Eugene Leitl wrote:
> Adrian Tymes writes:
> > People once said that it was impossible to move through the air faster
> > than air (sound) itself could.
> This wasn't based on a physical theory, just empiry and material science.
'Twas based on the best science they had at the time.
> > People once said that is was impossible to propel oneself through the
> > vacuum of outer space.
> People said many things, but I wonder why you keep mentioning that
> "people said" thing. It bears no relevance to argumentation. People
> also said witches don't float on water and the brain is an organ for
> cooling of the blood, and that mice are generated spontaneously from
> straw and dirty cloth, and that stones can't fall from the skies.
> > People once said that nothing could move faster than light under any
> > circumstances. (There's still debate over whether anything useful is
> > being moved in the latest experiments.)
> There is no debate. You can't signal faster than the speed of light in
> vacuum. If you've read more than that into it you fell into the trap
> of wishful thinking.
What about, say, two entangled photons separated by a significant
distance? Affect one, and the other appears to be instantly - not
allowing-for-information-to-travel-at-speed-of-light later, but
instantly - affected.
> > Part of technology is finding ways around limits. There's a provable
> > maximum efficiency for chemical rockets? Fine, switch to another
> > propulsion (say, fuel or light) with provably higher limits.
> > Eventually, switch to moving without propulsion - synchronized quantum
> > teleportation over large distances, for example. The only absolute
> For example? Do you have a physical theory to go with that one?
Quantum teleportation has been observed in the lab. However, no one
knows how to precisely control it yet, nor does anyone have a line on
making it happen to a large number of atoms all at once.
> This isn't alt.gee.whiz.wouldn't.it.be.nice.if.extropians, btw.
Doesn't have to be.
> > limit on that line, barring time travel, is being able to move instantly
> > from one place to another...at which point, your per-stop time dominates
> > your speed of colonization, so teleport masses of terraformig/industry
> > building/colonization nanites to your target to colonize your target in
> > a blink, and speed up production of said nanites to lessen time between
> > colonizations.
> 1) No evidence for such physics
Except what has already been observed on Earth.
> 2) No evidence for anybody using such technology
I, personally, find it more likely (definitely not provable, but more
likely) that no such colonization wave has passed us yet, if it even
exists. I could be wrong, but that would definitely explain this.
> 3) Did I already mention 1) and 2)?
Did I already answer them? Keep your objections to the facts, and not
the emotions, or you may well miss that point or two about someone
else's opinion that keeps it from being the straw man you'd otherwise
> > > Assuming that physics is not changeable, of course, which is a rather
> > > safe bet.
> > Give me fixed physics and a sufficiently large amount of ingenuity and
> > resources, and I can get you practically anything. (Some things are
> Such as relativity and breaking the speed of light in vacuum limit?
...as exemplified by this comment. To restate my point here: maybe one
can not accelerate to FTL, but that does not mean there is no way to go
from place X to place Y faster than light could. It's just that the
forms of transit we now have can't do it.
> > impossible as is, but other things which serve the same ends as well or
> > better are present for every human desire I've seen. Even if sometimes,
> > the desire - say, colonization of the universe - must be unmasked from
> > its expression - say, colonization of the universe with current
> > technology - in order to discern the best way to satisfy it.)
> I would be foolish to assume that our current physics is accurate. In
> fact we know it isn't. However, I would be doubly foolish to step
> beyond the known laws, and start extrapolating. There are a lot of
> these "could be's", way more than there are neurons in my brain. I
> prefer to engage them for more fruitful speculations, e.g. what's for
<shrugs> And I prefer to extrapolate from what is known, too. I'm just
saying that as long as one of these "could be", then it is invalid to
say that their opposite *must* be.
> > The Singularity, if it exists, doesn't peak. It merely goes on until we
> The Singularity is a testable hypothesis about future civilisatory
> development. We will know it when we get there, and not before.
By some definitions of Singularity, parts of our world are already
> > advance our ways of thinking sufficiently that we can see the future
> > once more. I base this claim on what I see every day, as some people
> Then why do you keep talking about things beyond the predictability
> horizont? FTL, teleportation, fairies, the cow that jumped over the
> Moon, ghosties & goblins, ...
My point is that it *is* beyond the predictability horizon, therefore
one can not at this time make valid predictions on it. My second point
is that the predictability horizon keeps changing, and is different for
different aspects for different people. 2000 was once beyond the
predictability horizon; it is mostly history as of today.
> > think the immediate future is an unimaginable tech (u/dis)topia, until
> > they get handle on the realities of what's out there.
> Yeah, the truth is out there, somewhere, along with the Moon made from
> green cheese and the X files.
The truth is what you and others make it be. Not in terms of
propaganda, but in terms of shaping the world. It's not (just) out
there, it's (also) in here.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT