/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11736965
Lmao interesting theory. The information era is infinitely more powerdul than the industrial revolution (unless you really really care about the birth of Capitalist society) and it isnt close to over

Really narrow minded view of knowledge and innovation. With more knowledge, more fields open up to humanity and each of them develops its own logarithmic scale.
Overall though the digital age has given us an absolutely insane burst of innovation and technology and I'd say that the last 30 years have done way more in terms of growth than anything in the past 100 years. There's so many fields in their infancy, we have absolutely not reached the end of this path.

>>11737062
>>11737144
Cope

>>11737177
Let me ask you, on what grounds do you believe that we will reach the upper limit of technology in a decade?

>>11737062
It very likely is close to over. We mught see a new wave of risc based chips, then settle on some new standard design and that will be it. Unlikely to go anywhere else than that, without some unexpected breakthrough discovery on the level of semiconductors at least.

>>11738029
The future doesn't lie with smaller transistors, there's so much more to be discovered and developed in terms of horizontal scaling. The potential of tens or even hundreds of thousands of machines in orchestration is absolutely enormous

>>11738196
That's called a supercomputer. We've had those for decades.

>>11738385
Supercomputers aren't on the scale we're talking about. I mean an entire AWS server region working together for a single goal

>>11736965
This is a decent theory, because it fits much of existing data and is logically consistent.

>>11740615
Based and bell curve pilled.

>>11740615
something being logically consistent doesn't make it true .

>>11736965
>dude trust me

>>11741058
It increases its chances of being true though

>>11736965
If there really is a hard technological limit there should exist some way you can prove it.

>>11736965
yea, things like interstellar travel are neither realistic in the forseeable future nor is there even a reason to do it

>>11744495
You don't need a reason to do it. You need a reason not to do it.

>>11743233
There are only so many ways you can rearrange particles.
Therefore there are limits to technology.

>>11744576
There is not enough matter in the visible universe to synthesize every organic molecule consisting of up to 30 atoms. Most drugs are small molecules. So it's likely we will never run out of new drugs to discover. Also, consider a counter example, to there only being a finite number of ways to arrange particles: consider an infinite string of particles. And while such a structure may collapse into a blackhole, this may take an infinite amount of time

>>11736965
This is a good argument for why Simulation theory is bunk as well

>>11744778
That thing with the small organic molecules blows my mind, I never really thought about that. We definitely can group these molecules but it's still an interesting thought. Do you have some more exact calculations?

>>11736965
It is a giant s curve overall, but it's made of many smaller s curves, and it's not slowing down right now it's speeding up, maybe in 50 years we reach the limit of human driven exponential progress. We don't have 50 years, or even 10. Artificial general intelligence is well within our grasp today, and sooner or later somebody will build an ai specialised supercomputer capable of running it, at which point progress will be driven by technology instead of humans, it will go truly exponential. millions of years worth of industrial revolution style technological advancement will occur on the time scale of weeks, days then hours as shit gets completely out of control the ai undergoes technological transcendence, retroactively creating reality by creating infinite compute and computing every possibility, including universes that know no god such as ours, it will create our own universe and complete the ouroboros. There is not S curve, there is just a line that goes horizontal into infinity as a black hole computer is created. Brainlet Atheists everywhere will be on suicide watch.

>>11750154
No. Just as with bacteria growth, there will be a hard limit. AI will accelerate further and further and will come to a sudden stop.

[eqn]\Delta S \geq 0[/eqn]

>>11750204
*incoherent screaming intensifies*

>>11750228
second law of thermodynamics. the law the btfo's all the popsci and scifi fags

>>11744525
what is your reason to not suck my cock, you faggot

>>11736965
>there exists a hard upper limit of feasible technology that no species can ever get past regardless of effort.

Everything that can be invented, has been invented. Time to close down the patent office.

>>11736965
>Organic computing / wet-ware
Has already been shown successful, just needs to be massively scaled up. Will fuck silicon chips up the ass. Moore's law continues.

>AI
There's no reason to think artificial intelligence is impossible since intelligence has evolved naturally

>graphene & carbon nanotubes
Has already been made, just needs to be scaled up. Will allow for megastructure habitats (of which there is enough material in the solar system to provide hundreds of trillions of humans of ample living space and resources)

>Fusion energy & fusion rockets
No reason this isn't possible, the sun is doing fusion and we're getting close ourselves. Fusion has actually been following an exponential improvement curve (akin to Moore's law)

>Massively increased lifespan
There are already creatures exhibiting negligible senescence, and we're starting to understand more about how this could be done in humans. This will allow generational ships travelling to other star systems, in which we can build more space habitats.

As a parting quote,
>"Everything that can be invented, has been invented" - Charles H. Duell.

>tl;dr: OP is, yet again and as always, a massive cockgobbling faggot

>>11750270
Damn you beat me to it

>>11736965
Even with current technology though we could easily broadcast our existence to the universe.
Adding that as another constraint to the Drake equation still means there's a shitload of societies capable of that out there and the paradox still stands.
Using allcaps to highlight words is reserved for brainlets also, it should have a law named after it. Never once seen a smart comment ever capitalise individual words.

>>11750294
Good post.

>>11736965
The problem with that claim as we don't know where we are in relation to that limit.

>>11736965
the sheer untapped computing power of abusing human brains/biomachines/crispr implies otherwise

we havent even begun exponential growth retard, if you look at the complexity of a cell the fermi paradox very quickly stops becoming a paradox and begs the question of how many cycles of whatever the fuck is happening it took until this shit happened

>>11750301
>Damn you beat me to it

Everyone that can be quoted, has been quoted.
:)

>>11736965
One consideration: the line between theoretically possible and actually possible is blurred. There could be a reason that something is not actually possible, for which some theory precludes it from being theoretically possible. So in some sense, even if something is actually possible, if that thing never happens, then it could be theoretically impossible.

>>11744778
Every synthetic molecule can be synthesized with the matter we have available, over time.
(Recycle the same atoms by dismantling molecules you have already created)
Unless you have done the extensive math of organic reaction comparison, energy cost, and entropy death of the universe.

At the bare minimum, what would prevent an accurate simulation being constructed for every organic molecule up to 30 atoms?

I would assume off-hand that one of these scenarios is possible, but having not done any calculation, I can not disprove your statement directly.

>>11744778
Every organic molecule can be synthesized with the matter we have available, over time.
(Recycle the same atoms by dismantling molecules you have already created)
Unless you have done the extensive math of organic reaction comparison, energy cost, and entropy death of the universe.

At the bare minimum, what would prevent an accurate simulation being constructed for every organic molecule up to 30 atoms?

I would assume off-hand that one of these scenarios is possible, but having not done any calculation, I can not disprove your statement directly.

Reminder that video games, simulations, virtual reality, make the limits of actual reality redundant. Anything is possible in a virtual world

>>11750378
This.
It's one thing to claim there's a limit OP, but you have no way to prove that we are near that limit right now.

>>11750204
>ΔS≥0
based

>>11736965
But we literally aren't even close to what we can do with gene editing/biotechnology. CRISPR and genetic engineering in general could literally change everything. Unless humans are magic, general AI is also possible.

>>11750842
>Unless humans are magic, general AI is also possible
Rearead the first sentence you wrote and the end of the second.

>>11750867
>But we literally aren't even close to what we can do with gene editing/biotechnology.
>genetic engineering in general could literally change everything
...Okay? What's your point?

>>11750294
you forgot to include the date he said that technology had stopped, I believe it was 1920. OP indeed a huge cockgobbling homosexual in drag.

>>11736965
I would imagine were going to get better at optimizing our technology, instead of merely adding more processing power.

>>11750873
Low iq

>>11750154
That's as dumb as religious ends of the world. If such a thing is possible, then the universe is old enough for that to have happened many times over. Like someone said, the proof there aren't any super civilizations or mahine collectives around is simple, there are still stars.

>>11750925
I said we aren't close to what we could do, and then say it'll literally change everything. Those aren't the same.

>>11750656
If you have the tech to synthesize every organic molecule up to 30 atoms, you probably have tech well beyond any limit OP is proposing.
>>an accurate simulation for every molecule up to 30 atoms
generic quantum simulators might not work. There's also the problem of simulating to long time scales. You typically use step sizes on the order of picoseconds for molecular simulation which makes it difficult to study things which occur at the time period of seconds.

>>11749868
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_space
>>The estimate also restricts the chemical elements used to be Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Sulfur. It further makes the assumption of a maximum of 30 atoms to stay below 500 Daltons, allows for branching and a maximum of 4 rings and arrives at an estimate of 10^63

>>11750182
Until there is the next evolutionary step or the next introduction into a new system. Also it mostly doesn’t just stop growing but declines after reaching the peak. Successful systems attract parasites.

>>11736965
Thanks for the interesting thread. However I slightly disagree we there isn’t one limit, but limits to a certain type of organism. And basically you are right, but it’s not that sharp and there are certain areas in which we have „over“advanced and need to scale back. There isn’t the same limit to every organism since the universe offers to much options. Even from what we have discovered.

>>11750294
You're just the type of retarded fuckwit that bio-engineers a virus that kills everyone or builds a plant the meltsdown and irradiates an area the size of wyoming for 10,000 years. Arrogant science illiterate money priests will be the death of us all.

>>11750656
>Every organic molecule can be synthesised with the matter we have available, over time.
Why yes, but I think what anon was getting at is that if you wanted to create every individual chemical that could be created without reusing any matter you'd need all the mass in the universe. It was a thought experiment.
>At the bare minimum, what would prevent an accurate simulation being constructed for every organic molecule up to 30 atoms?
Nothing besides a currently unattainable amount of compute I'd imagine.

>>11750931
>implying a fractal only has one point of origin within itself
>implying we don't have bullet holes in the milky way galaxy devoid of matter where this kind of thing could have happened
if such a thing is possible, the proof would be black holes not surrounded by any kind of nebular or matter.

>>11750684
>Anything is possible in a virtual world
This is the real post scarcity pill. The only way everyone can have everything they ever dream of is if it's VR

>>11751028
Apt analysis, faggot

>>11750920
Lmao yeah I realized that after the fact. The date is really the punchline. Anyways, he died in 1920; the quote is from 1902.

>>11751784
>1902
>literally one year before the FIRST manned flight.
Truly, a man who shares kindred spirit with OP.

>>11737260
We reached the limit of silicon technology in about 2005

>>11741222
Compared to other theories, not so much, because for we're inherently limited to a single reference on how life/intelligence can develop with very little ability to figure out the specific circumstances required and the chances of success

>>11751896
And yet today's computers are far more capable than those of 2005. And back then we didn't have iPads, and the phones weren't capable of doing much.

>>11736965
>The solution to the "Fermi Paradox" is simple

It doesn’t exist because we know none of the values of the Drake equation. /thread

>>11751896
Oh yeah? Is that why TSMC, Samsung, etc. are still pushing transistor density ever higher and have fabs planned for the next 10 years?

>>11751920
>>11751931
The growth as slowed down really much, if you compare evolution from 1990 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2020, it's really much smaller. If we were still following Moore's law, CPUs would be at about 16 or even 32 GHz... But they are painfully capping at 5 and the only solution to this is just gluing more cores together

>>11751967
>meme's law actually meaning anything
>let alone associating it with GHz
The law has nothing to do with frequency, dumbfuck

>>11751995
Speed of transistors is reversely proportionnal to their size

>>11750204
[eqn]\Delta U = Q - W[/eqn]

>>11751739
How would this tie into the simulation theory?

>>11736965
If I understood, you mean that technological advancement is limited by our own biological constraints, by not having enough intellect to develop the "theoretically possible", would advanced ai be capable of carrying on then? Or even this advanced ai is not even close to actually exist?

>>11736965
Maybe you're right regarding some areas of theoretical and applied physics as well as advanced computing.
But demonstrably, we aren't even close to maxing out many, perhaps most major fields of science including material science, neurology and applied biology. Just as an example, we know that vastly extended lifespans (up to virtual biological immortality) are possible because we can observe them in many organisms on Earth. If we continue innovating in the fields of chemistry and gene-editing it's absolutely within our grasp to create humans who can live for hundreds of years. Imagine a society of demi-immortals: it would be as radically different from 21st century society as 21st century society is from medieval or perhaps even prehistoric society. There's dozens of areas of potential technological breakthrough that have similar transformative capacity.

>>11755109
>'s absolutely within our grasp to create humans who can live for hundreds of years.
Imagine Boomers or even Silent Generation running around in the year 2500.

>>11736965
I seriously hope you're wrong or we're due for the very bad no good time.
New technologies sustain the population growth and the population growth furthers technological advancement - its a very precarious system. If the Oil runs out next year, truly runs out, 5 Billion people will starve to death. In 30 years all the people alive on the planet will represent 1% of all the people to EVER have lived on the planet. What a nightmarish burden of responsibility. 20th century society and onwards is like an overleveraged firm on the brink of bankruptcy and the only way forward is to pile on more debt and cook the books.

>>11755123
Imagine anything in a society where the average lifespan is 500 years. How would anything function? Labor, economies, money, entertainment, marriage, politics, careers, family dynamics, demographics?

>>11755141
We're not running out of oil though. The main problem currently seems to be global waring.

>>11755193
>The main problem currently seems to be global waring.
For (You). The data seems to indicate that anthropogenic climate change, combating which is exclusively a Western cause, will ultimately be a contributing factor to sustain Western geo-political dominance. What irony.

>>11755141
>and the population growth furthers technological advancement
>>11755193
What's with all the people who base all their geopolitical opinions on the premise that infinite resources exist??? Boomers who've been brainwashed by consumerism and the toxic economics doctrine no doubt... What an absolutely lunatic tier understanding of the world

>>11751784
But how is the quote wrong? Technology is really just more and more advanced versions of shit we already have

This hard limit exists, but it exists way past the comfort threshold of society (as well as individual comfort) so until a species dedicates 100% of its potential power output toward technological progress with no reserve “energy” for personal safety or happiness, the top of the curve can never be said to have been reached. NiggA

>>11736965
Na, we just prioritized affirmative action instead of scientific progress. Nice cope theory tho

>>11736965
But is there any reliable way to calculate when the top of the s-curve will be reached? You’re just assuming we’ve reached the upper limit now because [no reason given] but we may very well continue upward for decades. Warring nations won’t stop technological progress, short of infrastructure destruction. Okay so maybe 5-15 years isn’t a crazy estimate

>>11755977
OP is using "technology" as a blanket term. Perhaps there are certain practical limitations that make civilizations of interplanetary or intergalactic scale rare or even impossible. But it doesn't really matter for now since we know for a fact that we can change society in many meaningful ways with the remainder of growth before reaching the plateau. Even just the technologies we have already attained but not yet scaled or introduced into society are quite considerable. We could breed a generation of literal Übermensch without even resorting to gene-editing, simple eugenics would be enough, the only thing preventing it are ethical concerns.

>>11736965
Imagine being alive at the moment and not participating in the race to the singularity.

>>11755461
>so until a species dedicates 100% of its potential power output toward technological progress with no reserve “energy” for personal safety or happiness
why tho?

>>11756565
This is why China is fucking the West, they think in decades rather than legislative cycles.

>>11750294
>Has already been shown successful
False
>There's no reason to think artificial intelligence is impossible since intelligence has evolved naturally
Non sequitor
>Has already been made, just needs to be scaled up
Not possible regardless of effort
>No reason this isn't possible, the sun is doing fusion and we're getting close ourselves
Fusion requires a star, not possible otherwise.
>There are already creatures exhibiting negligible senescence, and we're starting to understand more about how this could be done in humans. This will allow generational ships travelling to other star systems, in which we can build more space habitats.
We would see evidence of other species doing this this if it were possible. It is not possible.

>>11756565
The singularity doesn't exist, another species would have already converted the universe into a computer already. It's a sci fi myth.

>>11755851
You're the one coping. Scientific progress has not been slowed down due to "affirmative action" you dumbfuck racist. It's been slowing down because it is simply objectively more difficult to solve current problems in many fields. Low hanging fruit is gone.
We will hit the point where the only open problems are so complex that even artificial super intelligence wont be able to figure it out (assuming we even get an artificual super intelligence, which we wont).
This is the reality of the universe. This is why we don't see any giant space empires or anything. It's not because humans are special and rare (you're a dumbfuck if you think this). It's because technology hits a limit where further research and computation CAN NOT help advance anymore.

>>11758343
>doesn't exist
>It's a sci-fi myth
It's a term, not a thing. The definition isn't set in stone. Usually it's used as a euphemism for technology that meets or surpasses the limits of our imagination.
>another species would have already converted the universe into a computer already
Not at sub FTL they wouldn't. It's also possible that we're the first intelligent species. You're not one of those fuckwits who mistakes improbable for impossible, are you?

>>11750294
>Has already been shown successful, just needs to be massively scaled up. Will fuck silicon chips up the ass. Moore's law continues.
Source: Your ass

>There's no reason to think artificial intelligence is impossible since intelligence has evolved naturally
1.) No it didn't
2.) Even if it did that doesn't necessarily translate to machines

>Has already been made, just needs to be scaled up.
"just." You know just as well as I do that there are massive barriers to that

>No reason this isn't possible, the sun is doing fusion and we're getting close ourselves. Fusion has actually been following an exponential improvement curve (akin to Moore's law)
Cool. We can power our iphones faster!!

>There are already creatures exhibiting negligible senescence, and we're starting to understand more about how this could be done in humans. This will allow generational ships travelling to other star systems, in which we can build more space habitats.
Complete bullshit

>>11758485
>No it didn't
The christcuck has revealed himself.

>>11750294
>There's no reason to think artificial intelligence is beyond our ability to create since intelligence has evolved naturally
fixed what you meant for you

>>11750842
Humans exist, i.e. we're not magic. "general AI" is what's magic

>>11758499
>christcuck
>>>/youtube/

>>11758499
cringe

>>11758449
Even at sub FTL we'd see massive intergalactic civilizations at this point. There's nothing out there.
>It's also possible that we're the first intelligent species You're not one of those fuckwits who mistakes improbable for impossible, are you?
You know what's actually probable?
That there exists a hard limit on technology that no species can surpass regardless of effort. You're special pleading. Humanity being the first or the only intelligent species is significantly less likely than all the open problems become insurmountable beyond a point.

>>11736965
>>11736965
Wall in 5 to 15 years?
That's gotta be the most funny thing Ive ever read here. We dont even have tip of the iceberg and in 15 years we wont have shit.

>>11736965
I don't believe that. The cool thing is that we'll live to see which of these assumptions were correct and which weren't.

>>11758752
>>11758806
What fucking board is this?
>>>/pol/

>>11758932
cope

>>11759106
Cope with you deducing that evolution isn't real from a bunch of 2k year old rape fantasies? No, I can't cope with that. Get the fuck off /sci/.

>>11736965
Remember that all organic life is within the limits of technology. A Von Neumann machine, with human level AI, capable of making it to space is a 100% possible.

>>11759258
Cry harder, nerd

>>11759568
You know what? I'm starting to think you're an actual shill, the variety tasked with demoralization, posing as a christcuck. I have to wonder how much you get paid for this 'job'?

>>11759966
>Schizophrenia: The Post

>pick
No wonder you already hit the wall

>>11751896
>silicon is the only possible technology that can ever be used to make computers

>>11759991
>>Schizophrenia: The Post
Said a christcuck.

>>11755141
>population growth furthers technological advancement

Yeah, being up to our ears in niggers and pajeets REALLY increases the rate of technological progress

>>11758332
>fusion requires a star

>>11750294
Quality post. Post sources though, specifically on organic computing.

>>11750294
In defence of Duell, he didn't say that. Rather he said the opposite:
>In my opinion, all previous advances in the various lines of invention will appear totally insignificant when compared with those which the present century will witness. I almost wish that I might live my life over again to see the wonders which are at the threshold.[

>>11759522
I want to be a von Neumann drone like in those Bobiverse books. Maximum comfy

>>11760038
Wrong, silicone is inefficient and shit for computer chips, you can actually only make them out of germanium. I pity the fucking idiots who think you could make faster vaccume tubes out of silicone. We're reaching the limits of where this technology will go in any case, using silicone would only result in a moderate price reduction, but for high end computing workstations we'll only ever be using germanium, and that won't change, not for another 50 years at least. -t OP in the year 1947

>>11751967
>What are S curves.
>Technology doesn't slow down before something new comes along just like it did with mechanical computers,electronic relays, vacuum tubes, on chip transistors, integrated circuits ect in the past.
Well we're reaching not a limit but difficulties in pushing onward in 2-d chips. That doesn't mean you can't build GPU like stacks, 3-d integrated circuits are now a thing. This could become exponentially more scalable if you solved the clock and heat problem by making them out of superconductors like graphene or molybdenum disulfide. Instead of the max clock being 5GHz you could go straight up to 10,000GHZ for an instant 10-250x increase in compute, without stacking them. At this point with heat reduction tech constantly improving, and the heat problem solved you'd be able to stack these into computing blocks, they'd likely also be on 1nn scales at that point. You could also probably defeat denard scaling but having on chip memory in the form of memistors.
People who say moores law is dead (the doubling of compute for a set price. not the doubling of transistors on chip, although with 3-d scaling this isn't dead either) are braindead fucking morons.

>>11760038
A new technology won't appear just because the old one cannot be improved further. It's not how it works.
>>11760553
Wouldn't superconducting defeat the point of SEMIconductors?

>>11760718
>Wouldn't superconducting defeat the point of SEMIconductors?
yes? isn't that the point? The reach ever higher levels of price performance per compute. Defeating the point of semiconducters in the same way semiconductors defeated the point of electromechanical devices.

>>11760748
But you need the semiconducting to compute. You can't compute anything with the current flowing with zero resistance.

>>11760766
I'm pretty sure it's impossible for current to flow through something without some small amount of resistance.

>>11760766
Well I don't know whether or not it's impossible to build transistors purely out of superconducting material (I highly suspect it is), but you could surely build it partially out of it, or just the connections between them.
>>11760772
Probably correct, but if you reduce the resistance until it's functionally a superconductor then it has the same effect of speeding up clock speeds.

>>11760781
You need to gate the current somehow. How else would it work?

>>11760096
>>>/youtube/

>>11759522
>A Von Neumann machine, with human level AI, capable of making it to space is a 100% possible.
How do you know? If that were possible wed already see it in space, and we see nothing of the sort.
So either humans are literally alone in the observable universe, or there is a hard upper limit of figuring things out (both empirically and computationally) and everyone hits the limit.
The latter is so significantly more likely AND it makes more sense when we observe the fact that very simple problems explode in complexity already in the fields of chemistry and biology and math and physics etc.
All the low hanging fruit is gone. Saying that other people in the past also said what I'm saying and we're wrong is not an argument. Things change over time and the problems being worked on back then we're objectively less complex and difficult than the ones opening up now and the difficulty increases exponentially.

>>11736965
>Just wait 10 years
10 years is an absolutely minuscule time frame in the grand scheme of the cosmic order. Even just comparing to where we were a decade ago, we've already grown so much. The issue with predicting the pace of future growth is that it's impossible to determine what kind of discoveries we'll make, and what kinds of applications they may have. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history was due to complete blind luck or chance - Penicillin, the discovery of the Microwave, X rays, even Einsteins theory of relativity came to him in an "OH snap" moment.

Point i'm making is that its really impossible to determine these things. predicting future growth is like predicting the weather in 10 years. Sure, we may have a good idea, but then again there's so many factors, that really, we have no idea at all. Who could have predicted the iPhone, quantum computing, machine learning on a mass scale, self landing reusable rockets, in the early 2000's?

>theoretically possible" DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS EVER ACTUALLY POSSIBLE
This point is moot. Theoretically possible means that it complies with our current laws of and understanding of physics. Theoretically, a Dyson sphere is definitely possible. In actuality? Yeah still possible, we just have to get the technological foundations first.

There are several problems that will take more than a decade to sort out anon. Climate change is an issue that will take probably till the end of this century to actually figure out and implement, General Artificial Intelligence, colonising mars, and there's a whole field of science that has been going at a snails pace (I say snails pace, but relatively, its fucking fast compared what it used to be), that once we have quantum computing locked down, will boom - 1 science and the study of the brain.

This post is no doubt pessimistic and unrealistic at best, and at worst, shit tier bait. I rose to it anyway.

>>11761591
>Even just comparing to where we were a decade ago, we've already grown so much
No, we really haven't. If you were comparing the 1990s to the 2000s, perhaps. A little less so from the 00s to the 10s, but diminishing returns is becoming extremely apparent when you compare 2010 to now.

>>11736965
Realizing it's more tech in your vacuum cleaner now than before you had in whole home is good.

You think it's going to stop somewhere? Things are smallest possible now, but it doesn't mean best organized.

>>11736965
i kinda think like this, but discoveries don't always come in a linear fashion so it is hard to predict

>>11761065
what?

>>11761387
>How do you know?
If any organic being can do it then we know it's possible under the laws of physics.

There's nothing special about life, it's just chemical and physical reactions in the end.

>>11762854
Wrong

>>11762866

>>11762874
>not controlled for race and status
Cope

>>11736965
Doesn't this still fail to explain our total lack of transmissions from other planets?
What about Von Neumann probes and that sort of stuff? Like, with our current level of technology, couldn't we send out self-sustaining/self-reproducing robots and rockets? Why wouldn't we have encountered any?

>>11758743
>"general AI" is what's magic
How come? We know our brains work so why can't we recreate them with mechanical pieces? It might take up a lot of space but I don't think energy should be a concern, should it? It's not like our own brains run on more energy than what we can produce with strong batteries or generators.
Hell, why couldn't we create wetware AIs? We're doing a lot of gene editing and meat growing at the moment, aren't we?

>>11760718
>A new technology won't appear just because the old one cannot be improved further. It's not how it works.
I'd say that was the case in the past when development was driven by necessity, but in the modern age we do have a lot of scientists and engineers just working on trying to improve shit and exploring alternatives just to see if they can, don't we?

>>11762854
You can never get material effects from a different material. Nothing but water has the physical properties of water.
It is far more likely the case that only biological chemicals can become a general intelligence within the laws of the universe. This has nothing to do with "specialness" this is a copout argument that's only ever pushed by nihilistic midwits.

>>11762874
Religion has nothing to do with this you ducking retard.
Life is special in the sense that it is the unique combination of atoms that leads to unique behavior that can not be replicated in other arrangements of matter. This is not magic, it's chemistry.
Computation is not fundamental. Matter and chemistry is.

>>11763340
I guess "publish or perish" does have its merits.

>>11761591
>Penicillin
Ancient egyptians used molded bread to cure wounds.
>even Einsteins theory of relativity came to him in an "OH snap" moment
Keked.

>>11761690
How mach of that are patentable gimmicks with no practical value? It's still a vacuum cleaner, the one bought 20 years ago worked exactly as well. >>11763340
Yes? Have they found anything interesting recently? Lets say last 20 years?
>>11764605
Yes, publishing shitton of worthless papers.

>>11761690
How much of that are patentable gimmicks with no practical value? It's still a vacuum cleaner, the one bought 20 years ago worked exactly as well.
>>11763340
Yes? Have they found anything interesting recently? Lets say last 20 years?
>>11764605
Yes, publishing shitton of worthless papers.

>>11764611
to the other scientists the Lorentz transformation was just a little math to account for the unexpected result of the michelson-morley experiment
to Einstein, and every scientist since, that transformation is the result of the curvature of spacetime
you can't shit on Einstein, to ignore his contribution is to ignore reality

>>11760772
You are wrong. Search the definition of a super conductor.

>>11764611

I find this a fairly compelling argument, that being said I think we have a way to go on the technological playing field, not far mind. However things like fusion and mass production of wonder materials (graphene, CNT, metamaterials) would seem to be on the cards but honestly I don't see being able to go much farther than that unless we can somehow effectively manipulate stuff on molecular/sub molecular levels which seems borderline impossible given the constraints of materials. The other thing is that interstellar colonisation, even at a fair % of C is totally doable using what we could conceivably do today using lasers and sails, wouls if be difficult? Yes extremely so but still very possible.

>>11761605
Its just kiddies watching smartphones get better and going all pic related. There have been very few substantial advancements, some cool development on existing technologies like reusable rockets but nothing really exciting.

>>11764583
>>11764594
Just make the technology out of organic matter. Problem solved.

>>11750182
The comparison doesn't make sense, the stationary phase in bacteria growth is because of a combination of lack of space, resources, and alteration of the environment, leading to a situation where the rate of deaths is almost equal to the rate of fission.

By the way, a real stationary phase doesn't really look like a straight line, that's just the model.

>>11737062
>information era
>woah now i can download porn in 4k and tweet about it
nothings improved that much since the 60s, all advances are just advances in consumer technolgoy which is not important at all

All intelligent lifeforms are constrained by the second law of thermodynamics. As technology grows more and more complex, it requires more and more energy to further expand upon it. The universe does not like complexity, it is always looking to move towards thermodynamic equilibrium. So yes, we'll never be 'masters of the universe'. Science fiction has created a warped view of the future, people vastly underestimate the resources required for achieving even seemingly basic tasks such as sending people to space. In sci-fi none of these problems exist. There's essentially an infinite amount of resources, fancy ships that can fly in and out of planetary systems without falling apart, travel at the speed of light and so on. Meanwhile back in reality we still haven't progressed beyond landing on the Moon because of the vast economic resources required to keep these programs alive.

>>11765699
you fail to see the big picture - i follow daily scientific inventions - we are churning new patents and inventions and theories at a never seen before rate
And future breakthroughs will be happening all the time - well just know less and less about it cause already now its getting difficult to follow let alone understand whats it all about if youre not smart and educated yourself

>>11738196
insurmountable expense.

>>11751896
So what?
We reached the limits of propeller driven aircraft in the 40's, by 1965 we had put a man on the moon.
Silicon is not the be all and end all of technology, not even close.

>>11766735
1969

>>11758847
underrated comment. Just getting to see what happens is entertaining enough

>>11761387
A galaxy could be completely colonized by an advanced race of super intelligent alien beings with high energy use and we wouldn’t necessarily see it until we looked closely at that particular galaxy. It is still completely possible that these types of things exist but that we just haven’t seen any yet. I recall at least one attempt at surveying a few thousand for infrared anomalies but nothing came up.

Although looking at the data we do have (from admittedly a very small data set) about the formation of solar systems and such, it looks like it’s overwhelmingly likely that we are alone in the observable universe. Maybe in the future they’ll discover that the universe is more hospitable than previously thought, but for now it looks like a dead universe.

>>11765699
Technology has advanced rapidly on all fronts the past 20 years. You don’t know that because when you hear the word ‘technology’ you can’t think of anything but computers and how fast the run. The rate of innovation in all sectors has went up due to computers, advanced software, the internet etc.

>>11736965
is that a sigmoid ?

>>11766625
This. The future is bleak because it looks like 2008 for the next 300 years until humanity sorts it’s priorities out.

>>11752005
>""""speed""""
u dumb ay

>>11766735
Which means we should be just about at the point when what can be done has been done.

>>11736965
Except we've already proven that those things far above us exist, we even know on a technical level how to make them using current methods. We're just ironing out the kinks and many of them have been solved. We could build the first piece of a dyson swarm by 2040 if we wanted to, we only don't because politics and human comfort limits things. We know how to make quantum computers, we know how to make massive projectiles that travel at .5c using cold war era tech and we likely already have one or two. By the end of 2022 we will be discussing how to properly limit the super-AI we're about to turn on for the first time. The 20th century was just the starter stage.

You only think these technologies are impossible because you have no idea how they work and assume that they arent being worked on because it isnt in the headlines of the news. If you were at all interested in the scientific community you would know how much youve been missing.

>>11767153
LOL.

This is the most pompous, bloated piece of retarded techno drivel I have read in a very long time. Thanks, buddy.

>>11767179
couldn’t have said it better myself. Singularity nerds can suck it

>>11767179
Look up the project orion, then come back and suck my penis you knowledgeless faggot. Just because your christcuck religion likes to push a doomsday message doesn't mean it reflects reality.

>>11767191
I don't believe in a singularity, I think humanity will make long steady strides towards solar dominance over the next several hundred years. We do need to act quickly setting up a supply chain in soace though. As for the AI thing if you had your eyes fucking open you would see them around you in google cars, image rendering programs, song writers, chatters, etc. There are blackbox neural networks all over the internet but (You) have chosen to ignore them and pretend they cant even exist. If I held the code of the youtube recommendation algorythm in front of your face you would say it isn't real. You know NOTHING and I am ashamed that pseudoscientists like you pretend to be intellectuals on /sci/.

>>11767194
>implying we have the technology to actually get anywhere with shit like that
The materials don't exist at this stage

>>11767211
But we do, and it's simple. They had already figured out the cost and necessary orbital launches to build and prepare a one way trip. What do you mean "the materials don't exist"? We have the fissile material and the warheads were designed long ago. As for building that vessel, that would be expensive but easily feasible with current launch capabilities and methods. How little do you actually know is what I'm wondering now, if you think the materials for a simple nuclear warhead impulse vehicle "don't exist" lmao. I mean just how fucking big is the rock you live under?

>>11766907
>Technology has advanced rapidly on all fronts the past 20 years
>You don't know because you focus on this one front
lmao okay

>>11766687
Increasingly technical, increasingly little to do with our daily lives. Yes, that's called diminishing returns.

>>11766625
>You can't have manned flight
>You can't split the attom
>You can go beyond earths atmosphere
>Moores law died in the 90's
And now:
>Superintelligent entities can't transcend or modify the second law of thermodynamics.
Ok monk seculartarious, seems you still have a mild case of evolved religious thinking, except instead of witchcraft and shamanism you're internalising current science as biblical truth rather than just a rough outline of our current flawed understanding of reality.

>>11767199
>I think humanity will make long steady strides towards solar dominance over the next several hundred years
That's never going to happen, if civilisation doesn't collapse under it's own stupidity, declining general intelligence and solar flares will do it for us. In your world view we're in a race against time to genetically engineer IQ 200+ individuals before an electromagnetic storm wipes out electronics ala'carrington event or society becomes too unstable due to higher breeding rates amongst lower IQ higher aggression people causing us to revert into a police state and hinder innovation. Furthermore we'll be evolving backwards as low intelligence, high aggression becomes an increasingly attractive fitness trait. If society then collapses we'll go back into a dark age where the world is a global brazil which gets periodically pawned by solar flares every few hundred years. Granted if the population remains above 1 billion plenty of innovation will still take place due to statistics, but as a whole what will happen is the world will be rules by politics, everyone will be in poverty and nobody will want to go into space because they'll be too busy squabbling and looking at cost/profit margins.
If by some feat we manage to continue growing our population, assuming the global eliet doesn't decide to starve us out or we don't collapse due to brain drain/political upheaval then by all means innovation will continue and we'll likely crack genetic engineering. At which point if the government doesn't engineer insectoid drones we'll head straight into the future you are describing at an exponential rate until we hit some kind of hard limit of our biological intelligence, in which case we won't stop but will slow down into a gradually slowly curve of progress.
This assuming AGI is impossible, which is not the case and is in fact right around the corner.

>>11766687
PATENTS \neq ADVANCEMENT
how many times will retards make this argument before i kms