nameta9

There are many concepts to this idea, all that may be achieved in the future. First you could imagine that scientists start changing the neural circuits of other people by direct manipulation of their brain. In this case the "manipulated" person (m-man) would have a new and different mind. Through this new mind m-man may see new things, insights, emotions etc. Of course you could start designing very complexy minds, very new, odd and complex information paths, organizations etc. Where is the limit ? I think a new dawn will arrive for humanity, maybe a technological singularity. Imagine then minds and computers connected, an eventual "sea of minds" , simulations of fake worlds to minds, installation of complete life histories in minds etc. A person could be any other conceivable person by just installing the neural configurations. Of course here, the sky is the limit. Science and reality becomes arbitrary. Imagine a brain in a house where each item of the house communicates with its neural circuits so manipulating the items, in the house the mind can explore itself, or it would be walking inside its own neural network.

I thought creationists were narrow minded! I am saying that evolution as we know it may be even mostly correct, but the degree of complexity humans have reached seems way too much for the standard mechanism. I am trying to imagine a case where we could have been designed by other beings even much more "stupid" than us, just as we design computers; consider a case where the speed of calculations was the measure of "intelligence". Well we are alot slower than a computer, but were able to design one that is alot faster than us. Just like the "technological " singularity theory suggest that we may be "surpassed" by our own creation, so some alien civilization may have designed us. This is the point I am trying to make.

Natural evolution up to a human is just as far fetched as saying that a god created man in 7 days (or whatever). 4 billion years may be too little for evolution to naturally evolve up to us. But if evolved in steps, on other planets, then maybe its total time is 10 billion years. Then again the age of the universe may be largely greater than 20 billion years (I always had a feeling that this age is too short), or maybe there are infinite universes and the age is eternity. Also it is possible to have the sum greater than the parts. There is a pseudoscientific theory that claims that our technology is evolving at an ever increasing rate towards a "singularity" upon which computers will surpass human intelligence. After that, the computers would "design" other smarter computers and we as humans would no longer even know what happens. Now if some process, in different terms and with different structures occured on other planets with alien structures "designing" structures that "surpass" there own (just as humans may end up designing computers smarter than us) , then you can see how evolution may be quite feasable through this.

Well already by 1980 IBM had done very extensive research for 20 years into all kinds of OS problems and had already achieved MVS and VM. Now windows is nowhere close to solving those kinds of problems and linux is still young and is hacked up constantly. I am not sure if the linux method really takes into account all the OS problems that IBM had to systematically solve. This is an interesting question. Anyways I read that IBM's VM can host hundreds of linux operating systems as "guests" therefore simulating hundreds of servers. Now that is really high class stuff!

I read an article where it is claimed that IBM MVS OS was 500 MB in size already in 1980. I also read how refined and powerful the OS has gotten over the decades, along with VM. So does this mean that the IBM OS is the rolls royce of Operating systems and will always be way ahead of all the other "toy" systems like windows, linux and unix ? After all, their mainframe OSes (VM, MVS) have been constantly under great research for over 40 years, so how can any other OS even match theirs ? of course they are very expensive but then again so is a rolls royce. I also see how crappy the toy OSs are even when they have 500 MB RAM! I read that some programs like kylix on linux can't even load properly..... It makes you wonder

I was reading some articles on the "future" of TVIP, that is TV over the internet. Is this stuff for real ? How on earth can a tv signal be broadcast over the internet? I think this is a case of really PURE HYPE! A tv signal needs at least 4MHZ bandwidth so if 1000 people over the internet want to see that station (from anywhere in the world) the tv station server would have to send the digital IP packets at 4GHZ! and what if all of a sudden 10,000 people wanted to see the station? then the TVIP server would have to send the signal at 40GHZ! THAT TO ME SOUNDS LIKE PURE HYPE!!!

Find yourself a copy of C++ Builder (borland). They have a nice CPU option that lets you see the C++ code you program in assembler and step through the instructions with breakpoints. Even a 1997 copy would do.

There are alot of critics of java on the web. I think the real problem is missed expectations. It was supposed to be this great new thing and it ended up being a clunker. Yes they use it in industry and schools but I am not at all found of it. Why so many complications ? why so many abstract concepts ? Really the only problem with software is organizing it well and documenting it well. Lets stop inventing new languages and code clearer and better. People say the BASIC GOTO is wrong but if you consider exactly how the assembler code works under the hood, it is all GOTOs and actually jumps on conditions like JNZ (jump if 0) or JNE ( jump if not equal) etc. The real problem is badly organized and non documented code.

I mostly agree. I think Java and other object oriented hype was mostly market hype and mostly a social phenomena. Maybe if all that effort went to improving compilers and libraries who knows ? This reminds me of the thread of science slowing down or going actually backwards. Anyways it is an interesting point of view to ponder. Of course the subject matter is quite complex but it is refreshing. see http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10344

Don't get health insurance. If you need an emergency hospital just go to the hospital and after give them a tip. Maybe 20 30 dollars and say you can't pay. A personal health insurance would cost 300 dollars a month. Try not to get sick at all.

They don't have any kind of decent insurance where I come from; it costs 100 Euros but they cover only 20 dollars a day which is too little. All of them suck. I would like to get an insurance for 1 or 2 months upon arrival in the US and would like an american one that should REALLY cover you. Have any idea if they offer these in the US and about at what price ?

Complexity is a very ill-defined concept, I think. But in general, I think for evolution mokele is right; if "complexity" leads to advantage it increases else it doesn't. I am considering the much more abstract point of view of MATTER in general, not necessarily in evolution, or technological progress. I don't think there are many limits to the complexity of MATTER in general. There is a combinatorial point of view where the number of combinations exceeds the possibilty to see them all. The number of 100 elements , each element being 10 different types would be 10 ^ 100 which is too huge to explore all the possible combinations. Elements here could be atoms, molecules, software programs, gears in engines etc. So a one of a kind very complex combination is a unique combination of MATTER and shows how far MATTER can reach. Also there are examples of "cognitive" experiences which don't necessarily involve complex MATTER like "eternal life" or "time travel". If there is a way to reach these, technologically it has little to do with the limits of how complicated MATTER can get.

It may be then that if science is limited, it may be limited in a global domain (like artificial intelligence, or virtual reality, interstellar travel). It may never exceed certain limits. So then we could perfect some technologies in limited domains. Imagine perfecting formula 1 cars for 5,000,000 years. That would end up with an object so unique, it would show that MATTER as such can be combined in extremely unique ways, it is as if MATTER would be "unlimited" within a local domain (formula 1 for example), but limited within global domains like "time travel" or "eternal life". Instead of combining elements of MATTER to see its limit in complexity, we could see also how far it could reach within limited domains. It is always somewhat similar to an ART form or an "aesthetical" combination.

You are right. There is no relationship between scientific/technological progress and the improvements of lifestyles. Actually lifestyles could even get worse and worse (poorer and poorer etc) while some aspects of science and technology progress. This is also another example where alot of HYPE of how man would "benefit" through science/technology. We may have a billion cell phones but no drinking water and food and no gas for cars etc. More in gneneral even if science/technology does slow to a standstill this does not mean that we know the limits of matter. Matter as such may have enormous potentials for complex organization, we may just never be able to manipulate it past a certain point. See http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10401

The debate focused too much on natural evolution, which is an enormous debate in itself. My point is more about how complicated can matter be organized in general whether through evolution or man made devices OR SOME OTHER PROCESS. We could force matter into an incredibly entangled construction of chips, neurons and mechanical parts WITH NO PURPOSE OR GOAL WHATSOEVER just to see how complicated matter can be organized. Now the resulting object would not have evolved through natural evolution, and neither through scientific - technological reasoning, so it would be a completely ALIEN object that has been produced according to a completely alien process. From our point of view as man, this object would be considered a work of ART or an ART form since it has no purpose except that of testing the limits of how complex matter can be organized. In general how complicated can matter be organized whether for a goal or not ? Can we imagine a planet that naturally evolves color TVs without evolving any lifeform ? The fact that it coincides with a function useful to us could be just a quirk chance. Is evolution the only process capable of creating vastly complex organized mechanisms ? What are the real limits of MATTER as such disregarding the processes that organize it ?

Complexity as it is conceived and understood by the mind of man. Of course this is a somewhat arbitrary concept, maybe mostly "aesthetical" , but let's intend its meaning in the usual sense. A color TV is a complex organization of matter a simple stone is not etc. Although it is subjective (to man) it is interesting trying to imagine how complex, intricate and developed matter can be organize whether by itself or by an intentional being or ANY OTHER PROCESS WE CAN'T EVEN CONCEIVE, for some secondary goal or just as a group of complex processes.

This idea came out pondering the question if scientific research is limited in what it can achieve. Evolution is the process that can lead to the organization of matter as complex as the human mind. Scientific research can lead to different (not necessarily as complex) organizations of matter. There may be other processes in the universe which do not follow neither evolution nor man's scientific research to achieve even more complex and sophisticated organizations of matter. Maybe plasma effects at the center of stars or similar. The point is that matter may be organized into very complex structures like the mind but through different processes. There may be barriers between one process and another, for example evolution can only lead to a certain subclass of organized matter, man's scientific research can lead to another certain subclass of organized matter but may never be able to reach the class of objects that evolution can. Evolution may never be able to evolve silicon chips without having first evolved man. These may be barriers between progressing processes that limit what each process can achieve. The real point is that matter as such can be potentially organized into very complex structures, we may just never be able to force it past a certain limit. In this sense science may have a limit, but matter may not. And even if matter were organized in an alien very complex structure and internal process, we may not even be able to recognize it!

Well then maybe the real limits are "mostly" politics and cultural choices and economical choices. It is often said an average worker now makes less money than in 1970 (example of going backwards) and it seems the working hours are longer (example of going backwards). There were alot more choices for car interiors and they were even nicer (just compare an oldsmobile 98 of 1970 with any luxury car today) (another example of going backwards). People are more into fundamentalist religion than science (an example of going backwards) and this list can go on and on. Why can't we have cars that drive themselves ? There are no complicated technologies involved just sensors on roads and wireless communications and computers, all things we have "advanced" in. Because we are not able to do it. If there are economic-political reasons than science will eventually just end and mostly be "fake". We will have loads of video games maybe......

Why is the totally automatic factory not here ? It depends mostly on computers that are hyped to be a million times faster and cheaper then 30 years ago, but we still have factories that operate with cheap labor and some are even substituting the robots with cheap labor. The japanese and GM studied this problem alot but in the end it can't be done. So this an example of real scientific/technology HYPE.

Well I guess there is progress. I don't know all the fields and accept what experts say. Maybe what I expected is a change in fundamental "lifestyle" given that for example teleworking could be easily achieved but is rarely used etc. I would say that the fundamental physical limits are probably not important because before reaching those limits we could create perfect simulated and virtual realities hooked up to our brains capable of simulating everything conceivable, robots that are capable of carrying out all the work there is to do, 100 % control over all our biology, cell chemistry, mind circuits, and hundreds of other extremely perfected technologies to achieve anything etc. I don't think we will run into "physical" limits but into conceptual-logic-scientific limits in our understanding and capability to manipulate matter.

The question is very simple. I have a feeling that science is slowing down and can eventually just stop. Here I mean especially applied science / technology since as I said science as knowledge can expand forever but its practical applications may not. Knowledge is not the question, it is how much we can manipulate matter to our desires. There are 2 cases: 1) we can't manipulate past a certain point: time travel is not possible, eternal life is not possible, visiting other stars is not possible, infinite pleasure is not possible etc. 2) we can manipulate matter to any extent. All the above and more is possible. If the case is 1 then this means there are some fundamental limits in our mind as to how we understand and manipulate matter, if the case is 2 the sky is the limit. From the past decades everything is pointing to the case 1: we can't manipulate past a certain point.

Bottom line: science can invent the theory of everything with all the formulas, particles, experiments and know everything, but the possibility to "manipulate" matter (applied science ) may just remain limited even though we may end up knowing everything. Knowledge without the possibility of manipulation may just end up being an elegant philosophy. I also think there are very strong ECONOMICAL - SOCIAL - CULTURAL - POLITICAL forces that greatly limit how and what we manipulate, alongside with the fact that we may never be able to reach any greater degree of manipulation. We went to the moon in 1969 and are still having a hard time getting back for example. In the same time spand it is hyped that our computers are a million times better. Make your solid case for both, lets see.......

Won't argue the details, there is some progress. But progress is getting slower and slower. Artificial intelligence is just about where it was 30 years ago, and the chemical reactions circuits even in the simplest cells are barely understood. It may be that this is the most we will ever get; passenger jet planes at 800km/h, (concorde failed economically). Windows PCs with lots of pretty pictures and mpeg films, cars that will never fly etc. Maybe in the year 5,000,000 the world will look just like it is now without ever having progressed much more. It could very well be that our mind doesn't have the instruments to go any further, that maybe our use of logic and/or mathematics is flawed past a certain point. Who knows... maybe there are other instruments and science shouldn't use math....

After decades of hype regarding how fast and how revolutionary scientific research was supposed to be, here we are in a world that is indeed almost identical to the one of 30 or 40 years ago. Yes we may have more "gadgets" but aside from the internet and only a few really new technologies or discoveries, all the hype surrounding science is revealing that it was only hype. Companies and governments spend less and less on basic scientific research, they prefer to create combination products ony to sell more like cell phones with cameras etc. All the revolutionary applications of computers haven't changed none of the fundamentals of the world, we still need gas to go around etc. It may be in general that the human mind is actually very limited in how much it can really manipulate matter. Maybe the mind sees reality through a false grid that can rarely let it really manipulate past a certain complexity or set of interactions matter in general. We still cannot even create a simple protein from scratch even though the first experiments were started in the early 50s, We have no idea how even 2 or 3 chemical reactions in the cells interact etc