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.

[Bugmaster]

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.

As far as I know, it still does, but I don't think I'd be able to write out the formulae for it -- which means that I don't really know anything :-( I think the basic idea is that you cannot retrieve any information out of quantum entanglement faster than the speed of light:

Observations on entangled states naively appear to conflict with the property of Einsteinian relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This occurs for two subtle reasons: (i) quantum mechanical measurements yield probabilistic results, and (ii) the no cloning theorem forbids the statistical inspection of entangled quantum states.

Although no information can be transmitted through entanglement alone, it is possible to transmit information using a set of entangled states used in conjunction with a classical information channel. This process is known as quantum teleportation. Despite its name, quantum teleportation cannot be used to transmit information faster than light, because a classical information channel is involved.

[Bugmaster]

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...

Um, ok, so you should really say, "how to fly to the Moon using a rocket, saving some fuel along the way".

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?

No, which is why I said, "according to our current understanding of physics". True, the entirety of our physics is only probably true, but it's far from an "assumption". It's a set of scientific theories.

For example, this computer you're typing things on is partially based on the "assumption" that the speed of light is a constant. So are GPS satellites, laser "gyroscopes", and, well, pretty much most of modern technology, really. E=mc^2 could still be wrong, but it's not very likely.

This is the bummer about physics (and this is what makes it different from religion and magic and wishful thinking): it doesn't just tell us what's possible, it also tells us what's not.

I say there is a force out there much faster than light.

The speed of light is not a force. It's a... well... speed.

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?

I'd say it's a logically possible notion, but not a very likely one. The speed of light being constant is what allows us to explore the Universe to begin with; Doppler shifts, gravitational lensing, and other astronomical phenomena are fairly well understood.

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.

That's an interesting point, actually. How would you cram that much into such a little space, without violating the Uncertainty Principle ? In fact, I'd argue that electrons are good candidates for bits, seeing as they can have two possible states (as indicated by their spin), which you can map to 0 and 1. I don't see how you could use anything smaller to store information.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Um, ok, so you should really say, "how to fly to the Moon using a rocket, saving some fuel along the way".

Then lock the balloon in an enclosed atmospheric simulator upon entering open space, if you like.

Just don't tell me it's impossible. I operate under the summation that there are no limits to technological advancement (a claim that has yet to be disproven).

No, which is why I said, "according to our current understanding of physics". True, the entirety of our physics is only probably true, but it's far from an "assumption". It's a set of scientific theories.

Any observation of reality is an assumption, so long as our perception remains subjective.

The light speed barrier is an assumption because we must assume that there is no faster type of wave hiding out somewhere in the far reaches of the cosmos. It could either be right here amoungst us, indetectable by any of our five senses, or serve as a component of some far away galaxy/galactical body.

You also must assume that there is no way around light speed. In a few weeks my family and I will conduct a long and arduous trip to the beach traveling at an average speed of 65 mph. In hundreds of years our descendants may travel to the same spot in 0 seconds flat, thanks to advanced worm hole technology.

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?

I'd say it's a logically possible notion, but not a very likely one.

Not very likely? What do you base that on?

No one ever seems to bargain very hard on major scientific revolutions. But guess what- they still happen.

Ever since Galileo's experiments with falling objects, it has become a commonplace in science to test even the most obvious of principles. Someday we will do just this with light speed, and discover a major folly in our summations. Watch it happen.

Humans have always fell under the guise that they have such an accurate perception of reality; that their discoveries will hold strong till the end of time. Go back and tell the Romans that Apollo does not fly the sun across the sky on a golden chariot. They would place you in an insane ward.

I bet future generations will be laughing at us some day, just as we laugh at the Romans.

[Bugmaster]

Then lock the balloon in an enclosed atmospheric simulator upon entering open space, if you like.

What would be the point ? You've already agreed, pretty much, that traveling to the Moon in a balloon is impossible. Rockets, yes, balloons, no. In fact, science tells us why this is impossible: balloons float by displacing air (which is heavier than balloons), and there's no air in space.

I operate under the summation that there are no limits to technological advancement (a claim that has yet to be disproven). ...
Any observation of reality is an assumption, so long as our perception remains subjective. ... No one ever seems to bargain very hard on major scientific revolutions. But guess what- they still happen.

Right; so, essentially, you're telling me to "just have faith" in sicence. Well, I don't have faith in any of the other religions; why should I have faith in yours ? If you treat science as a religion, without embracing its precepts -- such as evidence, experimentation, and, naturally, math -- then you're really worshipping a mini-god of your own creation, not doing science.

The light speed barrier is an assumption because we must assume that there is no faster type of wave hiding out somewhere in the far reaches of the cosmos....

No, this is actually false.

It could either be right here amoungst us, indetectable by any of our five senses, or serve as a component of some far away galaxy/galactical body.

So could goblins, ghosts, and Zeus. I don't believe in any of them, either.

In hundreds of years our descendants may travel to the same spot in 0 seconds flat, thanks to advanced worm hole technology.

That would be nice; except that the energy needed to create a wormhole would require you to burn out a sizable chunk of suns in our galaxy. And of course, it's unclear that wormholes are possible in the first place (unlike black holes).

I bet future generations will be laughing at us some day, just as we laugh at the Romans.

I don't laugh at the Romans; they didn't really do much science, they were more about conquest. I do have highest respect for the ancient Greeks, however, who measured the diameter of the Earth armed with nothing but a stick and a shovel (or whatever implement they used to dig holes back then). That was science, not just random speculation.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Rockets, yes, balloons, no. In fact, science tells us why this is impossible: balloons float by displacing air (which is heavier than balloons), and there's no air in space.

And with no air in space, there is no drag to hinder a flying object. Consequently, the balloon would not need air displacement to supply it's necessary lift and thrust once entering open space. The speed it achieves upon exiting the atmosphere would remain constant until reaching the moon (or beyond, if desired). In this regard, there would even be no need for the atmospheric simulator I proposed.

I can come up with scenarios all day. This little side discussion is only limited by your patience.

By the way...

What would be the point ?

To show that virtually anything is possible with the proper technological means.

Right; so, essentially, you're telling me to "just have faith" in sicence. Well, I don't have faith in any of the other religions; why should I have faith in yours ? If you treat science as a religion, without embracing its precepts -- such as evidence, experimentation, and, naturally, math -- then you're really worshipping a mini-god of your own creation, not doing science.

No faith required. I have examined the evidence, experientation, and math, and have concluded that no current knowledge invalidates our theorized ascension to Singularity.

The light speed barrier is an assumption because we must assume that there is no faster type of wave hiding out somewhere in the far reaches of the cosmos....

No, this is actually false.

No, any statement of reality we make is an assumption. By definition.

Until we know everything, we know nothing for sure.

Besides, how does anything you referred me to debunk the concept of a speed faster than light?

Hypothetically, there could exist a wave faster than electromagnetic radiation, one that bypasses each of our five senses, rendering us inable to test it's properties against any reference frame.

Do you really think sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch are capable of percieving all universal phenomena? We all ready know they are not; many animals possess six senses. Burgeoning technology can unlock such new dimensions (as it has done before), and bring to light unknown phenomena potentially key to future attempts at beefing up computing capability.

So could goblins, ghosts, and Zeus. I don't believe in any of them, either.

I'm not asking you to believe in anything. Merely to accept the plausibility.

That would be nice; except that the energy needed to create a wormhole would require you to burn out a sizable chunk of suns in our galaxy.

And you can't see any feasible ways around this (even if they are currently technological impossibilities)? Do you possess no power of imagination?

And of course, it's unclear that wormholes are possible in the first place (unlike black holes).

What's this? Physics getting in our way again?

Tell me, what ever lead you to believe the laws of physics are immutable? Or even halfway understood in their present form? Do Galileo's experiments not speak for themselves?

I don't laugh at the Romans; they didn't really do much science, they were more about conquest. I do have highest respect for the ancient Greeks, however, who measured the diameter of the Earth armed with nothing but a stick and a shovel (or whatever implement they used to dig holes back then). That was science, not just random speculation.

But they also believed in sun gods and nymphs, therefore are deserving of a hearty mocking.

In the same way, I fully endow future generations to laugh at my generation's ignorance, especially as they find loopholes within our treasured laws of physics, or upturn them all together.

Look back at history. Tell me, how many of those past generation's discoveries remain intact to this day? Look at the scientific limitations they envisioned. How many have we all ready surpassed? Do you think the Greeks ever thought humans in 2006 would be cloning sheep and flying automated robots to Mars?

You place too much faith in our current knowledge. I believe we have a lot left to learn, and am not setting any insurmountable limits until I witness the true extent of human capability.

[Wyvern]

And with no air in space, there is no drag to hinder a flying object. Consequently, the balloon would not need air displacement to supply it's necessary lift and thrust once entering open space. The speed it achieves upon exiting the atmosphere would remain constant until reaching the moon (or beyond, if desired). In this regard, there would even be no need for the atmospheric simulator I proposed.

With no air a balloon would no longer have any lift, balloons and the like are lighter than air craft which means the lift that airplanes get from a pressure differential on either side of its wings balloons get from simply being filled with something less dense(these days it's helium usually) than the surrounding medium(air). To enter earth orbit you need to be able to achieve escape velocity otherwise you will fall back to earth rather quickly which is why generally rockets are used to get there, they are relatively cheap and they do the job. If you ignore gravity your idea is fine.

The light speed barrier is an assumption because we must assume that there is no faster type of wave hiding out somewhere in the far reaches of the cosmos....

I forgot where I read it but There was an experiment done that actually was able to make light go faster than light, but of course it was done with mirrors though.

Until we know everything, we know nothing for sure.

With what we do know we can make pretty good guesses on probabilities though.

Besides, how does anything you referred me to debunk the concept of a speed faster than light?

In the normal universe there is nothing currently theorized faster than light, however if you can get up to relativistic speeds from the frame of the person going those speeds they will be going faster than the speed of light since time starts to slow down so in another way they are also one way time travelers.

Hypothetically, there could exist a wave faster than electromagnetic radiation, one that bypasses each of our five senses, rendering us inable to test it's properties against any reference frame.

Most of the universe our senses can't perceive already, but their existance was theorized and experiments were devised to prove their existance and later sensors were created so we could "see" them. If such a wave exists it will take someone to find a place for its existence within the known universe and that's the big thing, enough is known now that the only blank area are the extremely large or small or when both coincide, black holes being an example of this.

Do you really think sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch are capable of percieving all universal phenomena? We all ready know they are not; many animals possess six senses. Burgeoning technology can unlock such new dimensions (as it has done before), and bring to light unknown phenomena potentially key to future attempts at beefing up computing capability.

Most of the experimentation being done in physics is about things that cannot be percievedby your senses, which is why we have huge particle colliders to detect quarks and short lived subatomic particles, and in a number of deep mines around the world there are pools set up to be neutrino detectors, billions of which are cascading through you as you read this. The universe is strange enough, and it seems to get stranger the more we find out about it.

That would be nice; except that the energy needed to create a wormhole would require you to burn out a sizable chunk of suns in our galaxy.

And you can't see any feasible ways around this (even if they are currently technological impossibilities)? Do you possess no power of imagination?

That's the thing, wormholes and even Star Trek style warp drives are theoretically possible however the energy requirements are too great to make them workable. Even using nuclear weapons as fuel for a starship while easy to do is illegal due to international treaty.

And of course, it's unclear that wormholes are possible in the first place (unlike black holes).

What's this? Physics getting in our way again?

We won't even get into the difficulties of making anything that could stand the stresses and extreme radiation such bodies create.

[Bugmaster]

I think you misunderstand what the speed of light is. It is not merely the case that light is the fastest object in the Universe. Instead, it is the case that light is the fastest object that can possibly exist in the Universe, of our current physics is correct.

Of course, it's always possible that our current physics is incorrect, but just like many other things it's possible, but not likely. The difference between science and faith is that science looks at evidence, and makes conclusions based on that; faith just relies on hopes and feelings and the unshakable belief in your chosen deity, be it Jesus, or the Earth Mother, or the human imagination.

The fact that you place scientific statements, such as "E=mc^2", in the same category as assumptions, such as "I think there are goblins living on Saturn !", shows me that you don't really understand how the scientific method works. You see science as a very strong magic, not as a structured methodology.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

With no air a balloon would no longer have any lift, balloons and the like are lighter than air craft which means the lift that airplanes get from a pressure differential on either side of its wings balloons get from simply being filled with something less dense(these days it's helium usually) than the surrounding medium(air). To enter earth orbit you need to be able to achieve escape velocity otherwise you will fall back to earth rather quickly which is why generally rockets are used to get there, they are relatively cheap and they do the job. If you ignore gravity your idea is fine.

Then strap a rocket to the balloon.

Is this really so hard to imagine?

That's the thing, wormholes and even Star Trek style warp drives are theoretically possible however the energy requirements are too great to make them workable. Even using nuclear weapons as fuel for a starship while easy to do is illegal due to international treaty.

We won't even get into the difficulties of making anything that could stand the stresses and extreme radiation such bodies create.

For some reason, I am still being told that such things are currently impossible to attain. What do I need to do to make my point clear?

Thus far, we have seen that human scientific capabilities increase expoentially over time. Fact.

Assuming this trend holds true, we may likewise assume that the things we cannot do now (including many of those discussed here) will be possible in the future.

I am not saying that the light barrier is ready to be broken. I'm saying there is a reasonable possibility that it may be broken in the distant future.

Of course, it's always possible that our current physics is incorrect, but just like many other things, it's possible, but not likely.

Ask a Roman living in 100 BC if he think's it's possible that the Roman Empire will ever crumble. "Possible, but not likely".

I take great issue with you espousing the supposed minimal probability of our current physics being wrong. What do you base this on? Is there anything you could base it on?

I say it is very likely that our current principles will be overturned in comming generations. How much authority do I have in this matter? Why, the same amount as you: absolutely none. We are both completely ignorant of what the future holds.

For example;

I think you misunderstand what the speed of light is. It is not merely the case that light is the fastest object in the Universe. Instead, it is the case that light is the fastest object that can possibly exist in the Universe, of our current physics is correct.

What special information do physicists have that makes this light barrier principle anything more than mere speculation?

Have they managed to measure the speed of every single entity in the universe?

Of course not. Light is merely the fastest speed we know of. To say that it is the fastest speed possible does not even qualify as a hypothesis; it is a complete guess. Sure, it is our best guess with the given information, but to paint it as hard fact as you intend is completely ungarnered.

The fact that you place scientific statements, such as "E=mc^2", in the same category as assumptions, such as "I think there are goblins living on Saturn !", shows me that you don't really understand how the scientific method works. You see science as a very strong magic, not as a structured methodology.

"E=mc^2" is a viable scientific deduction (yet will remain an assumption until we have sufficient knowledge of the universe).

"I think there are goblins living on Saturn" has absolutely no supportive evidence, yet still cannot be completely ruled out on the same grounds as stated above.

Science may be a structured methodolgy, but that does not mean we cannot theorize it beyond it's current thresholds, or speculate as to where it will take us. This is all I have been doing all along.

A few years ago National Geographic funded a study on what sort's of technology would be required to enable an alien race to travel to Earth. Their speculations included theoretical technologies far beyond our current capabilities, yet no one chased them out of the scientific community. Speculating upon the impossible (such as creating infinite computational power) is not logically irresponsible, it is all part of the discovery process, and may help us develop strategies towards reaching these distant goals.

I believe technology holds the key to eliminating human strife. Through enhanced communication and travel capabilities (coupled with the trend of globalization), all human cultures will slowly melt into one, and eventually establish a united global state. Through advancments in industry and agriculture related technologies, all regions of Earth will leave Third World status, and poverty will be abolished. Through greater medicine and health care, we will make sickness and pain a thing of the past.

It is all within our capabilities. The only thing that can hold us back is doubt and pessimism (such as yours).

[Wyvern]

Then strap a rocket to the balloon.

Jesus Christ, is this really so hard to imagine?

All that would do is turn it into a rocket and you are no longer in a balloon

For some reason, I am still being told that such things are currently impossible to attain. What do I need to do to make my point clear?

Thats the point some of these things are actually possible to do right now, but like with warp drives to make even a small jaunt with it you would have to convert all of the matter in the universe to energy to get enough power to do it. Even Star Trek transporters are possible, the only change is that to do it you would need a recieving station to recombine the transmission.

Thus far, we have seen that human scientific capabilities increase expoentially over time. Fact.

It has also been seen that there have been long stretches of history that have been scientificaly stagnant and at times went in reverse.

Of course not. Light is merely the fastest speed we know of. To say that it is the fastest speed possible does not even qualify as a hypothesis; it is a complete guess. Sure, it is our best guess with the given information, but to paint it as hard fact as you intend is completely ungarnered.

No, it is not a guess if our current theories are accurate( and many experiments have been done that shows that they are)then indeed the universe does in fact have a speed limit, which is why there is so much interest in finding some kind of work around to this problem.

"E=mc^2" is a viable scientific deduction (yet will remain an assumption until we have sufficient knowledge of the universe).

A nuclear detonation is a rather inelegant bit of proof that E=mc^2 is true.

"I think there are goblins living on Saturn" has absolutely no supportive evidence, yet still cannot be completely ruled out on the same grounds as stated above.

Not even fifty years ago people would have called you mad for saying such a thing, now we aren't so sure

A few years ago National Geographic funded a study on what sort's of technology would be required to enable an alien race to travel to Earth. Their speculations included theoretical technologies far beyond our current capabilities, yet no one chased them out of the scientific community. Speculating upon the impossible (such as creating infinite computational power) is not logically irresponsible, it is all part of the discovery process, and may help us develop strategies towards reaching these distant goals.

Absolutely, after all Galileo postulated helicopters and planes hundreds of years before they actually came about.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

All that would do is turn it into a rocket and you are no longer in a balloon

No, it's a rocket balloon. Blimps have propellers. Why can't balloons have rockets? In fact, this may actually be a more effecient form of space travel. The rocket won't have to expend all it's energy reaching the upper atmosphere, leaving the craft (or balloon, in this case) more feul to build up speed once exiting the confines of the atmosphere.


But if you don't like that idea, we can always go back to my enclosed atmospheric simulator.

It has also been seen that there have been long stretches of history that have been scientificaly stagnant and at times went in reverse.

Right. Except the last one ended approximately 1000 years ago.

Now political/economic systems are properly wired for scientific achievment. We're globalized!

A nuclear detonation is a rather inelegant bit of proof that E=mc^2 is true.

But can you objectively prove that there has ever been a nuclear explosion? No. Human perception is entirely subjective.

However, I am not arguing against the theory of relativety. I argue that it is probably not the only factor at play.




I have my own theory of "Singularity". I shall post it momentarily.