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 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <070320150901494466%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #70602 |
In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > 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. Like we once knew that the atom was the smallest unit of matter until we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then quarks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 11:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdfk23$76e$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70612 |
On 2015-03-07 16:01:49 +0000, Michelle Steiner said: > In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > >> 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. > > Like we once knew that the atom was the smallest unit of matter until > we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then quarks. Bingo. And recent results suggest that quarks might not be fundamental either...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0yw11.1ybfafpom5hqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70619 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-07 16:01:49 +0000, Michelle Steiner said: > > > In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Like we once knew that the atom was the smallest unit of matter until > > we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then quarks. > > Bingo. > > And recent results suggest that quarks might not be fundamental either... And if sub-quantum states make a noticeable difference to perfect replication of a human in terms of the now or divergence in the future, you've just made your job even tougher... -- 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 | <080320151451329693%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70634 |
In article <1m0yw11.1ybfafpom5hqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > On 2015-03-07 16:01:49 +0000, Michelle Steiner said: > > > In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > > > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > Like we once knew that the atom was the smallest unit of matter until > > > we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then quarks. > > > > Bingo. > > > > And recent results suggest that quarks might not be fundamental either... > > And if sub-quantum states make a noticeable difference to perfect > replication of a human in terms of the now or divergence in the future, > you've just made your job even tougher... Tougher, perhaps, but "tougher" is not the same as "impossible".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0z1eu.18pc0nj1ihxtchN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70638 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <1m0yw11.1ybfafpom5hqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > On 2015-03-07 16:01:49 +0000, Michelle Steiner said: > > > > In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > > > > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > > > Like we once knew that the atom was the smallest unit of matter until > > > > we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then quarks. > > > > > > Bingo. > > > > > > And recent results suggest that quarks might not be fundamental either... > > > > And if sub-quantum states make a noticeable difference to perfect > > replication of a human in terms of the now or divergence in the future, > > you've just made your job even tougher... > > Tougher, perhaps, but "tougher" is not the same as "impossible". No, it's not. Which invalidates nothing I wrote. -- 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 20:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdgkko$r6p$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70634 |
On 2015-03-08 00:31:25 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-07 16:01:49 +0000, Michelle Steiner said: >> >>> In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie >>> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Like we once knew that the atom was the smallest unit of matter until >>> we discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then quarks. >> >> Bingo. >> >> And recent results suggest that quarks might not be fundamental either... > > And if sub-quantum states make a noticeable difference to perfect > replication of a human in terms of the now or divergence in the future, > you've just made your job even tougher... Way to miss the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-07 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdfk02$76c$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70602 |
On 2015-03-07 07:34:09 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > 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/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. 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. Yes: 1000 years ago, we knew nothing of those things, and the result was that much that was claimed to be impossible... ...wasn't. Today... ...BY DEFINITION... ...we CANNOT say what we don't know... ...BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IT YET. Hence, what we KNOW doesn't inform as to what new things we might know in another 1000 years. Or knowledge today still has many things it cannot explain... ...instantaneous action at a distance for instance... ...and so there is room within those areas for things to be revealed which would make such transmission possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m0yw63.pvoqj011y53wvN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70618 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-07 07:34:09 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > 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/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. 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. > > Yes: 1000 years ago, we knew nothing of those things, and the result > was that much that was claimed to be impossible... ...wasn't. > > Today... > > ...BY DEFINITION... > > ...we CANNOT say what we don't know... > > ...BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IT YET. > > Hence, what we KNOW doesn't inform as to what new things we might know > in another 1000 years. > > Or knowledge today still has many things it cannot explain... > > ...instantaneous action at a distance for instance... > > ...and so there is room within those areas for things to be revealed > which would make such transmission possible. Science, reality is not magic. -- 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 20:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mdgkk9$r6n$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70635 |
On 2015-03-08 00:31:26 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-07 07:34:09 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >>> 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/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. 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. >> >> Yes: 1000 years ago, we knew nothing of those things, and the result >> was that much that was claimed to be impossible... ...wasn't. >> >> Today... >> >> ...BY DEFINITION... >> >> ...we CANNOT say what we don't know... >> >> ...BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IT YET. >> >> Hence, what we KNOW doesn't inform as to what new things we might know >> in another 1000 years. >> >> Or knowledge today still has many things it cannot explain... >> >> ...instantaneous action at a distance for instance... >> >> ...and so there is room within those areas for things to be revealed >> which would make such transmission possible. > > Science, reality is not magic. Agreed. But us assuming that we know enough of reality to predict what we'll know about it in 1000 years time is ridiculously arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 10:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cm2npdF69opU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70635 |
On 2015-03-08, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
[90 lines snipped]
> Science, reality is not magic.
As indeed are delete keys.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 67th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-09 09:08 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <090320150908540151%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70661 |
In article <cm2npdF69opU2@mid.individual.net>, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2015-03-08, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > [90 lines snipped] > > > Science, reality is not magic. > > As indeed are delete keys. If only it was so easy to permanently delete brainless morons like him. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-09 14:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mdkpk9$qr3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70635 |
On 3/7/15 7:31 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Science, reality is not magic.
(Thank you, Jamie. I just _knew_ someone would give me this entreé!)
Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s_Laws>
Clarke's First and Fourth Laws are also appropriate:
Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states
that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states
that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
--
IGNORANCE IS NOT AN OPINION!!!
-- Dilbert, 2013.11.10
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 08:52 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m127uc.17t227l11g64qoN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70716 |
Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: > On 3/7/15 7:31 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: > > Science, reality is not magic. > > (Thank you, Jamie. I just _knew_ someone would give me this entreé!) > > Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is > indistinguishable from magic. > <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s_Laws> Yup, aware of it :-) It's a great 'law' that makes a useful point. I miss Clarke. > Clarke's First and Fourth Laws are also appropriate: > > Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states > that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states > that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. > > Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Except I never stated a Trek-style transporter was impossible (plus I'm neither elderly, nor distinguished... except maybe at internet commenting *grins*). But as I said, it would require an understanding of the universe so much more complete, and such resources, that it would require supernatural intervention (or alien tech that looks like magic, if you like ;-) ) to complete in anything close to a Star Trek timeline. To believe otherwise is a charming, if rather harmless, ignorance of the science involved. This reality apparently angers some people. I've noticed in my years that reality often has that result with certain people who seem to believe the universe owes them something. But the universe is indifferent to hope and belief. Now people OTOH - they need hope in one another, and it's generally a good thing to have. But watch people freak out when you try to be realistic about the above. -- 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 | 2015-03-09 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdl0tr$g74$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70734 |
On 2015-03-09 19:52:54 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: > >> On 3/7/15 7:31 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: >>> Science, reality is not magic. >> >> (Thank you, Jamie. I just _knew_ someone would give me this entreé!) >> >> Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is >> indistinguishable from magic. >> <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s_Laws> > > Yup, aware of it :-) It's a great 'law' that makes a useful point. I > miss Clarke. > >> Clarke's First and Fourth Laws are also appropriate: >> >> Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states >> that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states >> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. >> >> Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. > > Except I never stated a Trek-style transporter was impossible (plus I'm > neither elderly, nor distinguished... except maybe at internet > commenting *grins*). But as I said, it would require an understanding of > the universe so much more complete, and such resources, that it would > require supernatural intervention (or alien tech that looks like magic, > if you like ;-) ) to complete in anything close to a Star Trek timeline. > To believe otherwise is a charming, if rather harmless, ignorance of the > science involved. So you didn't explicitly state it was impossible... ...you just implied that we know enough to know that it is practically impossible. The very soul of what Clarke was trying to tell you. > This reality apparently angers some people. I've noticed in my years > that reality often has that result with certain people who seem to > believe the universe owes them something. But the universe is > indifferent to hope and belief. > > Now people OTOH - they need hope in one another, and it's generally a > good thing to have. But watch people freak out when you try to be > realistic about the above. Whereby "realistic", you mean "assume your knowledge of the universe is complete enough to say". :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 13:23 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m12jra.1v23bo71ep929N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70749 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-09 19:52:54 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: > > > >> On 3/7/15 7:31 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: > >>> Science, reality is not magic. > >> > >> (Thank you, Jamie. I just _knew_ someone would give me this entreé!) > >> > >> Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is > >> indistinguishable from magic. > >> <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s_Laws> > > > > Yup, aware of it :-) It's a great 'law' that makes a useful point. I > > miss Clarke. > > > >> Clarke's First and Fourth Laws are also appropriate: > >> > >> Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states > >> that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states > >> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. > >> > >> Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite > >> expert. > > > > Except I never stated a Trek-style transporter was impossible (plus I'm > > neither elderly, nor distinguished... except maybe at internet > > commenting *grins*). But as I said, it would require an understanding of > > the universe so much more complete, and such resources, that it would > > require supernatural intervention (or alien tech that looks like magic, > > if you like ;-) ) to complete in anything close to a Star Trek timeline. > > To believe otherwise is a charming, if rather harmless, ignorance of the > > science involved. > > So you didn't explicitly state it was impossible... > > ...you just implied that we know enough to know that it is practically > impossible. > > The very soul of what Clarke was trying to tell you. > > > This reality apparently angers some people. I've noticed in my years > > that reality often has that result with certain people who seem to > > believe the universe owes them something. But the universe is > > indifferent to hope and belief. > > > > Now people OTOH - they need hope in one another, and it's generally a > > good thing to have. But watch people freak out when you try to be > > realistic about the above. > > Whereby "realistic", you mean "assume your knowledge of the universe is > complete enough to say". > > :-) To have a Star Trek style transporter, you would need to solve not just one problem. Not have just one major breakthrough. You would need dozens of major breakthroughs more advanced than any yet made. Off the top of my head: Energy<->matter conversion. Be able to scan at a quantum level where taking a measurement changes the results. Be able to instantly scan the approximately 7*1027 (seven billion billion billion) atoms in the average human body, down to the quantum level or even sub-quantum if that turns out to be necessary for a perfect enough duplicate (which, BTW, is why a human is more difficult than a coffee cup ;-) ). The scan would have to be instant, or you'd have a mishmash of results, leading to a transported human with all their atoms and systems out of sync. Scrambling a human being in this way would Not Be A Good Idea™ Be able to either instantly rematerialize the human, or have a combination of stasis, anti-gravity or some kind of micro-forcefielding to hold the parts in place as they're re-created. Human cells are all filed with liquid at pressure, and likewise blood, other fluids, lose tissue are going to just spurt out and fall apart, if re-materialisation isn't instant. Plus imagine what will happen to the delicate human systems, especially the brain if reformed over time. Never mind the cells and fluids spilling everywhere. The shock will kill you anyway, unless worked around by stopping the passage of time, or doing this instantly. Be able to process and transmit so much data to represent the human down to the quantum level, at least, to accurately describe the human. Right now not enough storage exists on the entirety of the earth, plus every historical storage medium that has ever existed, all added together. Have enough energy to do all the above. And if you really want Star Trek style, figure out how to do all that remotely via 'transporter beam'. Plus I'm sure there are a bunch of other problems I'm not thinking of or am not expert enough to have thought of. The above is just me dashing off the first thoughts I have in a couple minutes. Regardless, the point is that to believe a large number of ultra-radical advances (which will be necessary for just one of the above to be realised) will all just fall into place any time that might match the Trek timeline, or even soon enough that any record of this conversation will still exist, is just plain silly. I get it: you're optimistic about science and technology. Good for you guys. But it's not magic. I'm sorry, but you're just not being realistic. But don't take my word for it (you clearly do not). Talk to any reputable scientist in the appropriate fields. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 00:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <54fe7562$0$62252$b1db1813$79461190@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70769 |
On 15-03-09 20:23, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: > To have a Star Trek style transporter, you would need to solve not just > one problem. Not have just one major breakthrough. You would need dozens > of major breakthroughs more advanced than any yet made. Your post is pure heresy. How dare you deny transporters are possible ? I've seen them in operation many times. (on TV :-). Star Trek deniers lead a risky life. Should they ever be near a Star Trek convention, they risk having thousands of nerds dressed in Starfleet , klingon, Borg and other uniforms attack them. There is the odd chance that Seven of Nine will corner you, push you to the wall, proclaim "resistance is futile" before she proceeds to kiss you real good. With regards to Eisenberg: If you have something under a microscope, does it matter if you are actually watching it or not ? And consider the possibility that we may eventually be able to measure the impact "watching" has on an object, and you can then mathematically remove the effect of watching the object once you know it. And there may the case where watching an object does not change it in a meaningful way. If you shine a flash light at a wall, sure, you throw photons at it, and not all of them bounce back and you end up heating the wall some. But the impact is irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-15 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ca9bga9vqj3t89aaks74418cu7u5son3e7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70775 |
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:38:56 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 15-03-09 20:23, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>
>> To have a Star Trek style transporter, you would need to solve not just
>> one problem. Not have just one major breakthrough. You would need dozens
>> of major breakthroughs more advanced than any yet made.
>
>
>Your post is pure heresy. How dare you deny transporters are possible ?
>I've seen them in operation many times. (on TV :-).
Yeah and I've had dreams about conversations with certain famous and
beautiful ladies. That doesn't make them anything like possible.
(Yes, "conversations". Let us stick with "conversations".)
>
>
>Star Trek deniers lead a risky life. Should they ever be near a Star
>Trek convention, they risk having thousands of nerds dressed in
>Starfleet , klingon, Borg and other uniforms attack them. There is the
>odd chance that Seven of Nine will corner you, push you to the wall,
>proclaim "resistance is futile" before she proceeds to kiss you real good.
That last will never happen in any universe even approaching reality.
Not to *me* it won't.
I'm likelier to become the thirteenth man on the Moon.
>
>
>With regards to Eisenberg:
>
>If you have something under a microscope, does it matter if you are
>actually watching it or not ?
If you wish to replicate it, yes.
Incidentally, just as a legal issue, the transported being, dead and
squishy though it would be (if it materialised at all) would not be
Kirk. Kirk is dead. Kirk was flash-blasted the instant they
disintegrated him with his first transportation.
No?
"Star Trek" is replete with "transporter accidents" where two copies
come out, where two beings merge into one, where one person is halved
and each half is different and assorted other freaks of tech. The
being on pad two is not the being who was on pad one. Scotty murdered
his captain. Many times.
The previous two paragraphs were, of course, assuming ST transporters
worked, which is an impossible fantasy.
>
>And consider the possibility that we may eventually be able to measure
>the impact "watching" has on an object,
It is utterly, mathematically, physically and even *logically*
impossible to know which way a particle will go if you hit it with a
photon. Worse, the scanning beams of "Star Trek" use photons of such
high frequency, hence energy, that they are basically ballistic
missiles, matter-anti-matter bombs. *Their* constituent parts would be
heading for the hills in every way, killing the crew as they went.
With great bandwidth comes great destruction.
>and you can then mathematically
>remove the effect of watching the object once you know it.
You hit an atom with a gamma-ray photon which contains enough power
to boot a battleship to Jupiter and that atom will both cease to exist
as an entity and scatter to the four corners of the galaxy and
further. It will, on its way, *NOT* have been measured or scanned,
just annihilated.
You are trying to scan a plate of meatballs in sauce not by running
the needle of a phonograph over it but by smacking it with something
the size of Saturn moving at lightspeed.
Bandwidth is a bitch when you get into these regions. Which, of
course, you can't. There is no way to produce a light beam with a high
enough frequency. Not in this universe.
>
>And there may the case where watching an object does not change it in a
>meaningful way.
Fantasy, not science.
You're using ICBMs to map microbes. It's a resolution issue, among
others.
>
>If you shine a flash light at a wall, sure, you throw photons at it, and
>not all of them bounce back and you end up heating the wall some. But
>the impact is irrelevant.
Not when you are talking about a hard gamma-ray laser a metre in
radius kicking something the size of a proton.
A "Star Trek" scanning beam would boot *the* *ship* to Proxima from a
standing start with the recoil. It would smash a hole in the nearest
*planet*. It would possibly core the local *star* and would certainly
not even notice the flimsy flesh of Kirk as it booted the sub-nuclear
remnants of what once was him to Andromeda.
With great scanning rates comes great frequency. With great frequency
comes great power and the juice in every photon of "Enterprise's"
transported beam would be about the same as the mass of Ceres.
I would dearly love to see the lenses that could focus such.
But only from a *huge* distance.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 00:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdm5pb$6jp$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70769 |
On 2015-03-10 00:23:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-09 19:52:54 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >>> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/7/15 7:31 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: >>>>> Science, reality is not magic. >>>> >>>> (Thank you, Jamie. I just _knew_ someone would give me this entreé!) >>>> >>>> Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is >>>> indistinguishable from magic. >>>> <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s_Laws> >>> >>> Yup, aware of it :-) It's a great 'law' that makes a useful point. I >>> miss Clarke. >>> >>>> Clarke's First and Fourth Laws are also appropriate: >>>> >>>> Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states >>>> that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states >>>> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. >>>> >>>> Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite >>>> expert. >>> >>> Except I never stated a Trek-style transporter was impossible (plus I'm >>> neither elderly, nor distinguished... except maybe at internet >>> commenting *grins*). But as I said, it would require an understanding of >>> the universe so much more complete, and such resources, that it would >>> require supernatural intervention (or alien tech that looks like magic, >>> if you like ;-) ) to complete in anything close to a Star Trek timeline. >>> To believe otherwise is a charming, if rather harmless, ignorance of the >>> science involved. >> >> So you didn't explicitly state it was impossible... >> >> ...you just implied that we know enough to know that it is practically >> impossible. >> >> The very soul of what Clarke was trying to tell you. >> >>> This reality apparently angers some people. I've noticed in my years >>> that reality often has that result with certain people who seem to >>> believe the universe owes them something. But the universe is >>> indifferent to hope and belief. >>> >>> Now people OTOH - they need hope in one another, and it's generally a >>> good thing to have. But watch people freak out when you try to be >>> realistic about the above. >> >> Whereby "realistic", you mean "assume your knowledge of the universe is >> complete enough to say". >> >> :-) > > To have a Star Trek style transporter, you would need to solve not just > one problem. Not have just one major breakthrough. You would need dozens > of major breakthroughs more advanced than any yet made. > > Off the top of my head: > > Energy<->matter conversion. > > Be able to scan at a quantum level where taking a measurement changes > the results. > > Be able to instantly scan the approximately 7*1027 (seven billion > billion billion) atoms in the average human body, down to the quantum > level or even sub-quantum if that turns out to be necessary for a > perfect enough duplicate (which, BTW, is why a human is more difficult > than a coffee cup ;-) ). The scan would have to be instant, or you'd > have a mishmash of results, leading to a transported human with all > their atoms and systems out of sync. Scrambling a human being in this > way would Not Be A Good Idea™ > > Be able to either instantly rematerialize the human, or have a > combination of stasis, anti-gravity or some kind of micro-forcefielding > to hold the parts in place as they're re-created. Human cells are all > filed with liquid at pressure, and likewise blood, other fluids, lose > tissue are going to just spurt out and fall apart, if re-materialisation > isn't instant. Plus imagine what will happen to the delicate human > systems, especially the brain if reformed over time. Never mind the > cells and fluids spilling everywhere. The shock will kill you anyway, > unless worked around by stopping the passage of time, or doing this > instantly. > > Be able to process and transmit so much data to represent the human down > to the quantum level, at least, to accurately describe the human. Right > now not enough storage exists on the entirety of the earth, plus every > historical storage medium that has ever existed, all added together. > > Have enough energy to do all the above. > > And if you really want Star Trek style, figure out how to do all that > remotely via 'transporter beam'. > > Plus I'm sure there are a bunch of other problems I'm not thinking of or > am not expert enough to have thought of. The above is just me dashing > off the first thoughts I have in a couple minutes. Regardless, the point > is that to believe a large number of ultra-radical advances (which will > be necessary for just one of the above to be realised) will all just > fall into place any time that might match the Trek timeline, or even > soon enough that any record of this conversation will still exist, is > just plain silly. > > I get it: you're optimistic about science and technology. Good for you > guys. But it's not magic. I'm sorry, but you're just not being > realistic. But don't take my word for it (you clearly do not). Talk to > any reputable scientist in the appropriate fields. No. You absolutely DO NOT get it. You think that you know (we as a species know) enough to say that something is very difficult. But what you don't get is that you don't know what you DON'T KNOW.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 23:29 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m13ctl.15hhmwj15fxdhiN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70776 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: [snip] > No, no, _no_, NO, _NO_! I _will_ have my Star Trek transporter! NO!!!!!!! > *screams at top of lungs* You just don't get it! I will magically have it! > NOOOOO!!! Everything _will_ magically fall into place, no matter how many > grand improbabilities all have to occur within my time frame! NOOOOOOOOO! > NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You're wrong! NOOOOOOOOOO! Science > _will_ behave like magic if I hold my breath and flail about!!!!!! *starts > to turn blue* That's what I hear, dude. Honestly, sometimes I don't know who is worse - religious nutters, or Trekkies... -- 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 | 2015-03-10 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdndlv$vuh$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70786 |
On 2015-03-10 10:29:52 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > [snip] >> No, no, _no_, NO, _NO_! I _will_ have my Star Trek transporter! NO!!!!!!! >> *screams at top of lungs* You just don't get it! I will magically have it! >> NOOOOO!!! Everything _will_ magically fall into place, no matter how many >> grand improbabilities all have to occur within my time frame! NOOOOOOOOO! >> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You're wrong! NOOOOOOOOOO! Science >> _will_ behave like magic if I hold my breath and flail about!!!!!! *starts >> to turn blue* > > That's what I hear, dude. Honestly, sometimes I don't know who is worse > - religious nutters, or Trekkies... If that's what you think you hear, you're not listening. I have no opinion either way about whether or not transporters will one day be possible. None. At all. Period. Why? Because I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I have the slightest clue what will be discovered about the nature of reality over the next 1000 years. What I DO know is that every time science has thought they had it down, they've been wrong. Atoms and that's it? Nope. Nucleus plus electrons? Uh-uh. Quarks? Quarks are fundamental? Umm... ...we thought so, but now... ...let us get back to you. You, OTOH, are so cock-sure that you (personally) understand reality well enough to declare it a practical impossibility no matter what else might be discovered. You... ...just... ...don't... ...get it. YOU are exactly the guy that Arther C. Clarke was talking about in his 1st law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 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