Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70296 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-28 06:30 +1300 |
| Last post | 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-02-28 06:30 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-27 17:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-04 08:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:59 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-05 03:43 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 10:54 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-06 02:02 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-05 11:00 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 11:17 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-05 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-05 16:15 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-05 19:21 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-27 13:24 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-02-27 11:32 -0800
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-02-27 20:14 -0800
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-02-28 09:58 -0600
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-28 19:54 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-02 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-03 08:48 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-02 23:00 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-02 19:02 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-02 20:17 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 15:31 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 04:05 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-05 03:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 21:02 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 18:57 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:41 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy android <here@there.was> - 2015-03-05 20:11 +0100
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:57 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:26 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-04 16:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-03-05 01:27 +0100
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 02:27 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 16:32 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 20:55 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 18:58 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 09:50 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:54 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 08:02 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-06 09:53 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 17:23 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-06 16:17 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 21:38 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 23:02 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-06 16:10 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-06 13:55 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 23:01 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-07 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-07 07:08 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-07 12:20 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 15:21 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-06 18:34 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 20:34 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-07 09:01 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:37 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 14:51 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:36 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-08 10:49 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:08 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-09 14:44 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 08:52 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-09 13:47 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 13:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 00:38 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 00:17 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 23:29 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 11:37 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 14:44 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-10 14:59 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-10 14:51 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-10 18:46 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 15:08 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 23:56 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 20:05 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 01:45 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 22:25 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 02:42 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-12 00:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 09:01 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-11 13:06 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 09:57 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 08:50 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-12 17:43 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-12 23:45 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-10 08:15 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 15:25 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 10:17 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-07 16:07 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 20:34 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:47 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 14:51 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 16:12 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:06 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-09 14:33 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-09 14:56 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-10 09:42 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 15:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:32 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:25 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 09:02 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 14:15 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:37 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 05:52 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 19:52 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:57 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 23:18 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:05 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-08 10:47 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:55 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-08 00:00 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-08 10:16 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-09 04:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 10:25 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 14:56 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-18 01:37 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 09:07 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-05 12:01 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:43 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 21:35 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 09:30 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0yw78.5ripxoxh8nlqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70623 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > On 2015-03-07 02:21:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <mdd532$43j$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> On 3/5/15 5:23 p, Kurt Ullman wrote: > > > >>>> In article <1m0uwkk.auf6x418i6j47N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, > > > >>>> jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > > > >>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > > >>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > > > >>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > > > >>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > > > >>>>>> through wormholes, etc. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > > >>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > > >>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > > >>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > > >>>> you like. > > > >>> > > > >>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and > > > >>> what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > > >>> > > > >>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > > >>> > > > >>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/046500 > > > >>> 2048/r ef=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > > >> > > > >> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, > > > >> flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone > > > >> flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to > > > >> understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and > > > >> more. :-) > > > > > > > > That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > > > transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > > > > improbable. 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have > > > > enough of a clue about such things. Today we do. > > > > > > Ummmm.... ...no. > > > > > > We THINK we know enough to have a clue about such things; just as a > > > thousand years ago, THEY thought they knew enough. > > > > > > That's the point. > > > > It's so _not_ the point I've started writing this three times, and > > rewritten, as I had to think how to explain something too obvious to > > have previously been put into words by myself. > > > > 1000 years ago we knew nothing of atomic structure, let alone quantum > > physics. Thus the people of that era had no way to know matter<->energy > > transmission that perfectly replicates the transmitted object down to > > the quantum state, is highly unlikely. So unlikely it is effectively > > fantasy. Today we do. We've gone from knowing virtually nothing, to > > knowing a lot. We may still have a long way to go, but we can make > > considerably better educated guesses on the basis of a lot of knowledge, > > vs none at all. > > We still do not even remotely know everything, and some of what we > think we do know is likely to be completely wrong. Yes, it may be > impossible *now* with *current understandings*, but saying something is > always going to be impossible is an idiot's game since we have > absolutely no idea what revelations and discoveries the future may > hold. Good thing I never said that, then, isn't it? :-) -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 16:07 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <070320151607131965%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70596 |
In article <1m0x6g5.1fc98ooldw4haN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > In article <mdd532$43j$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> > > wrote: > > > On 3/5/15 5:23 p, Kurt Ullman wrote: > > > > In article <1m0uwkk.auf6x418i6j47N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, > > > > jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> My takeaways from his speech are > > > >>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > > >>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit them, > > > >>> because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe that there > > > >>> will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts through wormholes, etc. > > > >> > > > >> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > > > > > > > Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > > > Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > > > force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > > > workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > > > you like. > > > > > > This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and > > > what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > > > > > The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/r > > > ef=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > > > But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, > > flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone > > flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to > > understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and > > more. :-) > > That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > improbable. Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of us will be around to see it. > 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of > a clue about such things. Today we do. That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to do. 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn anything into anything else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 20:34 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0xk03.kaxeom3mj4iN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70599 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <1m0x6g5.1fc98ooldw4haN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article <mdd532$43j$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> > > > wrote: > > > > On 3/5/15 5:23 p, Kurt Ullman wrote: > > > > > In article <1m0uwkk.auf6x418i6j47N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, > > > > > jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> My takeaways from his speech are > > > > >>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > > > >>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > > > > >>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > > > > >>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > > > > >>> through wormholes, etc. > > > > >> > > > > >> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > > > > > > > > > Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > > > > Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > > > > force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > > > > workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > > > > you like. > > > > > > > > This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and > > > > what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > > > > > > > The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/r > > > > ef=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > > > > > But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, > > > flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone > > > flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to > > > understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and > > > more. :-) > > > > That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > > improbable. > > Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently > at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future > scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of > us will be around to see it. A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more realistically - information, because it's information that is required. Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect down to the quantum state. Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > > 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of > > a clue about such things. Today we do. > > That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at > one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are > proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. > > Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can > only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to > do. > > 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today > it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has > actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn > anything into anything else. No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able to be imagined. Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of energy. It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need to, in order to hold a hot beverage. Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup down to it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current civilisation is more than just a memory, if one is optimistic. But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll probably no longer be human by the time we manage that, if we ever do. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 11:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdfkkk$84j$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70603 |
On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are >>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". >>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit >>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe >>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts >>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( >>>>>> >>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." >>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, >>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or >>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all >>>>>> you like. >>>>> >>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and >>>>> what isn't based on today's knowledge: >>>>> >>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/r >>>>> ef=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> >>>> >>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, >>>> flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone >>>> flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to >>>> understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and >>>> more. :-) >>> >>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter >>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically >>> improbable. >> >> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently >> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future >> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of >> us will be around to see it. > > A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more > realistically - information, because it's information that is required. > Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at > the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of > energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do > so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect > down to the quantum state. > > Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information > which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with > how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > >>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of >>> a clue about such things. Today we do. >> >> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at >> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are >> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. >> >> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can >> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to >> do. >> >> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today >> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has >> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn >> anything into anything else. > > No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues > involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek > style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing > science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the > realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more > 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is > unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will > require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able > to be imagined. As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe beyond what THEY were able to imagine... > > Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of energy. > It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need to, in order to > hold a hot beverage. > > Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup down to > it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current civilisation is more > than just a memory, if one is optimistic. > > But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll probably no > longer be human by the time we manage that, if we ever do. So... ...why, if you can do a coffee cup right down to the quantum state... ...why would a human be any more difficult? How arrogant must you be to be "certain" about anything in this area? I doubt that Stephen Hawking himself would be willing to pronounce himself "certain" as you have done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70620 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > >>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > >>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > >>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > >>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > >>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > >>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > >>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > >>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > >>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > >>>>>> you like. > >>>>> > >>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and > >>>>> what isn't based on today's knowledge: > >>>>> > >>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > >>>>> > >>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/r > >>>>> ef=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > >>>> > >>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, > >>>> flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone > >>>> flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to > >>>> understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and > >>>> more. :-) > >>> > >>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > >>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > >>> improbable. > >> > >> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently > >> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future > >> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of > >> us will be around to see it. > > > > A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more > > realistically - information, because it's information that is required. > > Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at > > the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of > > energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do > > so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect > > down to the quantum state. > > > > Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information > > which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > > beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > > scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with > > how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > > > >>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of > >>> a clue about such things. Today we do. > >> > >> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at > >> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are > >> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. > >> > >> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can > >> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to > >> do. > >> > >> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today > >> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has > >> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn > >> anything into anything else. > > > > No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues > > involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek > > style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing > > science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the > > realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more > > 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is > > unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will > > require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able > > to be imagined. > > As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe > beyond what THEY were able to imagine... Science isn't magic. > > Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of energy. > > It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need to, in order to > > hold a hot beverage. > > > > Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup down to > > it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current civilisation is more > > than just a memory, if one is optimistic. > > > > But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll probably no > > longer be human by the time we manage that, if we ever do. > > So... ...why, if you can do a coffee cup right down to the quantum state... > > ...why would a human be any more difficult? Seriously? Why would a human being with all it's extremely complex systems be more difficult than a coffee cup with a simple fairly uniform stucture and composition? > How arrogant must you be to be "certain" about anything in this area? > > I doubt that Stephen Hawking himself would be willing to pronounce > himself "certain" as you have done. Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible? -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 14:51 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <080320151451229098%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70633 |
In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > > >>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > >>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > > >>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > > >>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > > >>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > >>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > >>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > >>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > >>>>>> you like. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and > > >>>>> what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048 > > >>>>> /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > >>>> > > >>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, > > >>>> flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone > > >>>> flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to > > >>>> understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and > > >>>> more. :-) > > >>> > > >>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > >>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > > >>> improbable. > > >> > > >> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently > > >> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future > > >> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of > > >> us will be around to see it. > > > > > > A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more > > > realistically - information, because it's information that is required. > > > Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at > > > the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of > > > energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do > > > so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect > > > down to the quantum state. > > > > > > Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information > > > which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > > > beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > > > scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with > > > how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > > > > > >>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of > > >>> a clue about such things. Today we do. > > >> > > >> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at > > >> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are > > >> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. > > >> > > >> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can > > >> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to > > >> do. > > >> > > >> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today > > >> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has > > >> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn > > >> anything into anything else. > > > > > > No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues > > > involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek > > > style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing > > > science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the > > > realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more > > > 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is > > > unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will > > > require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able > > > to be imagined. > > > > As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe > > beyond what THEY were able to imagine... > > Science isn't magic. No, but something that future generations can do may well look like magic to us if we could see it. A television would look like magic to someone from 500BC. > > > Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of energy. > > > It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need to, in order to > > > hold a hot beverage. > > > > > > Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup down to > > > it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current civilisation is more > > > than just a memory, if one is optimistic. > > > > > > But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll probably no > > > longer be human by the time we manage that, if we ever do. > > > > So... ...why, if you can do a coffee cup right down to the quantum state... > > > > ...why would a human be any more difficult? > > Seriously? Why would a human being with all it's extremely complex > systems be more difficult than a coffee cup with a simple fairly uniform > stucture and composition? > > > How arrogant must you be to be "certain" about anything in this area? > > > > I doubt that Stephen Hawking himself would be willing to pronounce > > himself "certain" as you have done. > > Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible? As of right now, no. Whether it becomes possible in the future is unknown. Absolutely nobody alive today or in the past can ever definitively say it's never possible. Trying to predict what does or doesn't happen in the future is a game for morons and conmen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0z146.m1z4s71sxftreN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70637 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > > > >>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > > >>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > > > >>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > > > >>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > > > >>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > > >>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > > >>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > > >>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > > >>>>>> you like. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's > > > >>>>> possible and what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465 > > > >>>>> 002048 /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was > > > >>>> impossible, flying between countries in a couple of days was > > > >>>> impossible, let alone flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today > > > >>>> can't even start to understand what may or may not be possible in > > > >>>> another 1000 years and more. :-) > > > >>> > > > >>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > > >>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > > > >>> improbable. > > > >> > > > >> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently > > > >> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future > > > >> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any of > > > >> us will be around to see it. > > > > > > > > A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more > > > > realistically - information, because it's information that is required. > > > > Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice at > > > > the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of > > > > energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do > > > > so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect > > > > down to the quantum state. > > > > > > > > Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs information > > > > which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > > > > beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > > > > scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left with > > > > how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > > > > > > > >>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of > > > >>> a clue about such things. Today we do. > > > >> > > > >> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" at > > > >> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are > > > >> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. > > > >> > > > >> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can > > > >> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them to > > > >> do. > > > >> > > > >> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today > > > >> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has > > > >> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn > > > >> anything into anything else. > > > > > > > > No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues > > > > involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star Trek > > > > style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing > > > > science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the > > > > realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more > > > > 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it is > > > > unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will > > > > require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even able > > > > to be imagined. > > > > > > As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe > > > beyond what THEY were able to imagine... > > > > Science isn't magic. > > No, but something that future generations can do may well look like > magic to us if we could see it. A television would look like magic to > someone from 500BC. The difference is that a person from 500BC knew nothing about the science and technology behind a TV. > > > > Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of energy. > > > > It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need to, in order to > > > > hold a hot beverage. > > > > > > > > Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup down to > > > > it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current civilisation is more > > > > than just a memory, if one is optimistic. > > > > > > > > But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll probably no > > > > longer be human by the time we manage that, if we ever do. > > > > > > So... ...why, if you can do a coffee cup right down to the quantum > > > state... > > > > > > ...why would a human be any more difficult? > > > > Seriously? Why would a human being with all it's extremely complex > > systems be more difficult than a coffee cup with a simple fairly uniform > > stucture and composition? > > > > > How arrogant must you be to be "certain" about anything in this area? > > > > > > I doubt that Stephen Hawking himself would be willing to pronounce > > > himself "certain" as you have done. > > > > Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible? > > As of right now, no. > > Whether it becomes possible in the future is unknown. Absolutely nobody > alive today or in the past can ever definitively say it's never > possible. Trying to predict what does or doesn't happen in the future > is a game for morons and conmen. Again - science and reality are not magic. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 16:12 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <080320151612223680%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70639 |
In article <1m0z146.m1z4s71sxftreN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > > On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > > > > >>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe > > > > >>>>>>>> that there will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts > > > > >>>>>>>> through wormholes, etc. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > > > >>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > > > >>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > > > >>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > > > >>>>>> you like. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's > > > > >>>>> possible and what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465 > > > > >>>>> 002048 /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was > > > > >>>> impossible, flying between countries in a couple of days was > > > > >>>> impossible, let alone flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today > > > > >>>> can't even start to understand what may or may not be possible in > > > > >>>> another 1000 years and more. :-) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > > > >>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too > > > > >>> scientifically > > > > >>> improbable. > > > > >> > > > > >> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit currently > > > > >> at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no idea what future > > > > >> scientists may or may not be able to do, although it is unlikely any > > > > >> of > > > > >> us will be around to see it. > > > > > > > > > > A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or more > > > > > realistically - information, because it's information that is > > > > > required. > > > > > Any old energy - if you have energy->matter conversion - will suffice > > > > > at > > > > > the end point), transmit said energy (and we'll leave aside the magic > > > > > of > > > > > energy to matter at the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do > > > > > so) and then turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect > > > > > down to the quantum state. > > > > > > > > > > Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs > > > > > information > > > > > which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > > > > > beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > > > > > scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left > > > > > with > > > > > how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > > > > > > > > > >>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have enough of > > > > >>> a clue about such things. Today we do. > > > > >> > > > > >> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed "impossible" > > > > >> at > > > > >> one point become possible later on and many of the earlier ideas are > > > > >> proven to be misunderstood if not completely wrong. > > > > >> > > > > >> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... they can > > > > >> only factually say it's impossible right now or impossible for them > > > > >> to > > > > >> do. > > > > >> > > > > >> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, today > > > > >> it's theoretically possible (although I don't think anybody has > > > > >> actually done it), in the future it may become commonplace to turn > > > > >> anything into anything else. > > > > > > > > > > No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the issues > > > > > involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let alone a Star > > > > > Trek > > > > > style transporter with all it's fantastical silliness. Just believing > > > > > science will handle any problem in the future, is to ignore the > > > > > realities of the universe. If we ever do manage either the more > > > > > 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter that can replicate a human, it > > > > > is > > > > > unlikely we'll still be humans as we know ourselves, because it will > > > > > require a mastery of the universe far beyond what is currently even > > > > > able > > > > > to be imagined. > > > > > > > > As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe > > > > beyond what THEY were able to imagine... > > > > > > Science isn't magic. > > > > No, but something that future generations can do may well look like > > magic to us if we could see it. A television would look like magic to > > someone from 500BC. > > The difference is that a person from 500BC knew nothing about the > science and technology behind a TV. And we'll know basically nothing of the science behind things that are being done in the year 3000 either. Science changes and evolves as new ideas come along and new things discovered. > > > > > Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of energy. > > > > > It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need to, in order > > > > > to hold a hot beverage. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup down > > > > > to it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current civilisation is > > > > > more than just a memory, if one is optimistic. > > > > > > > > > > But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll probably > > > > > no longer be human by the time we manage that, if we ever do. > > > > > > > > So... ...why, if you can do a coffee cup right down to the quantum > > > > state... > > > > > > > > ...why would a human be any more difficult? > > > > > > Seriously? Why would a human being with all it's extremely complex > > > systems be more difficult than a coffee cup with a simple fairly uniform > > > stucture and composition? > > > > > > > How arrogant must you be to be "certain" about anything in this area? > > > > > > > > I doubt that Stephen Hawking himself would be willing to pronounce > > > > himself "certain" as you have done. > > > > > > Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible? > > > > As of right now, no. > > > > Whether it becomes possible in the future is unknown. Absolutely nobody > > alive today or in the past can ever definitively say it's never > > possible. Trying to predict what does or doesn't happen in the future > > is a game for morons and conmen. > > Again - science and reality are not magic. It has nothing to do with "magic". It's plain simple fact - you cannot know what people in the future will and won't be able to do. Trying to base that on today's understandings is simply stupid. People thought you would fall off the edge of the Earth if you sailed too far from land ... until someone did it, returned and proved them all wrong. Virtually everything we do and have now was considered "impossible" by foolish people in the past. Many of the things future generations will take for granted are no doubt considered "impossible" by foolish people today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0zbf9.f9xrsv6ki9aiN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70644 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <1m0z146.m1z4s71sxftreN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article <1m0yvo6.x0c4hrtddxuqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > > > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > > > On 2015-03-07 07:34:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit > > > > > >>>>>>>> them, because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not > > > > > >>>>>>>> thbelieve at there will ever be FTL transportation, nor > > > > > >>>>>>>> thshortcuts rough wormholes, etc. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > > > > >>>>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > > > > >>>>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > > > > >>>>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > > > > >>>>>> you like. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's > > > > > >>>>> possible and what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465 > > > > > >>>>> 002048 /ref=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was > > > > > >>>> impossible, flying between countries in a couple of days was > > > > > >>>> impossible, let alone flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today > > > > > >>>> can't even start to understand what may or may not be possible in > > > > > >>>> another 1000 years and more. :-) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > > > > >>> transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too > > > > > >>> scientifically > > > > > >>> improbable. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Except they already have a working "transporter" ... albeit > > > > > >> currently at a miniscule level and tiny distances. We have no > > > > > >> idea what future scientists may or may not be able to do, > > > > > >> although it is unlikely any of us will be around to see it. > > > > > > > > > > > > A Star Trek transporter can break matter down into energy (or > > > > > > more realistically - information, because it's information that > > > > > > is required. Any old energy - if you have energy->matter > > > > > > conversion - will suffice at the end point), transmit said > > > > > > energy (and we'll leave aside the magic of energy to matter at > > > > > > the end of a beam with nothing but the beam to do so) and then > > > > > > turn the energy back into the exact same matter, perfect down to > > > > > > the quantum state. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if we ignore the Trek silliness like it being energy vs > > > > > > information > > > > > > which is what is actually needed, re-materialisation at the end of a > > > > > > beam, ignoring the vast quantity information that would have to be > > > > > > scanned, stored, transmitted, and stuff like that, we're still left > > > > > > with > > > > > > how to replicate matter down to the quantum state. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have > > > > > >>> enough of a clue about such things. Today we do. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> That's the point of scientific discovery. Things deemed > > > > > >> "impossible" at one point become possible later on and many of > > > > > >> the earlier ideas are proven to be misunderstood if not > > > > > >> completely wrong. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Absolutely nobody would ever say something is impossible ... > > > > > >> they can only factually say it's impossible right now or > > > > > >> impossible for them to do. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1000 years ago people searched for ways to turn lead into gold, > > > > > >> today it's theoretically possible (although I don't think > > > > > >> anybody has actually done it), in the future it may become > > > > > >> commonplace to turn anything into anything else. > > > > > > > > > > > > No offence, but I do not believe you're fully aware of the > > > > > > issues involved with perfect matter<->energy conversion, let > > > > > > alone a Star Trek style transporter with all it's fantastical > > > > > > silliness. Just believing science will handle any problem in the > > > > > > future, is to ignore the realities of the universe. If we ever > > > > > > do manage either the more 'realistic' or Trek-style transporter > > > > > > that can replicate a human, it is unlikely we'll still be humans > > > > > > as we know ourselves, because it will require a mastery of the > > > > > > universe far beyond what is currently even able to be imagined. > > > > > > > > > > As 1000 years ago, what we do today required a mastery of the universe > > > > > beyond what THEY were able to imagine... > > > > > > > > Science isn't magic. > > > > > > No, but something that future generations can do may well look like > > > magic to us if we could see it. A television would look like magic to > > > someone from 500BC. > > > > The difference is that a person from 500BC knew nothing about the > > science and technology behind a TV. > > And we'll know basically nothing of the science behind things that are > being done in the year 3000 either. Science changes and evolves as new > ideas come along and new things discovered. > > > > > > > > > > Some day I'm certain we'll be able to make a coffee cup out of > > > > > > energy. It won't have the same quantum state, but it won't need > > > > > > to, in order to hold a hot beverage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps some day we'll also be able to re-create that coffee cup > > > > > > down to it's quantum state. Maybe even while our current > > > > > > civilisation is more than just a memory, if one is optimistic. > > > > > > > > > > > > But a perfect down to the quantum state human? Again - we'll > > > > > > probably no longer be human by the time we manage that, if we > > > > > > ever do. > > > > > > > > > > So... ...why, if you can do a coffee cup right down to the quantum > > > > > state... > > > > > > > > > > ...why would a human be any more difficult? > > > > > > > > Seriously? Why would a human being with all it's extremely complex > > > > systems be more difficult than a coffee cup with a simple fairly uniform > > > > stucture and composition? > > > > > > > > > How arrogant must you be to be "certain" about anything in this area? > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that Stephen Hawking himself would be willing to pronounce > > > > > himself "certain" as you have done. > > > > > > > > Tell me - is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage possible? > > > > > > As of right now, no. > > > > > > Whether it becomes possible in the future is unknown. Absolutely nobody > > > alive today or in the past can ever definitively say it's never > > > possible. Trying to predict what does or doesn't happen in the future > > > is a game for morons and conmen. > > > > Again - science and reality are not magic. > > It has nothing to do with "magic". It's plain simple fact - you cannot > know what people in the future will and won't be able to do. Trying to > base that on today's understandings is simply stupid. People thought > you would fall off the edge of the Earth if you sailed too far from > land ... until someone did it, returned and proved them all wrong. > > Virtually everything we do and have now was considered "impossible" by > foolish people in the past. Many of the things future generations will > take for granted are no doubt considered "impossible" by foolish people > today. Of course we can make predictions about where science will lead, and the more we know, the better the predictions become. As to the technological and sociological applications of the science - that tends to be rather more up in the air. View any screed on the future of today, from the past, to be entertained by how wrong futurology gets it. But to suggest that scientific understanding will drive off the rails into the realm of magic and allow a quantum perfect (assuming that is good enough) human-capable thought-preserving transporter, or reduction in the size of atoms without causing nuclear fission, in anything near the fictional time scale of Star Trek, is plain laughable. Once again: our understanding of the universe would need to be vastly more complete, and far beyond even many, _many_, MANY times the accelerated rate of discovery in the past century. Certain people's irrational belief that scientific understanding will magically allow any fantasy to come true in any kind of time scale where a record of this conversation will still exist, is just that: irrational. I do not believe you understand the science involved, even to the limited extent I do as someone who hasn't studied since University, and just reads science news to keep up-to-date, since. Or you'd know that a Trek-style transporter isn't like theorising how to make an integrated circuit back in the late 40's, and making them in the 50's, and not realising how densely packed the circuits could be made, or it's potential applications. No. What you want to believe is closer to paleolithic man coming up with integrated circuits. Once again: it isn't that a Trek style transporter is 'impossible'. It is that it would require an understanding and mastery of the involved science so complete, as to require supernatural intervention in order to occur in anything close to the Trek timeline. It's not a case of lack of imagination. It is the scientific realities of the problem. And all this leaves aside the reality of needed resources and energy for such advancement and undertakings. Plug that into the equation, and it all becomes even less likely to occur within the next millennium. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-09 09:06 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <090320150906553027%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70654 |
In article <1m0zbf9.f9xrsv6ki9aiN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > Of course we can make predictions about where science will lead, and the > more we know, the better the predictions become. As to the technological > and sociological applications of the science - that tends to be rather > more up in the air. View any screed on the future of today, from the > past, to be entertained by how wrong futurology gets it. Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-09 14:33 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m10tak.1h0zke81wd7q8fN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70681 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <1m0zbf9.f9xrsv6ki9aiN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > > Of course we can make predictions about where science will lead, and the > > more we know, the better the predictions become. As to the technological > > and sociological applications of the science - that tends to be rather > > more up in the air. View any screed on the future of today, from the > > past, to be entertained by how wrong futurology gets it. > > Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously > fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead > imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\ Lot of anger there. Someone didn't get their atomic-powered flying car as promised, and is lashing out. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-09 14:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mdkqc1$u11$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70688 |
On 3/8/15 9:33 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously
>> fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead
>> imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\
>
> Lot of anger there. Someone didn't get their atomic-powered flying car
> as promised, and is lashing out.
ZING!
'Aye, Cap'n, direct hit; but phasers were only set to stun, so he'll be
back. *Damn* those first contact protocols!'
--
I died on the inside years ago.
Now I'm just a fleshy container full of coffee and resentment.
--Wally, Dilbert 2012.11.11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 09:42 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <100320150942043644%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70721 |
In article <mdkqc1$u11$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: > On 3/8/15 9:33 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > >> Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously > >> fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead > >> imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\ > > > > Lot of anger there. Someone didn't get their atomic-powered flying car > > as promised, and is lashing out. > > ZING! > > 'Aye, Cap'n, direct hit; but phasers were only set to stun, so he'll be > back. *Damn* those first contact protocols!' I wouldn't want a flying ca even if they did exist ... the morons on the roads are bad enough in two dimensions, three dimensions would just be complete carnage. Besides which, the fact that we don't have flying cars, personal jetpacks, and hover-skateboards is simply the flipside of the coin of idiotically trying to predict the future. As I said: you can't tell what will or won't happen in 50, 100, 100, 3000 years time, and anyone who believes they can is a moron or a conman, or both.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 15:18 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m12q81.1rpyfjm1c85t5lN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70745 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <mdkqc1$u11$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> > wrote: > > On 3/8/15 9:33 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: > > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously > > >> fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead > > >> imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\ > > > > > > Lot of anger there. Someone didn't get their atomic-powered flying car > > > as promised, and is lashing out. > > > > ZING! > > > > 'Aye, Cap'n, direct hit; but phasers were only set to stun, so he'll be > > back. *Damn* those first contact protocols!' > > I wouldn't want a flying ca even if they did exist ... the morons on > the roads are bad enough in two dimensions, three dimensions would just > be complete carnage. > > Besides which, the fact that we don't have flying cars, personal > jetpacks, and hover-skateboards is simply the flipside of the coin of > idiotically trying to predict the future. As I said: you can't tell > what will or won't happen in 50, 100, 100, 3000 years time, and anyone > who believes they can is a moron or a conman, or both. It was a bad comparison anyway, on my part. Atomic powered flying cars didn't happen because of practical considerations like spreading nuclear material over the countryside in an accident, and flying cars being much more complex to drive and dangerous for the average person. Computer controlled flight might alleviate some of that, but it's still a way off from being perfect enough for highways in the sky. Ground-based rapid public transit like vactrains has more potential. Whereas the transporter hasn't happened because most of the necessary scientific understanding is a dream, at best. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 07:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8frvfalimfl9lo0f2jctien720ccbp9a51@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70745 |
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:42:04 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
>In article <mdkqc1$u11$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
>wrote:
>> On 3/8/15 9:33 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously
>> >> fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead
>> >> imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\
>> >
>> > Lot of anger there. Someone didn't get their atomic-powered flying car
>> > as promised, and is lashing out.
>>
>> ZING!
>>
>> 'Aye, Cap'n, direct hit; but phasers were only set to stun, so he'll be
>> back. *Damn* those first contact protocols!'
>
>I wouldn't want a flying ca even if they did exist ... the morons on
>the roads are bad enough in two dimensions, three dimensions would just
>be complete carnage.
Pooping over the side. That's what will kill the idea. The first time
an MP, Prince, starlet or Senator got pooped on flying cars would be
history.
>
>Besides which, the fact that we don't have flying cars, personal
>jetpacks, and hover-skateboards is simply the flipside of the coin of
>idiotically trying to predict the future. As I said: you can't tell
>what will or won't happen in 50, 100, 100, 3000 years time, and anyone
>who believes they can is a moron or a conman, or both.
*I* can.
The oil runs out. There is a struggle over the scraps. The wizards
fight their magic wars from their towers of steel and glass. The
towers fall, never to rise again.
Eventually, the Sun boils the seas and sears the land and all is
darkness, silence and the death of all songs.
No one reads the words on the plinth on which once stood the statue
of a long-forgotten king for there is no life to read it.
After a very long time the cosmos equilibrates in heat-death.
All stories end.
I am not moron, con-man or both.
I just know politicians a little.
When the oil runs out there is no coming back and no other men will
ever use the wizard science.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 07:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9rvfap7em7mm7f6cii17q7kp78b353f2e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70688 |
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:33:15 +1300, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
Kahn Genet) wrote:
>Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1m0zbf9.f9xrsv6ki9aiN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
>> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course we can make predictions about where science will lead, and the
>> > more we know, the better the predictions become. As to the technological
>> > and sociological applications of the science - that tends to be rather
>> > more up in the air. View any screed on the future of today, from the
>> > past, to be entertained by how wrong futurology gets it.
>>
>> Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously
>> fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead
>> imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\
>
>Lot of anger there. Someone didn't get their atomic-powered flying car
>as promised, and is lashing out.
That, my invisibility cloak, my robot assistants (and sexbots), my
Moon bases, my "power too cheap to meter" and ... biggest of all .. my
*Starships*.
I could forgive them lying about all the rest but I *really* wanted
my Starships.
They *promised*.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 09:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55003cce$0$1629$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70866 |
In article <d9rvfap7em7mm7f6cii17q7kp78b353f2e@4ax.com>, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:33:15 +1300, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie > Kahn Genet) wrote: > > >Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <1m0zbf9.f9xrsv6ki9aiN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > >> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > >> > > >> > Of course we can make predictions about where science will lead, and the > >> > more we know, the better the predictions become. As to the technological > >> > and sociological applications of the science - that tends to be rather > >> > more up in the air. View any screed on the future of today, from the > >> > past, to be entertained by how wrong futurology gets it. > >> > >> Predicting the future is a game for morons and conmen ... you obviously > >> fit into the first category, but either way you're another braindead > >> imbecile to add to the killfile. :-\ > > > >Lot of anger there. Someone didn't get their atomic-powered flying car > >as promised, and is lashing out. > > That, my invisibility cloak, my robot assistants (and sexbots), my > Moon bases, my "power too cheap to meter" and ... biggest of all .. my > *Starships*. > I could forgive them lying about all the rest but I *really* wanted > my Starships. > They *promised*. > J. There, there. Take it easy. You can have an Apple Watch. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-15 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kp4bgadhu44mo3gi00n15jtg9ror5q0nt9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70876 |
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:02:06 -0400, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <d9rvfap7em7mm7f6cii17q7kp78b353f2e@4ax.com>,
> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>
<<snipped>>
>> That, my invisibility cloak, my robot assistants (and sexbots), my
>> Moon bases, my "power too cheap to meter" and ... biggest of all .. my
>> *Starships*.
>> I could forgive them lying about all the rest but I *really* wanted
>> my Starships.
>> They *promised*.
>> J.
>
>There, there. Take it easy. You can have an Apple Watch.
I take it that was *sarcasm*?
Were my lovely wife to give me one of those, I would thank her
profusely, hug her, kiss her and wear it with pride. Not because of
what it is but because it would be a gift from *her*. From anyone else
it would lie in a drawer until I gave it to a charity shop.
There is less than zero chance of me buying one.
And I *still* want my Starship.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 07:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <35svfa1463hq4lh1at36oil5mqk2u9s5pm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70654 |
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 19:46:36 +1300, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
Kahn Genet) wrote:
<<snipped>>
>Of course we can make predictions about where science will lead, and the
>more we know, the better the predictions become.
That is what Science *IS*. It is a process of taking the universe as
it actually is and using the things we learn about it to make
predictions. Even meta-predictions about how we'll be able to predict
things and what we can *never* predict.
>As to the technological
>and sociological applications of the science - that tends to be rather
>more up in the air. View any screed on the future of today, from the
>past, to be entertained by how wrong futurology gets it.
Arthur C. Clarke is often, wrongly, touted as the "father of
geostationary communications satellites". He did write short SF
stories and science articles featuring them. He had astronauts
visiting his satellites every so often ... to replace the valves as
they blew.
Other writers before him, in scientific articles, ignored the issue
of exactly how the satellites worked and generally just assumed they
would. Being less specific they were closer to what we now use. Cheap,
plentiful black-box systems that "just work".
Which proves that if you are going to be a "Futurologist" or an
Oracle it is best never to be too wedded to today's tech and never to
be too specific.
>
>But to suggest that scientific understanding will drive off the rails
>into the realm of magic and allow a quantum perfect (assuming that is
>good enough) human-capable thought-preserving transporter, or reduction
>in the size of atoms without causing nuclear fission, in anything near
>the fictional time scale of Star Trek, is plain laughable.
The more you know about how the cosmos *really* works the more things
you can state, with complete and absolute certainty, are impossible.
It might be "possible" (that is: within the current or future models
of physic as it *works* not as we'd wish it to be) to design a
"transporter" that is really a Plank Jump machine. It doesn't do
anything to the bits of the human, it just jumps the entire human,
complete with all of the energy fields around it (and it's clothes)
(for the USAlien market) over the intervening space from point A to
point B. Not a wormhole or a warping of space or
take-apart-and-rebuild or even read and copy, but simply flick the
entire corpus from one pad to another. Like the tiny Plank jumps we
all do every day. Make the space between "forbidden" and kick the
ensemble over it.
Fiddling with Plank's Constant sounds like a lovely idea and so
doable and it's very, very much more likely than having the
computational capacity (and speeds) to record every energy state of
every particle making up a person, but I doubt if it is *really*
possible. Like negative gravity fields it is one of those little
things that would be ever so very useful but that are just not in the
repertoire of the cosmos as it *is*.
Another "possibility" is "subspace". Drop the matter into "subspace"
and suck it out on the remote pad. Apart from aiming, no computations
are necessary, the thing is never disassembled so no assembly is ever
required and you are not murdering people by the boatload. This, too,
sounds lovely... if only there were a "subspace" to go into. That does
not look very reachable from here with today's physics or any other
that we could use.
>
>Once again: our understanding of the universe would need to be vastly
>more complete, and far beyond even many, _many_, MANY times the
>accelerated rate of discovery in the past century.
>
>Certain people's irrational belief that scientific understanding will
>magically allow any fantasy to come true in any kind of time scale where
>a record of this conversation will still exist, is just that:
>irrational. I do not believe you understand the science involved, even
>to the limited extent I do as someone who hasn't studied since
>University, and just reads science news to keep up-to-date, since. Or
>you'd know that a Trek-style transporter isn't like theorising how to
>make an integrated circuit back in the late 40's, and making them in the
>50's, and not realising how densely packed the circuits could be made,
>or it's potential applications. No. What you want to believe is closer
>to paleolithic man coming up with integrated circuits.
No, what he wants to do is like Paleolithic Man coming up with a
method of jumping from one valley to the next without crossing the
intervening space.
In stories, it could be done and has been for many thousands of
years. Wizards and gods have *always* been able to drop from Olympus
to here without taking any time in the journey.
Teleportation is old tech. In stories. But some things in stories do
not ever happen in the real world.
Some years back it was noticed that the equations for mass travelling
at high speed go asymptotically infinite near the speed of light. This
is rather a bugger because it makes getting to a speed *faster* than
light slightly difficult. If it takes more than the energy equivalent
of all the mass in existence to boot you to very, very near but not
quite *at* the speed of light then there is nothing left over to make
you go any faster so you can never get there so you can never exceed
it. This is a nuisance if you wish to fly a starship some lightyears
in mere days. As everyone does.
But a few bright buggers noted that the equations near lightspeed are
*symmetrical*. That mass travelling just *faster* than lightspeed
would need near infinite energies but that it would need less and less
energy as it sped up. The curve was asymptotic on the other side of
lightspeed, too.
There was a slight matter of the square root of minus one, the
imaginary number factor "i", creeping into all the equations but that
doesn't bother the mathematics of it all. What the *physics* of
"imaginary mass" or even "complex mass" would be is moot.
Everything was all fine and lovely and we even got a new kind of
matter out of the deal, tachyonic matter, from the Greek word for
"fast".
Suddenly we could have starships that "jumped over" the lightspeed
"barrier", rushed along in tachyon state for a while then dropped back
into being real mass near their destination. It was great for Science
Fiction. Even better than warp engines.
There is just one slight issue. A flaw in all this goldenness. A bit
of grit in the machinery.
Tachyons don't exist.
There is no way to make mass tachyonic. The *maths* works and there
are nice, simple bits of physics that would show how tachyons *would*
behave - travelling at infinite velocities if they were "stopped" by
having zero energy for example - but there has never been any evidence
that this is how the cosmos works and some evidence that it is not.
Tacyonic matter, like wormholes and space warps may be "possible"
within the models of physics and mathematics that we have. They may
even be possible in all future physics. That does not make them any
more real that seven-legged, rotary-engined, pink giraffes.
A duplicate Earth with a duplicate me on the other side of the Sun is
"possible". It just is not real.
"Possible" does not an omelet make. You need eggs, too.
>
>Once again: it isn't that a Trek style transporter is 'impossible'.
Though actually it is. There is no way, even theoretically, to
measure the energy states of a cell, never mind a person, store the
numbers, transmit them and replicate them elsewhere in a realistic
time. It might be done in centuries, or even days but never
synchronously in real-time. (I'm ignoring the fact that any "beam"
with a high enough frequency to do the measuring would also have
enough energy to vaporise a planet, which would make using it on a
human slightly problematic. It would *vanish* the stuff it was trying
to touch *before* it could measure it. Arithmetic's a bitch.)
Not that the copy would be in any sense the original anyway so "Star
Trek" transporters are execution boxes.
Ignoring that, the beam would disperse and would be refracted and
reflected by any intervening mass, errors would creep in and even with
multi-level error-correcting the copies would degrade. This all
ignores the fact that *everything* in a human is constantly moving.
Every cell, every molecule, every single particle. Measuring the
momentum and position *accurately* is one of those things quantum
doesn't like us doing. Ever.
Disintegrate, record, transmit and rebuild is a *stupid* way to
transmit living tissue.
It could work for blocks of steel or ceramic cups but never for life.
Cups generally don't much care if a few molecules swap places. Human
memories probably do.
> It
>is that it would require an understanding and mastery of the involved
>science so complete, as to require supernatural intervention in order to
>occur in anything close to the Trek timeline.
The Terrans of "Star Trek" got what amounts to divine assistance,
from the Vulcans and others. *They* got it from litter left behind by
older races and *they* got it from still older ones. No one in that
universe ever had to invent anything.
Which neatly explains why Picard had less advanced tech than Kirk,
and why Voyager-tech only advanced after they met and "borrowed from"
other species.
>
>It's not a case of lack of imagination. It is the scientific realities
>of the problem.
Which change if you change the paradigm of how transporters work. See
above.
>
>And all this leaves aside the reality of needed resources and energy for
>such advancement and undertakings. Plug that into the equation, and it
>all becomes even less likely to occur within the next millennium.
"Star Trek" transportation devices can *never* work. Even using light
as an information transfer medium, and no-latency switching (not
possible), it is not possible, even theoretically to build
computational devices that are up to the job. This is not a case of a
1930's radio engineer not understanding the potential of modern
electronics. There are real, physical, fundamental limits to the
powers of computational devices and storing the energy levels of a
human, and how they are predicted to change while the scan and
reconstruction are evolving is beyond the limits of the universe
itself.
It can not be done. Ever. With any technology. Not even if we use
single atoms as bit stores. There isn't enough RAM in the box, the RAM
can't be accessed quickly enough, the scan can never be done rapidly
enough and there simply isn't the bandwidth to transmit the
information even should it ever be gathered. Not synchronously in
real-time. Hard gamma-ray lasers couldn't carry the data.
Today, we can "email a spanner" to the Space Station. Next century,
before the oil runs out and our civilisation collapses, we may be able
to email a steak. Emailing a live person and having something breathe
at the other end is not going to happen.
It is not just a bigger email file, it is an entirely different class
of problem and one that can never be solved.
For ever so many reasons.
And only those who live with unicorns and magic crystals would think
otherwise.
Some problems *are* impossible.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 05:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sohvfalmmhi98h4us644779rs3ertvsid5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70644 |
On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:12:22 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
<<snipped>>
>
>And we'll know basically nothing of the science behind things that are
>being done in the year 3000 either. Science changes and evolves as new
>ideas come along and new things discovered.
>
Untrue. We know, for a solid gold fact, exactly what the science and
technology of the year 3000 will be because we have already seen it.
It will be the science and technology of pre-lithic hunter-gatherers
and there will be very few of them.
"Pre-lithic" because all the good flint has been used up.
Be it 40 or 400 years, the oil is going to run out, this city culture
will collapse; wars, famines and general unpleasantness will ensue and
the children of the new dark age will *NEVER* recover.
They will never recover because all of the cheap, easy energy has
been used up. There is no way to boot-strap a new city-culture from
the ruins of this one.
Eventually, the process of Darwinian speciation may create dozens of
hominids, remnant creatures, but none will ever control the lightning
or ride the skies. Over even longer timespans, other species will rise
to apex predator but none of those will ever touch another world,
break the atom or build castles miles tall.
Be it forty or four hundred years, civilisation as we recognise it
will fall and will never again rise.
The super-weapons of 3000 A. D. will be rocks and thigh-bones.
<<snipped>>
>
>It has nothing to do with "magic". It's plain simple fact - you cannot
>know what people in the future will and won't be able to do. Trying to
>base that on today's understandings is simply stupid. People thought
>you would fall off the edge of the Earth if you sailed too far from
>land ... until someone did it, returned and proved them all wrong.
That is USAlien idiocy and completely wrong. It is a Disneyfied
version of History. No one *ever* thought there was an edge to the
world. The planet has been known to be round for at least three
millennia.
Its shadow on the Moon was a dead giveaway.
It is also likely untrue that Columbus thought that the world was
pear-shaped and that India was fairly close to Europe when sailing
West but one never knows. Individual people from all eras have been,
and remain, ill-educated or stupid or both.
I point no fingers.
Whether young Chris was as dumb as a rock or not he did manage to
convince a patron or two of his having a shortcut to the Indies so
it's *possible* that the rumour about an assumed bent planet was based
on something, even if only his lies and confidence tricks. But no one
with any education would have given it any consideration.
Even in Europe, even then, the shape of the planet was known.
>
>Virtually everything we do and have now was considered "impossible" by
>foolish people in the past.
Again, completely false. Many, many people thought that humans could
fly, that they could travel to the Moon (and even the Sun) and that
things like aliens were commonplace. Verry little of the *effects* of
our technologies would be strange to a Chaldean of 4000 B.C. though
the methods of achieving them would be.
As just one example, frequently mentioned up-thread, "television",
using silvered glass mirrors or bowls of waters, has been common in
stories since writing began, probably longer. The Sumerians would not
only understand our televisions they would wonder why ours were so
pathetically poor in sound and picture quality when compared to those
in their stories, and possibly why we could only see a limited number
of "places" when *their* magicians could see anywhere they wished to.
*Their* magicians could make solid, 3-D images that could even *touch*
remote stuff. Sony are at least several centuries away from being that
good - if ever.
Even nuclear power isn't very novel though we do it with engineering
not some stolen divine aspect or amulet.
A Minoan arriving in today's biolabs would wonder why, with all of
our godlike powers, we had not one centaur or bull-man. He may not
ever be able to learn the specifics of the chemistry of DNA
manipulation but they definitely had the general principles worked out
some three millennia ago.
You're using a cartoon version of History.
Probably from the works of Disney.
You need to read more.
> Many of the things future generations will
>take for granted are no doubt considered "impossible" by foolish people
>today.
There are differences. There are tried and tested methods of knowing
what can and can not be done in this universe. 500 years ago we had
very few of those and almost everything was open to being thought
possible. Now we have many tools and we have probed the limits of
physics. We *know* *things*. For sure. For facts. For absolutely
certain.
My sister does this and it bugs the fuck out of me. She asserts that
her "feelings" and "opinions" matter so much as my technical
expertise, scientific knowledge and experience actually *using*
science, mathematics, engineering and screwdrivers. That, because I
should value *her* I should value her *opinions* about genetics,
evolution, chenistry, computing and engineering. That her utter and
complete ignorance is somehow to be valued as a source of wisdom and
utility. That "all methods of gaining knowledge are equally valid".
She's a prat, of course. No amount of opinion, about astral
projection, crystal healing, positive thinking or neurolinguistics can
teach you how to fix a blown fuse. Or how to eliminate the issue that
caused it to blow.
Sciencs *WORKS*. It has worked for centuries, it works now and it
will *always* work, even after civilisation collapses and the species
dies. Science works because it begins, works and ends with the
universe *AS* *IT* *IS*. Science works because it *has* *to*. There is
no way it can't.
Yes, that sounds dogmatic, inflexible, arrogant and a touch like a
religion but it isn't that last. Science *is* inflexible and it does
have a sort of dogma that can never be altered but it is the same
dogma the cosmos uses.
I guarantee that no matter which deity you believe in, no matter how
crystal healed you are and no matter what your horoscope says or how
relaxed your chi is if you step over the rooftop parapet of a six
hundred metre tall building you *will* have a very bad day. Also a
very short one.
Science is not magic. It is nothing *like* magic. Magic insists that
you can get something extra for no effort and that the map and the
territory are one. Science, the observation and testing of the cosmos
as it actually *is*, tells us that both of those are false.
Science is not a religion. It is not a cult, it is definitely not
magic in any sense. It is a screwdriver hammered into a 450 volt line.
Despite my sister's ignorant bleating and special pleading and
resorting to outshouting, science *is* better than her opinion.
It is better than *all* opinion.
And that is why this society is doomed.
Those who control the treasures and resources are driven by opinion,
compromise and deals. Science has no opinion, it can never compromise
and it makes no deals. Sit on a primed nuke and no matter how high
your poll approval ratings are you will have *another* bad day when it
goes off.
Lawyers can never understand this. The universe is implacable, lethal
and very unfriendly. It kills. Everything.
It will kill this society.
Quite soon.
So we do know what 31st Century science and technology will be like.
It will be very like 31st Century B.C. tech. Only more polluted and
more radioactive.
And more final.
But feel free to dream of a cosmos where unicorns and Spidermans are
plentiful. In the end it really doesn't matter.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web