Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Voyager I hasn't left the system yet. They still have not gotten to the shockpoint yet.

It's all very interesting, because according to what we know Voyager I should have gotten to the shockpoint months ago.

[Xantalos]

Problems, in the order they appear in reply #147:
1. Given enough time, time will break down. There is no possible amount of time long enough for time to break down. If time has broken down, then by definition one of the endpoints on the duration being specified is undefined, since you know, time broke down and is no longer working.
2. There is no reason to think tat time and space are fundamental objects, let alone unstable ones. In all likelihood, it is subatomic, quantum particles that are the fundamental objects of the universe and our notions of time and space are just abstractions of those interactions, just like our conception of iron is an abstraction for trillions upon trillions of iron atoms all interacting with each other.
3. There is no "the multiversal theory." I mean, for one they're called multiverse theories. Multiversal isn't a word. But more importantly, no realistic theory that could be described as a "multiverse theory" predicts any way to cross between "universes". Hubble volumes are by definition unable to contact each other, different Everett branches only interact in the non-communicative ways predicted by quantum physics and modal realism defines the different universe to be isolated from one-another.
4. Moreover, it's not entirely clear what you even mean by "universe" if two supposedly distinct universes can interact - if they can interact, they're really part of the same universe, abet a universe that is mostly divided into distinct chunks. As such, there is no amount of energy that would propel you from one universe to another - anywhere you can reach by any method using any amount of energy is part of our universe.
5. There's the point Criptfeind brought up as well: Why did you use the phrase "you humans" there? Huh?

So, in short: Get some sleep, man. Things will make way more sense once you do.

I'll prepare a facepalm for when I wake up and realize what I've done.

[i2amroy]

It's not that easy to make interstellar spacecraft.

Technically we do have the technology, it's just that:
1)It would horrendously expensive since most of the designs would need to be assembled in space.
2)Even with the fastest designs you are still talking like a 30 year trip to the nearest star system. There are faster ones out there, but most of them depend on something back here (such as giant laser batteries) and thus become one-way trips due to other factors.
3)Nuclear bans prohibit a lot of the more efficient designs from being able to be constructed.

I mean we have shown that things like the bio-dome work here on Earth, so it's not completely impossible that we couldn't construct one and strap it to an engine in space, it's just that nobody wants to do it due to the reasons above (and the fact that currently we don't have anywhere hospitable to go to. What use is flying out into the depths of space if there is nowhere to land except your departure point?). Right now our best bet would be sticking with probes or within our own solar system until we find somewhere worthwhile to go to.

[Criptfeind]

Er. When your mind is uploaded to a computer I am not sure if worries like survival or time matter any longer. No need to protect a organic body and just 'sleep' for a few thousand years and it seems like you solved most of the issues right there. I mean, talking about the tech to upload minds, the tech to move a ship around space seems pretty easy.

[alway]

You need a bare minimum of over 42km/s delta-v to escape the solar system; you would need about the same to enter orbit around the destination star. To get there before the craft decays around you, you need even more to get to a decent speed. And then you have to hope you don't hit a pebble along the way and have half your craft explode from the impact force. It isn't survival of the human that's a problem; that's solved by the computer; it's the creation of a craft robust enough to survive and then reproduce in such a way that its offspring can continue reproducing. It's not just a craft going for 1000 or 5000 years; it's a craft whose mission is to self-replicate for hundreds of millions or even billions of years without an overall system degradation as it slowly moves through the galaxy.

[Criptfeind]

It only needs to reproduce a minimum of one time doesn't it though? Because at that point you have another craft. I mean, ideally it makes more then one copy, but it does not need too.

On the other hand I don't even know what a delta-v is (unless it is the stupidest way of saying velocity ever)  so maybe I should stop talking about things I clearly don't understand.

[alway]

Delta-v is change in velocity. In terms of escape velocities, a delta-v of 42 km/s means you need to accelerate to 42km/s at your current location just to keep from falling back inwards. It's referred to this way simply because a maneuvering burn from most modern rockets is short, and in the overall time of the mission is miniscule enough to ignore the velocity gradient during the burn. Though that's less the case for always-on propulsion like ion drives or solar sails.

The craft will need to make more than one copy though. They will inevitably encounter problems, including complete failure due to space debris and such. I would bet a single probe reproduction would reach only about a dozen systems before the chain was broken by a catastrophic failure.

[Skyrunner]

Darn, a bit late to the uploading-minds party. xD

[inteuniso]

Was thinking about this earlier today.

In order for humanity to continue to possess it's biological heritage (and one of the advantages being evolution without requiring any technological developments), I suggest that a limit be placed on the number of people can have cybernetic implants (roughly 70% of the world population), and the amount of cybernetic implants be limited on Earth. There should be a stipulation, however, that ethical cybernetic implants should be unrestricted on worlds other than Earth.

This way, Earth remains sort of a petri dish for humanity, but we still get the advantages of cybernetic implants. A sort of balance, if you will.

[RedKing]

Ooh, then we get to put our "breeding stock" on special reservations, and issue other restrictions to keep them safe and pure.

Yeah, there's no way that can become dystopic and horrible.

[miauw62]

Darn, a bit late to the uploading-minds party. xD

Same here.

[10ebbor10]

Moreover, in order for your Von neuman probe to work correctly, it needs to be able to account for reproduction errors. Eventually errors are going to accumulate, and if the probe can't fix that, it will die out after a few reproductions.

[Descan]

But what is the mind?  As far as I can tell, the mind is entirely derived from the structure and function of the brain.  The only way to transfer it would be to mimic its structure in a new format.  That's not really transferring, that's copying.

Aside from actually pulling out your brain and putting it in a robot body, I don't see how you can have a continuous chain of existence.

I've thought about this a lot. In fact, it's why I want to go into neuroscience.

My hypothesis is, if you replace the neurons slowly enough with a more durable, machine analog version, continuity of the mind will be retained, and you can "upload" your mind and have it be YOUR mind.

[i2amroy]

But what is the mind?  As far as I can tell, the mind is entirely derived from the structure and function of the brain.  The only way to transfer it would be to mimic its structure in a new format.  That's not really transferring, that's copying.

Aside from actually pulling out your brain and putting it in a robot body, I don't see how you can have a continuous chain of existence.

I've thought about this a lot. In fact, it's why I want to go into neuroscience.

My hypothesis is, if you replace the neurons slowly enough with a more durable, machine analog version, continuity of the mind will be retained, and you can "upload" your mind and have it be YOUR mind.

This idea right here is probably the best, and it gets around the whole "copies aren't really you" problem. All we have to do is replace your brain one piece at a time, so we put you under, replace a chunk, and then wake you back up. It would even provide helpful feedback in that we would be able to check to see if each replaced chunk was working correctly before we replace the next one.

[Glubags]

Can't believe this thread has gone on so long without mention of Ray Kurzweil!

If you haven't yet, I'd suggest you all check out the documentary about him called Transcendent Man.  Basically everything being discussed here is touched upon by top scientists in their respective fields, and while no one is in agreement on the time frame of these technologies' existence, no one can argue the accuracy with which Kurzweil has made predictions about the advancement of technology in the past based on his models.  He is possibly the world's most successful futurist, and while his latest predictions are perhaps tainted by his own mortality and a childlike (albeit depressing) desire to bring his father back to life via AI, I feel the future he describes may be right around the corner.  He describes an event he calls the Singularity--when humans will merge with the intelligent technologies we've developed and artificially kickstart the next phase of human "evolution."  If we don't see it, our children just might.

Either way, it's a very thought-provoking documentary with input from people who address these issues for a living, including Hugo de Garis--formerly employed by a Chinese university to build an artificial human brain, and Kevin Warwick, who is essentially a work-in-progress cyborg already.