No, one can't extrapolate anything into the paradoxical concept of infinity. Just to an immeasurably tiny composition - see: "The Measurement Problem" of quantum mechanics. Ergo, 'quantum computer'; or, in this case, femptoscale 'optomechanical-microwave quantum integrated circuitry' within autonomous and adaptive neural-analogues that are a billionth of a meter in size (nano-robots).
I propose a whole brain of nanorobots, that can be used to integrate a sentient mind into a virtual coupling, independent of substratum.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Jul 16th, 2013 at 02:07 AM
You're thinking purely biologically, I'm proposing an echo of that biological process that functions via quantum entanglement.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Jul 16th, 2013 at 02:31 AM
Actually it does, a particle and its anti-particle are in theory the same particle. So even if you were able to create the particle and its anti-particle and successfully isolate them then you still wouldn't be able to gain information that wasn't there in to begin with.
I have no education or knowledge of nano-engineering and nano-electronic engineering.
The measurement problem was my answer to your claim that it would take an infinitely small space for communication for quantum computers to operate with communication on smaller than neuron parameters within these nanites.
^But the measurement problem isn't even necessarily relevant to a fabricated human brains structure made of nano-robots that have replaced neurons.
It wouldn't, a nano robot is a completely different structure than neurons and their dendrites. It might not even produce synapses for all we know, it could transfer information in other ways, see below:
It could be transferring information from one potential wave function to another potential wave function of the same exact particle, that is fluxing from one place to another making up the quantum structure of the atoms within the nanite-neurons. We don't design this with tiny sub-quantum tools, that is just the different structure of a different kind of membrane that resides within a completely different kind of machine than a human neuron.
Again, you're thinking biology, this is the structure and function of something that wouldn't be considered biological in a conventional sense. It comes from improved technology, not from natural evolution.
Last edited by KillaKassara on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:42 PM
There is something about these two statements that I find fascinating.
I hate to speak for others but I really doubt that Astner's objection to the idea of instantaneous information transfer in particle/antiparticle pairs came from him thinking like a biologist.
As I recall your can't use quantum "spooky action" to send a message because a) there is no way to control the message and b) there is no way to know which end changed first.
Imagine two boxes each with a digital display inside. When you open either box both of the displays instantly pick a random number and display it, then keep showing it. If you open Box A and see "42," that tells you nothing.You also Maybe it set to "42" when you opened it, maybe it was set to "42" when the other box was opened. The check them is limited by the speed of light. You also can't tell anything from the number because the number is random.
(Astner will tear this apart I'm sure.)
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Last edited by Symmetric Chaos on Jul 20th, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Because you have to actually go check the other box to find out if it was opened and when. That's what I mean by "check time", simply "the time you need to go check". Any checking you do is forced by the laws of physics to happen slower than light.
Since I criticized Dadude for doing it one time and then realized he would hunt me to the ends of the Earth looking for me to slip up and do it myself.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Last edited by Symmetric Chaos on Jul 21st, 2013 at 12:49 AM
But Astner started in on how the operation would is implausible.
I tried to foolishly argue technicalities with a more educated individual like I always do.
I don't know why I try to get into arguments when I'm only armed with very vague bits and pieces of information...but I do.
Transhumanism, computer technology, improved society, living standard, and education and career opportunities, even genetic engineering are all very interesting topics for me because I really want to be as ingenious, enhanced, educated, secure and free to do what I want as possible. More than that, I would love to live to see a future super-eco self-sustained city whose every facet is embedded with thinking computers that offer the full knowledge database of planet earth as downloadable content.
I honestly don't see the money-centered world that prevents such things as enduring.
I guess I'm a Trekian.
I highly doubt sects will be able to use such intelligent and liberating technology to kill and conquer like in Dune. But that is, I guess, a viable threat. However, unlike Frank Herbert, I believe that if that happened we'd never destroy the machines that make life so simple for us just because they're being used to conquer us...especially not if we're "transcending", and being made better by becoming cyborgs.
Last edited by KillaKassara on Jul 21st, 2013 at 12:57 AM
Well, nanotechnology is technology on the nanometer scale, i.e. atom-scaled. The prefix femto- would mean that you're working on the scale a thousandth of a nanometer of which there's no actual purpose.
No, what I said was that you couldn't extrapolate a rough model for technological advancement indefinitely, implying that there's a limit to what's there to discover and take advantage of.
No, it's not. The measurement problem deals with wave-function collapses and has a number of interpretations such as hidden variables, dynamical-collapse, etc. What you're talking about is a small machine meant to substitute neurons.
So how would these nano-robots access the energy stored in the body meant for the neurons?
Entanglement refers to the phenomena that as soon as you've determine the spin of a particle you'll also have determined the spin of its anti-particle.
The uncertainty of a particle's position doesn't necessarily mean that the particle is everywhere, let alone that you can control its position to function as a Pong-racket to contain some undefined essence.
But it still has to function in the environment inside the meninges, for at least as long as our neurons—and neurons divide creating more neurons, and die—, it has to make use of the energy storage of the body, and it has to be able to communicate with the rest of the body.
How was anything in that quote related to biology?
Last edited by Astner on Jul 21st, 2013 at 07:02 PM
The observation doesn't collapse the wave-function, the measurement does, then again the measuring is meant to collapse the wave-function or else we wouldn't be able to receive any data.