Baby Astronaut

That's why it's unscientific. No way to verify, test, use the scientific method, etc. Yet its proponents seem to be displaying it as science. My points are intended to counter the religious-like emphasis of Kurzweil (head of the Singularity University) -- on the inevitable, all-consuming, just-round-the-bend coming of "The Singularity". For example, he states the universe will become a giant computer. But even your response disputes this (on how it's improbable for other singularities to reach us. And not to mention getting past the cosmological event horizon). Kurzweil expects that, once the human/machine race has converted all of the matter in the universe into a giant, sentient supercomputer it will have created a supremely powerful and intelligent being which will be Godlike in itself. Wikipedia With the entire universe made into a giant, highly efficient supercomputer, A.I./human hybrids (so integrated that, in truth it is a new category of "life") would have both supreme intelligence and physical control over the universe. n2.nabble.com All of it in fewer than 90 years. He's also seeking to influence policy decisions based on this. Me.....I say if any such event is inevitable, just let it run its natural course and have a sensible level of caution, not rush blindly into things. His utmost mistake is believing progress is only a technological matter. But really it's a political/industrial matter. For one, if the wrong leader got in place, we'd be almost certain to regress -- without the proper controls set. Just imagine if Hitler had gained our modern technology back in the height of Nazism.....the Singularity would be "MIA". (Or really beneficial only for his singular, twisted purpose) As for industry, look at how Oil fights tooth and nail, even willing to harm society, to keep their "Preciousss" from slipping out of their hands. So the question is -- will certain industries with many billions upon future trillions to lose really happily let go of it all, would they really allow the singularity to break our need for their products, or would they attempt to control the direction a "singularity" would take? It's probably unwise to just leave things up to chance, or to, dare I say, the "invisible hand of technology". We've all heard similar bull. The part about the laws of thermodynamics is in reference to all matter in the universe becoming a computer -- the ultimate end to Kurzweil's fantasy outcome. I was making a reference to Kurzweil's idea of how a computer will probably evolve. Kurzweil suggests that AI's will inevitably become far smarter and more powerful than un-enhanced humans. He suggests that AIs will exhibit moral thinking and will respect humans as their ancestors. Wikipedia . Nope. Was again referring to a Kurzweil conclusion -- how death would be no more. Here again is what I said. My point: instead of beating death, the ultra-proliferation of self-evolving computers might end up imitating nature's life-and-death cycle. Which has merit, if each computer will program itself differently -- for their objectives and/or energy-distribution goals will increasingly be likely to clash. Kurzweil seems obsessed with immortality, and probably views the Singularity as a necessary vehicle to it. Maybe he wants to rush technology for his benefit, not ours, so that his foretold Singularity prevents him from dying. A race against the clock, so to speak. I welcome advancements in technology, to me it's actually a thrill. Really -- I'm usually complain of how some of our "advancements" like personal computers are like the stone age from where they should really be at, considering the technology available. I'd like to see far more advances than we have now, which our current technology allows. But sensibility, efficiency, and wisdom are good for our advancement too. Plus I know to keep my wits about the reality of some crooked politicians and industry heads who rather abuse it for their gain and our permanent wallet drain. So I'm not going to hand off the reigns of public decisions to a guy who seems to have tunnel vision about social issues (even if he's good at making accurate, relatively short-term guesses about certain technologies). I'm sticking by what I claimed about it being unscientific. One last tidbit in reference to the "computer universe": it isn't science also because the computer's signals must reach to its other parts not just billions of light years away, but past the other side of the cosmological event horizon. You obviously like the science fiction aspects of it -- I didn't really intend to take away from the mood of your post. I'm just leery of that guy's "prophecies".

Ooo, I'd like to read that discussion/argument.

(read: not "God approved")

Can a mathematical statement/equation describe the following? If a thing displays at least two verified characteristics which are impossible to reconcile mathematically, then it does indeed have each of those characteristics -- simultaneously. The reason I ask concerns the first time I heard about light's wave-particle duality in my studies. I had immediately resisted the idea of a contradiction, that light just had to be either a wave or a particle. For there was no dilemma, because a photon could travel as a particle...yet in a wave-like motion. See the images for an example of this. (It's difficult to imagine I'd be the first person to offer this solution. But even so, I'm really interested in a general mathematical statement for dualities to coexist/reconcile) Above: photon traveling like a wave, but clearly a particle. Below: it leaves a trail behind (to help see the wave )

Nah, I heard it floated away -- someone didn't pay their gravity bill? I'd go, but I'm not in the UK. Have fun, though. (And post back on it)

That is a very interesting conclusion. Might anyone know the right maths for verifying this outcome? Will the frozen images collect out by the event horizon like a bunch of post-it notes? By all indications, they should.

I'm a doubter. The scenario is very unscientific. First, if alien life did exist in the universe, we'd most probably already would've encountered their version of a singularity, multiplying itself through the cosms. But only if life were supposed to actually evolve into robotic form and transform the universe likewise. Second, the laws of thermodynamics are being ignored. Robots -- even tiny ones -- need energy. If all matter were really AI'd they'd have to begin eating one another, thus death is still certain. Third, we have no evidence of how a self-deciding computer will program itself. Maybe, it'll decide that longevity or survival isn't a primary goal. Or maybe the computer will decide that its replication will eventually be disastrous, converting all matter into energy, and to prevent that it might self-destruct -- taking its creators along. Fourth, nature creates diversity, and in fact a biodiversity -- where everything feeds each other. Therefore, the self-programming computerizations might branch in a way that creates a hunter/prey relationship, along with a clean-up sector that depends on the waste of computer deaths. Fifth, what's efficient for humans isn't necessarily as efficient for computers, and vice versa. Plus what's efficient for one type of computer isn't as efficient for another. They'd have to create zones/boundaries for each other, and being self-aware, it's highly probable that some in each computer group would develop an itch to trespass into what "rightfully" should be theirs.

That is a cool idea. Since you haven't gotten a response, it might be either no one knows or hasn't encountered/considered this possibility.

Here's something funny. Let's say the first illustration below is the present day universe. Earth ------------------Visible Universe Then, let's say the next illustration below is a future date in the universe. By then, the visible universe has shrunken to us. What's funny is both planets might be claiming that the other isn't part of the universe, but they'd be wrong. Earth ------------------Visible Universe------------------Other planet

A few meters of concrete, rock, or deep ice.

Work is force x distance (fd) Pressure is force divided by area (f/a) Speed is distance divided by time (d/t)

All research papers published in PNAS are peer-reviewed [2]. (Wikipedia) But don't know how accurate that is.

Odd. I guess at one time someone declares it a law, and if others agree they say "yeah, it is, huh?" which makes it official enough for scientists.

A principle takes a while to become a law. However, when the time comes, who makes the decision for this to happen and be officially recognized as such?

However your surroundings might be a void. Of course measuring temperature would pollute the Absolute Zero with heat from the temperature-measuring device. In fact, how can you ever measure absolute zero even if it were to really exist? It'd be like the uncertainty principle -- but instead for temperature: you can't measure absolute zero because you'd raise the temperature by the simple act of measurement.

Phi, my opinion is right in the title (sweet: double meaning). Was rushing to my job so didn't have time to elaborate, and figured I'd do so later (i.e. now). Also, I'm sure a lot of people didn't get this news. We're all busy. I could see the pharm doing what you say, but I'm not certain they always have the last word on the process. Question is, who's to prevent the competition from using an inexpensive alternative (not candy though, but similar to it)? Unless, a higher-up in the FDA is paid by medical corps to deny the green light to anything cheaper? Dunno how that process really works, so I can only speculate -- is it an open process, or all closed doors?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_sc/sci_cotton_candy_research

I looked up "scalar" on Wikipedia and it says the directions are inconsequential. So if I'm reading this correctly, does it mean that if the sun were traveling due east at 100 speed, and the Milky Way traveled west at 200 speed, then our frame of reference would be 300 speed? (math purposely oversimplified) It's your own frame that you'd be slowing down from. Just enter frame that's going slower than the one you just left.

Do You Believe in Thor got closed as I was posting, so I'm teleporting my response here. Yep, the "discarded if wrong" part is important. You're making an error. Not everyone believes the interpretations and variances. Many people simply believe there's a creator, and dismiss the "master/king of the universe" kind of egotistical attribute that's really a human quality and not that of a being with omniscient empathy (knowing all our darkest fears and loves). Why knock the faithful who do embrace science and logic? They're on our side. I have a profound distaste for much of the religious establishment's yapping, mostly the fear-reliant parts or war excusers, but it doesn't stop me from believing in God. Those misguided establishments actually fit a pattern in the grand scheme of things. No one has to believe in anything. Conversely, they shouldn't overly attempt to discourage belief either. (There is a healthy level of each) It's something to consider. I knew a lot of people who were anti-god, anti-establishment, etc. They hated religion and politics. Yet all had something in common: they later became obsessively religious, cheered for Bush's victory, rehashed neocon talking points, etc. My point? They never changed. One extreme to another. We should be cautious of where emotionally super-charged dismissal of things can lead us. I like my atheist and faithful friends as they both are, so it's disconcerting me when any march down the road of intolerance full speed. (And I'll even bet that others here also witnessed a number of strongly "anti" people in life go turn strongly "pro", and vice versa. Yet how many went strongly "balanced" instead?)

Provable vs unprovable, observable vs not, intellect vs faith, etc. My guess...if it doesn't fit one, it's the other.

So publish it. Or share it with others.

Oh, rationalists also have faith, but might not know it. Don't we believe the universe is all explainable? But no amount of evidence will be able to conclusively verify this. And don't we at some level have faith (even if only a wee sliver) that all the experiments we read about in scientific journals have been verified? In the end, we take many people's words for it (some more, others less). That's how research is so efficient. If we had to prove for ourselves every bit of information we came across, it would blunt the growth of knowledge. For example, we agree that it'd be highly illogical to claim that most peer-reviewing scientists often lie about the content of a submission, especially because all the peer reviewers would have to be in on the lie. So of course it's illogical...and highly, highly improbable in an open process -- yet it's never been tested or proven scientifically. Heck, even infinity can never be proven -- we just accept that beyond the highest ever counted number there won't be anything unexpected. My point is we put various degrees of faith in probability. And believers in God do so too. Now, if someone's belief in a certain faith makes them *better* than unbelievers, what's the probability they'll be duped by a charismatic fanatic? (rhymes )

Irrational makes it seem faulty. "People should be treated humanely" isn't a rational conclusion, yet many people (including rationalists) believe it. Therein lies the rub. The power brokers of the world seek out those who believe in a worthy ideology -- like peace. If they can draw enough such believers under their umbrella, and subtly mold/pollute the ideology to their own benefit, the result is a massive amount of energy poured into their nefarious ends by good yet unwitting people. And then, is the religion's use as such a tool one of peace anymore? In other words, a religion's followers seek peace -- while its leaders might execute war or destruction. In even more other words, the most successful *crooked* groups hardly bother to recruit crooks, they're actually better off recruiting *goody two-shoes* They'll also need to convince the flock with such deceptive propaganda as: whoever attempts to stop or expose their schemes, are bad/dangerous/misguided people. A relative example is France: did they really snub the U.S. in not helping with Iraq, or did they just refuse to partake in the obvious schemes of neocons? (I'm sure France would've helped with UBL) So yeah, "religion of peace" is a good thing, but make sure the politicians who campaign on such values really have peace in mind - and not the $$ "values" from businesses that profit on war and relevant technologies.

Do the electric impulses in the body travel at the speed of light? For example, if something brushes your toe, or your eye detects a flying mosquito, does it sent the info to our brain at the speed of light? I'm not asking how fast the brain processes the info, just how quickly it's reached by the signals.

You should add this: I believe Thor's existence is possible, even if I don't necessarily believe in Thor. Just want to point out that Thor is not a good comparison, because the Norse, Greek and Roman ancient gods were not omniscient and omnipresent, and weren't believed to have created the entire universe and other gods. A better comparison might be Chaos of ancient Greek mythology, who birthed lesser gods such as Tartarus, Eros, and Gaia, who then birthed the Titans, who finally birthed the Olympians. (lineage source: Wikipedia) Or even that one myth where a giant cosmic turtle vomited the universe -- although it died from choking on this vomit, so now it's just a skeletal husk floating out in space.