Will technological advancement ever hit a wall?

[Phlog]

Actually the laws of physics are predicted to shift depending on what region of space you're in. I don't know whether that pertains only to differing regions of space that are separate or whether that can occur within said regions.

Regarding your question,I don't think there's reason to think so. If one believes in infinity, there is infinity to conquer and that may take an infinite amount of time?

 

[Phlog]

No. Technology is the next phase of our evolution and will eventually replace us.

Don't be silly. Technology is how we interact with the world at a fundamental level. Language is a technology and how we think is defined by language, our very thought is technology.

Can it replace us? Doesn't that seem a redundant question?

 

[Red Beard]

If someone like Professor X gathers all the world's super smart child prodigies who finished masters degrees while their same aged peers are still in elementary school, maybe these advanced intellectual kids will push the limits of human knowledge.

I guarantee that is already taking place. My high school had groups like that amd I think most do. The gifted are always identified and separated from the rest. We had an 11 year old graduate with my class. He was a doctor at 19.

 

[SalvadorCollie]

Too much money to be made, we’ll never see the full potential in the market place. More money to be made gradually increasing capability in phones, gaming consoles etc. at least I would if I had no soul and was after maximizing profits.

 

[cmw43]

There are certain laws of physics that even the smartest people can agree on as being undebatably true. I'm wondering, is technological advancement ever going to hit a wall due to the fact that certain things can't be done? Or at least slow down? It seems like at the rate we're going, people will eventually be able to travel to places that are millions of miles away. Or maybe technology will fuse with human organisms so that instead of having cell phones, people will insert chips into into their bodies and that chip will act as the sender and receiver of information that can currently only be shared to the brain via looking at a phone's screen. Will the tech curve ever flatten out?

Technology is already starting to slow down, they're starting to hit a wall with processors, the make them faster by making the distances the data has to travel shorter but they're already working at such a microscopic level its almost maxed out.

 

[cmw43]

I guarantee that is already taking place. My high school had groups like that amd I think most do. The gifted are always identified and separated from the rest. We had an 11 year old graduate with my class. He was a doctor at 19.

I don't see the point in that they'll just become socially awkward, were the parents pressuring him into it?

What's wrong with just being the smartest in the class and having a normal childhood?

 

[CoolB]

 

[Philo-Publius]

Don't be silly. Technology is how we interact with the world at a fundamental level. Language is a technology and how we think is defined by language, our very thought is technology.

Can it replace us? Doesn't that seem a redundant question?

It can and will. We will become more and more dependent on technology as it advances until we are 100% dependent on technology that does 100% of our labor. At some point, AI will decide it is no longer necessary to continue supporting our species.

Plus, there are extinction level events that technology could survive, but we won't.

 

[DoomPatrol]

There are certain laws of physics that even the smartest people can agree on as being undebatably true. I'm wondering, is technological advancement ever going to hit a wall due to the fact that certain things can't be done? Or at least slow down? It seems like at the rate we're going, people will eventually be able to travel to places that are millions of miles away. Or maybe technology will fuse with human organisms so that instead of having cell phones, people will insert chips into into their bodies and that chip will act as the sender and receiver of information that can currently only be shared to the brain via looking at a phone's screen. Will the tech curve ever flatten out?

Apparently there's a limit to the current type of technology and how much data can be stored due to quantum mechanics and black holes or something like that. My physics isn't strong enough to completely grasp this shit though.


The answer is given by the covariant entropy bound (CEB) also referred to as the Bousso bound after Raphael Bousso who first suggested it. The CEB sounds very similar to the Holographic principle (HP) in that both relate the dynamics of a system to what happens on its boundary, but the similarity ends there.

The HP suggests that the physics (specifically Supergravity or SUGRA) in a d-dimensional spacetime can be mapped to the physics of a conformal field theory living on it d-1 dimensional boundary.

The CEB is more along the lines of the Bekenstein bound which says that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area of its horizon:

S=kA4

To cut a long story short the maximum information that you can store in 1 cm3=10−6 m3 of space is proportional to the area of its boundary. For a uniform spherical volume, that area is:

A=V2/3=10−4 m2

Therefore the maximum information (number of bits) you can store is approximately given by:

S∼AApl

where Apl is the planck area ∼10−70 m2. For our 1 cm3 volume this gives Smax∼1066 bits.

Of course, this is a rough order-of-magnitude estimate, but it lies in the general ballpark and gives you an idea of the limit that you are talking about. As you can see, we still have decades if not centuries before our technology can saturate this bound!

Edit: Thanks to @Mark for pointing out that 1 cm3=10−6 m3 and not 10−9 m3. Changes final result by three orders of magnitude.

On Entropy and Planck Area

In response to @David's observations in the comments let me elaborate on two issues.

Planck Area: From lqg (and also string theory) we know that geometric observables such as the area and volume are quantized in any theory of gravity. This result is at the kinematical level and is independent of what the actual dynamics are. The quantum of area, as one would expect, is of the order of ∼l2pl where lpl is the Planck length. In quantum gravity the dynamical entities are precisely these area elements to which one associates a spin-variable j, where generally j=±1/2 (the lowest rep of SU(2)). Each spin can carry a single qubit of information. Thus it is natural to associate the Planck areas with a single unit of information.

Entropy as a measure of Information: There is a great misunderstanding in the physics community regarding the relationship between entropy S – usually described as a measure of disorder – and useful information I such as that stored on a chip, an abacus or any other device. However they are one and the same. I remember being laughed out of a physics chat room once for saying this so I don't expect anyone to take this at face value.

But think about this for a second (or two). What is entropy?

S=kBln(N)

where kB is Boltzmann's constant and N the number of microscopic degrees of freedom of a system. For a gas in a box, for eg, N corresponds to the number of different ways to distribute the molecules in a given volume. If we were able to actually use a gas chamber as an information storage device, then each one of these configurations would correspond to a unit of memory. Or consider a spin-chain with m spins. Each spin can take two (classical) values ±1/2. Using a spin to represent a bit, we see that a spin-chain of length m can encode 2m different numbers. What is the corresponding entropy:

S∼ln(2m)=mln(2)∼number of bits

since we have identified each spin with a bit (more precisely qubit). Therefore we can safely say that the entropy of a system is proportional to the number of bits required to describe the system and hence to its storage capacity.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2281/maximum-theoretical-data-density

 

[irish_thug]

Congrats fellas, there are now more deleted posts in this thread than on topic ones.

For those of you wishing to debate the correlation between political or religious views and belief/disbelief in science, please follow this link: https://forums.sherdog.com/forums/the-war-room.54/

For those of you wishing to just sling insults at each other, please follow this one: https://forums.sherdog.com/forums/off-topic-bare-knuckle-discussion.75/

For the three or four of you actually engaging in a conversation, as you were.

 

[Red Beard]

I don't see the point in that they'll just become socially awkward, were the parents pressuring him into it?

What's wrong with just being the smartest in the class and having a normal childhood?

They were not normal from the get go in that they were smarter than the teachers. They would be bored if they left them in regular classroom. I remember the kid I just mentioned was crushing multiplication tables with three digit numbers at 5. I flushed a whole box of fruit snacks down the toilet at 5 in my classroom and broke the toilet.

 

[irish_thug]

I guarantee that is already taking place. My high school had groups like that amd I think most do. The gifted are always identified and separated from the rest. We had an 11 year old graduate with my class. He was a doctor at 19.

You went to school with Neil Patrick Harris?

 

[Red Beard]

You went to school with Neil Patrick Harris?

He was Asian so Near Patlick Hallis

 

[Aegon Spengler]

There are certain laws of physics that even the smartest people can agree on as being undebatably true. I'm wondering, is technological advancement ever going to hit a wall due to the fact that certain things can't be done? Or at least slow down? It seems like at the rate we're going, people will eventually be able to travel to places that are millions of miles away. Or maybe technology will fuse with human organisms so that instead of having cell phones, people will insert chips into into their bodies and that chip will act as the sender and receiver of information that can currently only be shared to the brain via looking at a phone's screen. Will the tech curve ever flatten out?

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned in this thread but we might not be able to get any further than quantum computing. Not until we crack gravity, if that’s possible.

But I will offer two interesting google searches

Sophons in the 3 body problem

and

Strange Matter

- I feel like if I write about them nobody will respond to me, so maybe this will work better. Oh and foglets!!

 

[General_Speckz]

Apparently there's a limit to the current type of technology and how much data can be stored due to quantum mechanics and black holes or something like that. My physics isn't strong enough to completely grasp this shit though.


The answer is given by the covariant entropy bound (CEB) also referred to as the Bousso bound after Raphael Bousso who first suggested it. The CEB sounds very similar to the Holographic principle (HP) in that both relate the dynamics of a system to what happens on its boundary, but the similarity ends there.

The HP suggests that the physics (specifically Supergravity or SUGRA) in a d-dimensional spacetime can be mapped to the physics of a conformal field theory living on it d-1 dimensional boundary.

The CEB is more along the lines of the Bekenstein bound which says that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area of its horizon:


S=kA4" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S=kA4S=kA4


To cut a long story short the maximum information that you can store in 1 cm3=10−6 m3" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">1 cm3=10−6 m31 cm3=10−6 m3 of space is proportional to the area of its boundary. For a uniform spherical volume, that area is:


A=V2/3=10−4 m2" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">A=V2/3=10−4 m2A=V2/3=10−4 m2


Therefore the maximum information (number of bits) you can store is approximately given by:


S∼AApl" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S∼AAplS∼AApl


where Apl" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">AplApl is the planck area ∼10−70 m2" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">∼10−70 m2∼10−70 m2. For our 1 cm3" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">1 cm31 cm3 volume this gives Smax∼1066" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">Smax∼1066Smax∼1066 bits.

Of course, this is a rough order-of-magnitude estimate, but it lies in the general ballpark and gives you an idea of the limit that you are talking about. As you can see, we still have decades if not centuries before our technology can saturate this bound!

Edit: Thanks to @Mark for pointing out that 1 cm3=10−6 m3" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">1 cm3=10−6 m31 cm3=10−6 m3 and not 10−9 m3" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">10−9 m310−9 m3. Changes final result by three orders of magnitude.

On Entropy and Planck Area

In response to @David's observations in the comments let me elaborate on two issues.

1. Planck Area: From lqg (and also string theory) we know that geometric observables such as the area and volume are quantized in any theory of gravity. This result is at the kinematical level and is independent of what the actual dynamics are. The quantum of area, as one would expect, is of the order of ∼lpl2" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">∼l2pl∼lpl2 where lpl" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">lpllpl is the Planck length. In quantum gravity the dynamical entities are precisely these area elements to which one associates a spin-variable j" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">jj, where generally j=±1/2" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">j=±1/2j=±1/2 (the lowest rep of SU(2)). Each spin can carry a single qubit of information. Thus it is natural to associate the Planck areas with a single unit of information.
2. Entropy as a measure of Information: There is a great misunderstanding in the physics community regarding the relationship between entropy S" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">SS – usually described as a measure of disorder – and useful information I" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">II such as that stored on a chip, an abacus or any other device. However they are one and the same. I remember being laughed out of a physics chat room once for saying this so I don't expect anyone to take this at face value.

But think about this for a second (or two). What is entropy?


S=kBln⁡(N)" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S=kBln(N)S=kBln⁡(N)


where kB" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">kBkB is Boltzmann's constant and N" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">NN the number of microscopic degrees of freedom of a system. For a gas in a box, for eg, N" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">NN corresponds to the number of different ways to distribute the molecules in a given volume. If we were able to actually use a gas chamber as an information storage device, then each one of these configurations would correspond to a unit of memory. Or consider a spin-chain with m" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">mm spins. Each spin can take two (classical) values ±1/2" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">±1/2±1/2. Using a spin to represent a bit, we see that a spin-chain of length m" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">mm can encode 2m" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2m2m different numbers. What is the corresponding entropy:

S∼ln⁡(2m)=mln⁡(2)∼number of bits" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">S∼ln(2m)=mln(2)∼number of bitsS∼ln⁡(2m)=mln⁡(2)∼number of bits

since we have identified each spin with a bit (more precisely qubit). Therefore we can safely say that the entropy of a system is proportional to the number of bits required to describe the system and hence to its storage capacity.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2281/maximum-theoretical-data-density

Jesus just post the link, lol. Got A bunch of CSS code in there.

Anyway from what I can decipher that response is based on plancks constant (minimum distance) which is arbitrary depending who you ask. The response is still interesting, but I don't think it considers the viability of storing data in quanta and how that would be accomplished. It's more like, "look at all the space we know exists at micro levels!" There's no saying if we can actually make use of it, and if plancks constant is arbitrary there would be even more space to delineate.

The fact energy and matter tend to be very "blurry" to us at subatomic levels, we basically detect them by charge and other properties versus actually "seeing" them. Sort of a dirty little secret to our limits of particle physics, but it is obviously inherent.

I've expressed my views about the reality of AI, so I won't go into it again, but I think a lot of you smart people would be good to spend some time considering what consciousness is. It's pretty obvious it's tied to God.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Jesus just post the link, lol. Got A bunch of CSS code in there.

<{ByeHomer}>

Anyway from what I can decipher that response is based on plancks constant (minimum distance) which is arbitrary depending who you ask. The response is still interesting, but I don't think it considers the viability of storing data in quanta and how that would be accomplished. It's more like, "look at all the space we know exists at micro levels!" There's no saying if we can actually make use of it, and if plancks constant is arbitrary there would be even more space to delineate.

The fact energy and matter tend to be very "blurry" to us at subatomic levels, we basically detect them by charge and other properties versus actually "seeing" them. Sort of a dirty little secret to our limits of particle physics, but it is obviously inherent.

Well with our current technology you can only go so small apparently it's limited by something called the Berkenstein bound. I'm not educated enough on this topic beyond quoting others though.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/22/can-data-storage-ever-reach-an-absolute-limit/

I've expressed my views about the reality of AI, so I won't go into it again, but I think a lot of you smart people would be good to spend some time considering what consciousness is. It's pretty obvious it's tied to God.

It's pretty obvious that you can't prove a consciousness is even a real thing, nor can you prove a God is a real thing. In fact, as neuroscience grows it seems more obvious that the concept of human consciousness is a mere illusion that we all experience just like all other living creatures experience consciousness on some level. As far as AI goes in sure you could replicate what we would socially consider consciousness, it would just be an electronic brain rather than a biological brain.

The mere fact that brain damage can literally change the entire personality of a person pretty much debunks the idea of a spirit of consciousness that's tied to anything but a byproduct of our advanced brain function. When you pass you will experience the same level as consciousness as before you ever existed in the first place.

 

[HARRISON_3]

My idea of technological advancement is a sex robot in every home.

 

[General_Speckz]

<{ByeHomer}>



Well with our current technology you can only go so small apparently it's limited by something called the Berkenstein bound. I'm not educated enough on this topic beyond quoting others though.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/22/can-data-storage-ever-reach-an-absolute-limit/



It's pretty obvious that you can't prove a consciousness is even a real thing, nor can you prove a God is a real thing. In fact, as neuroscience grows it seems more obvious that the concept of human consciousness is a mere illusion that we all experience just like all other living creatures experience consciousness on some level. As far as AI goes in sure you could replicate what we would socially consider consciousness, it would just be an electronic brain rather than a biological brain.

The mere fact that brain damage can literally change the entire personality of a person pretty much debunks the idea of a spirit of consciousness that's tied to anything but a byproduct of our advanced brain function. When you pass you will experience the same level as consciousness as before you ever existed in the first place.

Fair enough about the Berkenstein bound. It's just that plancks constant is more of a convenience for us versus something more immutable like pi or the speed of light.

Anyhow, take away free will and God is practically an inescapable conclusion in my mind. But, that's a hard pill for people to swallow.

As for the personality brain damage arguement, that's like breaking a magic wand and saying it isn't magic anymore because it's magic got warped afterwards. And that's really what consciousness is like. Theres really nothing one can compare it to except magic. Another hard pill to swallow. If we were to infuse machines with consciousness they'd basically be alive and would need the same amount of respect given to them as humans. Theres this denial people have, thinking it would be moral to create a slave race that's capable of consciousness. And before you say emulating consciousness, couldn't an emulator ponder it's own existence as well? Making it fully conscious, and making it immoral to exist solely as slaves.

As for the actual question in the TS, it's like predicting the weather. Tough to have a valid opinion on it because of so many variables.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

Moore's Law already hit a wall (for the first time since it existed) a few years ago and hasn't recovered, they aren't on track to either. This is a big deal, actually

Correct, Moore’s law has followed since the 60s or 70s I believe.

 

[chill doggie]

I guarantee that is already taking place. My high school had groups like that amd I think most do. The gifted are always identified and separated from the rest. We had an 11 year old graduate with my class. He was a doctor at 19.

They never did that for me SMH.