Singularity !

[Bugmaster]

The concept of a Technological Singluarity is an interesting one to idly ponder. It's also a very popular concept in science fiction; Cory Doctorow in particular seems to love it. However, I have a feeling that some people tend to have religious faith in Singularity, which would make Singularity the latest modern religion.

Ok, so what is Singluarity ? Well, to put it briefly, the argument for it goes something like this:

1). Moore's Law dictates that computing power increases exponentially over time.
2). Moore's Law will continue for the foreseeable future.
3). This means that, eventually (and rather soon), computers will achieve enormous computational power, which will dwarf our human brains.
3a). Alternatively, the new advances in quantum computing may lead to this computational power in one leap, bypassing Moore's Law entirely.
4a). At this point, computers will achieve intelligence, and that intelligence will dwarf ours by whole orders of magnitude.
4b). Alternatively, we may find a way of merging with computers (through "uploading" our minds, perhaps), thus magnifying our intelligence by whole orders of magnitude and becoming "transhuman".
5). Initially, this new intelligence will allow us to solve the basic problems facing humanity today: hunger, disease, scarcity of luxury goods, etc.
5a). Most likely, this will be achieved through self-replicating nanotechnology.
6). Eventually, our enourmous new intelligence will solve all problems in physics that remain to be solved.
7). Thus, we will gain complete control over time and space, becoming de facto gods (or "weakly godlike entities", as Cory Doctorow puts it).
8). The point at which this happens is called the Singularity, and it is inevitable.
9). We should be seriously worried about how Singularity will occur, who gets to participate, whether the super-intelligence would be evil, etc. etc.

I have to admit, Singularity is a pretty neat concept, and I for one do hope that it happens. However, I don't think that Singularity is inevitable; I don't even think that it's particularly likely.

While Moore's Law has held so far (1), I see no reason to predict that it will continue indefinitely (2). In fact, there's a very real physical limit on the minimum size of an electronic circuit; shrink the circuit any further, and electrons begin to tunnel all over the place, ruining your computation. Quantum computers are very neat (3a), but they are far from omniscient; they will not magically grant us answers to all our questions. Thus, virtually unlimited computing power is not inevitable (3).

I personally do believe that Strong AI (4a) and "uploading" (4b) are possible, and even likely; however, they are far from inevitable, as well. It could very well turn out that Strong AI is a very difficult problem to solve, and that merely throwing computing power at it won't achieve much.

Even assuming that we manage to create (or grow, or become, whatever) a super-intelligence, it's somewhat rash to conclude that this super-intelligence will solve all our problems (5). Most of them, such as hunger, disease, overpopulation, war, etc., cannot be solved by merely thinking about it. The solutions would involve a lot of work -- planting fields, building spaceships, gathering viral RNA, etc. -- and work doesn't do itself, no matter how smart you are.

Nanotechnology (5a) would be quite useful here, but I am not convinced that it is even possible. It's possible that the laws of physics (such as the Uncertainty Principle) prohibit us from building self-replicating machines that can move individual atoms around, just as they prohibit us from moving faster than the speed of light. Of course, it's always possible that our current understanding of physics is wrong, but there's no indication that it's most likely wrong -- which means that becoming 1000x smarter won't solve anything (6), and that it's quite possible that we will never be able to fully control all time and space (7). Sadly, the more we know, the more limitations we discover; I personally would like that pesky "speed of light" limit to go away, but it looks like it's there to stay.

Thus, Singularity is neat, but it's far from inevitable, and it's far from likely. I don't think we need to worry about it in the foreseeable future.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

Tiberius, please re-read the Debate Forum Intro and Rules.
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

The use of terms like moron and stupid when referring to another debater is not allowed. Calling another's point of view a piece of piss is not only uncivil but it really does not show in what way you disagree with the poster other than you think that his argument is not sufficient.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You achieve nothing by implying that the human mind is 'nothing special', it is amazing and unless you'd like to swap yours for a casio calculator, you'd better improve your argument or shut up as you make yourself out to be a moron.

My apologies for seeming to imply that the human brain is anything short of amazing. It is.

However, it still functions as a machine. Cells called neurons comprise the brain's vast array of informational pathways. Their excitable membranes, when reacted upon by an outside stimuli sensed or percieved by the human host, send an electrical signal to a certain area of the body, denoting the body's appropriate response. The brain is essentially an extensive electrical circuit, functioning as our body's computer chip and memory card (so to speak).

but a computer that is not understood by us, and can't be emulated by us.

We are perhaps eons away from truly understanding the brain. However, I have a strong conviction that we eventually will, and when we do, I see no reason as to why we could not emulate it.

It seems as if you are the one underappreciating the brain. Why do you doubt it's intellectual abilities? With such powerful hardware in our skulls, I see nearly unlimited technological opportunities for humans in comming generations.

since that sounds like a piece of piss you'd better just do that and become a billionaire. I suspect however, there is a lot more to it that you realise and therefore, you are stupid and very poor

Oh? More to it than I realize?

You seem to think you know what you are talking about. Why don't you enlighten me?

I don't think there is any point to the question, and much less in answering it. If someone wanted a very clever computer, would they be bothered how big it was? Perhaps, how much it cost and could it be created in the timescale they had in mind; but if it was two metre squared or three, would they give a toss?

Well, it looks like you won't be enlightening anyone on the inner workings of a computer.

'How much computation that can be fit in a cubic meter' is perhaps the most pressing issue in all of the technological world. A computer system's speed is proportional to the size, number, and capacity of it's circuits (so I gather, don't quote me on that one). Essentially, if we want to make a more powerful computer, we either (a) pack more computation into a given space, or (b) make information travel along the circuits faster than the speed of light.

But then again, I don't necessarily know what I am talking about either...

[Bugmaster]

To build a sapient machine is merely a matter of emulating the complex structure and function of our own brains using artificial parts.

Harvey1 surely disagrees with you. We have a whole thread on the subject...

is there a limit on how much computation we can fit into a cubic meter of space ?

A better question may be: is there a limit to human intellect? The way I see it, any physical dillema may be worked around with the right amount of knowledge and ingenuity.

No, my question is better :-) If there is a limit on how much computation we can fit into a m^3 of space, and if the speed of light is a constant, then these two constants place an upper bound on our computing power, which we will never be able to exceed, regardless of how much ingenuity we have. Of course, one of the chief premises of Singularity is that we will be able to rewrite the laws of physics as we see fit, but I don't see any reason to believe that this is probable.

Anyway, I believe there is absolutely no limit to human intellectual progression. I don't consider any arguments to the contrary. To believe anything less will potentially constrict our true potential, whatever that happens to be.

That's not very intellectually honest. We should strive to discover things that are true, not things that would make us happy. Reality doesn't change just because certain facts make you feel sad.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

If there is a limit on how much computation we can fit into a m^3 of space, and if the speed of light is a constant, then these two constants place an upper bound on our computing power, which we will never be able to exceed, regardless of how much ingenuity we have.

And if both of these presumptions are true (which I still doubt), what is to stop us from utilizing some other form of data transmission?

Circuits and motherboards may just be a fad. There is no telling how information will be sent and recieved thousands of years from now.

Never doubt human capabilities.

That's not very intellectually honest. We should strive to discover things that are true, not things that would make us happy. Reality doesn't change just because certain facts make you feel sad.

Intellectually dishonest? Personally, I would say the same of you.

You are debunking future human accomplishments before they have even been attempted. It's like saying we will never set foot on Mars before even trying to build the rocket.

Successful visionaries of the past did not accomplish what they did by looking up at the sky and theorizing where it ends. They trudged forward; indifferent to so-proclaimed technological limits.

You may see me as overly optimistic, but that does not mean I have become disconnected from reality. I'm just going by the trend. We are smarter than our anscestors. Our anscestors were smarter than their anscestors. Why assume there is a limit to technological/intellectual progression? I'll believe in a limit when we reach it.

[Bugmaster]

And if both of these presumptions are true (which I still doubt), what is to stop us from utilizing some other form of data transmission?
Circuits and motherboards may just be a fad.

According to our current understanding of physics, the speed of light is a constant. No signal may travel faster than the speed of light. This means that, when motherboards are replaced by genetically engineered quantum teleporters, they will still operate no faster than the speed of light. Our massive human capabilities are precisely what allowed us to discover this fact, and to build our current computers and spacecraft, which are all based on this fact in one way or another (E=mc^2 being the most famous expression).

Now, our current understanding of the world may be wrong, and I sincerely hope that it is so. However, hope is not the same thing as knowledge, or even a very educated guess. It sucks, but it looks like the speed of light is here to stay :-(

You are debunking future human accomplishments before they have even been attempted. It's like saying we will never set foot on Mars before even trying to build the rocket.

Not quite. It's like saying that, no matter how big of a balloon you inflate, you can never fly to the Moon with it.

This is the thing about physics that many people miss: it doesn't just tell us what's possible, it defines some boundaries, as well. The trend nowadays is to treat science as a sort of magic: discover the right formula, or the right incantation, and all things are within your grasp. Science is not magic, though. Visions alone will get you nowhere.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

According to our current understanding of physics, the speed of light is a constant. No signal may travel faster than the speed of light. This means that, when motherboards are replaced by genetically engineered quantum teleporters, they will still operate no faster than the speed of light.

That does not stop these future data transmitters (whatever form they may take) from fitting more computational value into smaller spaces. When (and if) we reach the size limit, perhaps these transmissions could be forced to overlap (as in, sending two different kinds of non-interfering signals over the same path). After exhausting that method, we probably will have mastered worm-hole technology, and will be able to bend the fabric of space at will.

And of course, all this is assuming that there is nothing out there which travels faster than light. I don't think you have even begun to consider the vast possibilities. Think beyond Silicon. There are numerous different venues through which data exchange and computation are feasible. Many of them we cannot even consider at this present point in time, as they have yet to be discovered/understood.

Hundreds of years ago they probably thought human flight was impossible. Now-a-days men are flying to the moon. Who knows what seemingly impossible feats we will be accomplishing hundreds of years from now.

Not quite. It's like saying that, no matter how big of a balloon you inflate, you can never fly to the Moon with it.

Who is to say air-ballooning to the moon is impossible? Use your imagination.

A few years ago they had a hot air balloon race around the world. Next up is the race around the solar system. Watch it happen.

This is the thing about physics that many people miss: it doesn't just tell us what's possible, it defines some boundaries, as well. The trend nowadays is to treat science as a sort of magic: discover the right formula, or the right incantation, and all things are within your grasp. Science is not magic, though. Visions alone will get you nowhere.

Another thing about physics: it's always being redefined. Some of the biggest physical discoveries have come about within the past 50 years. We used to believe light could pass through pretty much anything in open space. Then along came the black hole theory in 1967.

Who knows what will be considered "possible" many generations from now.

[Wyvern]

That does not stop these future data transmitters (whatever form they may take) from fitting more computational value into smaller spaces. When (and if) we reach the size limit, perhaps these transmissions could be forced to overlap (as in, sending two different kinds of non-interfering signals over the same path). After exhausting that method, we probably will have mastered worm-hole technology, and will be able to bend the fabric of space at will.

Very true, current computer technologies are not much different than they were forty years ago at the dawn of the computing age. The only real difference is the scales used, which is basically the fuel Moores law is based on. There is a lot of research being done in this field because it is increasingly being seen how we are butting our heads on computational power, mostly due to heat issues and efficiency. Wormhole technologies are still in the science fiction realm at this time(satellites and flight were also at one time), the Hyperion books by Simmons are a good cautionary tale about the overuse of such things.

And of course, all this is assuming that there is nothing out there which travels faster than light. I don't think you have even begun to consider the vast possibilities. Think beyond Silicon. There are numerous different venues through which data exchange and computation are feasible. Many of them we cannot even consider at this present point in time, as they have yet to be discovered/understood.

Indeed at present there is research being done with photonic, quantum, biological, and chemical computers. Those are just the ones I know about, I'm sure there's more out there. One of the nice benefits of there being more scientists alive now than in all of human history combined.

Who is to say air-ballooning to the moon is impossible? Use your imagination.

Not to deflate your balloon(pun intended) but physics makes this an impossibility, don't worry though you will at least be able to sail to the moon.

A few years ago they had a hot air balloon race around the world. Next up is the race around the solar system. Watch it happen.

I can see there being a translunar race, possibly even a race to mars but a race around the solar system would just take too long to keep peoples interest.

[QED]

And if both of these presumptions are true (which I still doubt), what is to stop us from utilizing some other form of data transmission?
Circuits and motherboards may just be a fad.

According to our current understanding of physics, the speed of light is a constant. No signal may travel faster than the speed of light. This means that, when motherboards are replaced by genetically engineered quantum teleporters, they will still operate no faster than the speed of light. Our massive human capabilities are precisely what allowed us to discover this fact, and to build our current computers and spacecraft, which are all based on this fact in one way or another (E=mc^2 being the most famous expression).

Bugmaster, do we know if this still applies to Quantum Computing? I ask because while it's fairly easy to come up with a ball park figure for peocessing density in classical switch based computing I don't know enough about QC to answer this question.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Not to deflate your balloon(pun intended) but physics makes this an impossibility

How to fly to the moon in a hot air balloon:

1. Fly a high altitude balloon to the outer reaches of Earth's atmosphere.
2. Fire the on-board rocket to break free of Earth's gravitational pull while deflating all helium in the balloon.
3. Coast to the moon using the thrust previously provided by the rocket.

Tada.

I can see there being a translunar race, possibly even a race to mars but a race around the solar system would just take too long to keep peoples interest.

Not at light speed or faster.

According to our current understanding of physics, the speed of light is a constant. No signal may travel faster than the speed of light.

Have have humans just recently achieved scientific omniscience without my knowing?

Because until this happens, your statement remains an assumption.

I say there is a force out there much faster than light. Figuring in the vastness of the universe, the mininscule portion of the universe that humans have actually explored, and the almost infinite number of things we still do not know, wouldn't you say this is a reasonable notion?

This means that, when motherboards are replaced by genetically engineered quantum teleporters, they will still operate no faster than the speed of light.

But this won't matter once we are able to cram all the components of a computer into a space the size of an electron.

[Bugmaster]

don't worry though you will at least be able to sail to the moon.

Hm, I don't know, will he ? What would he use for a keel ? AFAIK, solar sails only allow you to sail away from the Sun. I suppose you could use some sort of an ion drive (or ye olde chemical rocket) to provide a force that counteracts "lateral" motion (just as the keel of a regular sailing boat does), but that would kinda be cheating.