Nanotechnology & Computer - New World?

Pages: 12
Hi,

I have had tremendous amounts of idea of future from particle physics to idea of super weapons.

However, these tend to be too far fetched and too complicated. 99.5% of all people on earth probably do not understand the General Relativity and Superstring theory.

Therefore I decided to leave the idea as a whole and thought of something more along my best understanding (technology, programming, security).

I though about it for long time until getting a powerful idea of how the world should or would become. My best ideas lay in Nanotechnology however the next idea I got was not too obvious for anyone in all this forum. It is my special thought process I had - ART.

As you many here many ask why Nanotechnology, it can give us amazing possibilities here are few:

- Super weapons: Imagine creating a nanobot which JUST uses elements around it to create itself again and again.

Using calculations, if 1 nanobot can reproduce itself in 1000 seconds, At the end of ten hours there would be over 68 billion nanobots. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets

Therefore if we at start send at least 3 tons of the nanobots which is barely anything in war and battle (actually weight of a teenage\kid elephant). We could easily destroy a planet without using too much human effort at all.

- Superstructure Building: Imagine simply uploading a design plan to a master computer then simply tossing in few 10 or 20 tonnes of nanobots (2 to 4 elephants weight) then waiting for the nanobots to use the atoms from atmosphere to turn it into the building. Then they would deactivate themselves which can be collected and can again be reused.

________________________________________

As for the Art, it is about implementing creativity into computers rather than human communication. I will use Prof Albert Einstein as a example.

Albert Einstein did not just come up with the equation E=MC2 by using random problems but using power of creativity. Albert Einstein dreamed of cats and trains and such and used that imagination to convert it to powerful equations.

Normally, mathematics and logic is the biggest hardship of all physicists and mathematicians. However creativity is the easiest thing all living things can do (well at least apes & few rodents).

But, computers have the best logic and mathematics ever. They can solve even the most difficult nonlinear equations (like the ones Einstein performed) in matter of milliseconds. Similarly, computers have a downfall - it's creativity.

If we can incorporate creativity into computers we can use computers programming to describe a idea (like mine for example: Mass\Gravity Control) and it would use it's creativity similar to einstein to generate a working equations and if it fails it may indicate it using few error codes.

This could possibly be the closest we have ever been too. Imagine companies like Apple (Creator of Siri, a AI) and Microsoft and CERN team to build such machines which can use creativity.

This idea was born from Einstein when he said "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

What do you guys think.




Super weapons: Imagine creating a nanobot which JUST uses elements around it to create itself again and again.
You might find this interesting (and worrying): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo I've heard that Hawking thinks this is one of the most likely things to wipe out humanity.

Superstructure Building


Yeah bots like this could definitely help build structures. They could also patrol and maintain them and also our bodies!

"Imagination is more important than knowledge".


I wonder everyday what is imagination and why it is we can do what we do. An example I think about a lot is chess. A world class chess player can recognize almost immediately if a position is good or bad for them, without doing an analysis of millions of moves like a computer would to make a judgement of a position. Sure, computers are better at humans in chess, but the performance of human in chess is actually incredible. A top player is looking at perhaps only tens of moves and variations, but can rival a pretty strong computer looking at tens of millions. Why is that? I think about this nearly everyday...

It certainly would be amazing to put creativity into computing but the thing is how? What even is creativity? And perhaps most importantly - Would we like what computers did if they were creative?
I sounds like you are searching for world dominance. Would you like help on:

1. Why you shouldn't create such machines?
2. How you're bound to kill yourself?
3. Why you shouldn't give the NSA ideas?
4. No. This isn't a question, no.
Mats, something tells me he already read the grey goo article:

Wiki:
At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six new replicators, but over 68 billion. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets combined


Orion:
At the end of ten hours there would be over 68 billion nanobots. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets


Not to pull the plug on any fantasies here (even though this may be what the lounge is for, who knows), but this sounds dangerously like OP doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. You can't just pull a bunch of concepts and ideas together and say stuff like "If we could make computers think and be creative, and then make them smart and intelligent and then make them do this and do that and then be all cool and futuristic and infinite reusable energy and pow pow pew" - let me just be the bad guy here, by saying that the direction of the original post sounds childish. That's how it comes across to me, anyways.
n less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets


This is why pure mathematicians aren't allowed to do physics... And well done on spotting that xismn.

99.5% of all people on earth probably do not understand the General Relativity and Superstring theory.


I think the correct figures are something like 99.99999% and 100% respectively.

lol @ RealGiganitris
99.5% of all people on earth probably do not understand the General Relativity and Superstring theory.

I think the correct figures are something like 99.99999% and 100% respectively.

Well you both are partially right. General Relativity and Superstring theory are easy to understand, here let me fix the statement to make it accurate ;)

99.9999% of all the people on earth do not care about General Relativity and Superstring theory.


There lies the problem. With the internet, anything a person doesn't understand they can search and find a site that explains it so they can understand it. Problem is that most of the population doesn't care about anything that they don't see as affecting them emotionally or physically.
Hi,

My idea was actually derived from grey goo. As for medical purposes obviously, we could then remove all possible diseases known to man.

It depends on the computer actually, we may need to involve Three Laws of Robotics in the computer as proposed by Isaac Asimov. This would ensure 100% protection and one more rule I made up for accurate results and for the computer not to lie:

- A Robot\Computer may not hide or protect any data from human
- A Robot\Computer may not change the question or task without complete consent.
- A Robot\Computer may not ever intend to destroy organic or synthetic life.

These would ensure the computer does not destroy or otherwise hide revolutionary data from us humans.

As for the what is creativity. It would be similar to how Siri was programmed except it would be more powerful and have knowledge banks and try to use the knowledge banks to propose or theorize to a conclusion of unknown using valid\direct proof.

These should allow computer to be creative (in terms of einstein\scientific ways). For example we would input a program which maybe wants to relate to creating energy. Therefore using algorithms such as ones Siri uses we could analyze keywords such as:

- Energy
- Creating

So now the creativity of the Computer plays in, so the computer (like humans) will start to find a beginning via finding ordinals for each primary keywords such as

- Kinetic Energy (Derived from Energy)
- Heat Energy (Derived from Energy)
- Light Energy (Dervied from Energy)
- Energy should equal to ? (Derived from hybrid (Energy + Create))


Now we found secondary data so the PC should give us E = KEx for the first 1. Where 'KEx' is kinetic energy, and the 'E =' was generated solely due to the structure of the program\question as we asked "Creating Energy" therefore we are asking what is Energy equal to or how to make it. The question analysis can be integrated easily because Siri for example can analyze the most sophisticated questions which are more or less complicated and confusing whereas our question is extremely straightforward and does not have any too complicated differential meanings unlike the everyday question Siri faces on a daily basis.

Then the computer will find more derivatives of secondary few include equational meaning and some keyword derivatives for example since we got ' E = KEx' and we already got the derivatives of 'E' in the equation our computer can skip this part however we have yet to find derivatives for the 'KEx' which the CI (Creative Intelligence) generates as being Kinetic Energy which the CI gets:

- Mass
- Velocity
- ½mV² where 'm' is mass and 'V2' is the velocity in meters per second (m/s)
- Et+Er
- More.

This would give us a rough idea about the equation and our CI simply changes the form of the 'KEx' to '½mV²' therefore the equation would be: 'E = ½mV²' however the computer checks it question and discovers we could be talking about rest energy and as we do not want the complete energy from the mass we remove the '½' from the equation 'E = ½mV²' making it 'E = mV²' .

The computer then replaces 'V²' in 'E = mV²' to 'c²' also known as speed of light squared because our energy is not the object's velocity but the energy itself and all good physicists understand energy is sent in quanta (photons) which travels at electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic radiation speeds which is speed of light.

As you see the out put would be: 'E = mc²' . Bare in mind, the PC would output various other equations which could be slightly wrong such as 'E = ½mV²' which is as a result of generic behaviour of the question.

However if question was laid out less generic like: "Creation of Energy of Rest Mass" should give us more tamed results, but I just wanted to show the rough algorithm of such computational methods.

As you could realize these equations use derivatives\meaning of each to give a equation out.

@xismn

Is that not science pulling ideas to gather to make a new idea? Not to mention I am not saying for sure it could be possible I am saying there should be a chance besides, AI based science work places are in use.
Last edited on
My idea was actually derived from grey goo. As for medical purposes obviously, we could then remove all possible diseases known to man.

Maybe you watch a bit too much Revolution?

Anyways why would you want to destroy a planet? This isn't your first thread about creating WMD's either, which is a pretty odd thing to be thinking about designing.
Hi,

Pretty much all human activity ever has led to development of mass destruction weapons. For example Anti-Matter findings led to ideas of developing antimatter bombs. Therefore its pretty human to think about it.

General Relativity and Superstring theory are easy to understand


Err... Yeah right. lol

It would be similar to how Siri was programmed except it would be more powerful and have knowledge banks and try to use the knowledge banks to propose or theorize to a conclusion of unknown using valid\direct proof.


How exactly do you think Siri is working? It's not putting ideas together creatively.

Your example of how to derive E = mc2 is also completely flawed. The difficulty is not in finding the equation from other equations, but on realizing the ideas about how the universe works beforehand. You should not be talking about how to derive an equation from another. That's being logical, not creative, as Niels Bohr might say. The creative (and very difficult part) is imagining how the universe really works and using these abstract imagined things to come up with a formula to start deriving from.

For example, Einstein's E = mc2 comes from him realizing time & space are not fixed quantities, but flexible and related things, related by c. How do you suppose a computer would come up with that thought?

Have any of you ever seen the movie the terminator, and irobot. There is an exception for everything...
@OrionMaster I'm not debating the viability of artificial intelligence for application in science - I'm aware of its usage (from optimizing algorithms, maneuvering satellites and probes, assisting doctors, and many other wacky things) - all these things somehow are contributing to improve the human quality of life (or at least point it in some new direction). It's probably one of the more progressive fields - considering how excited everybody gets when they talk about robots - which has been a major human fascination for a long time now.

Back to what I meant to express... to me, it comes across like you're attempting to compile a list of somewhat related variables concerning the progress and future out-look of a scientific field, in the hopes of making it all sound coherent - which it doesn't. This is something you would expect a child to do, which is why I said it sounded childish.

Imagine an eight-year-old, who, when asked what he wants to be when he grows up, answers "I want to be a doctor! And then I'll cure the whole world of every disease! And I'll make that work with Band-aids and Penicillin! And then I'll make a fast, smart human-aide robot which will help everyone and then I'll cure cancer and make space rockets and I'll be an astronaut and cure aids and terraform Mars and...".

I'm not saying you're that kind of obnoxious (you're not obnoxious), and I'm certainly not saying that getting a different viewpoint and getting new ideas to bridge a scientific gap is bad, I'm just saying that I don't know where I was going with this.
Err... Yeah right. lol

I was being serious. If a person doesn't understand it, all they have to do is watch any show that has Giorgio Tsoukalos on it as he goes into explanations of both every time. I'm starting to think the guy gets paid by the number of times he covers it....of course he is always saying all our past events are proof of aliens so I don't know how legit he is.
Hi,

Mat's you were spot on here, E=mc2 may not be correctly on how it was generated. It was a rough idea on how it *could* generated it.

I personally think creativity would vary quite a lot for example scientific creativity is more or less easier than that of art\music creativity because those all rely on sensory inputs and memory based neuron firings which create the "love" for a specific art piece or music composition.

Back to scientific creativity, computers could may use it's already filled knowledge banks and apply them to unsolved scientific problems.
It could be useful if the CI had some simulation API (Yes! Finally some programming, lol) to check or dream of more problems to ensure it could learn more and apply that.
I was being serious. If a person doesn't understand it, all they have to do is watch any show that has Giorgio Tsoukalos on it as he goes into explanations of both every time.


Saying you understand general relativity after an explanation such as that, is very similar to saying you understand programming if you have had the program hello world roughly explained to you. Saying you understand superstring theory after an explanation such as that, is beyond ridiculous.

I personally think creativity would vary quite a lot for example scientific creativity is more or less easier than that of art\music creativity because those all rely on sensory inputs and memory based neuron firings which create the "love" for a specific art piece or music composition.


Being a part time professional musician, I definitely disagree with this. Creativity in science is way way harder.

computers could may use it's already filled knowledge banks and apply them to unsolved scientific problems.


And this again... Yeah sure a computer could, the question is - how? I mean, a computer could also self-evolve into a highly intelligent species too and then just solve all our science that way.


Hi,

Using special algorithmical challenges and implementation, just take a look at how siri works and changing that to other purpose *could* do the job.

When I say creative I don't necessarily mean abstract, in fact far from it. I say it can use links which computers and could be applied similar to how large stock exchange machines can identify\analyze business data to accurately predict future stocks.

In fact they are being used by Economical Leaders to look at changes which can cause disaster.

__

We have not debated about nanotechnology as much, take a look at this article: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138726/Nanotech_could_make_humans_immortal_by_2040_futurist_says

It says nanotechnology based treatments were given to a rat with ovarian cancer, which is considered to be one of the most deadly cancers, in mice and the treatment resulted as the nanotechnology blasted cancer cells in mice with "tumor busting" genes.

The tests also have shown that the new technique leaves healthy cells undamaged.
__

It seems all the new world (21st century) will revolve around computer sciences and programming unlike the 20th and 19th century which was more or less based all on physics and chemistry and biology.

All programmers are the world's next leaders.
Last edited on
Saying you understand general relativity after an explanation such as that, is very similar to saying you understand programming if you have had the program hello world roughly explained to you. Saying you understand superstring theory after an explanation such as that, is beyond ridiculous.

There are different levels of understanding and it seems you are referring to understanding them by use (seeing your example). You can understand what programming is from an explanation, but you can't understand what is capable with programming without actually doing it. Just like you can understand what General Relativity and Superstring theory are from an explanation, but you can't understand their use. People can understand what something is, but only get a deeper understanding by using it.
It seems all the new world (21st century) will revolve around computer sciences and programming unlike the 20th and 19th century which was more or less based all on physics and chemistry and biology.


Try looking up D-wave. That's primary physics based research. Chemistry is currently offering (amongst other things) smart materials and significant artificial materials (such as carbon nanotubes and Boron nitride nanotubes). Biology is perhaps the most promising of all sciences in the coming decades though, mostly because of DNA research. i.e. You might want to research and then reconsider your viewpoint here.

All programmers are the world's next leaders.


If we take your point about science being very important in the last century and now programming is going to take its place as being true, how many scientists do you think were involved in politics last century?

@BHX Spector

There are different levels of understanding and it seems you are referring to understanding them by use (seeing your example).


No, I was literally talking about just understanding them. Anyone who has not properly studied relativity has no idea what it is. It's one of the deepest and most fundamental theories of the universe and it is folly to think you can watch ten minute explanations or hour long documentaries and have even the faintest idea of what the theory actually is or what it means.

People can understand what something is, but only get a deeper understanding by using it.


This point is also incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of what the theory is. You can use the equations without understanding the theory just fine. You just Google the formula and plug the numbers or get a program that does this for you.
Hi,


I don't mean it directly, lol, it means that computer science has a massive influence in the world now.
Pages: 12