How long will it take for humanity to surpass SW technology wise?

Started by Hewhoknowsall9 pages

*sigh*

It is true that blasters probably won't be used, heck there's a chance that we might not even use directed energy weapons at all (although strangely in another thread Lucien said that it was strange that the Halo humans still use projectile weapons in the 26th century, even though that's very possible). However, we can most definitely produce a handheld weapon of some sort that would surpass that of blasters. Will it be called a "blaster"? Probably not. But we CAN invent more powerful weapons than a blaster. If you still disagree, then let me ask you: how advanced do you think our handheld weapons will be in, say, 2000 years? Please give a description of how powerful they could conceivably be via 2000 years of advancement.

You have yet to explain how AI is impossible. To think that we cannot invent AI at least at the level of a battle droid (whose "intelligence" is laughable) in millions of years is not realistic. Let me ask you: how advanced do you think AI will be in a million years (if we survive that long and are still advanced)?

We don't yet no if "anti-gravity" is possible. If it is, then we can make one. If not, then obviously we can't, however we can make devices that function similarly to repulserlifts.

So in billions of years we won't have the tech to make a car fly? Now will they actually become a common transportation method? Probably not, due to many negative factors of the sky being filled with flying cars, but we do have the potential to make one. We probably won't (or at least won't make them widespread), but we can. They are not "beyond comprehension".

Who says that it's light or plasma? And how do you know that we can't figure out some way to control light/plasma in some strange way?
It could be some strange new element that scientists invent.

Oh, and true, we obviously won't actually use lightsabers for combat, that's ridiculous. However, it isn't entirely far-fetched to say that they are possible. Are they? Maybe, maybe not, but so say that they may be possible in millions of years is not "crazy".

Oh, and Lucien, you are a hypocrite. Please don't bash me about "bashing" (ie being a bit sarcastic) others, when you go out and call people idiots and come up with strange logic to support it (oh the Empire wins cause they simply divide their small forces around the globe and attack all of the many nuclear countries at once and win EASILY, and of course I'm ignoring something called the OCEAN, their lack of transports, their not-unlimited supplies, air strikes, artillery strikes, the nuclear nations' NAVIES, overwhelming numerical disadvantage, and many others, but who cares? Later: hey, it's a spite against the Empire! How dare you!). Then, when I come up with a large, LOGCIAL argument to support my logical conclusions, often times you ignore it. Tell me: when have I EVER started bashing someone FIRST before they did? I'm waiting...

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Oh, and Lucien, you are a hypocrite. Please don't bash me about "bashing" (ie being a bit sarcastic) others, when you go out and call people idiots and come up with strange logic to support it (oh the Empire wins cause they simply divide their small forces around the globe and attack all of the many nuclear countries at once and win EASILY, and of course I'm ignoring something called the OCEAN, their lack of transports, their not-unlimited supplies, air strikes, artillery strikes, the nuclear nations' NAVIES, overwhelming numerical disadvantage, and many others, but who cares? Later: hey, it's a spite against the Empire! How dare you!). Then, when I come up with a large, LOGCIAL argument to support my logical conclusions, often times you ignore it. Tell me: when have I EVER started bashing someone FIRST before they did? I'm waiting...

Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist.

He's still going on about that? I am flattered. Truly. Never before have I remained such a focal point in someone's mind over an internet argument. 10 bucks says he's had dreams of throttling me.

To think I'm costing that kid's family money in psychiatric treatment. "Tell me, He, did this avatar touch you? Did he remind you of your father? All work and no play makes He a dumb boy? Did he come home covered in soot and reeking of gin? Did he call you names like 'troll' and 'idiot'? How did that make you feel?"

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He's still going on about that? I am flattered. Truly. Never before have I remained such a focal point in someone's mind over an internet argument. 10 bucks says he's had dreams of throttling me.

To think I'm costing that kid's family money in psychiatric treatment. "Tell me, He, did this avatar touch you? Did he remind you of your father? All work and no play makes He a dumb boy? Did he come home covered in soot and reeking of gin? Did he call you names like 'troll' and 'idiot'? How did that make you feel?"

*sigh* see? You completely ignored my argument and just said that it was bull without saying why.

Oh, and you guys started it. NOT me. I was simply debating when you all of the sudden started bashing me.

What'd he say? All I see beside his name is "Yada Yada Yada Lobster Bisque."

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
*sigh* see? You completely ignored my argument and just said that it was bull without saying why.

Oh, and you guys started it. NOT me. I was simply debating when you all of the sudden started bashing me.

He replied this to both of our posts. Meaning, he actually thinks we're arguing want to argue about the topic with him.

So what have we learned? We have learned that not responding to someone's arguments is automatically saying that they're bs.

So I have counted 2 off topic posts (in the strict, non-rules lawyerly way of being a d-bag) that have not even referenced my post. (Unless he really did and just happened to also rant about his Lucien fetish.)

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
He replied this to both of our posts. Meaning, he actually thinks we're arguing want to argue about the topic with him.

So what have we learned? We have learned that not responding to someone's arguments is automatically saying that they're bs.

You did quote it (or at least the last part to Lucien) and then said "what's your problem you're wrong" but never said HOW I'm wrong.

Why can't you guys have a little humanity?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
You did quote it (or at least the last part to Lucien) and then said "what's your problem you're wrong" but never said HOW I'm wrong.

Why can't you guys have a little humanity?

I haven't talked about the topic ONCE in this entire thread.

Prove that I said you're wrong, quote me and put the words in italic. If you can't do that, then you're a goddamn liar. It's very hard to be nice to people who tell lies about you.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So I have counted 2 off topic posts (in the strict, non-rules lawyerly way of being a d-bag) that have not even referenced my post. (Unless he really did and just happened to also rant about his Lucien fetish.)

*3 posts

Lobster bisque.....
:::drool:::

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
*sigh*

indeed

anyway, i've noticed it with every return argument you give me...you keep speculating the amount of time it would take the human race to evolve to a level of technological advancement similar to star wars...nowhere do you prove that we have the ability to exponentially expend our "know how" in the periods of time you list...hmmm

It is true that blasters probably won't be used, heck there's a chance that we might not even use directed energy weapons at all (although strangely in another thread Lucien said that it was strange that the Halo humans still use projectile weapons in the 26th century, even though that's very possible). However, we can most definitely produce a handheld weapon of some sort that would surpass that of blasters. Will it be called a "blaster"? Probably not. But we CAN invent more powerful weapons than a blaster. If you still disagree, then let me ask you: how advanced do you think our handheld weapons will be in, say, 2000 years? Please give a description of how powerful they could conceivably be via 2000 years of advancement.

can we actually create weapons with a destructive capacity higher than a blaster from star wars? if there any proof that we have the ability to evolve that "know how" over however many years?

i can't say how technologically advanced we'll be in 2000years, because 1)i'm not a time traveller, 2)i don't think even top theoretical or quantum physical scientists could even predict that...

You have yet to explain how AI is impossible. To think that we cannot invent AI at least at the level of a battle droid (whose "intelligence" is laughable) in millions of years is not realistic. Let me ask you: how advanced do you think AI will be in a million years (if we survive that long and are still advanced)?

intelligence is generally defined by sentience. sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively...philosophy defines rules to how to identify sentience: the ability to feel pain and pleasure.

now you could argue that computers/robots today have the ability to identify objects and relay them back to testing scientists to suggest a level of learning, which can be argued to be a contributing factor towards intelligence, but tell me (going back to my example): if a computer witnesses a rock being dropped off a cliff and saw the end result, it would no doubt see that the rock could not stay intact when i hit the ground, but intelligence would allow a human to see that dropping himself/herself off a cliff would kill him/her, the robot wouldn't...

We don't yet no if "anti-gravity" is possible. If it is, then we can make one. If not, then obviously we can't, however we can make devices that function similarly to repulserlifts.

Gravity is a constant. The only way to simulate gravity is to create a centrifuge, and since the lifts in star wars don't rotate extremely fast...something tells me they don't follow this rule.

So in billions of years we won't have the tech to make a car fly? Now will they actually become a common transportation method? Probably not, due to many negative factors of the sky being filled with flying cars, but we do have the potential to make one. We probably won't (or at least won't make them widespread), but we can. They are not "beyond comprehension".

a flying car from star wars no...there's nothing to say that aerodynamics would enter the equation, as the shape of the "flying cars" in star wars are very similar to that of our cars...but Gravity and Thrust enter majorly into how the "car" would work.

Who says that it's light or plasma? And how do you know that we can't figure out some way to control light/plasma in some strange way?
It could be some strange new element that scientists invent.

it's called a "light"saber funny enough...and others argue that it's actually plasma. nevertheless, i know we wouldn't figure out a way to control light because there is no proven way - theoretical or known - to manipulate light...

as for plasma, anything we or scientists know about the behavior of plasma would know that it's not possible to control plasma that way...

Oh, and true, we obviously won't actually use lightsabers for combat, that's ridiculous. However, it isn't entirely far-fetched to say that they are possible. Are they? Maybe, maybe not, but so say that they may be possible in millions of years is not "crazy".

it's amazingly crazy and anyone who thinks it isn't crazy should pop-off to a nice little psychiatrist and ask them about their connection to the real world...see above comment

Oh, and Lucien, you are a hypocrite. Please don't bash me about "bashing" (ie being a bit sarcastic) others, when you go out and call people idiots and come up with strange logic to support it (oh the Empire wins cause they simply divide their small forces around the globe and attack all of the many nuclear countries at once and win EASILY, and of course I'm ignoring something called the OCEAN, their lack of transports, their not-unlimited supplies, air strikes, artillery strikes, the nuclear nations' NAVIES, overwhelming numerical disadvantage, and many others, but who cares? Later: hey, it's a spite against the Empire! How dare you!). Then, when I come up with a large, LOGCIAL argument to support my logical conclusions, often times you ignore it. Tell me: when have I EVER started bashing someone FIRST before they did? I'm waiting...

this doesn't look like it's aimed at me so, i'll ignore it lol

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
indeed

anyway, i've noticed it with every return argument you give me...you keep speculating the amount of time it would take the human race to evolve to a level of technological advancement similar to star wars...nowhere do you prove that we have the ability to exponentially expend our "know how" in the periods of time you list...hmmm

can we actually create weapons with a destructive capacity higher than a blaster from star wars? if there any proof that we have the ability to evolve that "know how" over however many years?

i can't say how technologically advanced we'll be in 2000years, because 1)i'm not a time traveller, 2)i don't think even top theoretical or quantum physical scientists could even predict that...

intelligence is generally defined by sentience. sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively...philosophy defines rules to how to identify sentience: the ability to feel pain and pleasure.

now you could argue that computers/robots today have the ability to identify objects and relay them back to testing scientists to suggest a level of learning, which can be argued to be a contributing factor towards intelligence, but tell me (going back to my example): if a computer witnesses a rock being dropped off a cliff and saw the end result, it would no doubt see that the rock could not stay intact when i hit the ground, but intelligence would allow a human to see that dropping himself/herself off a cliff would kill him/her, the robot wouldn't...

Gravity is a constant. The only way to simulate gravity is to create a centrifuge, and since the lifts in star wars don't rotate extremely fast...something tells me they don't follow this rule.

a flying car from star wars no...there's nothing to say that aerodynamics would enter the equation, as the shape of the "flying cars" in star wars are very similar to that of our cars...but Gravity and Thrust enter majorly into how the "car" would work.

it's called a "light"saber funny enough...and others argue that it's actually plasma. nevertheless, i know we wouldn't figure out a way to control light because there is no proven way - theoretical or known - to manipulate light...

as for plasma, anything we or scientists know about the behavior of plasma would know that it's not possible to control plasma that way...

it's amazingly crazy and anyone who thinks it isn't crazy should pop-off to a nice little psychiatrist and ask them about their connection to the real world...see above comment

this doesn't look like it's aimed at me so, i'll ignore it lol

First of all, I apologize if I offended you or anything.

Second of all, many of your arguments revolve around "oh it's too difficult to produce X amount of energy required or it isn't areodynamic or light doesn't work that way and we don't know how to influence it NOW, and since we don't have the tech to do it now, we can't make it." Well people 100 years ago claimed that a flying machine would never be made and I even believe that some scientists "mathematically proved" that humans ever flying is impossible. But that's because although they didn't have the ability to create it then, they thought that it is impossible, which is false. And yes, a robot could be made to tell that dropping off a cliff would kill itself, all it has to do is to calculate the impact of the fall based on the height of the cliff and other stuff.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I haven't talked about the topic ONCE in this entire thread.

Prove that I said you're wrong, quote me and put the words in italic. If you can't do that, then you're a goddamn liar. It's very hard to be nice to people who tell lies about you.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist.

As a response to my rebuttal against Lucien, you said the above, which doesn't give a logical argument as to why I am wrong (not about the main topic, but about this sub topic involving Lucien all of the sudden bashing me for no reason. Then I respond to his bashing, and you read it and say that I'm crazy without providing a reason as to why Lucien is justified in bashing me.

HWKA, you are asking every one to speculate. Why are you arguing when you are wanting us to speculate?

It could be some strange new element that scientists invent.

By which you mean: Magic that science will make for me.

Given our current understanding of the universe these things are not possible.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
By which you mean: Magic that science will make for me.

lol...you love using magic as that unknown thing don't you

Yes. Yes I do.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Our technology = magic by medieval standards. If you were to ask a medieval serf if we'll ever invent a flying machine, he'll laugh at you.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
As a response to my rebuttal against Lucien, you said the above, which doesn't give a logical argument as to why I am wrong (not about the main topic, but about this sub topic involving Lucien all of the sudden bashing me for no reason. Then I respond to his bashing, and you read it and say that I'm crazy without providing a reason as to why Lucien is justified in bashing me.

The **** dude. If we're gonna talk about this 'sub-topic' again, then I have enough to cover my ass. I was saying that you were stupid (stubborn) enough to keep clinging on to this particular subject which should be dropped and forgotten.

If you want to say that we could develop flying cars, given an unspecified number of prior advances of similarly vague and similarly science fiction-ey inventions, then yes. They are possible. But to suggest that we are anywhere close now or that they are a likely occurrence at all is simply false.