Pat is probably working at home,, and he has no internet there Allan On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]>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 - > > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
