To stand in the wind of knowledge and be inspired to learn, find hope,
meaning and be uplifted seems to me the place to stand. In this way I
find Pat inspiring too, among many. Not sure there is enough time in
this universe to understand 'the true nature of reality', everything is
so relational! Who can say at any time that 'this' is it, I agree we are
likely far from it.
On 5/29/2011 8:36 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Where's Pat when we need him?
>
> On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 -
