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.
That brings up a good point. Just because we know where computers will be by 2020 we do not know who will be doing it. Will it be Apple or IBM or another company? That is something that no one can forecast.....
Or no-one at all...
I see you don't follow just how many patent infringement or copyright infringement lawsuits are filed nor did you read the article I posted, let me post a part of it so you can understand what I'm saying:
So it may come as a surprise that some in Silicon Valley think the place is stagnant, and that the rate of innovation has been slackening for decades. Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal, an internet payment company, and the first outside investor in Facebook, a social network, says that innovation in America is “somewhere between dire straits and dead”. Engineers in all sorts of areas share similar feelings of disappointment. And a small but growing group of economists reckon the economic impact of the innovations of today may pale in comparison with those of the past.
The dumbing down of America has been well documented over the last few decades not to mention western societies and their ideals will be surpassed in the coming years by eastern ones...
Does your singularity concept take those into account?
Your singularity concept is based on everything progressing and accelerating based on past performance. Unfortunately we are seeing the exact opposite occurring.
I see you don't follow just how many patent infringement or copyright infringement lawsuits are filed nor did you read the article I posted, let me post a part of it so you can understand what I'm saying:
So it may come as a surprise that some in Silicon Valley think the place is stagnant, and that the rate of innovation has been slackening for decades. Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal, an internet payment company, and the first outside investor in Facebook, a social network, says that innovation in America is “somewhere between dire straits and dead”. Engineers in all sorts of areas share similar feelings of disappointment. And a small but growing group of economists reckon the economic impact of the innovations of today may pale in comparison with those of the past.
The dumbing down of America has been well documented over the last few decades not to mention western societies and their ideals will be surpassed in the coming years by eastern ones...
Does your singularity concept take those into account?
Your singularity concept is based on everything progressing and accelerating based on past performance. Unfortunately we are seeing the exact opposite occurring.
I have heard this kind of talk since I was a kid and to be blunt its all nonsense. Let me do a quick fact check:
I was born in 1973, 40 years ago. There has been more advancement in the past 40 years then all of recorded human history up until 1973. Not only that but in the next 20 years we will again see more advancement then all of human history up until now.
Some people try to claim that people are less intelligent today. The fact is the exact opposite. Thanks to computers and smart phones connected to the internet people are vastly more intelligent today then they were in the 1960's. Even people in Africa have smart phones and everyone who has a smart phone has more access to mobile knowledge than President Clinton did when he was in office. So back then people had to spend hours researching things in the library today we can do it in a matter of minutes with a smart phone or computer. That makes us more intelligent.
The singularity is basically when man merges with computers enough to where it changes society. That will happen by 2030.
Watch this from Ted Talks as Dr. Peter Diamandis goes into more detail on why there is so much negativity in the media today:
Last edited by Josseppie; 11-04-2013 at 10:55 AM..
Once we reach 2022, give or take a few years as I read it could be as long as the late 2020's, integrated circuits will get to the point that we can no longer make then any smaller and that will again be the end of the current paradigm and we will move to the next paradigm, 3D self organizing molecular structures, and computers will continue to advance exponentially as they have since 1890.
Patently false. "3D self organizing molecular structures" cannot overcome the laws of physics. There are serious thermodynamical reasons and inherent quantum effects we have no control over which will be the death knell to Moore's Law and exponential growth. The only realistic way I could possibly see this trend continuing beyond IC's is to go beyond electronics i.e spintronics but even that presents it's own issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
I don't think you understand how much power computers have. By 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's.
Again, you are extrapolating an exponential curve much too far into the future, which is rookie mistake # 1 when it comes to science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
The implications of that are mind boggling. Two things for certain is 1) they will have the ability to enhance our immune system effectively ending all disease for people who have them and 2) will enhance our cognitive ability making us thousands of time more intelligent then we are today. It will happen of that I am 100% certain, not 99.9% but 100%........
You're going to have support this with some tangible evidence, because this is by far among the more extraordinary claims I've seen in this thread. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and right now there is zero evidence that an increase in processing power could cure disease and increase cognition when science has a very, very primitive understanding of both at this time. Unless you're confusing processing power with AI, your claims have zero credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
Not at all as they were not looking at information technology and that is the only thing we can predict with 100% certainty. In fact even today people talk about flying cars and anytime they make a prediction I tune them out as that is not information technology thus impossible to predict.
You seem to have a very poor understanding of how the scientific method works. The most successful and powerful models of reality (quantum field theory) is often only correct to 14 decimal places. There is never any such thing as a 100% prediction of nature, every prediction is never completely accurate as there will always be uncertainties associated with measurements as one other poster touched on earlier. The most we can do is make our predictions of reality consistent enough so as to be satisfactory. Last I recall, "information technology" is not a fundamental law of nature. It's a buzzword that different people interpret differently, which is why predictions are often so vague they can be found to be consistent with any events or breakthroughs that occur.
That makes it 100% predictable because nothing will change how fast computers advance and the principal is for everything that is information based.
No, it is not 100% predictable. As I've said before, it assumes that nothing would occur that could slow or delay such progress. However, it is still possible that unforeseen events could potentially cause a problem.
Examples:
- A perfect storm solar flare or coronal mass ejection. It wasn't a big problem in 1859, but it could fry out electronic systems crippling power supply, communication systems, etc., that much of the world depends on today. It could happen any time or not again for a long time. It's unknown. Solar storm of 1859 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Increased energy demands and dwindling natural resources resulting in a change of priorities and policies. While resources won't likely be exhausted in the near future, policies could change if it's thought that to do nothing could mean extreme and avoidable hardship for future generations.
- Large scale economic collapse. It might not stop the advancement of technology, but it could potentially slow it down.
- Collision of a large enough comet or asteroid. There isn't anything currently known that could pose such a threat any time soon, but it can't be completely ruled out either.
The point is that there are potential events that could happen, meaning that any prediction about the future is never truly 100% because there is always the possibility of unforeseen events. That doesn't mean predictions about the future always turn out wrong, but it doesn't mean they always turn out right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
I hope this makes sense. Even though I can understand what the principals are enough to follow them and know why the critics are wrong since I am not a scientist myself sometimes I find it hard to articulate it. That is why I tend to post what Ray Kurzweil has said.
What makes sense is that you seem to be unable to answer a couple of questions, but unfortunately shuffle it aside as usual with your committed devotion to Ray. You say, "...I can understand what the principals are enough to follow them...", but then seem unable to say exactly what those principals are or how predictions can always be 100% perfect. How can you expect anyone to understand and agree with your views, if you can't describe what they are? What exactly is it that you understand? Giving continual heaps of gushing praises to Ray is is all very fine and commendable if you're the president of the Ray Kurzweil Fan Club. There's no question; he's a smart guy. But he's not infallible. Some of his predictions have resulted in failure, which is also worth taking into account. Ray Kurzweil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Patently false. "3D self organizing molecular structures" cannot overcome the laws of physics. There are serious thermodynamical reasons and inherent quantum effects we have no control over which will be the death knell to Moore's Law and exponential growth. The only realistic way I could possibly see this trend continuing beyond IC's is to go beyond electronics i.e spintronics but even that presents it's own issues.
Here is a scientific paper describing it. Keep in mind this was in 2010 and from what I have read and heard it will be ready for the market by 2020 well before the integrated circuit runs out of steam.
This is from EDACafe:
The features on computer chips are getting so small that soon the process used to make them, which has hardly changed in the last 50 years, won’t work anymore. One of the alternatives that academic researchers have been exploring is to create tiny circuits using molecules that automatically arrange themselves into useful patterns. In a paper that appeared Monday in Nature Nanotechnology, MIT researchers have taken an important step toward making that approach practical.
Note: I have seen articles and science programs discussing this going back as far as 2004. Also, this paper has nothing to do with Ray Kurzweil yet is exactly what he talks about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astute
Again, you are extrapolating an exponential curve much too far into the future, which is rookie mistake # 1 when it comes to science.
My last post proves that I am not as once we switch to the 3D self organizing molecular structures it will last a few decades, maybe longer no one knows now, till we go to the next paradigm. Now I do admit that all the models break down by 2045 simply because the rate of change will be to fast for current models to predict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astute
You're going to have support this with some tangible evidence, because this is by far among the more extraordinary claims I've seen in this thread. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and right now there is zero evidence that an increase in processing power could cure disease and increase cognition when science has a very, very primitive understanding of both at this time. Unless you're confusing processing power with AI, your claims have zero credibility.
Since I am not a scientist I will defer the question to someone who is. I have posted this before but he does a great job of answering what you just asked me now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astute
You seem to have a very poor understanding of how the scientific method works. The most successful and powerful models of reality (quantum field theory) is often only correct to 14 decimal places. There is never any such thing as a 100% prediction of nature, every prediction is never completely accurate as there will always be uncertainties associated with measurements as one other poster touched on earlier. The most we can do is make our predictions of reality consistent enough so as to be satisfactory. Last I recall, "information technology" is not a fundamental law of nature. It's a buzzword that different people interpret differently, which is why predictions are often so vague they can be found to be consistent with any events or breakthroughs that occur.
I don't have a problem understanding I have a problem explaining it in a scientific way because I am not a scientist myself.
While technically you are right let me use this example to explain what I mean when I say 100%.
Because of mathematical models we know exactly when the sun will set over Pueblo Colorado tonight. In fact I just did a Google search and found it to be 4:54 Pm. Now is there a chance something will happen that will cause the sun not to set at that time? Sure but its so small that when I looked up the time it did give me a percentage of the accuracy. The same is true with predicting information technology. Is there a very small chance of something causing it not to happen? Sure but its sooooooo small that its not worth talking about. So like its about a 100% chance the sun will set at 4:54 Pm tonight its about a 100% chance information technology will go the way I have read about and now post about.
Last edited by Josseppie; 11-05-2013 at 10:06 AM..
No, it is not 100% predictable. As I've said before, it assumes that nothing would occur that could slow or delay such progress. However, it is still possible that unforeseen events could potentially cause a problem.
Examples:
- A perfect storm solar flare or coronal mass ejection. It wasn't a big problem in 1859, but it could fry out electronic systems crippling power supply, communication systems, etc., that much of the world depends on today. It could happen any time or not again for a long time. It's unknown. Solar storm of 1859 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Increased energy demands and dwindling natural resources resulting in a change of priorities and policies. While resources won't likely be exhausted in the near future, policies could change if it's thought that to do nothing could mean extreme and avoidable hardship for future generations.
- Large scale economic collapse. It might not stop the advancement of technology, but it could potentially slow it down.
- Collision of a large enough comet or asteroid. There isn't anything currently known that could pose such a threat any time soon, but it can't be completely ruled out either.
The point is that there are potential events that could happen, meaning that any prediction about the future is never truly 100% because there is always the possibility of unforeseen events. That doesn't mean predictions about the future always turn out wrong, but it doesn't mean they always turn out right.
Look at the example I just used when asked the same question in the prior post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
What makes sense is that you seem to be unable to answer a couple of questions, but unfortunately shuffle it aside as usual with your committed devotion to Ray. You say, "...I can understand what the principals are enough to follow them...", but then seem unable to say exactly what those principals are or how predictions can always be 100% perfect. How can you expect anyone to understand and agree with your views, if you can't describe what they are? What exactly is it that you understand? Giving continual heaps of gushing praises to Ray is is all very fine and commendable if you're the president of the Ray Kurzweil Fan Club. There's no question; he's a smart guy. But he's not infallible. Some of his predictions have resulted in failure, which is also worth taking into account. Ray Kurzweil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I understand and that is why I do my best to explain it the best I can, however, I fully admit I am deficient in this area and can do better. Now in person when I have time to actually sit down with someone and explain for 30 minutes to a hour they usually understand what I mean and where I am coming from. On line when I am trying to write it in a few paragraphs I tend to fall short. That is why I usually defer to smarter people then me on the subject as they can articulate it much better then I can. I have no problem admitting that.
However you can see it today impacting the real world with the new paradigm of wearable computers. Do you really think it will stop here? It will not and in the 2020's the paradigm shift will be to computers inside us and that is the start of the singularity. Its really that simple.
I have heard this kind of talk since I was a kid and to be blunt its all nonsense. Let me do a quick fact check:
I was born in 1973, 40 years ago. There has been more advancement in the past 40 years then all of recorded human history up until 1973. Not only that but in the next 20 years we will again see more advancement then all of human history up until now.
I see my points are just whizzing over your head so let me try and put it in simpler language OK?
The past can no longer be any indication of future technological progress, I thought that was made abundantly clear in my earlier posts and the articles I posted.
I see my points are just whizzing over your head so let me try and put it in simpler language OK?
The past can no longer be any indication of future technological progress, I thought that was made abundantly clear in my earlier posts and the articles I posted.
The lawyers have won, get over it...
Then let me be simple. We will see more advancement in the next 20 years then all of history until now. For example the latest paradigm shift is to wearable computers. Do you think its going to stop there? Its not.
Things like that do not bother me because I have studied this enough and am secure with what I know and, also, understand how it looks to someone who has not really studied it like I have. I was there 5 years ago.
Just remember this conversation in about 15 - 20 years when we reach the singularity.
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.
