.
Yes I do you *****, and apparantly a lot more than you do.
A nano machine is something like a molecular screwdriver, a molecular motor, drill, laser, arm, gear, wheel, saw, clamp, etc.
In this presentation, he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about nano-tubes, he's talking about molecular tools and robots building products such as computers, cars, and rockets, one atom at a time.
You can't build an axle out of nanobots.
Ah, but you would be wrong in any case. For centuries people even used wooden axels on wagons and things, and wood is made of cells, nanobots.
Anyway, I never actually said the car itself was actually composed of nanobots, though for some portions of the car that may be practical. I think that is a false assumption YOU have made, like the first time you ever heard of self assembly, and have been attacking ever since.
You also seem incapable of comprehending that one technology or method need not entirely exclude another.
So you see no application for auto-maintenance and repair systems in the automobile of the future, pushing it's lifetime at peak performance to several decades instead of a few years? You see no application for automated cleaning and polishing systems that can both clean up the cookie crumb that fell between the cushion, and give your car a fresh wash and wax every day? Gee, FBM, you really aren't thinking these things through.
Did you even watch the video?
It was shown that they have TESTED several mechanical devices, including an actual molecular motor, in computer simulations that render real-world physics at the molecular level, and they work, and further, there is no reason why they won't work in the "real world".
QUOTE
You don't understand the difference between a nanotube and a nanomachine.
Yes I do you *****, and apparantly a lot more than you do.
A nano machine is something like a molecular screwdriver, a molecular motor, drill, laser, arm, gear, wheel, saw, clamp, etc.
In this presentation, he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about nano-tubes, he's talking about molecular tools and robots building products such as computers, cars, and rockets, one atom at a time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't understand the difference between a nanotube and a nanomachine. |
Yes I do you *****, and apparantly a lot more than you do.
A nano machine is something like a molecular screwdriver, a molecular motor, drill, laser, arm, gear, wheel, saw, clamp, etc.
In this presentation, he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about nano-tubes, he's talking about molecular tools and robots building products such as computers, cars, and rockets, one atom at a time.
You can't build an axle out of nanobots.
Ah, but you would be wrong in any case. For centuries people even used wooden axels on wagons and things, and wood is made of cells, nanobots.
Anyway, I never actually said the car itself was actually composed of nanobots, though for some portions of the car that may be practical. I think that is a false assumption YOU have made, like the first time you ever heard of self assembly, and have been attacking ever since.
You also seem incapable of comprehending that one technology or method need not entirely exclude another.
QUOTE
No part of a car except for the computer would have any need for actual nano-machines. Do you really enjoy finding the most impractical ways to apply technology? Why don't you find ACTUAL problems and find applications?
So you see no application for auto-maintenance and repair systems in the automobile of the future, pushing it's lifetime at peak performance to several decades instead of a few years? You see no application for automated cleaning and polishing systems that can both clean up the cookie crumb that fell between the cushion, and give your car a fresh wash and wax every day? Gee, FBM, you really aren't thinking these things through.
While computer simulations are really great, it takes a tremendous amount of computing power to even approach a reasonable model at the atomic level. A good computer model gives hope, but don't get too hopeful.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 15 2010, 07:28 PM)
So what we are talking about here is the capability to eventually "plant" a nano-machine "seed" and grow a forest of solar panels, artificial plants, one atom at a time through self-replicating nanomachines, using nothing but dirt and sunlight, and then use these to power further manufacturing capabilities.
Really?
Let's just calculate how many Iron atoms it would take to make a surface the size of a pin head just 1 atom deep.
Area Pin Head = 1.98 × 10^18 pm2
Radius of Fe: = 126 pm
Area of Fe = 4.99 × 10^4 pm2
Effective Area of Fe = 6.35 × 10^4 pm2 (assume they pack as squares)
Fe AtomsPerPinHead = AreaPH / EffectiveArea Fe = 3.12 × 10^13
But that's just ONE atom thick.
Now let's make a piece of material that is 1/10th as thick as the pinhead is wide.
That will take 9.7 X 10^25 atoms, placed by your nanobots, "one atom at a time".
So let's say you have a TRILLION nanobots working on this piece of metal, one atom at a time.
Well in just over 3 MILLION years they would be done with it.
Arthur
Really?
Let's just calculate how many Iron atoms it would take to make a surface the size of a pin head just 1 atom deep.
Area Pin Head = 1.98 × 10^18 pm2
Radius of Fe: = 126 pm
Area of Fe = 4.99 × 10^4 pm2
Effective Area of Fe = 6.35 × 10^4 pm2 (assume they pack as squares)
Fe AtomsPerPinHead = AreaPH / EffectiveArea Fe = 3.12 × 10^13
But that's just ONE atom thick.
Now let's make a piece of material that is 1/10th as thick as the pinhead is wide.
That will take 9.7 X 10^25 atoms, placed by your nanobots, "one atom at a time".
So let's say you have a TRILLION nanobots working on this piece of metal, one atom at a time.
Well in just over 3 MILLION years they would be done with it.
Arthur
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 09:38 AM)
It was shown that they have TESTED several mechanical devices, including an actual molecular motor, in computer simulations that render real-world physics at the molecular level, and they work, and further, there is no reason why they won't work in the "real world".
I'm talking about self-replicating machines and actual nano-assemblers. I know that there have been examples of one-off nano-machines, but that doesn't really have anything to do with actual manufacturing processes.
Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
In this presentation, he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about nano-tubes, he's talking about molecular tools and robots building products such as computers, cars, and rockets, one atom at a time.
First, "one atom at a time" is the stupidest thing you've said yet.
The only reason that you would want to construct something with that precision is if the atomic structure directly affects the material's behavior. Nanotubes are a good example. You wouldn't use nanotechnology to assemble a steel truss. That's just stupid.
Yet there's a reason why we don't use wood to build cars. Can you think of why that is? Perhaps because the cellular model isn't handy for building things like cars? A diamond axle is something that nano-technology can do. Building an axle out of self-assembling nano-machines is stupid.
Yet there's a reason why we don't use wood to build cars. Can you think of why that is? Perhaps because the cellular model isn't handy for building things like cars? A diamond axle is something that nano-technology can do. Building an axle out of self-assembling nano-machines is stupid.
Anyway, I never actually said the car itself was actually composed of nanobots, though for some portions of the car that may be practical. I think that is a false assumption YOU have made, like the first time you ever heard of self assembly, and have been attacking ever since.
The point was that you are using the term "self-assembly" incorrectly. The car doesn't "self-assemble," it is assembled by a swarm of assemblers, which go on to assemble other cars. (This is assuming that, for some reason, nano-assembling a car is somehow more efficient than building it the normal way) It's probably still easier for nano-factories to create component parts in large volumes, and then assemble them afterward. The program for a diamond-axle swarm is going to be a lot simpler than the program for a "whole car" swarm.
This is just more "magical thinking." What makes you think that a program suited to assembling a car would be suited to repairing the same car's bumps and scratches? You would need many times more machines to build a car initially anyway.
Why can't you pick an interesting or logical goal? Why not have nano-machines assemble the cable for a space elevator? Why not have them search the human body for cancer cells and viruses? Why not have them assemble diamond screens for smart-phones? These all sound perfectly logical and economically viable, given the technology. Instead, you want nano-bots to mine the planets and build cars.
W
T
F
I'm talking about self-replicating machines and actual nano-assemblers. I know that there have been examples of one-off nano-machines, but that doesn't really have anything to do with actual manufacturing processes.
QUOTE
A nano machine is something like a molecular screwdriver, a molecular motor, drill, laser, arm, gear, wheel, saw, clamp, etc.
Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A nano machine is something like a molecular screwdriver, a molecular motor, drill, laser, arm, gear, wheel, saw, clamp, etc. |
Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
In this presentation, he specifically stated that he wasn't talking about nano-tubes, he's talking about molecular tools and robots building products such as computers, cars, and rockets, one atom at a time.
First, "one atom at a time" is the stupidest thing you've said yet.
The only reason that you would want to construct something with that precision is if the atomic structure directly affects the material's behavior. Nanotubes are a good example. You wouldn't use nanotechnology to assemble a steel truss. That's just stupid.
QUOTE
Ah, but you would be wrong in any case. For centuries people even used wooden axels on wagons and things, and wood is made of cells, nanobots.
Yet there's a reason why we don't use wood to build cars. Can you think of why that is? Perhaps because the cellular model isn't handy for building things like cars? A diamond axle is something that nano-technology can do. Building an axle out of self-assembling nano-machines is stupid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ah, but you would be wrong in any case. For centuries people even used wooden axels on wagons and things, and wood is made of cells, nanobots. |
Yet there's a reason why we don't use wood to build cars. Can you think of why that is? Perhaps because the cellular model isn't handy for building things like cars? A diamond axle is something that nano-technology can do. Building an axle out of self-assembling nano-machines is stupid.
Anyway, I never actually said the car itself was actually composed of nanobots, though for some portions of the car that may be practical. I think that is a false assumption YOU have made, like the first time you ever heard of self assembly, and have been attacking ever since.
The point was that you are using the term "self-assembly" incorrectly. The car doesn't "self-assemble," it is assembled by a swarm of assemblers, which go on to assemble other cars. (This is assuming that, for some reason, nano-assembling a car is somehow more efficient than building it the normal way) It's probably still easier for nano-factories to create component parts in large volumes, and then assemble them afterward. The program for a diamond-axle swarm is going to be a lot simpler than the program for a "whole car" swarm.
QUOTE
So you see no application for auto-maintenance and repair systems in the automobile of the future, pushing it's lifetime at peak performance to several decades instead of a few years?
This is just more "magical thinking." What makes you think that a program suited to assembling a car would be suited to repairing the same car's bumps and scratches? You would need many times more machines to build a car initially anyway.
Why can't you pick an interesting or logical goal? Why not have nano-machines assemble the cable for a space elevator? Why not have them search the human body for cancer cells and viruses? Why not have them assemble diamond screens for smart-phones? These all sound perfectly logical and economically viable, given the technology. Instead, you want nano-bots to mine the planets and build cars.
W
T
F
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2010, 09:37 AM)
Really?
Let's just calculate how many Iron atoms it would take to make a surface the size of a pin head just 1 atom deep.
Area Pin Head = 1.98 × 10^18 pm2
Radius of Fe: = 126 pm
Area of Fe = 4.99 × 10^4 pm2
Effective Area of Fe = 6.35 × 10^4 pm2 (assume they pack as squares)
Fe AtomsPerPinHead = AreaPH / EffectiveArea Fe = 3.12 × 10^13
But that's just ONE atom thick.
Now let's make a piece of material that is 1/10th as thick as the pinhead is wide.
That will take 9.7 X 10^25 atoms, placed by your nanobots, "one atom at a time".
So let's say you have a TRILLION nanobots working on this piece of metal, one atom at a time.
Well in just over 3 MILLION years they would be done with it.
Arthur
Congratulations, you seem to have forgotten how you got here.
You are obviously a trillion years old, seeing as how your entire body is constructed from protiens, lipids, and minerals, which are themselves assembled one molecule at a time, and even one atom at a time.
Apparently someone wasn't paying attention in biology 101.
Let's just calculate how many Iron atoms it would take to make a surface the size of a pin head just 1 atom deep.
Area Pin Head = 1.98 × 10^18 pm2
Radius of Fe: = 126 pm
Area of Fe = 4.99 × 10^4 pm2
Effective Area of Fe = 6.35 × 10^4 pm2 (assume they pack as squares)
Fe AtomsPerPinHead = AreaPH / EffectiveArea Fe = 3.12 × 10^13
But that's just ONE atom thick.
Now let's make a piece of material that is 1/10th as thick as the pinhead is wide.
That will take 9.7 X 10^25 atoms, placed by your nanobots, "one atom at a time".
So let's say you have a TRILLION nanobots working on this piece of metal, one atom at a time.
Well in just over 3 MILLION years they would be done with it.
Arthur
Congratulations, you seem to have forgotten how you got here.
You are obviously a trillion years old, seeing as how your entire body is constructed from protiens, lipids, and minerals, which are themselves assembled one molecule at a time, and even one atom at a time.
Apparently someone wasn't paying attention in biology 101.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 11:44 AM)
Congratulations, you seem to have forgotten how you got here.
You are obviously a trillion years old, seeing as how your entire body is constructed from protiens, lipids, and minerals, which are themselves assembled one molecule at a time, and even one atom at a time.
Idiot, YOU were the one who said "one atom at a time." Obviously millions of atoms would have to be laid down "at a time." But realistically, these structures would be built with pre-built molecules, not individual atoms.
You are obviously a trillion years old, seeing as how your entire body is constructed from protiens, lipids, and minerals, which are themselves assembled one molecule at a time, and even one atom at a time.
Idiot, YOU were the one who said "one atom at a time." Obviously millions of atoms would have to be laid down "at a time." But realistically, these structures would be built with pre-built molecules, not individual atoms.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 09:55 AM)
I'm talking about self-replicating machines and actual nano-assemblers. I know that there have been examples of one-off nano-machines, but that doesn't really have anything to do with actual manufacturing processes.
Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
First, "one atom at a time" is the stupidest thing you've said yet.
The only reason that you would want to construct something with that precision is if the atomic structure directly affects the material's behavior. Nanotubes are a good example. You wouldn't use nanotechnology to assemble a steel truss. That's just stupid.
Yet there's a reason why we don't use wood to build cars. Can you think of why that is? Perhaps because the cellular model isn't handy for building things like cars? A diamond axle is something that nano-technology can do. Building an axle out of self-assembling nano-machines is stupid.
The point was that you are using the term "self-assembly" incorrectly. The car doesn't "self-assemble," it is assembled by a swarm of assemblers, which go on to assemble other cars. (This is assuming that, for some reason, nano-assembling a car is somehow more efficient than building it the normal way) It's probably still easier for nano-factories to create component parts in large volumes, and then assemble them afterward. The program for a diamond-axle swarm is going to be a lot simpler than the program for a "whole car" swarm.
I think you are just flat out not understanding me, because you appear to be arguing against nothing at all.
How is it that with you everything is rigid thinking. SOME of the robots probably will be useful for the purposes I listed. You don't have to take all the robots and do something else with them. My goodness that really would be stupid.
How is it that with you everything is rigid thinking. SOME of the robots probably will be useful for the purposes I listed. You don't have to take all the robots and do something else with them. My goodness that really would be stupid.
Why can't you pick an interesting or logical goal? Why not have nano-machines assemble the cable for a space elevator? Why not have them search the human body for cancer cells and viruses? Why not have them assemble diamond screens for smart-phones? These all sound perfectly logical and economically viable, given the technology. Instead, you want nano-bots to mine the planets and build cars.
W
T
F
I want nano-machines to do all of those things. I thought I had made that perfectly clear. I have made entire threads on medical applications and other applications in the past, even a year or so ago.
So uh....what is your problem exactly?
Congratulations. You must be so proud of yourself.
First, "one atom at a time" is the stupidest thing you've said yet.
The only reason that you would want to construct something with that precision is if the atomic structure directly affects the material's behavior. Nanotubes are a good example. You wouldn't use nanotechnology to assemble a steel truss. That's just stupid.
Yet there's a reason why we don't use wood to build cars. Can you think of why that is? Perhaps because the cellular model isn't handy for building things like cars? A diamond axle is something that nano-technology can do. Building an axle out of self-assembling nano-machines is stupid.
The point was that you are using the term "self-assembly" incorrectly. The car doesn't "self-assemble," it is assembled by a swarm of assemblers, which go on to assemble other cars. (This is assuming that, for some reason, nano-assembling a car is somehow more efficient than building it the normal way) It's probably still easier for nano-factories to create component parts in large volumes, and then assemble them afterward. The program for a diamond-axle swarm is going to be a lot simpler than the program for a "whole car" swarm.
I think you are just flat out not understanding me, because you appear to be arguing against nothing at all.
QUOTE
This is just more "magical thinking." What makes you think that a program suited to assembling a car would be suited to repairing the same car's bumps and scratches? You would need many times more machines to build a car initially anyway.
How is it that with you everything is rigid thinking. SOME of the robots probably will be useful for the purposes I listed. You don't have to take all the robots and do something else with them. My goodness that really would be stupid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is just more "magical thinking." What makes you think that a program suited to assembling a car would be suited to repairing the same car's bumps and scratches? You would need many times more machines to build a car initially anyway. |
How is it that with you everything is rigid thinking. SOME of the robots probably will be useful for the purposes I listed. You don't have to take all the robots and do something else with them. My goodness that really would be stupid.
Why can't you pick an interesting or logical goal? Why not have nano-machines assemble the cable for a space elevator? Why not have them search the human body for cancer cells and viruses? Why not have them assemble diamond screens for smart-phones? These all sound perfectly logical and economically viable, given the technology. Instead, you want nano-bots to mine the planets and build cars.
W
T
F
I want nano-machines to do all of those things. I thought I had made that perfectly clear. I have made entire threads on medical applications and other applications in the past, even a year or so ago.
So uh....what is your problem exactly?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 11:51 AM)
How is it that with you everything is rigid thinking. SOME of the robots probably will be useful for the purposes I listed. You don't have to take all the robots and do something else with them. My goodness that really would be stupid.
You know what IS really stupid? Believing in creationism (discussion for another time).
ANYWAY
You seem to have this illusion about multifunction robots than can do anything. Each "bot" would need a very specific program since they don't exactly have a ton of memory space to store extra programs. Each kind of nano-machine would have a very specific function. There's a reason why we don't build buildings around construction cranes.
The problem is that you think this is some magical technology that will change everything. It won't. It will be good for some things, and bad for other things. There might be nanotech components in practically everything, but nanotechnology is not the ideal for every situation, especially some of the situations you have described.
You know what IS really stupid? Believing in creationism (discussion for another time).
ANYWAY
You seem to have this illusion about multifunction robots than can do anything. Each "bot" would need a very specific program since they don't exactly have a ton of memory space to store extra programs. Each kind of nano-machine would have a very specific function. There's a reason why we don't build buildings around construction cranes.
QUOTE
I want nano-machines to do all of those things. I thought I had made that perfectly clear. I have made entire threads on medical applications and other applications in the past, even a year or so ago.
The problem is that you think this is some magical technology that will change everything. It won't. It will be good for some things, and bad for other things. There might be nanotech components in practically everything, but nanotechnology is not the ideal for every situation, especially some of the situations you have described.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 10:44 AM)
Congratulations, you seem to have forgotten how you got here.
You are obviously a trillion years old, seeing as how your entire body is constructed from protiens, lipids, and minerals, which are themselves assembled one molecule at a time, and even one atom at a time.
Apparently someone wasn't paying attention in biology 101.
You're so funny.
Now we have your SUPER DUPER SELF ASSEMBLING NANOROBOTS that can reproduce like biological entities.
Let us know WHEN that happens.
Arthur
You are obviously a trillion years old, seeing as how your entire body is constructed from protiens, lipids, and minerals, which are themselves assembled one molecule at a time, and even one atom at a time.
Apparently someone wasn't paying attention in biology 101.
You're so funny.
Now we have your SUPER DUPER SELF ASSEMBLING NANOROBOTS that can reproduce like biological entities.
Let us know WHEN that happens.
Arthur
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 11:01 AM)
You seem to have this illusion about multifunction robots than can do anything.
Actually, that's a strawman you seem to have invented somewhere along the lines.
However, if you have a system of enough specialized robots, then that system can both replicate itself and perform useful functions.
We have a system, A, composed of members (1,2,3, ......, ....., n-1, n, n+1)
Now no 1 member might be able to both copy itself and perform a useful function, but the entire system taken together can do this task, just as the cells in your body divide, making copies of themselves, and then performing hteir useful function: I.e. an osteoblast makes bone while an osteoclast eats and recycles bone material, though neither is actually "bone" in and of itself.
Your belief that I was strictly refering to everything being made of a carbon or metallic synthetic cellular matrix is clearly a misunderstanding, though that might be useful and convenient in some applications.
I discussed this well over a year ago, in which I described some possible work arounds, depending on the scale of the individual machines. One possibility is that the "bots" are essentially RC vehicles with simple programming that only actually controls things at the "driver" level, such as left or right turn, lift/lower arm, power on/off drill, etc. The higher order functions, the "intelligence" is controlled by a super computer the size of a wrist watch (thinking Moore's Law out 20 years from now,) which runs a more generalized program, in much the same way as a human decides whether his radio controlled truck should turn left or right, etc.
I discussed this well over a year ago, in which I described some possible work arounds, depending on the scale of the individual machines. One possibility is that the "bots" are essentially RC vehicles with simple programming that only actually controls things at the "driver" level, such as left or right turn, lift/lower arm, power on/off drill, etc. The higher order functions, the "intelligence" is controlled by a super computer the size of a wrist watch (thinking Moore's Law out 20 years from now,) which runs a more generalized program, in much the same way as a human decides whether his radio controlled truck should turn left or right, etc.
Each kind of nano-machine would have a very specific function. There's a reason why we don't build buildings around construction cranes.
The aerospace industries actually do make buildings around construction cranes, we also see permanent cranes in warehouses that have no purpose other than to change batteries in fork lifts and pallet jacks, and etc. Everything is application dependent.
However, many, many tools are still general purpose. Screwdrivers and nut drivers and other such wrenches and similar tools are used in every major engineering or construction field with standard shapes, sizes, and materials for fasteners and their respective tools. Why should it be any different at the "nano" scale?
We shall see. Time will tell.
Actually, that's a strawman you seem to have invented somewhere along the lines.
However, if you have a system of enough specialized robots, then that system can both replicate itself and perform useful functions.
We have a system, A, composed of members (1,2,3, ......, ....., n-1, n, n+1)
Now no 1 member might be able to both copy itself and perform a useful function, but the entire system taken together can do this task, just as the cells in your body divide, making copies of themselves, and then performing hteir useful function: I.e. an osteoblast makes bone while an osteoclast eats and recycles bone material, though neither is actually "bone" in and of itself.
Your belief that I was strictly refering to everything being made of a carbon or metallic synthetic cellular matrix is clearly a misunderstanding, though that might be useful and convenient in some applications.
QUOTE
Each "bot" would need a very specific program since they don't exactly have a ton of memory space to store extra programs.
I discussed this well over a year ago, in which I described some possible work arounds, depending on the scale of the individual machines. One possibility is that the "bots" are essentially RC vehicles with simple programming that only actually controls things at the "driver" level, such as left or right turn, lift/lower arm, power on/off drill, etc. The higher order functions, the "intelligence" is controlled by a super computer the size of a wrist watch (thinking Moore's Law out 20 years from now,) which runs a more generalized program, in much the same way as a human decides whether his radio controlled truck should turn left or right, etc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Each "bot" would need a very specific program since they don't exactly have a ton of memory space to store extra programs. |
I discussed this well over a year ago, in which I described some possible work arounds, depending on the scale of the individual machines. One possibility is that the "bots" are essentially RC vehicles with simple programming that only actually controls things at the "driver" level, such as left or right turn, lift/lower arm, power on/off drill, etc. The higher order functions, the "intelligence" is controlled by a super computer the size of a wrist watch (thinking Moore's Law out 20 years from now,) which runs a more generalized program, in much the same way as a human decides whether his radio controlled truck should turn left or right, etc.
Each kind of nano-machine would have a very specific function. There's a reason why we don't build buildings around construction cranes.
The aerospace industries actually do make buildings around construction cranes, we also see permanent cranes in warehouses that have no purpose other than to change batteries in fork lifts and pallet jacks, and etc. Everything is application dependent.
However, many, many tools are still general purpose. Screwdrivers and nut drivers and other such wrenches and similar tools are used in every major engineering or construction field with standard shapes, sizes, and materials for fasteners and their respective tools. Why should it be any different at the "nano" scale?
QUOTE
The problem is that you think this is some magical technology that will change everything. It won't. It will be good for some things, and bad for other things. There might be nanotech components in practically everything, but nanotechnology is not the ideal for every situation, especially some of the situations you have described
We shall see. Time will tell.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2010, 11:14 AM)
You're so funny.
Now we have your SUPER DUPER SELF ASSEMBLING NANOROBOTS that can reproduce like biological entities.
Let us know WHEN that happens.
Arthur
According to Ralph Merkle, 5 minute mark, in this follow up interview, this will happen in 20 to 50 years.
20 years if we have a focused effort.
50 years if things are done "business as usual"
he gives the specific example of the eventuality of a box that can sit on your desktop and create a laptop computer with molecular precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2KpYRCUjmQ&feature=related
Now we have your SUPER DUPER SELF ASSEMBLING NANOROBOTS that can reproduce like biological entities.
Let us know WHEN that happens.
Arthur
According to Ralph Merkle, 5 minute mark, in this follow up interview, this will happen in 20 to 50 years.
20 years if we have a focused effort.
50 years if things are done "business as usual"
he gives the specific example of the eventuality of a box that can sit on your desktop and create a laptop computer with molecular precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2KpYRCUjmQ&feature=related
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 12:24 PM)
I discussed this well over a year ago, in which I described some possible work arounds, depending on the scale of the individual machines. One possibility is that the "bots" are essentially RC vehicles with simple programming that only actually controls things at the "driver" level, such as left or right turn, lift/lower arm, power on/off drill, etc. The higher order functions, the "intelligence" is controlled by a super computer the size of a wrist watch (thinking Moore's Law out 20 years from now,) which runs a more generalized program, in much the same way as a human decides whether his radio controlled truck should turn left or right, etc.
That's a terrible idea. How, exactly, do you plan on controlling a million bots at the same time? There are a finite number of radio frequencies that can be used together without interference. Your only other option is to have a number of frequencies and have each bot "take turns" for RC priority, which just slows everything down. Dumb idea. Next!
You keep imagining "general purpose" nano-machines. The only reason a screwdriver is general purpose is that it can fit in the hand of a human. Any general purpose robot would have to have some serious programming backing it up. See my previous comments about lack of memory and the impracticality of remote control.
That's a terrible idea. How, exactly, do you plan on controlling a million bots at the same time? There are a finite number of radio frequencies that can be used together without interference. Your only other option is to have a number of frequencies and have each bot "take turns" for RC priority, which just slows everything down. Dumb idea. Next!
QUOTE
The aerospace industries actually do make buildings around construction cranes, we also see permanent cranes in warehouses that have no purpose other than to change batteries in fork lifts and pallet jacks, and etc. Everything is application dependent.
However, many, many tools are still general purpose. Screwdrivers and nut drivers and other such wrenches and similar tools are used in every major engineering or construction field with standard shapes, sizes, and materials for fasteners and their respective tools. Why should it be any different at the "nano" scale?
However, many, many tools are still general purpose. Screwdrivers and nut drivers and other such wrenches and similar tools are used in every major engineering or construction field with standard shapes, sizes, and materials for fasteners and their respective tools. Why should it be any different at the "nano" scale?
You keep imagining "general purpose" nano-machines. The only reason a screwdriver is general purpose is that it can fit in the hand of a human. Any general purpose robot would have to have some serious programming backing it up. See my previous comments about lack of memory and the impracticality of remote control.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 11:34 AM)
According to Ralph Merkle, 5 minute mark, in this follow up interview, this will happen in 20 to 50 years.
20 years if we have a focused effort.
50 years if things are done "business as usual"
he gives the specific example of the eventuality of a box that can sit on your desktop and create a laptop computer with molecular precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2KpYRCUjmQ&feature=related
But QC, just because he says it doesn't mean it will happen.
Talk is cheap and he has a vested interest in being a futurist.
And no, I don't believe we will EVER have a box that can sit on your desk and make a laptop computer with molecular precision.
Why?
Because material fabrication and manufacturing methods are NOT moving in that direction at all.
Indeed, the entire idea is ludicrous.
Making plastic parts for instance, the way we do it in automated factories at amzing speeds for complete assemblies will never be replaced by nanobots doing it a molecule at a time.
Or consider memory chips, I just bought a 8 GB MicroSD chip for less than $10 delivered to my home, and when you consider that that $10 provided the profit for the people providing the raw materials, the turning of the raw materials into the varios parts, the clean room creation of the memory chips and assembling them in the plactic case and mating them to the external electrical connectors, and the testing and the packaging and the shipping to the retailer and the online site I bought it from and then the shipping of it to my door, then CLEARLY that is an incredibly efficient process and not likely to be bettered by your mythical nanobots.
You might consider visiting a modern factory where we make any complicated device today and see how we actually do it. It is a highly automated function today, but we work at the component level, not the molecular level, because it is so much more efficient to do so.
There might be some components (particularly small very complex ones) that might benefit from nano-level assembly, but in general that is not the way to go for most of the large components that fit into a finished product. It's just too labor intensive.
Arthur
20 years if we have a focused effort.
50 years if things are done "business as usual"
he gives the specific example of the eventuality of a box that can sit on your desktop and create a laptop computer with molecular precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2KpYRCUjmQ&feature=related
But QC, just because he says it doesn't mean it will happen.
Talk is cheap and he has a vested interest in being a futurist.
And no, I don't believe we will EVER have a box that can sit on your desk and make a laptop computer with molecular precision.
Why?
Because material fabrication and manufacturing methods are NOT moving in that direction at all.
Indeed, the entire idea is ludicrous.
Making plastic parts for instance, the way we do it in automated factories at amzing speeds for complete assemblies will never be replaced by nanobots doing it a molecule at a time.
Or consider memory chips, I just bought a 8 GB MicroSD chip for less than $10 delivered to my home, and when you consider that that $10 provided the profit for the people providing the raw materials, the turning of the raw materials into the varios parts, the clean room creation of the memory chips and assembling them in the plactic case and mating them to the external electrical connectors, and the testing and the packaging and the shipping to the retailer and the online site I bought it from and then the shipping of it to my door, then CLEARLY that is an incredibly efficient process and not likely to be bettered by your mythical nanobots.
You might consider visiting a modern factory where we make any complicated device today and see how we actually do it. It is a highly automated function today, but we work at the component level, not the molecular level, because it is so much more efficient to do so.
There might be some components (particularly small very complex ones) that might benefit from nano-level assembly, but in general that is not the way to go for most of the large components that fit into a finished product. It's just too labor intensive.
Arthur
If anyone wants to read an interesting (not necessarily realistic) book about this kind of nanotechnology, check out "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson. It takes place in a world where nanotechnology has achieved complete ubiquity and economy. It is so pervasive, in fact, that the rich pay to have their stuff hand-made while the poor all rely on "The Feed" (a collection of streams of pure elements from a central dispensary) to get all their food and clothing through the household Matter Compiler. This makes the artifex (nano-engineer) the most sought-after talent in the world.
QC, this is fiction, and should be taken as such, FYI.
QC, this is fiction, and should be taken as such, FYI.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 11:52 AM)
That's a terrible idea. How, exactly, do you plan on controlling a million bots at the same time? There are a finite number of radio frequencies that can be used together without interference. Your only other option is to have a number of frequencies and have each bot "take turns" for RC priority, which just slows everything down. Dumb idea. Next!
You keep imagining "general purpose" nano-machines. The only reason a screwdriver is general purpose is that it can fit in the hand of a human. Any general purpose robot would have to have some serious programming backing it up. See my previous comments about lack of memory and the impracticality of remote control.
how would that be a "dumb" idea?
If the signal has an string of code that identifies which bot or group of bots for which the instruction is to be used, then you only need a fraction of the number of frequencies.
I know you are going to obect to everything anyway, because that's what you do.
Or consider memory chips, I just bought a 8 GB MicroSD chip for less than $10 delivered to my home, and when you consider that that $10 provided the profit for the people providing the raw materials, the turning of the raw materials into the varios parts, the clean room creation of the memory chips and assembling them in the plactic case and mating them to the external electrical connectors, and the testing and the packaging and the shipping to the retailer and the online site I bought it from and then the shipping of it to my door, then CLEARLY that is an incredibly efficient process and not likely to be bettered by your mythical nanobots.
Consider how much cheaper it will be when planes, trains, and trucks and other transportation drives themselves and nano-bots do all of the construction and testing, and nobody has to pay anyone wages to do it, and there is no insurance cost either.
Each layer of automation removes overhead involved in employees and insurance, break time, etc, while increasing productivity and precision.
You're talking about $10 for a stick of memory that weighs half an ounce.
This guy is talking about a dollar per kilogram for memory at a density of 10^21 bits per cubic centimeter, or somewhere on the order of 10^24 bits per kilogram, give or take a few grams....for just one dollar.
You keep imagining "general purpose" nano-machines. The only reason a screwdriver is general purpose is that it can fit in the hand of a human. Any general purpose robot would have to have some serious programming backing it up. See my previous comments about lack of memory and the impracticality of remote control.
how would that be a "dumb" idea?
If the signal has an string of code that identifies which bot or group of bots for which the instruction is to be used, then you only need a fraction of the number of frequencies.
I know you are going to obect to everything anyway, because that's what you do.
QUOTE
Or consider memory chips, I just bought a 8 GB MicroSD chip for less than $10 delivered to my home, and when you consider that that $10 provided the profit for the people providing the raw materials, the turning of the raw materials into the varios parts, the clean room creation of the memory chips and assembling them in the plactic case and mating them to the external electrical connectors, and the testing and the packaging and the shipping to the retailer and the online site I bought it from and then the shipping of it to my door, then CLEARLY that is an incredibly efficient process and not likely to be bettered by your mythical nanobots.
Consider how much cheaper it will be when planes, trains, and trucks and other transportation drives themselves and nano-bots do all of the construction and testing, and nobody has to pay anyone wages to do it, and there is no insurance cost either.
Each layer of automation removes overhead involved in employees and insurance, break time, etc, while increasing productivity and precision.
You're talking about $10 for a stick of memory that weighs half an ounce.
This guy is talking about a dollar per kilogram for memory at a density of 10^21 bits per cubic centimeter, or somewhere on the order of 10^24 bits per kilogram, give or take a few grams....for just one dollar.
Well this all a load of literary masturbation isn't?
QC, you clearly want to keep eulogising about your magical nano-built future, but your inability to accept that this is at best a long odds outcome over the time-frame you're talking about (from a billion possible scenarios) means it's not a discussion in any useful sense. Not to mention that it is just illogical to manufacture these solar-scale constructions by the methods you claim WILL be used.
To QC's opponents I say, without an audience this type of animal usually dies out in a short time of stimulation being removed.
I think the best thing QC can do with his 'ideas' is go off and write a bad Sci-fi 'space-opera'. After all, the future is already predicted! - QC, is your real name Hari Seldon?
QC, you clearly want to keep eulogising about your magical nano-built future, but your inability to accept that this is at best a long odds outcome over the time-frame you're talking about (from a billion possible scenarios) means it's not a discussion in any useful sense. Not to mention that it is just illogical to manufacture these solar-scale constructions by the methods you claim WILL be used.
To QC's opponents I say, without an audience this type of animal usually dies out in a short time of stimulation being removed.
I think the best thing QC can do with his 'ideas' is go off and write a bad Sci-fi 'space-opera'. After all, the future is already predicted! - QC, is your real name Hari Seldon?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 01:18 PM)
If the signal has an string of code that identifies which bot or group of bots for which the instruction is to be used, then you only need a fraction of the number of frequencies.
You're forgetting that it's a two-way street. The bots need to communicate status and position back to the controller. You would need a full-fledged networking protocol capable of handling millions of nodes. Good luck with that.
Stop coming up with stupid ideas and I'll stop rejecting them.
Stop coming up with stupid ideas and I'll stop rejecting them.
Consider how much cheaper it will be when planes, trains, and trucks and other transportation drives themselves and nano-bots do all of the construction and testing, and nobody has to pay anyone wages to do it, and there is no insurance cost either.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAA
Seriously, HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAHH
You're forgetting that it's a two-way street. The bots need to communicate status and position back to the controller. You would need a full-fledged networking protocol capable of handling millions of nodes. Good luck with that.
QUOTE
I know you are going to obect to everything anyway, because that's what you do.
Stop coming up with stupid ideas and I'll stop rejecting them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know you are going to obect to everything anyway, because that's what you do. |
Stop coming up with stupid ideas and I'll stop rejecting them.
Consider how much cheaper it will be when planes, trains, and trucks and other transportation drives themselves and nano-bots do all of the construction and testing, and nobody has to pay anyone wages to do it, and there is no insurance cost either.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAA
Seriously, HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAHH
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 12:32 PM)
You're forgetting that it's a two-way street. The bots need to communicate status and position back to the controller. You would need a full-fledged networking protocol capable of handling millions of nodes. Good luck with that.
Stop coming up with stupid ideas and I'll stop rejecting them.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAA
Seriously, HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHA @ you FBM.
Automated systems have reduced the number of people required at any and all stages of manufacturing significantly, drastically even since the industrial revolution. The same manufacturing jobs that used to require hundreds of workers can now be done by a handful of operators and maintenance technicians. Soon most of those operators will be removd from the equation.
Stop coming up with stupid ideas and I'll stop rejecting them.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAA
Seriously, HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAHH
HAHAHAHAHA @ you FBM.
Automated systems have reduced the number of people required at any and all stages of manufacturing significantly, drastically even since the industrial revolution. The same manufacturing jobs that used to require hundreds of workers can now be done by a handful of operators and maintenance technicians. Soon most of those operators will be removd from the equation.
QUOTE (Wilt+Dec 16 2010, 01:18 PM)
To QC's opponents I say, without an audience this type of animal usually dies out in a short time of stimulation being removed.
This particular animal will argue until he gets mad, rage-quits and doesn't come back for months at a time.
This particular animal will argue until he gets mad, rage-quits and doesn't come back for months at a time.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 01:41 PM)
Automated systems have reduced the number of people required at any and all stages of manufacturing significantly, drastically even since the industrial revolution. The same manufacturing jobs that used to require hundreds of workers can now be done by a handful of operators and maintenance technicians. Soon most of those operators will be removd from the equation.
First of all, nano-technology has nothing to do with testing. Saying "nano-bots do all of the construction and testing" is idiotic. A COMPUTER would be the correct term here, even though it's still wrong. Testing requires intelligence, and the perspective of the ones who will be using the tech. You can't have a computer test a cellphone. The testing program would have just as many bugs as the cellphone. Humans, on the other hand, are the ones that are actually going to be using the tech, therefore, use humans! Duuhhh
What, exactly, do you think humans will be doing during this great age of technology? Sitting around and eating grapes? Surfing the internet? You realize that displacing entire sectors of the economy will require an equal increase in jobs in another sector in order to prevent an economic collapse? What do you propose?
First of all, nano-technology has nothing to do with testing. Saying "nano-bots do all of the construction and testing" is idiotic. A COMPUTER would be the correct term here, even though it's still wrong. Testing requires intelligence, and the perspective of the ones who will be using the tech. You can't have a computer test a cellphone. The testing program would have just as many bugs as the cellphone. Humans, on the other hand, are the ones that are actually going to be using the tech, therefore, use humans! Duuhhh
What, exactly, do you think humans will be doing during this great age of technology? Sitting around and eating grapes? Surfing the internet? You realize that displacing entire sectors of the economy will require an equal increase in jobs in another sector in order to prevent an economic collapse? What do you propose?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 12:41 PM)
Automated systems have reduced the number of people required at any and all stages of manufacturing significantly, drastically even since the industrial revolution. The same manufacturing jobs that used to require hundreds of workers can now be done by a handful of operators and maintenance technicians. Soon most of those operators will be removd from the equation.
Yes,
And not ONE of those workers was replaced by a nanobot.
That's the point QC, we don't need nanobots for the vast majority of what we make, using reasonable sized technology we can make products with very little labor and at very high quality, as I suggested in my SD memory example.
We may eventually make them and use them, but I seriously doubt we will use them for making low cost items like laptop computers.
Think HIGH VALUE uses, like medical intervention of a blood clot in the brain, or fixing a heart valve.
Not low value like making a plastic case for a laptop computer which we can do now at very high speeds using injection molding.
Arthur
Yes,
And not ONE of those workers was replaced by a nanobot.
That's the point QC, we don't need nanobots for the vast majority of what we make, using reasonable sized technology we can make products with very little labor and at very high quality, as I suggested in my SD memory example.
We may eventually make them and use them, but I seriously doubt we will use them for making low cost items like laptop computers.
Think HIGH VALUE uses, like medical intervention of a blood clot in the brain, or fixing a heart valve.
Not low value like making a plastic case for a laptop computer which we can do now at very high speeds using injection molding.
Arthur
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 12:51 PM)
First of all, nano-technology has nothing to do with testing. Saying "nano-bots do all of the construction and testing" is idiotic. A COMPUTER would be the correct term here, even though it's still wrong. Testing requires intelligence, and the perspective of the ones who will be using the tech. You can't have a computer test a cellphone. The testing program would have just as many bugs as the cellphone. Humans, on the other hand, are the ones that are actually going to be using the tech, therefore, use humans! Duuhhh
What, exactly, do you think humans will be doing during this great age of technology? Sitting around and eating grapes? Surfing the internet? You realize that displacing entire sectors of the economy will require an equal increase in jobs in another sector in order to prevent an economic collapse? What do you propose?
Eventually everyone will be working in engineering fields designing various machines.
There will eventually reach a point, perhaps several phases, where the economics we know will no longer make sense. In fact, we are already seeing this as a huge portion of the labor market has been layed off, yet nobody seems to miss any production. what happened? True, demand for housing dropped because everyone foolishly invested in spec housing, so we made more houses than the number of adults in the nation, so that's one problem. But what else? We don't lack goods or services. Why? Because the cumulative automation and computer assisted design have replaced a huge portion of workers anyway.
Even if demands rise again (a million illegal immigrants per year...) unemployment will still remain relatively high compared to the past, because the "worker" is being replaced. Walgreen's automated pharmacy phone system is better than any human secretary, for example.
It will go something like this.
Computer programs replace receptionists (happening now.)
Computer programs replace tax pros and financial advisors (happening now.)
Autonomous robots and remote control systems replace farm labor.
ths is happening now, although there is still a bit of work to be done. Oranges, apples, nuts, and grapes are now being harvested largely by automated machines on the larger operations. In the next few years and decades we will begin to see human sized robots with the equivalent of an i.q. of maybe 10 or so which will be sufficient to harvest the majority of fruits and vegetables, or at least one specific fruit or vegetable per design, with little or no human assistance.
These are trends that we know are directly linked to information technology, seeing as robot intelligence is a function of computational power, as well as energy requirements. This means that we might cut half, three quarters, or more of agricultural jobs of virtually any skill level within the next 10 years or so, trending towards nobody employed in these fields at all except leading experts in their respective fields and the engineers and programmers. If you can buy 10 robots to harvest your cabbages then you don't need to pay armies of mexicans, and you don't need to pay worker compensation and other insurance costs, and you don't need to worry about being fined or carying a bad image for imploying illegals.
IN the near future, androids that are "flexible enough" and "smart enough" will replace auto workers on the assembly line, and even most any worker on an assembly line anywhere.
Even if you think it's more than 20 or 50 years away, how long a number convinces you? 100 years?
You will still have the same "economic" problems as before, as the existing arcane system called "currency" will fail when "labor" costs nothing at all and everyone has solar power for free too because it costs nothing to mass produce solar panels when automated systems will do everything in the process, from mining materials, to refining, to assembly.
People will do nothing but think and design things for robots to build.
What, exactly, do you think humans will be doing during this great age of technology? Sitting around and eating grapes? Surfing the internet? You realize that displacing entire sectors of the economy will require an equal increase in jobs in another sector in order to prevent an economic collapse? What do you propose?
Eventually everyone will be working in engineering fields designing various machines.
There will eventually reach a point, perhaps several phases, where the economics we know will no longer make sense. In fact, we are already seeing this as a huge portion of the labor market has been layed off, yet nobody seems to miss any production. what happened? True, demand for housing dropped because everyone foolishly invested in spec housing, so we made more houses than the number of adults in the nation, so that's one problem. But what else? We don't lack goods or services. Why? Because the cumulative automation and computer assisted design have replaced a huge portion of workers anyway.
Even if demands rise again (a million illegal immigrants per year...) unemployment will still remain relatively high compared to the past, because the "worker" is being replaced. Walgreen's automated pharmacy phone system is better than any human secretary, for example.
It will go something like this.
Computer programs replace receptionists (happening now.)
Computer programs replace tax pros and financial advisors (happening now.)
Autonomous robots and remote control systems replace farm labor.
ths is happening now, although there is still a bit of work to be done. Oranges, apples, nuts, and grapes are now being harvested largely by automated machines on the larger operations. In the next few years and decades we will begin to see human sized robots with the equivalent of an i.q. of maybe 10 or so which will be sufficient to harvest the majority of fruits and vegetables, or at least one specific fruit or vegetable per design, with little or no human assistance.
These are trends that we know are directly linked to information technology, seeing as robot intelligence is a function of computational power, as well as energy requirements. This means that we might cut half, three quarters, or more of agricultural jobs of virtually any skill level within the next 10 years or so, trending towards nobody employed in these fields at all except leading experts in their respective fields and the engineers and programmers. If you can buy 10 robots to harvest your cabbages then you don't need to pay armies of mexicans, and you don't need to pay worker compensation and other insurance costs, and you don't need to worry about being fined or carying a bad image for imploying illegals.
IN the near future, androids that are "flexible enough" and "smart enough" will replace auto workers on the assembly line, and even most any worker on an assembly line anywhere.
Even if you think it's more than 20 or 50 years away, how long a number convinces you? 100 years?
You will still have the same "economic" problems as before, as the existing arcane system called "currency" will fail when "labor" costs nothing at all and everyone has solar power for free too because it costs nothing to mass produce solar panels when automated systems will do everything in the process, from mining materials, to refining, to assembly.
People will do nothing but think and design things for robots to build.
If you have nano-bots assembling nano-components, and macro-bots assembling macro components, including one another, then where does that leave the human workers? Out of work and back to school in a relevant profession. That's where.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 02:36 PM)
Eventually everyone will be working in engineering fields designing various machines.
Not everyone can or would want to be an engineer. A plan that requires conformity will fail.
Ummm, a recession?
Ummm, a recession?
True, demand for housing dropped because everyone foolishly invested in spec housing, so we made more houses than the number of adults in the nation, so that's one problem.
Two pieces of false information here.
One, the problem was that banks pitched mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford it, and the financial institutions of the world massively over-leveraged themselves to the point where they were entirely reliant on poor people paying their mortgages.
Two, there are not more houses than adults in America. That's just stupid.
You can only replace workers as long as you can stay in business due to a dying economy.
You can only replace workers as long as you can stay in business due to a dying economy.
In the next few years and decades we will begin to see human sized robots with the equivalent of an i.q. of maybe 10 or so which will be sufficient to harvest the majority of fruits and vegetables, or at least one specific fruit or vegetable per design, with little or no human assistance.
Modern computers are not capable of "IQ." Saying that this will happen in the "next few years" is stupid. AI is a lot more complicated than you think.
Take an economics course. Seriously. This is utter bullcrap.
Take an economics course. Seriously. This is utter bullcrap.
People will do nothing but think and design things for robots to build.
Your ideal world then? Good thing it will never happen. You can't just eliminate the concept of economics. That's like saying "in the future, the laws of physics won't apply." Utter bollocks.
Not everyone can or would want to be an engineer. A plan that requires conformity will fail.
QUOTE
There will eventually reach a point, perhaps several phases, where the economics we know will no longer make sense. In fact, we are already seeing this as a huge portion of the labor market has been layed off, yet nobody seems to miss any production. what happened?
Ummm, a recession?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There will eventually reach a point, perhaps several phases, where the economics we know will no longer make sense. In fact, we are already seeing this as a huge portion of the labor market has been layed off, yet nobody seems to miss any production. what happened? |
Ummm, a recession?
True, demand for housing dropped because everyone foolishly invested in spec housing, so we made more houses than the number of adults in the nation, so that's one problem.
Two pieces of false information here.
One, the problem was that banks pitched mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford it, and the financial institutions of the world massively over-leveraged themselves to the point where they were entirely reliant on poor people paying their mortgages.
Two, there are not more houses than adults in America. That's just stupid.
QUOTE
Even if demands rise again (a million illegal immigrants per year...) unemployment will still remain relatively high compared to the past, because the "worker" is being replaced. Walgreen's automated pharmacy phone system is better than any human secretary, for example.
You can only replace workers as long as you can stay in business due to a dying economy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even if demands rise again (a million illegal immigrants per year...) unemployment will still remain relatively high compared to the past, because the "worker" is being replaced. Walgreen's automated pharmacy phone system is better than any human secretary, for example. |
You can only replace workers as long as you can stay in business due to a dying economy.
In the next few years and decades we will begin to see human sized robots with the equivalent of an i.q. of maybe 10 or so which will be sufficient to harvest the majority of fruits and vegetables, or at least one specific fruit or vegetable per design, with little or no human assistance.
Modern computers are not capable of "IQ." Saying that this will happen in the "next few years" is stupid. AI is a lot more complicated than you think.
QUOTE
You will still have the same "economic" problems as before, as the existing arcane system called "currency" will fail when "labor" costs nothing at all and everyone has solar power for free too because it costs nothing to mass produce solar panels when automated systems will do everything in the process, from mining materials, to refining, to assembly.
Take an economics course. Seriously. This is utter bullcrap.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You will still have the same "economic" problems as before, as the existing arcane system called "currency" will fail when "labor" costs nothing at all and everyone has solar power for free too because it costs nothing to mass produce solar panels when automated systems will do everything in the process, from mining materials, to refining, to assembly. |
Take an economics course. Seriously. This is utter bullcrap.
People will do nothing but think and design things for robots to build.
Your ideal world then? Good thing it will never happen. You can't just eliminate the concept of economics. That's like saying "in the future, the laws of physics won't apply." Utter bollocks.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 01:49 PM)
Not everyone can or would want to be an engineer. A plan that requires conformity will fail.
There won't be a choice since robots will be doing all the other jobs.
take your pick:
physics
chemistry
medicine
engineering
all of them will converge anyway
I can drive to several "roads that lead nowhere" and subdivisions full of 2 and 3 year old houses that have never been inhabited, all within about a 5 to 10 mile radius.
I can drive to several "roads that lead nowhere" and subdivisions full of 2 and 3 year old houses that have never been inhabited, all within about a 5 to 10 mile radius.
You can only replace workers as long as you can stay in business due to a dying economy.
Modern computers are not capable of "IQ." Saying that this will happen in the "next few years" is stupid. AI is a lot more complicated than you think.
Have you forgotten I have at least some experience in programming and have written a compiler? Of course it's complicated, everything I'm talking about is complicated. Get used to it.
Yeah well, you sort of don't comprehend because you are like a flea trapped in a jar having banged it's poor head until it no longer jumps even when the lid is removed. Old analogy, but it applies here.
What exactly is currency or barter going to be when these technologies begin to exist?
THINK about this. Let's say you want to buy an ipad in 2100. I'm going out this far to guarantee within reason a very, very high chance of most of these forms of automation being in place, top to bottom, bottom to top.
How much do you expect it to cost to buy an ipad in 2100, "inflation adjusted"? Keep in mind, the delivery trucks are driven by computers, as are all the mining equipment, and there are no laborers in a factory at all for any component anywhere, AND once again, we have 100% solar panel, which is also made by robots. Most, fi not all, of the material cost is removed, because a big portion of material cost is reflected in wages and insurance for miners, transporters, and refiners, etc.
So what do you think the "cost" of this device is going to be? Will we be paying in pennies and paper money? How will anyone get this paper money, since nobody will have a job?
Will people be paid full wages to sit around and invent things, whether or not the design ever gets implemented because the design proposed by team b was better than the design proposed by team a, so a's isn't used, but they both get paid anyway? If you only pay team b, does team a get to starve?
Oh yeah, with regards to economics classes.
The people who taught economics are teh very same ones who implemented the practises which helped cause the situations you describe, which are a large part of the problem, but not the only problem.
There won't be a choice since robots will be doing all the other jobs.
take your pick:
physics
chemistry
medicine
engineering
all of them will converge anyway
QUOTE
Ummm, a recession?
Two pieces of false information here.
One, the problem was that banks pitched mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford it, and the financial institutions of the world massively over-leveraged themselves to the point where they were entirely reliant on poor people paying their mortgages.
Two, there are not more houses than adults in America. That's just stupid.
Two pieces of false information here.
One, the problem was that banks pitched mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford it, and the financial institutions of the world massively over-leveraged themselves to the point where they were entirely reliant on poor people paying their mortgages.
Two, there are not more houses than adults in America. That's just stupid.
I can drive to several "roads that lead nowhere" and subdivisions full of 2 and 3 year old houses that have never been inhabited, all within about a 5 to 10 mile radius.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ummm, a recession? Two pieces of false information here. One, the problem was that banks pitched mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford it, and the financial institutions of the world massively over-leveraged themselves to the point where they were entirely reliant on poor people paying their mortgages. Two, there are not more houses than adults in America. That's just stupid. |
I can drive to several "roads that lead nowhere" and subdivisions full of 2 and 3 year old houses that have never been inhabited, all within about a 5 to 10 mile radius.
You can only replace workers as long as you can stay in business due to a dying economy.
Modern computers are not capable of "IQ." Saying that this will happen in the "next few years" is stupid. AI is a lot more complicated than you think.
Have you forgotten I have at least some experience in programming and have written a compiler? Of course it's complicated, everything I'm talking about is complicated. Get used to it.
QUOTE
Take an economics course. Seriously. This is utter bullcrap.
Your ideal world then? Good thing it will never happen. You can't just eliminate the concept of economics. That's like saying "in the future, the laws of physics won't apply." Utter bollocks.
Your ideal world then? Good thing it will never happen. You can't just eliminate the concept of economics. That's like saying "in the future, the laws of physics won't apply." Utter bollocks.
Yeah well, you sort of don't comprehend because you are like a flea trapped in a jar having banged it's poor head until it no longer jumps even when the lid is removed. Old analogy, but it applies here.
What exactly is currency or barter going to be when these technologies begin to exist?
THINK about this. Let's say you want to buy an ipad in 2100. I'm going out this far to guarantee within reason a very, very high chance of most of these forms of automation being in place, top to bottom, bottom to top.
How much do you expect it to cost to buy an ipad in 2100, "inflation adjusted"? Keep in mind, the delivery trucks are driven by computers, as are all the mining equipment, and there are no laborers in a factory at all for any component anywhere, AND once again, we have 100% solar panel, which is also made by robots. Most, fi not all, of the material cost is removed, because a big portion of material cost is reflected in wages and insurance for miners, transporters, and refiners, etc.
So what do you think the "cost" of this device is going to be? Will we be paying in pennies and paper money? How will anyone get this paper money, since nobody will have a job?
Will people be paid full wages to sit around and invent things, whether or not the design ever gets implemented because the design proposed by team b was better than the design proposed by team a, so a's isn't used, but they both get paid anyway? If you only pay team b, does team a get to starve?
Oh yeah, with regards to economics classes.
The people who taught economics are teh very same ones who implemented the practises which helped cause the situations you describe, which are a large part of the problem, but not the only problem.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 01:36 PM)
Eventually everyone will be working in engineering fields designing various machines.
People will do nothing but think and design things for robots to build.
Shirley, you jest?
This has gone beyond moronic.
I'm outa here.
Have fun playing with yourself.
Arthur
People will do nothing but think and design things for robots to build.
Shirley, you jest?
This has gone beyond moronic.
I'm outa here.
Have fun playing with yourself.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 16 2010, 02:32 PM)
Shirley, you jest?
This has gone beyond moronic.
I'm outa here.
Have fun playing with yourself.
Arthur
come back in 5, maybe 10 years as the trends continue?
This has gone beyond moronic.
I'm outa here.
Have fun playing with yourself.
Arthur
come back in 5, maybe 10 years as the trends continue?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 03:13 PM)
There won't be a choice since robots will be doing all the other jobs.
take your pick:
physics
chemistry
medicine
engineering
all of them will converge anyway
Where are artists in that list? Where are writers? Where are teachers? Are these all going to be replaced by nano-bots too?
So? Where I live, there can be up to 4 families sharing one "house." Different areas have different population densities. Did you really assume that the whole country is like your neighborhood?
So? Where I live, there can be up to 4 families sharing one "house." Different areas have different population densities. Did you really assume that the whole country is like your neighborhood?
Have you forgotten I have at least some experience in programming and have written a compiler? Of course it's complicated, everything I'm talking about is complicated. Get used to it.
I can't vouch for your competence. What you have posted here doesn't inspire confidence. Every person that has commented on your posts here has agreed with me, not you.
Amazing analogy. That's exactly the future I'm picturing for you!
Amazing analogy. That's exactly the future I'm picturing for you!
THINK about this. Let's say you want to buy an ipad in 2100. I'm going out this far to guarantee within reason a very, very high chance of most of these forms of automation being in place, top to bottom, bottom to top.
Based on what? Something a guy said in an interview that you watched on youtube? Guess what? People say things they don't mean for money! Ray Kurzweil was an actual inventor once. Now he collects outrageous speaking fees and book royalties for spouting nonsense.
Depends on who you ask. By saying what you just said, you have proven that your economic knowledge is practically nonexistent. The problem is not with economists, it's with people who take advantage of economics to make obscene amounts of money with little to no actual exchange of goods or services.
take your pick:
physics
chemistry
medicine
engineering
all of them will converge anyway
Where are artists in that list? Where are writers? Where are teachers? Are these all going to be replaced by nano-bots too?
QUOTE
I can drive to several "roads that lead nowhere" and subdivisions full of 2 and 3 year old houses that have never been inhabited, all within about a 5 to 10 mile radius.
So? Where I live, there can be up to 4 families sharing one "house." Different areas have different population densities. Did you really assume that the whole country is like your neighborhood?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can drive to several "roads that lead nowhere" and subdivisions full of 2 and 3 year old houses that have never been inhabited, all within about a 5 to 10 mile radius. |
So? Where I live, there can be up to 4 families sharing one "house." Different areas have different population densities. Did you really assume that the whole country is like your neighborhood?
Have you forgotten I have at least some experience in programming and have written a compiler? Of course it's complicated, everything I'm talking about is complicated. Get used to it.
I can't vouch for your competence. What you have posted here doesn't inspire confidence. Every person that has commented on your posts here has agreed with me, not you.
QUOTE
Yeah well, you sort of don't comprehend because you are like a flea trapped in a jar having banged it's poor head until it no longer jumps even when the lid is removed. Old analogy, but it applies here.
Amazing analogy. That's exactly the future I'm picturing for you!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yeah well, you sort of don't comprehend because you are like a flea trapped in a jar having banged it's poor head until it no longer jumps even when the lid is removed. Old analogy, but it applies here. |
Amazing analogy. That's exactly the future I'm picturing for you!
THINK about this. Let's say you want to buy an ipad in 2100. I'm going out this far to guarantee within reason a very, very high chance of most of these forms of automation being in place, top to bottom, bottom to top.
Based on what? Something a guy said in an interview that you watched on youtube? Guess what? People say things they don't mean for money! Ray Kurzweil was an actual inventor once. Now he collects outrageous speaking fees and book royalties for spouting nonsense.
QUOTE
The people who taught economics are teh very same ones who implemented the practises which helped cause the situations you describe, which are a large part of the problem, but not the only problem.
Depends on who you ask. By saying what you just said, you have proven that your economic knowledge is practically nonexistent. The problem is not with economists, it's with people who take advantage of economics to make obscene amounts of money with little to no actual exchange of goods or services.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 03:09 PM)
The problem is not with economists, it's with people who take advantage of economics to make obscene amounts of money with little to no actual exchange of goods or services.
You just summarized capitalism.
You also just described pretty much everything I hate in our existing civilization.
Oh yeah...
My statements were obviously based on the present trends in technology regarding materials sciences, Moore's law, software trends and other trends as described in our industry.
You are incredibly short-sighted FBM. Once the hardware begins to reach roughly 4nm process for chipsets, it will be merely up to the software engineers to develop a framework in which at least primitive a.i. of similar "real world" intelligence to insects or rats can be designed.
From an object oriented perspective, a neuron can be viewed as a box with input handlers and output handlers, and some "hidden" code inside. Given a bit of creativity we can eventually make these "synthetic neurons". Given enough of synthetic neurons, we can easily conceive of robots with animal intelligence.
Experiments have already been done that use actual mouse brain matter, literally in a petri dish in cultures, and connect this to an electronic computer to control a robot, and it was successful. The mouse neuron cultures "learned" how to control the robots and even solve simple "collision" based problems.
Why shouldn't that be possible very soon with chipsets representing synthetic neuron cultures, which are scalable to needs?
I know, I know, I'm thinking too far ahead of you, so you'll just object again. Kinda getting used to it now. You'll say, "Idiot, that doesn't exist yet." and I'll laugh and say, "you're right...not yet, but give or take a few years...."
You just summarized capitalism.
You also just described pretty much everything I hate in our existing civilization.
Oh yeah...
My statements were obviously based on the present trends in technology regarding materials sciences, Moore's law, software trends and other trends as described in our industry.
You are incredibly short-sighted FBM. Once the hardware begins to reach roughly 4nm process for chipsets, it will be merely up to the software engineers to develop a framework in which at least primitive a.i. of similar "real world" intelligence to insects or rats can be designed.
From an object oriented perspective, a neuron can be viewed as a box with input handlers and output handlers, and some "hidden" code inside. Given a bit of creativity we can eventually make these "synthetic neurons". Given enough of synthetic neurons, we can easily conceive of robots with animal intelligence.
Experiments have already been done that use actual mouse brain matter, literally in a petri dish in cultures, and connect this to an electronic computer to control a robot, and it was successful. The mouse neuron cultures "learned" how to control the robots and even solve simple "collision" based problems.
Why shouldn't that be possible very soon with chipsets representing synthetic neuron cultures, which are scalable to needs?
I know, I know, I'm thinking too far ahead of you, so you'll just object again. Kinda getting used to it now. You'll say, "Idiot, that doesn't exist yet." and I'll laugh and say, "you're right...not yet, but give or take a few years...."
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Dec 16 2010, 04:15 PM)
You just summarized capitalism.
You also just described pretty much everything I hate in our existing civilization.
No, I just summarized the financial services industry. There is a difference.
Moore's law is not an actual law, natural or legal. It's a trend. Trends can change.
Moore's law is not an actual law, natural or legal. It's a trend. Trends can change.
You are incredibly short-sighted FBM. Once the hardware begins to reach roughly 4nm process for chipsets, it will be merely up to the software engineers to develop a framework in which at least primitive a.i. of similar "real world" intelligence to insects or rats can be designed.
Do you really think that achieving 4nm and some special software is going to make AI possible? It's going to take a whole new computing architecture to accurately simulate a biological brain. The problem then is "training" the new brain to be useful.
It's not the structure of the neurons, it's the connectivity of the neurons. Neurons can form new connections as part of the learning process. That doesn't exactly jive with silicon-based microcircuits.
It's not the structure of the neurons, it's the connectivity of the neurons. Neurons can form new connections as part of the learning process. That doesn't exactly jive with silicon-based microcircuits.
I know, I know, I'm thinking too far ahead of you, so you'll just object again. Kinda getting used to it now. You'll say, "Idiot, that doesn't exist yet." and I'll laugh and say, "you're right...not yet, but give or take a few years...."
You judged wrongly. I'm all for AI, I just think that software isn't the way to do it.
You also just described pretty much everything I hate in our existing civilization.
No, I just summarized the financial services industry. There is a difference.
QUOTE
My statements were obviously based on the present trends in technology regarding materials sciences, Moore's law, software trends and other trends as described in our industry.
Moore's law is not an actual law, natural or legal. It's a trend. Trends can change.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My statements were obviously based on the present trends in technology regarding materials sciences, Moore's law, software trends and other trends as described in our industry. |
Moore's law is not an actual law, natural or legal. It's a trend. Trends can change.
You are incredibly short-sighted FBM. Once the hardware begins to reach roughly 4nm process for chipsets, it will be merely up to the software engineers to develop a framework in which at least primitive a.i. of similar "real world" intelligence to insects or rats can be designed.
Do you really think that achieving 4nm and some special software is going to make AI possible? It's going to take a whole new computing architecture to accurately simulate a biological brain. The problem then is "training" the new brain to be useful.
QUOTE
From an object oriented perspective, a neuron can be viewed as a box with input handlers and output handlers, and some "hidden" code inside. Given a bit of creativity we can eventually make these "synthetic neurons". Given enough of synthetic neurons, we can easily conceive of robots with animal intelligence.
It's not the structure of the neurons, it's the connectivity of the neurons. Neurons can form new connections as part of the learning process. That doesn't exactly jive with silicon-based microcircuits.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| From an object oriented perspective, a neuron can be viewed as a box with input handlers and output handlers, and some "hidden" code inside. Given a bit of creativity we can eventually make these "synthetic neurons". Given enough of synthetic neurons, we can easily conceive of robots with animal intelligence. |
It's not the structure of the neurons, it's the connectivity of the neurons. Neurons can form new connections as part of the learning process. That doesn't exactly jive with silicon-based microcircuits.
I know, I know, I'm thinking too far ahead of you, so you'll just object again. Kinda getting used to it now. You'll say, "Idiot, that doesn't exist yet." and I'll laugh and say, "you're right...not yet, but give or take a few years...."
You judged wrongly. I'm all for AI, I just think that software isn't the way to do it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 16 2010, 04:30 PM)
It's going to take a whole new computing architecture to accurately simulate a biological brain. The problem then is "training" the new brain to be useful.
I agree, and I thought my next paragraph conveyed that message.
Well, maybe not in the ways we have been using them. Think of a hub and how it could theoretically have a number of device attached. It may be 2 devices, or 4, or 8, or 255. Now imagine if every device is a neuron and they can each communicate with any other neuron on the network, further imagine if each neuron is in fact a hub in it's own right. As you can see, we don't necessarily need the ability to make new connections if there is already overloaded connectivity to begin with. We can "turn on" or "turn off" connections that are already there in the architecture.
So let's consider realistic, existing parallel processing examples, such as a video card. We have PC video cards right now with 400 processor cores, and workstation video cards with 1600 processor cores.
Now just imagine for a moment, with a relatively slight amount of re-configuration, one could imagine 1600 specialized processor cores, "synthetic neurons," networked in the manner above, mimmicking organic neurons, except connectivity is slightly "overloaded". "Extra" connections are turned off until they are needed. Let's pick a relatively small, realistic degree of connectivity, and say that every neuron is directly networked to 8 other Neurons. Isn't this conceptually identical to what we see in the actual brain, except that here we would be using the more precise electronic or eventualy spintronic signals and computations, rather than the chemical signals and computations our biological neurons use. But conceptually an in terms of basic architecture of the "network" it has become the same thing. Now picture this miniaturized so that this entire network fits on one plug-in card in your PC, or even on the motherboard. It isn't far-fetched because the miniaturization would literally allow this in 2 years anyway, if anyone bothered to design the circuits and the logic for it...I say that more plainly, a 1600 synthetic neuron "card" is literally possible right now to within 2 years, it's just a matter of schematics.
This scheme is a degree of complexity that is only BARELY greater than what we are already mass-producing on existing video cards.
Well, maybe not in the ways we have been using them. Think of a hub and how it could theoretically have a number of device attached. It may be 2 devices, or 4, or 8, or 255. Now imagine if every device is a neuron and they can each communicate with any other neuron on the network, further imagine if each neuron is in fact a hub in it's own right. As you can see, we don't necessarily need the ability to make new connections if there is already overloaded connectivity to begin with. We can "turn on" or "turn off" connections that are already there in the architecture.
So let's consider realistic, existing parallel processing examples, such as a video card. We have PC video cards right now with 400 processor cores, and workstation video cards with 1600 processor cores.
Now just imagine for a moment, with a relatively slight amount of re-configuration, one could imagine 1600 specialized processor cores, "synthetic neurons," networked in the manner above, mimmicking organic neurons, except connectivity is slightly "overloaded". "Extra" connections are turned off until they are needed. Let's pick a relatively small, realistic degree of connectivity, and say that every neuron is directly networked to 8 other Neurons. Isn't this conceptually identical to what we see in the actual brain, except that here we would be using the more precise electronic or eventualy spintronic signals and computations, rather than the chemical signals and computations our biological neurons use. But conceptually an in terms of basic architecture of the "network" it has become the same thing. Now picture this miniaturized so that this entire network fits on one plug-in card in your PC, or even on the motherboard. It isn't far-fetched because the miniaturization would literally allow this in 2 years anyway, if anyone bothered to design the circuits and the logic for it...I say that more plainly, a 1600 synthetic neuron "card" is literally possible right now to within 2 years, it's just a matter of schematics.
This scheme is a degree of complexity that is only BARELY greater than what we are already mass-producing on existing video cards.
You judged wrongly. I'm all for AI, I just think that software isn't the way to do it.
It takes both software and hardware. Without the framework provided by hardware that is dynamic enough, the software is basicly meaningless, and there can even be a multi-tiered approach to the hardware.
You can have neural processors working in tandem with conventional processors, thereby each processor can benefit from what the other processor does better. You would theoretically gain the intelligence and parallel processing of an animal, while still maintaining the precision, perfect memory, and speed of an modern electronic or (soon) spintronic computer.
An example of how this might be useful is putting "synthetic reflexes" in a macroscopic humanoid robot which function independently from the CPU.
2012 2045: The End Of World As We Know It
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...2048138,00.html
I agree, and I thought my next paragraph conveyed that message.
QUOTE
It's not the structure of the neurons, it's the connectivity of the neurons. Neurons can form new connections as part of the learning process. That doesn't exactly jive with silicon-based microcircuits.
Well, maybe not in the ways we have been using them. Think of a hub and how it could theoretically have a number of device attached. It may be 2 devices, or 4, or 8, or 255. Now imagine if every device is a neuron and they can each communicate with any other neuron on the network, further imagine if each neuron is in fact a hub in it's own right. As you can see, we don't necessarily need the ability to make new connections if there is already overloaded connectivity to begin with. We can "turn on" or "turn off" connections that are already there in the architecture.
So let's consider realistic, existing parallel processing examples, such as a video card. We have PC video cards right now with 400 processor cores, and workstation video cards with 1600 processor cores.
Now just imagine for a moment, with a relatively slight amount of re-configuration, one could imagine 1600 specialized processor cores, "synthetic neurons," networked in the manner above, mimmicking organic neurons, except connectivity is slightly "overloaded". "Extra" connections are turned off until they are needed. Let's pick a relatively small, realistic degree of connectivity, and say that every neuron is directly networked to 8 other Neurons. Isn't this conceptually identical to what we see in the actual brain, except that here we would be using the more precise electronic or eventualy spintronic signals and computations, rather than the chemical signals and computations our biological neurons use. But conceptually an in terms of basic architecture of the "network" it has become the same thing. Now picture this miniaturized so that this entire network fits on one plug-in card in your PC, or even on the motherboard. It isn't far-fetched because the miniaturization would literally allow this in 2 years anyway, if anyone bothered to design the circuits and the logic for it...I say that more plainly, a 1600 synthetic neuron "card" is literally possible right now to within 2 years, it's just a matter of schematics.
This scheme is a degree of complexity that is only BARELY greater than what we are already mass-producing on existing video cards.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's not the structure of the neurons, it's the connectivity of the neurons. Neurons can form new connections as part of the learning process. That doesn't exactly jive with silicon-based microcircuits. |
Well, maybe not in the ways we have been using them. Think of a hub and how it could theoretically have a number of device attached. It may be 2 devices, or 4, or 8, or 255. Now imagine if every device is a neuron and they can each communicate with any other neuron on the network, further imagine if each neuron is in fact a hub in it's own right. As you can see, we don't necessarily need the ability to make new connections if there is already overloaded connectivity to begin with. We can "turn on" or "turn off" connections that are already there in the architecture.
So let's consider realistic, existing parallel processing examples, such as a video card. We have PC video cards right now with 400 processor cores, and workstation video cards with 1600 processor cores.
Now just imagine for a moment, with a relatively slight amount of re-configuration, one could imagine 1600 specialized processor cores, "synthetic neurons," networked in the manner above, mimmicking organic neurons, except connectivity is slightly "overloaded". "Extra" connections are turned off until they are needed. Let's pick a relatively small, realistic degree of connectivity, and say that every neuron is directly networked to 8 other Neurons. Isn't this conceptually identical to what we see in the actual brain, except that here we would be using the more precise electronic or eventualy spintronic signals and computations, rather than the chemical signals and computations our biological neurons use. But conceptually an in terms of basic architecture of the "network" it has become the same thing. Now picture this miniaturized so that this entire network fits on one plug-in card in your PC, or even on the motherboard. It isn't far-fetched because the miniaturization would literally allow this in 2 years anyway, if anyone bothered to design the circuits and the logic for it...I say that more plainly, a 1600 synthetic neuron "card" is literally possible right now to within 2 years, it's just a matter of schematics.
This scheme is a degree of complexity that is only BARELY greater than what we are already mass-producing on existing video cards.
You judged wrongly. I'm all for AI, I just think that software isn't the way to do it.
It takes both software and hardware. Without the framework provided by hardware that is dynamic enough, the software is basicly meaningless, and there can even be a multi-tiered approach to the hardware.
You can have neural processors working in tandem with conventional processors, thereby each processor can benefit from what the other processor does better. You would theoretically gain the intelligence and parallel processing of an animal, while still maintaining the precision, perfect memory, and speed of an modern electronic or (soon) spintronic computer.
An example of how this might be useful is putting "synthetic reflexes" in a macroscopic humanoid robot which function independently from the CPU.
Here's something to think about FBM, since I wanted to refresh the memory of the scale and connectivity of actual neurons in our bodies.
the Soma, the body of the Neuron, can range from 3 to 18 micrometers.
The dendrites (usually input-only port) appear to be similar in length as compared to the Soma's width.
The Axons (output port) range in size from similar to dendrites up to a meter or more.
Both dendrites and axons can branch multiple times along their length. This is not a problem to design this aspect into a hub. We can simulate any degree of branching via binary mechanisms anyway.
So we know 4nm transistors have been proven possible, and will probably be in our PC and other gadgets in about 7 years or so. Now consider how many 4nm transistors you can fit in a square inscribed inside the disk of a Soma.
Following numbers are rounded down to ensure no over-estimates are made. Additionally, for the sake of argument I assume 90% of space is wasted.
Soma dimensions:
diameter: 3 micron
inscribed square:
side: 2.1213 micron
Area: 4.5 micron squared
4nm transistors
edge: 2121 / 4 = 530
Area: 530^2 = 280,900 transistors
So you can fit something like 280,900 of 2017 silicon transistors inside the BODY of the smallest neurons. For the sake of argument, I'll assume 90% of the space is "wasted" and we'll even just scale this down to 28,090 transistors in a square 3 microns wide, ALSO neglecting the portions of the "circle" that are outside the square.
So without even going into the third dimension, I've put somewhere between 3.4kb and 34kb worth of transistors in the same space as the smallest Neuron.
diameter: 10 micron (average)
Square:
side: 7.071 micron
area: 49.999 micron squared
4nm transistors:
edge: 7071/ 4 = 1767
area: 1767^2 = 3,122,289transistors.
Assume 90% waste = 312,228 transistors = 38kilobytes per neuron...
diameter: 18 micron
side: 12.7279 micron
area: 161.999 micron squared
4nm transistors:
edge: 12727/4 = 3181
area: 3181^2 = 10,118,761 transistors
Assume 90% wasted space = 1,011,876 transistors = 123.5 kilobytes per neuron space.
To put this in perspective, I'm doint this math on a Ti-86 calculator, which has less RAM than what you'd be able to put in the space of just one neuron using 2017 technology.
Again, all of these assume no 3d architecture, and assume 90% of space is "wasted" on something other than actual transistors, this to give room for all the circuitry of each synthetic neuron.
So the reality is, we already have the materials technology and networking technology to make synthetic neurons that would out-perform our own brain cells in every conceivable way, by orders of magnitude, in every metric: data density, data transfer speed, clock speed, precision, reliability, and even connectivity. I mean yeah, we currently use 22nm process chipsets, so if you divide the numbers above by 30.25 that would be how many of todays transistors you could put in the same space as one neuron, which would STILL be over a kilobyte worth of transistors.
One can even imagine that eventually synthetic neurons could disconnect themselves and re-connect themselves as needed through the agency of additional "helper robots" to simply unplug and replug their synthetic dendrites or axon ports much like a USB device can be added or removed.
It's not a lack of ability of our technology, but rather a lack of creativity of our engineers.
the Soma, the body of the Neuron, can range from 3 to 18 micrometers.
The dendrites (usually input-only port) appear to be similar in length as compared to the Soma's width.
The Axons (output port) range in size from similar to dendrites up to a meter or more.
Both dendrites and axons can branch multiple times along their length. This is not a problem to design this aspect into a hub. We can simulate any degree of branching via binary mechanisms anyway.
So we know 4nm transistors have been proven possible, and will probably be in our PC and other gadgets in about 7 years or so. Now consider how many 4nm transistors you can fit in a square inscribed inside the disk of a Soma.
Following numbers are rounded down to ensure no over-estimates are made. Additionally, for the sake of argument I assume 90% of space is wasted.
Soma dimensions:
diameter: 3 micron
inscribed square:
side: 2.1213 micron
Area: 4.5 micron squared
4nm transistors
edge: 2121 / 4 = 530
Area: 530^2 = 280,900 transistors
So you can fit something like 280,900 of 2017 silicon transistors inside the BODY of the smallest neurons. For the sake of argument, I'll assume 90% of the space is "wasted" and we'll even just scale this down to 28,090 transistors in a square 3 microns wide, ALSO neglecting the portions of the "circle" that are outside the square.
So without even going into the third dimension, I've put somewhere between 3.4kb and 34kb worth of transistors in the same space as the smallest Neuron.
diameter: 10 micron (average)
Square:
side: 7.071 micron
area: 49.999 micron squared
4nm transistors:
edge: 7071/ 4 = 1767
area: 1767^2 = 3,122,289transistors.
Assume 90% waste = 312,228 transistors = 38kilobytes per neuron...
diameter: 18 micron
side: 12.7279 micron
area: 161.999 micron squared
4nm transistors:
edge: 12727/4 = 3181
area: 3181^2 = 10,118,761 transistors
Assume 90% wasted space = 1,011,876 transistors = 123.5 kilobytes per neuron space.
To put this in perspective, I'm doint this math on a Ti-86 calculator, which has less RAM than what you'd be able to put in the space of just one neuron using 2017 technology.
Again, all of these assume no 3d architecture, and assume 90% of space is "wasted" on something other than actual transistors, this to give room for all the circuitry of each synthetic neuron.
So the reality is, we already have the materials technology and networking technology to make synthetic neurons that would out-perform our own brain cells in every conceivable way, by orders of magnitude, in every metric: data density, data transfer speed, clock speed, precision, reliability, and even connectivity. I mean yeah, we currently use 22nm process chipsets, so if you divide the numbers above by 30.25 that would be how many of todays transistors you could put in the same space as one neuron, which would STILL be over a kilobyte worth of transistors.
One can even imagine that eventually synthetic neurons could disconnect themselves and re-connect themselves as needed through the agency of additional "helper robots" to simply unplug and replug their synthetic dendrites or axon ports much like a USB device can be added or removed.
It's not a lack of ability of our technology, but rather a lack of creativity of our engineers.
How to handle "on the fly" wireless connectivity between individual synthetic neurons?
Well, you have a certain base of permanent, wired connectivity, but in addition to this you can theoretically create dynamic, temporary connections as needed through optical data transmission: i.e. a micron scale laser pointer could be aimed at the target neuron in question to create an "on the fly" input/output mechanism. When the connection is no longer needed, it is disabled, and can target another neuron if necessary.
I should be patenting this stuff, but I really don't care.
I just conceptually solved all of your questions about this possibility between these two posts.
Any other questions?
Well, you have a certain base of permanent, wired connectivity, but in addition to this you can theoretically create dynamic, temporary connections as needed through optical data transmission: i.e. a micron scale laser pointer could be aimed at the target neuron in question to create an "on the fly" input/output mechanism. When the connection is no longer needed, it is disabled, and can target another neuron if necessary.
I should be patenting this stuff, but I really don't care.
I just conceptually solved all of your questions about this possibility between these two posts.
Any other questions?
Creating an actually intelligent A.I. will happen. I think it will come on the scene unexpectedly quick. The hardware will be engineered and the software will learn really fast. A.I. will share learning potential and then all bets are off. I'm not an engineer and I have limited cognitive abilities. I believe I know coming trends though and it blows moore's law away with even greater increase in performance.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...2048138,00.html
I bet that it will occur sooner then 2045. A.I. will eventually have emotions more deep then non upgraded people with the help of quantum computing and memristors. Here is what I expect by the end 2013 information technology will increase at an even more rapid pace until 2021 where it will accelerate faster still. By this time we will have machines commercially available that can outperform humans that have not been upgraded. In the 2020's we will see extreme increase in nanotechnology as well. There will be a inexpensive pill that expands human ability. A transceiver can be made from a single molecule. Imagine your mind expanding beyond your body into a world of electronics not just digital computers but with memristors that can perform many functions in one smaller then transistor device. I mean it can perform logic, act as a neuron, two can act as a synapse and of course it's digital or analog memory that stays intact when power is not applied.
QUOTE (Quantum Chaos+Feb 13 2011, 12:06 AM)
I bet that it will occur sooner then 2045.
I doubt that it will occur much sooner, and more likely be a bit later. Practitioners such as Kurzweil keep pushing the date back. Just a year ago he was predicting 2030. Who knows though, some early technical advances, and or increased support for the concept may bring us there sooner.
Here is some relevant stuff to chew on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRB6Qzx9oXs
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/asse...dmap-report.pdf
http://www.modha.org/C2S2/2009/11182009/co...OutofTheBag.pdf
Here is some relevant stuff to chew on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRB6Qzx9oXs
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/asse...dmap-report.pdf
http://www.modha.org/C2S2/2009/11182009/co...OutofTheBag.pdf
In his book, it's 2045 (pg. 136).
I think he's extrapolated a double-exponential. I think he's wrong, because we're going to see an increase in the number of researchers as the world's population mature, but as the average age rises (and the number of researchers does not, due to stabilizing population) we'll lose the benefit of an increased number of researchers.
Right now, we have technology feeding onto technology, but we also have an ever-increasing number of engineers and scientists (as the developing world adds more and more people). This trend won't continue.
I think he's extrapolated a double-exponential. I think he's wrong, because we're going to see an increase in the number of researchers as the world's population mature, but as the average age rises (and the number of researchers does not, due to stabilizing population) we'll lose the benefit of an increased number of researchers.
Right now, we have technology feeding onto technology, but we also have an ever-increasing number of engineers and scientists (as the developing world adds more and more people). This trend won't continue.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Feb 14 2011, 12:14 AM)
In his book, it's 2045 (pg. 136).
I think he's extrapolated a double-exponential. I think he's wrong, because we're going to see an increase in the number of researchers as the world's population mature, but as the average age rises (and the number of researchers does not, due to stabilizing population) we'll lose the benefit of an increased number of researchers.
Right now, we have technology feeding onto technology, but we also have an ever-increasing number of engineers and scientists (as the developing world adds more and more people). This trend won't continue.
I think he's extrapolated a double-exponential. I think he's wrong, because we're going to see an increase in the number of researchers as the world's population mature, but as the average age rises (and the number of researchers does not, due to stabilizing population) we'll lose the benefit of an increased number of researchers.
Right now, we have technology feeding onto technology, but we also have an ever-increasing number of engineers and scientists (as the developing world adds more and more people). This trend won't continue.
Are you referring to one of Ray Kurzweil's books? From what I understand of his statements, any exponential development would occur after such time when artificial intelligence exceeds our own, and is able to execute it's own modification. At that point trends in human cultural and population dynamics become irrelevant in regards to this technology singularity. The choice for biological humanity will be to either join the new species, or remain as one of the constituents of a planet wide animal preserve.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.