Slashdot Mirror

Keep one to experiment on, but teach the other all about how to build systems and how to design itself, then tell it to go and design a better version. Call it Multivac, ask it if entropy can ever be reversed and wait for the salvation of the human race :)

That was Asimov.. not Adams.. I think you're thinking of this?

Our buildings don't look majestic like the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building. Now they're either plain, steel and glass boxes, or twisted grotesques like Frank Gehry's works.

Our buildings could look majestic, for whatever value of majestic you prefer. If they don't, then that's something that needs to be taken up with the architects. Technology alone, however, would allow us to erect buildings the size of mountains.

However, I'd argue that both Burj Dubai and Taipei 101 look just fine.

And the people of the 50's? Where are our moon bases? Where are our ships patrolling Saturn? The answer is, we got to the moon, and then said "been there, done that".

Burt Rutan is working on it.

Seriously, thought: it turns out that some things are harder and some easier than the people in the 50's thought. Imagine that. We'll get to the Moon again, and this time for keeps; and we'll get to Saturn eventually. Future didn't "fizzle", it looks bright; it's simply that miracles arrive in different order than people thought.

As a practical example: would the people of the 50' seriously thought that I, a guy from Finland, which is a country in Northern Europe, would be having a conversation - in an international forum that's cheap enough to upkeep that it's paid by advertizing - with North Americans, Indians, and pretty much all other nationalities of the Earth? And have the entire collected knowledge of humanity on my fingertips while doing it? And being able to link to that knowledge to specify just what I mean?

The Internet is something the people in the 50's didn't even dream of. Asimov came closest, with AC in "The last Question". But even he predicted a single computer, rather than the Internet.

Took us long enough.

How long does it take to make a new sun? I mean...it will run out eventually...

Let there be light.

Anybody else seeing black text on a black background? Or perhaps more accurately, not seeing it?

Anyways: I used to name my machines acronyms (SNAFU), but I later decided on naming them after AIs. My laptop is called Microvac (formerly Hal 9000 but I decided it wasn't a good name for a laptop) and my desktop is P1.

Asimov thought so too :D

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

I have a very interesting article as well on the exact same topic: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

http://www.multivax.com/

You can even ask it the question... :)

Decades ago: The Last Question: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html/

Sorry, human or not we're all doomed. Deal with it.
The Last Question

Until somebody asks where it all came from in the first place. Then you're back at square one, with the same problem that the Big Bang theory has.

Where it all came from in the first place? I think this is more kind of a last question ...

A good short read by Asimov on the subject:
The Last Question

Actually, given some luck, the first point is all you need. Natural selection from billions of random mutations is not the only way to improve. Given a head start and the ability to rewrite itself to become smarter (and rollback if necessary), after each success it will be able to make itself yet smarter. See Asimov's The Last Question.

Of course we still don't know what gives us our self-awareness. For all we know a kilobyte of code would be enough.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

It's only delaying the inevitable...

Enders game and Enders Shadow - Classic Strategy Try H.G. Wells - Time Machine and Everything Also old Amazing Science Fiction Mag. Also Library Hugo Award Anthologies Short Stories by Isaac Asimov "The Last Question" http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html "The Last Answer" Robert A. Heinlein - Farmer in the Sky (Stranger in a Strange Land)

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html seems particularly appropriate here.

The guy dismisses the possibility that most civilizations evolve in some direction other than midlessly colonizing every star they can reach.

If we take the view that intelligent life has the same rules of evolution then one is eventually bound to evolve like a bacteria and spread to every planet possible. Even if there are millions of intelligent civilizations in the universe quite content to never leave their solar system, all it takes one species hellbent on galactic colonization before they are on every rock in the galaxy. Even if the speed of light can never be broken, it would only take a million years to travel to most places in the Milky Way at speeds just under the speed of light.

What if most evolve beyond physical forms? What if most lose themselves in virtual realities. What if many simply don't bother leaving their own solar system because the speed of light proves to be unbreakable and they aren't interested in planting colonies that will have little or no contact or impact on their own civilization?

Thats a good question that I've asked myself. However, if one does live in a virtual reality society one may at least recognize the fact that the universe as we know it may face serious problems such as Heat Death or the Big crunch. Even if we as humans are unable to understand the problem while we are playing World of Warcraft 40,000 in our brain cells, we will most likley have set out intelligent machines to go about and requisition resources to determine if the universe can be saved from its doomed fate.

The machines themselves might need extraordinary computational power and go about aquiring entire systems with computers big as Jupiter running simulations to answer best how to save their civilization from doom after all the suns burn out.

Actually... Isaac Asimov wrote a short story on this called "The Last Question" Its a good read...

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Anyways... In order for these intelligent machines to finish their task, they may deem it needed to build dyson spheres and aquire as much mass and energy as possible in order to prevent the end of the universe so at which time may decide to show up at the lesser civilizations doors asking to use their sun as part of their computational requirements to solve the question.

That's one of my all time favorite short stories. Up there with Asimov's The Last Question.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html :3

Have you, by chance, read Asimov's The Last Question?

They are, but there's a limit to it. Mining landfills is just a temporary solution. After landfills there'll be mining graveyards (metal hips, teeth and other bones) etc, etc. But the point is still clear - we can't grow by recycling. For that we're supposed to mine sources other than Earth.

At one point you're still going to need too much energy to extract it all. It's not as if we've got all the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever.

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov (1956)

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

This Asimov story is unbelievably apt :)

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

"Adell was just drunk enough to try, just sober enough to be able to phrase the necessary symbols and operations into a question which, in words, might have corresponded to this: Will mankind one day without the net expenditure of energy be able to restore the sun to its full youthfulness even after it had died of old age?

Or maybe it could be put more simply like this: How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?

Multivac fell dead and silent. The slow flashing of lights ceased, the distant sounds of clicking relays ended.

Then, just as the frightened technicians felt they could hold their breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the teletype attached to that portion of Multivac. Five words were printed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

-------
the complete story is at:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

THERE IS INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER

ack... have to fight the lameness filter. that was yelling, apparently.

Getting off Earth is a far sight more realistic right now than getting to another solar system. And even that could mean things besides simply abandoning it and relocating. For instance, solar array satellites and lunar mining could be a massive step forward, even if we humans continue to live on the planet's surface for a while, and just ship those resources here for use. If we can harness enough extra-planetary energy, we can (hypothetically) convince the Earth to do whatever we want. I agree with you, but I think your emphasis on the level of the solar system level is slightly warped, considering the time you live in. We have the same basic pattern repeating over and over, right now at the planetary level, then at the solar system level, then the galaxy level, and who knows what else. See The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov.

"But on what evidence are you basing this assumption?"

None. This is a personal choice, based on faith alone. Have you been following my reasoning or is just trolling?

"There is no proof that itches are not caused by a small pink elephant orbiting Pluto - do you therefore believe this also?"

I believe there's a God, Creator of Everything. The idea of Creator (cause) and Creatures (effects) isn't silly as your small pink pluto-orbiting elephant and even matches most of our observations of how the universe works.

"which god is it they believe in anyway, and how did it get in a position to create a universe? Does this god have a god? Who created that one?"

Good questions. I'll let Mr. Asimov hand you a possible answer:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

"The religions all have different gods, so who is the right one? Surely if for example the Muslim god is the right one, then you can't be punished for being born in the wrong religion?"

I believe the Creator of Everything doesn't really care for the institutions man created to deal with the different cultures interpretations of His Laws.

"Quite, however the body of evidence must reside with the person making the claim; it's not up to others to disprove everything that someone says, and again we come back to 'evidence' being demanded for the non-existence of god, while believing in god with no evidence whatsoever."

As I said, believing in God requires no evidence because science can't possibly ever provide one by rigorously answering: is there God? So, since we can't rely on science, believing in God is a matter of faith. Blind faith, delusional faith, whatever...

Besides, I don't think you understand the scientific method. When you say: "it's not up to others to disprove everything that someone says" you seem to forget that science doesn't advance by scientists accepting blindly old theories and models and worshipping them, but by consistently trying to break down said models, to disprove them and replace with something more solid. Science and Religion are 2 sides of the same coin...

"The only reason the 'show me evidence of non-existece' argument exists is because the people asking the question do not think they will receive an answer."

Prove them wrong, then.

http://www.multivax.com/

ask Multivax the pertinent question and prepare to be amazed. ;)

"But quantum theory does make sense - its conclusions are surprising and counterintuitive, yes, but there's solid mathematics backing it up, and observations of all the counterintuitive phenomena."

Yes, I was making a funny. But for all of QM is worth, it doesn't preclude God. Nor needs Him anyway. Like I said to the chap bellow, if I rely on QM to explain if God exists or not, I'll likely get another question: is the cat dead or alive?...

"I don't worry too much about it."

Neither do I, though by force of being a geek, I always aim for the best I can do and that includes my moral dilemmas as well. So, even though not strictly following the 10 commitments, I still reach about 60% of it in the end... ;)

Man, this conversation was cool but like you said I still remain more of a faithful servant of the Lord (or just delusional) more than a sceptic.

Still, I had to post something to prove that not all God believers are ignorant, technophobe, delusional people. Nor am I a supporter of this Intelligent Design stupidity passing as science. I'd rather support the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... ;)

Here we have science and God coexisting. Seems more likely than anything in the Bible to me...

Enter my favorite short story "The Last Question." Never gets old for that last question.

"You say there's no shortage of sunlight"
Where have I heard that before?