Nanotech is just the implementation of another layer of our understanding of the universe. I think we still have a long ways to go before we actually have a firm grasp on the true nature of reality.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Menfranco Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everybody! > Well said Ash, where is Pat indeed when we need him to say God's > things, because for me when you are talking about nanotech makes me > thing about God and ask myself this question; Is this nanotech the > link between us and God? Perhaps once we have learned enough about > this nanotech we be able to understand how God works? Who knows? it is > just a thought. > > On May 24, 9:48 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > Where's Pat when we need him? > > > > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm fairly certian this site is not umm being honest. As far as I > > > know we simply have not yet managed to do this. > > > > > One of the biggest problems in quantum compting is that old quantum > > > chestnut of simply by looking we influence the result. > > > > > With Quantum bit (Qbit) computing, the idea is to make use of the > > > verious quantum states of a moclucule, so that a Qbit can hold > > > possibly 4 (all to do with spin) pieces of data at the same time. The > > > problem comes in retriving this data and ensuring that by 'reading' > > > the data it remains unchanged. > > > > > On May 20, 10:17 pm, gabbydott<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Thanks for providing me with the right key words. And this is the > stuff I > > >> meant:http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html > > > > >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Chuck Bowling< > > > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Nanotechnology is used in a lot of places but it's still far from > reaching > > >>> its full potential. Right now most nanotech is just new applications > of > > >>> materials science. Potentially nanotech could be used to create > robots > > >>> smaller than a single human cell or for that matter to create new > life. > > >>> As to quantum physics, it provides insight into microelectronics. But > the > > >>> hope is that one day we will be able to create computers based on > quantum > > >>> spin. That still hasn't happened yet. > > >>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, gabbydott<[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>> What? I thought nanotech was already in use in the cosmetics > industry and > > >>>> quantatech (is that how you call it?) in the computer industry. > > >>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chuck Bowling< > > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> I'm in agreement about the radical changes that nanotech appear to > > >>>>> promise. Changes that could spell doom or a complete redefinition > of what it > > >>>>> is to be human. It's about the only thing that makes me want to > live longer > > >>>>> than my allotted time. Just so that I can see what miracles come > next. > > >>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> Yeah, I was fear mongering Chuck, a political device. ;-) This > is a > > >>>>>> favorite topic of mine, it is at the axis of many fields. To > accelerate > > >>>>>> nanotech development I think we should implement rapid > prototyping, > > >>>>>> experimentation and analysis systems. When I envision man at the > beginning > > >>>>>> of this revolution I look for tools that would allow an explosion > > >>>>>> (figuratively) of development, being able to catalog and operate a > multitude > > >>>>>> of experiments in parallel, while building a massive library of > modeled > > >>>>>> behavior for materials and systems interoperating in the real > world to > > >>>>>> improve the robustness and diversity of this technology is > apparently the > > >>>>>> way to go. To think that the behavior of biological systems can be > > >>>>>> abstracted and used to formulate dynamic systems guided by expert > algorithms > > >>>>>> to solve material challenges in real time guided by people over > vast > > >>>>>> distances, it goes beyond genetics, I am in awe at the potential > universe we > > >>>>>> are venturing toward. We will also be able to make changes to > ourselves and > > >>>>>> our experience of this world at a similar rate.. > > >>>>>> On 5/19/2011 1:41 AM, Chuck Bowling wrote: > > >>>>>> I think that with nanotechnology we will be able to synthesize > pretty > > >>>>>> much anything we want from raw materials in the future. Assuming > that any > > >>>>>> alien race capable of traveling the trillions of miles to get here > would > > >>>>>> have at least the same level of technology my guess is that they > wouldn't > > >>>>>> need anything we'd have to offer. > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> There is another good reason to develop our technologies as a > species, > > >>>>>>> think how we are looking at the planets and celestial bodies as > vast > > >>>>>>> resources. Imagine if something else came through and strip mined > the > > >>>>>>> resources we would need to develop into a spacefaring species, > that would > > >>>>>>> suck big time. Like a tribe of humans moving through and picking > all the > > >>>>>>> nuts we squirrels need, or worse, deciding we were in the way of > those > > >>>>>>> resources, think what we have done in those situations.. I know > it's > > >>>>>>> unlikely considering the vast resources out there, but something > might have > > >>>>>>> it's eye on our pale blue dot too, working faster than us at > making the > > >>>>>>> leap. > > >>>>>>> On 5/18/2011 8:37 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote: > > >>>>>>> I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell if a > planet > > >>>>>>> is rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a relatively > massive > > >>>>>>> planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the smallest > planet > > >>>>>>> found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth. > > >>>>>>> IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century > technology > > >>>>>>> allowed humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow and > wrought > > >>>>>>> with hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is like a > new > > >>>>>>> continent then we are more like cavemen discovering that a log > can float. At > > >>>>>>> the rate we're going it might be a thousand years before we can > actually > > >>>>>>> mount an expedition to another star. > > >>>>>>> I think the primary reason we are so far from actually exploring > other > > >>>>>>> stars is mainly political rather than technological. But, I think > you are > > >>>>>>> right. It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could just > make the > > >>>>>>> damn politicians see it that way... ;) > > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas<[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets > enough like > > >>>>>>>> ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land. They claim > there > > >>>>>>>> is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current space > travel > > >>>>>>>> speeds. One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere near > the > > >>>>>>>> position of 'Columbus'. Our current 'tin-foil' technology won't > do, > > >>>>>>>> but at this kind of distance we are talking about something > other than > > >>>>>>>> worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in which > > >>>>>>>> distance is an illusion. > > >>>>>>>> For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and > quite > > >>>>>>>> likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of > evolution > > >>>>>>>> not just ending through catastrophe), there is an opportunity to > > >>>>>>>> believe in something distant in time and a need for us to direct > > >>>>>>>> ourselves towards it. A time, perhaps in which a form of > conscious > > >>>>>>>> life can live very differently from now, and a project worth > attaching > > >>>>>>>> to - perhaps a reason for spirituality. Comments on this or the > > >>>>>>>> technology welcome.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
