Nicholas Kang

Sensei, you mean I shouldn`t simply trust one`s statement?

I read Hyperspace before. That book inspired me to be a theoretical physicist. Now, he did publish a new book: The Future of the Mind. He introduced concepts like telepathy, telekinesis and quantum consciousness. He combined both neuroscience and physics together, giving us a brand new experience of looking at the universe.

How can it be possible to stop curiosity? It is hard to believe that at a point, anything is fundamental. You mean, people must believe in what scientist say and then no notion would emerge? Do tell me other alternative theories apart from the string theory. Thanks.

Can you provide me some related articles and pictures or websites?

One day in the future, even doctors do exist. They won`t be pure human, they might, if not all, transform into semi-automatic doctors. Why? Because chips will have been inserted into the mind and help/assist human. Then in future, who knows if one day robots themselves learn feelings and master the skills to resolve unusual situation. I am talking about future. It is hard to see the signs telling you that doctors are not needed. Before technological revolution, we still need doctors. the demand for doctors won`t just fall suddenly. Indeed, a high demand is still on the go, but not forever. Some moments in the future, (we won`t know when. It depends on how fast technology improve.) you can anticipate the fall of demand for doctors. Technology advancement is accelerating as time passes by. It won`t happen now, no matter what statistics you show to prove, because you can`t have statistics for future. Sometimes, you can`t just follow the graph currently available and predict future by just extending the line. You have to take account of factors like technology improvement and the future itself. No sign now doesn`t mean no sign forever; high demand now doesn`t mean high demand forever; It is just a matter of time. Time will prove it.

Then, we should revolutionize this statement. So, the word fundamental is not suitable in this context. It sounds crazy to assume something cannot be made up of anything else and no internal structure. In macroscopic world, we can easily find out the internal structure of objects. In microscopic world, it must be possible to find out internal structure of objects too. No such thing fundamental then. Because curiosity is always there, what is inside fundamental? You get crazy with this endless question, so, endless fundamental.

We don`t care this. Of course, imagine you are an atom. You think that you are big, bigger than protons, neutrons and electrons but when I tell you atoms combine with atoms to form molecules. Then, you will be surprised. At that particular moment, you are small and many of "you" make up the world, that`s why you will see the universe appear really big.

Sorry Roamer, what I mean here is in the future. You see, only technology advancement in future can take over doctors` job but not now. We will continue relying on doctors but this reliance will fade as time goes by and technology improve. Health rate, of course, will increase but not affected by decrease in doctors but due to advancement in technology too. So, advancement in technology both benefits health and at the same time decrease the number of doctors needed.

Anyway, I don`t mean half a proton. I mean a fraction of proton which is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark. Which, actually, means quarks. How to determine the length of a quark. If a quark is 1 meter, than, we should be able to further divide it into 100cm, and for each 1cm, we can even get 1mm and for each 1mm, we can still get... Infinity. That`s why I suppose that there is no possible answer to this question. if bit can be 0 and 1. It is still a value of measurement. 1 bit is just an example, unlike daily measurement such as length, meters. If a string is 1 meter, I can further divide it into 1 cm,1mm and so on. If you treat this case as in bit. Then it seems like string can only have two values. That doesn`t make sense in the context in which I want to measure how small string is but you tell me that it has 2 values. And the values can only get bigger, not smaller, thus no millibite but gigabite, megabite are present. So in the effort of measuring string, you can only measure 1m, 1km, 1Gm and so on but no such thing like 1cm of string or 1mm of string division. I mean divide and explore what is inside string.

Why I can`t have millibites?

I think one day human mind will change into computer mind, not purely human anymore, but with chips in your brain. Skilled human mind in charge? Yeah, that works but maybe one person per hospital.

Thanks Greg H. I appreciate your answer.

I don`t mean how CSF had evolved over time but I mean why don`t blood evolve into CSF.

I mean doctor would become unemployed due to advancement in technology. Technology, of course, will raise the cure rates but the cure rates will be raised due to technology originated from machine not man power like doctors.

You mean MRI is portable with smartphone? How small would it be?

From my perspective, bit is abstract, or simply a measurement. 1 bit on computer is a measurement of how much information is stored in your computer. The same as length, say 1 meter. 1 meter is 1 meter? Not so, maybe 1 meter can be made up of 1cm, 1mm, 1micrometer and so on. If you have bit, maybe you can have millibit, centibit and so on. Secondly, a measurement is a point of view, not the object itself. Your table is 1 meter wide, you measure it as 1m wide. Are you sure that the table knows itself as 1 meter wide? 1meter is abstract. Table is concrete. Table is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, while electrons are leptons. Quarks is made up of string. You can measure how long and wide and big and the size of string. You measure it. If let say string is 1 meter, than what will you see if I say I want to see the 1centimeter in the string? I can somehow separate a string into tiny pieces? In my opinion, to know the composition of string, you can only use a particle accelerator and smash two string then examine the remnants. How is it possible to separate string? It seems impossible to do so. Sorry to tell you, Sensei. Please note that the quarks are changed into string in the above paragraph.

I came across several articles discussing issues about MRI in smartphone. How is it possible that giant MRI can be fitted and installed in tiny smartphone?

I think it is possible that one day due to technology advancement, doctors will loss their jobs. Why? Operation/Surgery?-Robots and computers may help out or just simply replace man`s job to operate Prescribing medicine?-Simply sweep your smartphone, it will tell you which medicine is suitable Blood pressure, glucose level?-Sensors will check them out MRI, PET, X-ray?-One day, maybe these giant structures will simply operate on your smartphone And also with the development of quantum computer, it will somehow accelerate the progress dramatically.

How can it be possible that string is made of string? It sounds ridiculous. How can you prove that string is fundamental? If string is fundamental, then what is the composition of fundamental string?

I did rethink my question. It seems that there is no final answer to this question. You see, if string is the smallest thing in the world, then what is the composition of string?

Is there anything smaller than quarks and leptons?

No answer to this question? Invalid question?

I think no 2 receiver stations can construct me. This is somewhat a philosophy question. This is just a pure thought. i am just 15 years old. I don`t think I have mastered enough skills to calculate complex maths. Maybe I shall do this when I am in university. i hope that my question can stimulate others think of such question too, by the way.

Thanks, imatfaal. I appreciate your comment and praise.

I am a stupid boy. Can you please tell me the truth(true meaning)? I can`t figure out what you mean.