/sci/ - Science & Math

There has to be some kind of upper bound.

Are you saying that we'll reach this upper bound prior to 2035?

Extrapolation is one hell of a drug.

Another baseless scifi thread for manchilds

By the year 2000, we will have between 10 and 20 self-sufficient moon colonies.

>>5510444
rarely has xkcd been appropriate, but even as a hater I have to admit you've chosen the perfect image for this thread

By the year 2100, we'll have computers smaller than atoms at that rate.

So, there is an upper bound (unless Physics is just going to start fucking with us and make sub particles easy to manipulate, and then sub-sub particles.)

>>5510430
It's great. Gets pessimistfags from zero to frothing at the mouth in no time flat.

You're gonna see them posting shit in this thread too, going "But..." "Retards..." and "Extrapolation...".

>>5510509
Sure, it might become smaller but see:
>>5510488

>>5510430
I hate the "muh nanobots" vision projected by it.

You'll have perhaps five large nanobots that are each a cubic centimeter each, they'll sit embedded into the vessel wall and scan the blood content for cancerous cells. and doing some rudimentary healthcare action. A billion micronanobots? that's pointless for most situations that are likely to appear before machine conversion scenarios

>>5510430
>millions of tiny computer
Why do you need millions?
Why do they need to be floating through the bloodstream like that?
Why do they need to by tiny computers?
Why why why?

>>5510430
I think whoever made that image needs to take second look at Moore's law. It only says the number or transistors doubles every two years.

>>5510444
>>5510488
>>5510462
>>5510457
>>5510449

>Extrapolation is one hell of a drug.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-true-3d-microchip-created-cambridge-scientists

Seems like we're set to continue for many years to come.

>>5510528
Hush, don't ruin his nanofuture overhype vision.

Though seriously, it might be possible to repair tissue, maintain healthy blood and pick neoplasm metastases right out o the bloodstream. But this will depend on microelectromechanics and other fields, not just moores law. Moores law can give us AI and picture perfect reality simulations, and graphics better than reality for games, and it will play a role for any transhumanism superfuturepunk scenarios, but the way OP pictures it is just rudimentary and borderline insulting.

>>5510528
True. Computationally and size-wise, however, the numbers also happen to be exponential, so that's similar to Moore's law. Whether or the trend in OPs image continues is another question.

>>5510536
>graphics better than reality for games

#1) How would that be possible? Art derives from nature.
#2) Our brains probably couldn't even handle better graphics. I forget what it is, but its something like 50% of the brain is devoted to JUST vision. Seizures happen because the brain is processing too much. If we increase graphics beyond real life, everyone will just get seizures.

>>5510551
He probably meant as good as reality. I don't think better than reality graphics are possible.

>>5510536
And this is why transhumanists are (rightly) seen as a bunch of retards.

1. Moore's "law" does not "give" us anything. Hundreds of thousands of scientists across many different technology fields are the ones making these advancements happen. Moore's law is a shitty extrapolation that has been disgustingly overused by retards like you and all other transhumanists.

2.
>AI and picture perfect reality simulations, and graphics better than reality for games
Every single word you typed here is baseless transhumanist speculation with zero basis in reality. "Graphics better than reality" ? Do you cocksuckers even listen to yourselves before you spout this first world problems drivel?

Just get the fuck out of /sci/.

>>>/x/
>>>/a/
>>>/v/
>>>/b/

>>5510551
>Seizures happen because the brain is processing too much.
Nope. Seizures happen because the brain have incorrect loops/circuits/wirings that can be overstimulated to cause a permanent hyperstimulatory feedback.
Graphics can be picture perfect, but an enviroments like a misty morning in sunlight is rare, these could be commonplace with good graphcis, essentially the perfect visual stimuli, something extremely beautiful, could be replicated for everything.
> 50% of the brain is devoted to JUST vision
It's just the visual cortex. Nowhere near 50%.
50% of the brains neurons resides in the cerebellum which just fine tunes motor commands.

Better than reality graphics is really just a tongue in cheeck expression.

>>5510533
>projection swaps out rate of advancement for rate of miniaturization just for the fuck of it

>Seizures happen because the brain is processing too much

Seizures happen because of neurological defects. It's not equated with the amount of information the brain is processing.

>>5510567
Doesn't change the fact that Moores law is an observable phenomena, no matter what it depends on.

>Every single word you typed here is baseless transhumanist speculation
AI is getting better all the time, graphics is getting better all the time.

>Just get the fuck out of /sci/.
"Muh pessimism!"

i never understood the whole nanobot craze

1) the manufacturing of molecules would require such a variety of catalysts that simply manufacturing the thing would be nearly impossible, not to mention recognition and sequestering of substrate

2) the recognition of a "problem" would be more than just a problem on the non-organic platform

3) your body would probably attack it, considering how many different types of materials it would require

4) genetic engineering is far more effective and hella cool

5) power source .... yea good luck with that one

6) the cost to the consumer would make it about as popular as genetic therapy

7) self aware robots will replace muh brain with silicon

8) most of the time you hear anything about it its from some pop-sci pile of garbage

9) building it would require precision we just do not have

10) fuck nanobots - give me a robot body, with chainsaws as hands and the strength of a gorilla - no, no, no two gorillas ................ anybody?

>>5510521
>a phone with a computer in it
Why does it need to be a phone?
Why does it need to fit in the palm of your hand?
Why does it have to be totally wireless?
Why why why?

>>5510567
1. Self-assembling and large scale molecular assembly via diamond mechanosynthesis could make this possible.

2. Not sure what you mean.

3. There are zillions of ways to cloak a drug from the immune system. Lyposome, native protein coat, etc.

4. It's cool, no doubt.

5. Powered by glucose in bloodstream, or from mechanic shear force of blood, or from body heat, or from external radio waves. The list goes on and on.

6. Computers will be millions of times cheaper. Therefore several million should cost same as a cell phone.

7. Not sure.

8. Not always. Trends are pretty important when making predictions.

9. Yet. We will in the future. No one would have guessed you could fit thousands of songs on your ipod 30 years ago. We should be able to continue our engineering advances.

10. It would be cool.

>>5510567
>being this mad

Pull the cock out of your ass bro. It's perfectly fine to disagree with him but for fuck's sakes take it down a dozen notches.

The concept some of you are ineloquently trying to convey is that a lot of this simply consists of a solution looking for a problem.

Something may come of such ideas, but it's a rare occurrence.

>>5510576
>1) the manufacturing of molecules would require such a variety of catalysts that simply manufacturing the thing would be nearly impossible, not to mention recognition and sequestering of substrate

Mechanosynthesis allows catalyst-free synthesis of pretty much everythinhg, but primarily of nonreactive rugged molecular constructs.

>2) the recognition of a "problem" would be more than just a problem on the non-organic platform

Yes. It would require enormous care in manufacturing and design.

>3) your body would probably attack it, considering how many different types of materials it would require

Your body doesn't attack things it cannot digest(read MHC 1 MHC 2 complex dynamics), a diamonoid nanobot can't be disgested. At worst it can be trapped in fibrinous scar tissue.

>4) genetic engineering is far more effective and hella cool

Genetic engineering carries promise, but it have severe limitation of what we can design and cure with it.

>5) power source .... yea good luck with that one
Glucose?

>6) the cost to the consumer would make it about as popular as genetic therapy

Genetic therapy is dirt cheap, this would be far more expensive initially given the nanomanufacturing demands of hundreds of thousands of perfect machines.

>7) self aware robots will replace muh brain with silicon
Buuuuzzzwoooord.
Your brain will be replaced by a device that resembles a facehugger that extends sensory probes into your neural tissue whily slowly digesting it. No demand for nanomachines, just lifesupport for a few weeks.

>8) most of the time you hear anything about it its from some pop-sci pile of garbage

Fully agree.

>9) building it would require precision we just do not have

Fully agree. But it's a matter of time

>10) fuck nanobots - give me a robot body
Fully agree

<-- All the haters and those who say it can't be done.

>>5510621
>Mechanosynthesis allows catalyst-free synthesis of pretty much everythinhg

But that will never be the size of a nanobot. if you want to cure disease and not age those little bots need to build molecules

>Yes. It would require enormous care in manufacturing and design.

way more than that - we are talking about recognizing molecules and proteins. a non-organic sensor that small ... and the amount of different ones to recognize every disease and every aging problem. just no

>Your body doesn't attack things it cannot digest

well breast implants are delicious

but .... autoimmune response initiated by those exotic catalysts and sensor materials

>Genetic engineering carries promise

yup

>Glucose?
mehhbe

>Genetic therapy is dirt cheap
no, it isn't. but i was talking about popularity. nanobots would bankrupt the richest person

>Your brain will be replaced by a device that resembles a facehugger
im actually cool with this

>>5510567
See:
>>5510650

>>5510667
See:
>>5510600

>>5510607
>being this much of a cocksucking technofetishist
How does it feel to know you are the laughing stock of the scientific community?

>>5510667
Nanofactories maybe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg

>>5510650
i would put money on terraforming before nanobots ..... a nanobot that would prevent aging and cure all disease everywhere always is ridiculous

>>5510669
>could you please keep the discussion civil
>COCKSUCKING TECHNOFETISHIST
Actually, the lonely acerbic idiots tend to be the laughing stock of every place ever.

>>5510669
>implying I'm part of the community someohw
>implying I have some sort of technofetish
>implying I'm not just amused by how you and numerous other posters on this board are so SUPER GODDAM SRS and NO FUN ALLOWED about scientific inquiry and speculation

>2035 is in 22 years
>sounds like bullshit

>>5510669
See:
>>5510650

>>5510667

>But that will never be the size of a nanobot
Mechanosynthesis builds stuff on an atomic scale = molecules = nanobots. Mechanosynthesis is in fact the bloody gold standard when it comes to nanobot manufacturing because you don't need to rely on autoassembly or things like that, you build molecules by forcing the compounds together so hard that they bond molecularly, and when we get it working, it will be glorious.

>autoimmune response
Requires digestion of the molecules. Autoimmune diseases require either antibodies produced against your own tissue or missrecognition by T-cells. You don't get this with a 'mechanical cell' strolling around in your blood stream because it's imprevious to all classical immunological recognition mechanisms.

>no, it isn't. (gene therapy)
You breed viruses or other vectors at miniscule cost, the patent and profit margins may inflate this enormously, but the actual cost is minimal to produce the materials.

>>5510678
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg

>>5510673
fine ill do that to

>>5510600

> 1) Self-assembling

oh my. now they self assemble..... from what the iron in your hemoglobin? so you are telling me this magic robot can - diagnose a problem, strategize treatment, make the treatment from scratch, and dose it, and fit in your capillaries? no - source that proves just one of these functions can be that small and you win

> Not sure what you mean.
the recognition of disease (all of them) or a dying cell...... bonus round: cancer

>Lyposome, native protein coat,

so you are diagnosing and treating disease through this barrier .... who the hell do you think you are

>The list goes on and on.
but it doesnt get that small. you also would need batteries and capacitors.

>Therefore several million should cost same as a cell phone
who the fuck do you think you are .... we are talking medical grade shit here, not some cell phone manufactured by an 11 year old

>Not sure.
you have obviously been infected already

>Trends are pretty important when making predictions.
if i put money on all the numbers i will win the roulette game

>No one would have guessed
so just because no one guessed that you think everything is impossible

>>5510708

show me a mechanosynthesis apparatus that can fit INSIDE a nanobot

>>5510695
See
>>5510669

>>5510729
>show me a mechanosynthesis apparatus that can fit INSIDE a nanobot
Why would it have to fit inside a nanobot? The mechanosynthesis would most likely happen in extreme vacuum in large scale production plants, the finalized product is provided as a sterile IV solution that you inject one a year or so and it maintains whatever is required. If you get a cancer, the cells are dissembled, the surface markers analyzed, and a custom produced strand of hunter-killer bots are made to annihilate the cancer

>>5510688
>>5510687
See
>>5510449

This is a board about science & math. If there is no rigor in the discussion then you need to GTFO back to /x/.

And my next guest is this fucking guy
>>5510738 >>5510449


how does it feel to be intellectually superior to the plebeians of 4chan?

>>5510688
*somehow

>>5510740

do you not understand that in order for nanobots to cure all disease you need to manufacture the treatment?

did you think you could store every pharmaceutical in a nanobot and ignore pesky thinks like chemical half-life because you like Neil deGrasse Tyson?

I honestly do not know why I bother sometimes .... oh yea thats right - pointing out your flaws temporarily makes up for years of emotional abuse.

>>5510738
go back to /x/ kid, and bring your paranormal bullshit with you.

>>5510750
Stop shitposting, kiddo. nobody cares about you or your gay little nanobots

>>5510752
>do you not understand that in order for nanobots to cure all disease you need to manufacture the treatment?

But they don't need to universally cure each and every god damn disease there is. The goal is not to create a universal panacea that requires no whatsoever maintenance at all.

You get cancer? Well, inject a new brand of bots will eradicate the cancer.
You get alzheimers? New strain of bots will mop up in you brain?
Diabestes? More bots to control blood sugar(or likely, a classic implant)
Get shot by a tank? Nothing can help you anymore.

> pointing out your flaws
The only flaws you point out are those created by your misunderstanding.

>>5510738
>science and math exists as constructs because nobody in the history of science and math ever took to idle speculation of seemingly impractical or unprovable ideas

How about stop being an autist and let people talk about science and math however they like and if you don't want to participate in a congenial and polite way just hide the thread and go about your business.

Or does it make you feel good to shitpost on /sci/?

>>5510759
You really seem upset about Moore's law, a scientific model for the progression of transistor count in computers. You'll have to deal with it, because it is a scientific model which makes testable and accurate predictions.

>>5510771
why not just swallow a pill?
how will you cure the problems associated with aging?
what will these nano-bots that you are thinking of actually do? just treat? - just take a pill
diagnose? how? a sensor?

>a classic implant
far more likely - this will happen

>misunderstanding
if something does not exist how can misunderstand I?

>>5510801
>why not just swallow a pill?
Because it's easier to inject most drugs.
>how will you cure the problems associated with aging?
Wizard-bots
>diagnose? how? a sensor?
Blood test, normal lab diagnostics, pathologic investigation for surface markers, custom made nanobots for these.
Or just wizard bots.
>far more likely - this will happen
Already happened. You're not up to date.
>if something does not exist how can misunderstand I?
Misunderstanding concepts is still misunderstanding.

This is all cool and stuff, but

WHERE IS MY FUCKING FLYING CAR.

>>5510815

>Wizard-bots
i forgot about those. you got me

>>5510650

Dyson spheres

>>5510830
Point being, by the time we can manufacture these bots at all, we're likely to know most defects associated with agin.
good night.

>>5510801
>how will you cure the problems associated with aging?

Nanorobots could help correct mutations in DNA. They could also help clear toxic cells that accumulate during the aging process (called senescent cells), and help clear cells which are too numerous (cancer cells). They could also remove junk build up in cells (lipofuscin) and out of cells (crosslinks between sugars and proteins which accumulate in the skin, for example).

> Because it's easier to inject most drugs.

0/10

>>5510846

come one guys .... i need to go to sleep


>Nanorobots could help correct mutations in DNA

to "correct" there must be a problem. to fix a problem one must be aware of said problem
.... this nanobot would thus need to sequence your entire genome, store that info, run it against the correct sequence, then go back and fix it on both sides. the error rate would be higher than my paycheck.

>clear cells too numerous
how would it not attack the rest of your body - i don't know if you are aware of this but there are numerous cells in your body.

> junk
how would it recognize this - a non-organic recognition platform that could recognize all "bad" variations of the all the molecules in your body would be massive. in fact just a device to store all the info needed to recognize "good" and "bad" would be massive
Good night, gentlemen. May your dreams take you beyond the heavens and your studies keep you firmly planted in reality.

>>5510832
>Implying that all the planets in the solar system have the combined materials to build one.

>>5510521
One huge factor would most likely contribute to nanobots that cure problems in the body.

>>5510688
Is this the look you were going for?

>>5510430
Moore's Law is not predicting an exponential growth of computing (doubling the number of transistors per area at no extra cost). Industry is trying to match Moore's Law, thus making it a reality.

In the early days, industry did all that it could, and Moore's Law was used to fit the data. After a period of time, the computer industry decided to schedule their technological advances to match Moore's Law. In other words, industry will see what Moore's Law predicts, and try to match it, nothing more.

>>5510886
>implying we can only get materials from our solar system

>>5510877
>to "correct" there must be a problem. to fix a problem one must be aware of said problem
.... this nanobot would thus need to sequence your entire genome, store that info, run it against the correct sequence, then go back and fix it on both sides. the error rate would be higher than my paycheck.
Yes, it would sequence your DNA. We can already do that using nanopores where we pass DNA through a nanopore and watch the electrical potential across the pore change in a unique way characteristic to each base. That's how Oxford nanopores technology works.

>how would it not attack the rest of your body - i don't know if you are aware of this but there are numerous cells in your body.

Cells express different proteins and markers on their surface. A nanobot could scan a cell for markers (perhaps by using a light-based or physical sensor) to determine cell type.

>how would it recognize this - a non-organic recognition platform that could recognize all "bad" variations of the all the molecules in your body would be massive. in fact just a device to store all the info needed to recognize "good" and "bad" would be massive

It would recognize junk by having a specific detector for it. We know the structure of the cross-link, and therefore we can design a lock-and-key fit, like an enyzme, to break apart the crosslink. The nanobot could deliver and express this enzyme site-specifically

>Good night, gentlemen. May your dreams take you beyond the heavens and your studies keep you firmly planted in reality.
They are.

>>5510909
>Implying we could reach the epic speeds required to exit our solar system alive.

>Implying we could build a ship with enough fuel, supplies and oxygen for such a journey.

Lrn2speedoflight

>>5510919
>implying we need to send organisms to collect material
>implying lack of gravitational slingshots, increasing fuel efficiency, and other neat future stuff

>>5510922
>Implying we still wouldn't need gratuitous amounts of fuel, enough to bankrupt a country.

>>5510929
>implying what can be done with the full resources of a single country today can't be done with a relatively small percent of a country's resources many years from now
Nobody's saying we build a Dyson Sphere right the hell now.

Hey guys, I heard this was going on in this thread!

>>5510886
We might not have to go to the rest of the galaxy. We could keep getting better and more efficient at using the matter/energy we do have for computation.

>>5510430
There are theoretical limits on how small/large computers can get. Barring quantum tech, when you get to the scale of blood cells, your limiting factor is obviously the limited number of atoms to compute with.

>>5510434
Pretty much this.

>>5510430
>What does /sci/ think of Moore's law?

Self-fulfilling prophecy. When it was first coined in the late 1960s it was just a curious observation about the first years of computer development. After that it wasn't that the growth of computing power followed the coined rate - rather, the manufacturers set their goals by those rates. The progress could be made faster, but it was to every company's benefit to slow it to the Moore's law rate - they would sell more generations more often that way.

Still, lately the manufacturers have struggled to keep up with those "predicted" rates and most experts (like the ITRS) agree the era of exponential computing power growth is now grinding to a halt.

In my own field (bioinformatics), the rate of data produced fast outstripping the rate of storage density per dollar growth is a major problem.

>>5510890
Blood oxygenation and CO2 removal via specialized nanobots.

Helloooo weightloss.

>>5511876
Actually, it's about to go into overdrive, not grind to a halt. Chips are flat, and we're about to use the 3rd dimension to cram thousands, if not millions of times more transistors into the available space. Check this out (World's first 3D chip announced recently):


http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-true-3d-microchip-created-cambridge-scientists

the gates can only get so small. after this point electrons act funny and stop behaving as desired.

>>5512187
3D chips or graphene chips or spintronics, or single molecule transistors or whatever, the issues is that we've maxed out the tech and need a paradigm shift to continue.

>>5510952
No, I was masturbating in front of everyone, you missed it. I was great.

>>5512212
thats the part of Moors law that everyone forgets
you max out, paradigm sift, max out repeat.

>>5510444
Except there are many data points supporting Moore's Law.

>>5512288
and zero data points that describe no upper limit ... or even an upper limit that would allow nano-bots

>>5510488
what is quantum computing for 500?

>>5512315
Doubt an upper limit would be reached before nanobots since cellular life already does computation at the same scale.

>>5512351
cellular life doesnt make computations...

>>5512423
but dude everything is information lrn2holographic principle

>>5512327
Something that relies on elementary particles so QED you can't have something smaller than the sum of its parts.

>>5511876
Well, I do know that many companies don't want to switch to electron beams for making sub 10 nm lines. It's expensive, and slow for massive scale. It takes me a few hours to make a design on a single 4 inch wafer, and I'm using an exotic e-beam resist with extremely fast etch rates.

>>5512285
Moores law was only an observation of transistor density, size and price, it doesn't have any special clasuses that absolutely require paradigm shifts.

>>5513015
I think he's referring to general paradigms of computation. e.g. We used to use vacuum tubes, then couldn't shrink them, so we moved on to the next technology.

>>5510430
We will be hitting quantum tunneling before quantum computing is ready for prime-time, be prepared for Moore's wall.

Pretty sure we are getting close to the height of what silicon can do in terms of tech. So until we find a different afforable replacement, tech wont advance as fast as we have gotten used too in the last 2 decades for the consumer atleast. Companies who have the resources are sitll always going to be 5+ years ahead of the comsumer.

Aren't they making 3D computer chips? That's a thing.

>>5510931
We can never build a Dyson sphere or ring. They're not gravitationally stable.

>>5513854
Sure, a niven ring is unstable, but since every part of a dyson swarm is in an orbit around the star, the configuration is stable.

Also, you can stabilize a niven ring.

>>5510576
>5) power source .... yea good luck with that one
You can farm electrons from the bloodstream... your blood is full of ions too.
They've actually done this already as a precursor for long term pacemakers that don't need to be tampered with.

I thought Moore's law only applied to the use of transistors

>>5513957
There's probably a lot of different ways to harvest energy from the blood in our bodies. After all, it sustains our cells, so it should in principle be possible to extract chemical energy from energetic biomolecules.

>>5515028
>die of malnourishment because the nanobots are busy using everything they can to kill that cancer, destroy that tar from your lungs and mining plaque from your veins
Should have taken that hour to update to version 19.00.451

>>5515088
had not considered this possibility... still, maybe you'd get hungry faster and you could simply eat more glucose/fat/etc.

>>5510434
When we get our computers down to a size smaller than one planck length they basically don't exist anymore.

We've pretty much reached the limit of how small we can make transistors.
20 nm is about the smallest we can go, 45 nm is a common size.
This is why there is a push for multi-core and 3D proccessor setups. There's still plenty of potential there. After about 1000 cores, there's no point in making any more cores on the chip, but until then there are still significant gains to be made.

>>5515576
>20 nm is about the smallest we can go
The roadmaps extend to lower values.
>45 nm is a common size.
Common as still in use, sure. Common as in top line consumer PC components? Nope.
Intel released 22nm processors a few months ago, other manufacturers are still trailing behind a bit.

>push for multi-core
Multi core is due to diminishing returns when you try to push the upper bounds of switching speed.

>After about 1000 cores, there's no point in making any more cores on the chip
Every supercomputer have use of more than 1000 cores, and even in ye olde days there was experimental computers with more than this.

3D chip designs can squeeze a bit more out of silicon, but we'll change to different materials or non-CMOS silicon of some exotic variant eventually to get the most out of our electronics.

It's likely that power usage and ease of manufacture will gain importance over pure speed. The devices are so small that a matchbox made of pure processor elements would be supercomputer-grade in capability, but we can't cool it well enough. So large but ultra efficient devices might be what next gen computation brings.

>>5515781
>Multi core is due to diminishing returns when you try to push the upper bounds of switching speed.

you might wanna check your implications and memequotes. makign cores bigger won't do that either.

>>5515119
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429510/a-watch-that-runs-on-two-live-lobsters/

>>5515897
>check your implications and memequotes
>memequotes

>>5510430
guise! ... guise... i think i got hacked...
>mfw forever in the matrix
>mfw no face