Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So is predicting the exact course of complex technological developments: what will be practical and won't, how compatible will they be with other developments, etc.
Here's another thing to consider: There might simply be a practical limit for how small functional computers can actually be. Yes, the processing capabilities and decreasing size of computers has progressed at a stable rate. But that in and of itself does not necessarily mean this trend is infinite. At some point a minimal size limit might be reach in order for computers to function. If there is a size limit, what will it be? No one knows, but much like the fact there's a minimal size for functional internal combustion engines, it seems reasonable that there's a corresponding limit for computers.
I understand the theory and logic underlying singulartarian thinking. However, even at their best, theories are elaborate, but incomplete representations of the real world. The real world is far more complex for even the very best theory to be a perfect representation. Consequently, the future rarely transpires exactly as predicted even according to theories with the best, most accurate track record.
Think about the theory of evolution, which I'm about 95% convinced is generally true. I understand that some exact details might be somewhat inaccurate, but there's overwhelming evidence that it's general principle are consistent with objective observations.
However, can evolution precisely predict what life will look like 500, 100, or even 50 years from now? Maybe, but I would be very cautious to accept such predictions because we have no way of knowing the unforseen variables that will effect how life develops.
True, more people were predicting we'd have personal jet-packs than anything like smart-phones, but that's exactly my point! Long-term predictions are very, very seldom realized. There are just too many unforseen variables that no one (or almost no one) can accurately understand.
It's entirely possible you might wind up being right. But for you to be so confident in your predictions seems arrogant to me. In "The Signal and the Noise", Silver makes and interesting observation: Generally, those who are less confident about their predictions are more accurate than those who are highly confident. This is because those who are less confident have a more thorough understanding of how complex the world actually is, and understand how are imperfect even the most accurate information is. Conversely, those who are highly confident tend to make emotionally-based predictions; that is, they have an emotional interest in the outcome. To some extent this true for most persons: however, less-confident predictors seem better able to overcome personal bias.
Now, can you honestly say you don't fall more into the latter camp?
Only when it comes to information technology.
One question. How do you explain the fact computers have progressed on the same exponential rate for 110 years yet you think its suddenly going to stop in the next 16?
BTW did you get a chance to look at the video I posted on nanotechnology? I know its long but I was wondering what you opinion of it was as he addresses a lot of your concerns in ways I can not.
World's smallest ARM chip is the size of a grain of sand: made to be swallowed
Mobile computing is going to tinier and tinier scales, but you haven’t seen a chip this small. Freescale has made the world’s smallest ARM-based chip, the Kinetis KL02, measuring a mind-bogglingly tiny 1.9mm by 2.2mm.
It is a full microcontroller unit and that basically means it has a processor with RAM, ROM clock and I/O control units, making it a full-fledged computer.
It might not be the most powerful computer you’ve seen with a 48MHz 32-bit processor, 4KB of RAM and 32KB of internal storage, but you should look at this from another angle - this super tiny chip is supposed to be swallowed and be inside your body.
“We are working with our customers and partners on providing technology for their products that can be swallowed but we can’t really comment on unannounced products,” says Steve Tateosian, global product marketing manager for Freescale.
And the implications for medicine (including preventive medicine) could be just huge. The KL02 costs only 75 cents apiece which means that it is one of the first harbingers of the Internet of Things.
It could be not just in medications - at that price in the future it could be in our shoes tracking our daily steps, in pipes telling when there is leakage.. everywhere.
One question. How do you explain the fact computers have progressed on the same exponential rate for 110 years yet you think its suddenly going to stop in the next 16?
BTW did you get a chance to look at the video I posted on nanotechnology? I know its long but I was wondering what you opinion of it was as he addresses a lot of your concerns in ways I can not.
I don't know if this rate will or will not be maintained and neither do you. Nor does anyone else. I previously used internal combustion engines, not I'll extend that analogy to automobiles in general:
I'm not an expert on the history of cars, but do know a few things. When cars were first developed they were extremely expensive and inefficient. The very first models only had top speeds of about 20-30mph, and even the first commercial model had a top speed of about 45mph. While automotive technology has certainly progressed over the last century, in the last 20 years the advances have been less than stratospheric. Why? Because there are simply physical limits of how fast cars can go? 25 years ago the fastest commercially available car had a top speed of about 240mph; currently, the fastest car has a top speed of 270. While an increase of 30mph is certainly significant, it isn't exactly stratospheric over the course of 25 years.
And yes, I know that cars are not exactly analogous to computers, but one of the ways we can ascertain the potential limits of any given technology is consider the limits of preceeding technologies. Seemingly, every technology eventually becomes mature to the point that advances become incremental. Will IT eventually prove to be the exception? Possibly, but assuming it will is contrary to historical trends.
I didn't have time to watch the entire video, but will try to to later. From what I did watch, it still seems largely presumptuous. That is, they pressume that all these potential barriers and limitations of nanotechnology will be overcome, or eventually prove irrelevant. They still don't seem to be addressing my fundamental skepticism: It seems unlikely to forsee any and every potential complicating factor that can and likely will effect the development of this and other technologies.
Also, to me it's clear they're singulartarians rather than objective, analytical scientists. As such, they're also salespersons. While there are excpetions, generraly it's unwise to trust a salesperson to present a fair, objective analysis of the product or service they're selling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
That is a great story and another example how computers are getting smaller. Thanks for posting it.
Really? After reading that story, my first thought was, 'I have no idea, specifically, how this technology will eventually lead to the other things described.' How does this in and of itself foretell the other developments like technology that will brush your teeth for you? And even if this were possible, is it really a good idea? Wouldn't it just make us even lazier than we already are?
Sorry, that's yet another story based on unfounded, entirely theortical presumptions.
Last edited by Apathizer; 04-02-2014 at 10:46 AM..
I don't know if this rate will or will not be maintained and neither do you. Nor does anyone else. I previously used internal combustion engines, not I'll extend that analogy to automobiles in general:
I'm not an expert on the history of cars, but do know a few things. When cars were first developed they were extremely expensive and inefficient. The very first models only had top speeds of about 20-30mph, and even the first commercial model had a top speed of about 45mph. While automotive technology has certainly progressed over the last century, in the last 20 years the advances have been less than stratospheric. Why? Because there are simply physical limits of how fast cars can go? 25 years ago the fastest commercially available car had a top speed of about 240mph; currently, the fastest car has a top speed of 270. While an increase of 30mph is certainly significant, it isn't exactly stratospheric over the course of 25 years.
And yes, I know that cars are not exactly analogous to computers, but one of the ways we can ascertain the potential limits of any given technology is consider the limits of preceeding technologies. Seemingly, every technology eventually becomes mature to the point that advances become incremental. Will IT eventually prove to be the exception? Possibly, but assuming it will is contrary to historical trends.
Apples to oranges as combustible engines are not a form of information technology thus can not be predicted and that is why they did not advance exponentially. I would never make a prediction for them and not listen to anyone who did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apathizer
I didn't have time to watch the entire video, but will try to to later. From what I did watch, it still seems largely presumptuous. That is, they pressume that all these potential barriers and limitations of nanotechnology will be overcome, or eventually prove irrelevant. They still don't seem to be addressing my fundamental skepticism: It seems unlikely to forsee any and every potential factor that can and likely will complicate the development of this, and other singularity-related technologies.
Also, to me it's clear they're singulartarians rather than objective, analytical scientists. As such, they're also salespersons. While there are excpetions, generraly it's unwise to trust a salesperson to present a fair, objective analysis of the product or service they're selling.
Really, after reading that story, my first thought was, 'I still have absolutely no idea, specifically, what it would be used for'. How does this in and of itself foretell the other developments like technology that will brush your teeth for you? And even if this were possible, is it really a good idea? Wouldn't it just make us even lazier than we already are?
Sorry, that's yet another story based on unfounded, entirely theortical presumptions.
To me I find it interesting that some people get how information technology advances and the impact it has on society and others do not. When I was a kid in the 80's I would hear how we would not get as far as we have today and they all had their reasons much like what people say today about 2030. Back then I had no idea so I went with it thinking maybe they are right yet they were not and today I have enough knowledge to say it will happen by 2030, some of the impact it will have on society and why.
One more thing is you say what will be be used for? The truth is we don't know the full impact just like in the 1980's no one knew the full impact of smart phones would have on society today. We know some things but it will be interesting to see how society changes as we begin to merge with the technology in the 2020's.
Apples to oranges as combustible engines are not a form of information technology thus can not be predicted and that is why they did not advance exponentially. I would never make a prediction for them and not listen to anyone who did.
No, but remember the sage addage: History repeats itself, but never exactly. Despite your certainty, we have no way of knowing for certain what the future holds. The predictions of the singularity might be prove correct, but we won't know for certain until 2030 (or when ever).
Apples to oranges as combustible engines are not a form of information technology thus can not be predicted and that is why they did not advance exponentially. I would never make a prediction for them and not listen to anyone who did.
The only reason you see it as apples to oranges is because you're solely fixated on what you're calling information technology. If one is to take the apples to oranges view as you describe, then the same thing would apply to agriculture and combustible engines because they aren't the same because agriculture is only about growing plants. However, combustible engines are major tools to modern agriculture, so there is a relationship between the two. Apples to oranges is just a smokescreen to skirt around and avoid the objection.
Your argument here, and has been through much of this thread, is the exponential advances of information technology, or to be more to the point, computer technology. You try to use the example that computers are getting faster and smaller as if that somehow is the smoking gun to validate your view. While advances have been impressively rapid, there there are reasons that such exponential growth by necessity has to reach a limit at some point. It cannot advance forever.
The exponential advance of computers in terms of speed and size continuing indefinitely that it would never reach a limit of growth and/or speed, is not likely. If it could do that, that computers would keep getting both smaller and faster, then indeed a singularity could rightfully be considered as the ultimate direction, an infinite direction. However infinity is unreachable. In other word, you can never get to a singularity point because there is none. Regardless, if that were to be the case, then eventually in the near future (keeping exponential growth in mind) it would all become meaningless because it would all exceed all known physics. Computers would become so small that it would become smaller than quantum particles and smaller than Planck length. In other words, computers can only get so small and only get so fast. While quantum computers should be able to calculate numerous things all at the same time, that's potentially as far as it would likely go. It would be not further exponential growth in terms of speed (as far as we know), and the smallest size such a computer could be and still be able to continue acquiring information in the amounts you predict, would reach a limit without having to grow larger in size.
Then there is the idea that when computers become smarter than the human mind, that will essentially mark the singularity. You say there's no way of knowing what would happen then. That's not completely true because there are only so many options. Which option is anyone's guess though. Still, computers would either continuing more information or it would reach a point where no further information is available and that would be the end of it. That would also be the end of the exponential growth of information technology. The speed of some of the fastest supercomputers is already pushing the limits of how fast it can go. To go faster, we'd probably need to jump to quantum computers.
Although we're not at any point of developing handheld quantum computers, there has been some progress in the development of such computers. The problem however is that in order to keep particles from flying off in all directions, it requires extremely cold temperatures, and that means refrigeration. I'm not sure, but it might also require magnetic fields. Think of what it takes to keep particles on track at the LHC. We're not likely to be seeing any handheld or desktop computers for a very long time, if ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
To me I find it interesting that some people get how information technology advances and the impact it has on society and others do not. When I was a kid in the 80's I would hear how we would not get as far as we have today and they all had their reasons much like what people say today about 2030. Back then I had no idea so I went with it thinking maybe they are right yet they were not and today I have enough knowledge to say it will happen by 2030, some of the impact it will have on society and why.
One more thing is you say what will be be used for? The truth is we don't know the full impact just like in the 1980's no one knew the full impact of smart phones would have on society today. We know some things but it will be interesting to see how society changes as we begin to merge with the technology in the 2020's.
Interesting that on the one hand, above, you discount predictions for combustion engines saying its unpredictable, apples to oranges, but then toss in a prediction of what will happen by 2030. So much for the apples to oranges excuse. Remember, your saying that computers are getting faster and smaller because of exponential growth. If that's the case, then the technological singularity should make it's grand appearance in the next year or two... because of exponential growth.
I think you fail to understand that technological growth does not happen all by itself. It happens because of people and it happens because of money invested. As has been said before, things always have the potential for change. Changes may occur in a positive way as predicted, or it could stall because of unknown events, including tightening the economic belt. In other words, based on current events and any unknown events, your prediction is not iron clad. The only way it can be predicted is to assume nothing gets in the way between now and whenever. And you know what they say when we assume things.
The only reason you see it as apples to oranges is because you're solely fixated on what you're calling information technology. If one is to take the apples to oranges view as you describe, then the same thing would apply to agriculture and combustible engines because they aren't the same because agriculture is only about growing plants. However, combustible engines are major tools to modern agriculture, so there is a relationship between the two. Apples to oranges is just a smokescreen to skirt around and avoid the objection.
Your argument here, and has been through much of this thread, is the exponential advances of information technology, or to be more to the point, computer technology. You try to use the example that computers are getting faster and smaller as if that somehow is the smoking gun to validate your view. While advances have been impressively rapid, there there are reasons that such exponential growth by necessity has to reach a limit at some point. It cannot advance forever.
The exponential advance of computers in terms of speed and size continuing indefinitely that it would never reach a limit of growth and/or speed, is not likely. If it could do that, that computers would keep getting both smaller and faster, then indeed a singularity could rightfully be considered as the ultimate direction, an infinite direction. However infinity is unreachable. In other word, you can never get to a singularity point because there is none. Regardless, if that were to be the case, then eventually in the near future (keeping exponential growth in mind) it would all become meaningless because it would all exceed all known physics. Computers would become so small that it would become smaller than quantum particles and smaller than Planck length. In other words, computers can only get so small and only get so fast. While quantum computers should be able to calculate numerous things all at the same time, that's potentially as far as it would likely go. It would be not further exponential growth in terms of speed (as far as we know), and the smallest size such a computer could be and still be able to continue acquiring information in the amounts you predict, would reach a limit without having to grow larger in size.
Then there is the idea that when computers become smarter than the human mind, that will essentially mark the singularity. You say there's no way of knowing what would happen then. That's not completely true because there are only so many options. Which option is anyone's guess though. Still, computers would either continuing more information or it would reach a point where no further information is available and that would be the end of it. That would also be the end of the exponential growth of information technology. The speed of some of the fastest supercomputers is already pushing the limits of how fast it can go. To go faster, we'd probably need to jump to quantum computers.
Although we're not at any point of developing handheld quantum computers, there has been some progress in the development of such computers. The problem however is that in order to keep particles from flying off in all directions, it requires extremely cold temperatures, and that means refrigeration. I'm not sure, but it might also require magnetic fields. Think of what it takes to keep particles on track at the LHC. We're not likely to be seeing any handheld or desktop computers for a very long time, if ever.
After 2045 all the models break down so its impossible to know what will happen after that. Will computers continue to advance exponentially indefinitely or will they eventually slow down? That is a good question and I have seen a few different theories on what could happen but the reality is no one really knows for sure. However if there is a limit to technology we are no where near that limit and do not have to worry about hitting it before 2045.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Interesting that on the one hand, above, you discount predictions for combustion engines saying its unpredictable, apples to oranges, but then toss in a prediction of what will happen by 2030. So much for the apples to oranges excuse. Remember, your saying that computers are getting faster and smaller because of exponential growth. If that's the case, then the technological singularity should make it's grand appearance in the next year or two... because of exponential growth.
I think you fail to understand that technological growth does not happen all by itself. It happens because of people and it happens because of money invested. As has been said before, things always have the potential for change. Changes may occur in a positive way as predicted, or it could stall because of unknown events, including tightening the economic belt. In other words, based on current events and any unknown events, your prediction is not iron clad. The only way it can be predicted is to assume nothing gets in the way between now and whenever. And you know what they say when we assume things.
I posted I will not make predictions about combustible engines themselves because they are not a form of information technology thus unpredictable. Computers are a form of information technology thus predictable. Why I talk about the singularity by at 2030.
I have studied this topic for hundreds of hours and while I know some people do not like that i am so certain of my prediction (well people's predictions I have read) that is ok as this is a hard topic to fully grasp. We are not meant to think things can advance exponentially for a long periods of time as most do not but information technology is different and it takes a completely different mindset then we are use to. That is why we have smart phones today when people in the 80's said it was not possible and why we will merge with computers by 2030 when people today say its impossible.
Its a sign because computers keep getting smaller and faster. The next step is merging with them.
Even if that's the next stage, we have no way of knowing when it will happen. Though like the other member has mentioned some already have implants to treat certain diseases. Even the brain implants that will be implanted in volunteer patients in 2015 won't be commercially available until 2025 (end of study) and all the implant will do is stimulate nerve cells electrically to help those with Alzheimer's remember more things. That is hardly a cyborg or super enchancement as you're making it seem (all those implants seem to do is treat diseases nothing more).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
