2 replies to this topic

[Rye]

Hi Everyone!

I came across this site last week and read the entire timeline. I have the following random thoughts:

My first thought is that if we are indeed heading toward a technological singularity in the middle of this century, then the rest of the timeline beyond that point is meaningless because it is by definition impossible to predict. With exponential growth in the computing capacity of AI beyond the singularity, perhaps we will all be destroyed by AI. Or maybe some or all of the scientific advancements that are currently assigned by the timeline to the 2100s or the 2200s will take place in the 2060s.

Second, if we are going to master direct manipulation of matter at the atomic (or smaller) level, then any mention of "mining" beyond that point does not make sense. If we can turn anything into anything, why would we be mining asteroids or the moon or other planets?

Third, on the point of turning anything into anything, we should also assume that we will eventually be able to make matter directly out of energy. So after inventing machines that make "stuff" by directly manipulating atoms of one material into another, we will eventually not need any raw material to begin with. There will be no need to teleport raw materials into some storage container within the machine. The machine will simply use energy (from whatever source: the grid, locally produced energy, whatever) and convert that energy directly into the required item.

Fourth, the ultimate source of energy that we know of today is quantum fluctuations within empty space. Some scientists today think that this is what caused the big bang. Shouldn't we be assuming that at some point, we will be accessing that energy? If that is a safe assumption (over the long term), then the idea of building complex space structures in the far future to harness the sun's energy, or all the energy in the galaxy, etc., is pointless. All forms of energy that we observe in the universe today are inferior to capturing quantum fluctuations and extracting energy from them. This also implies that Kardashev's classification is flawed. Capturing energy from stars or entire galaxies or even the whole universe is nothing to write home about. Why would we bother if we can extract energy out of empty space?

Fifth, on virtual reality, I think there is a serious risk to our entire race losing the will to live in the "real" world. When simulations become advanced enough that they are indistinguishable from reality, it could seriously put an end to our entire civilization. Depending on how advanced we have become by then, perhaps the "real" world will be run entirely by AI and all of humanity will be asleep in multiple virtual realities. Terraforming Mars, traveling to the stars, etc., will be the farthest thing from our minds when we could have anything, be anything or do anything in our own customized virtual world.

On a side note, there is a very high probability (some would say a virtual certainty) that we are right now living in a simulation. And that outside of this current simulation, it is impossible to tell what "reality" is really like. All bets are off. Does the "reality" outside the simulation even consist of Carbon-based life? Do the same laws of physics that we know apply? Is matter made of atoms and their constituent subatomic particles? Does "their" universe consist of galaxies, stars and planets? This of course is a pointless discussion because (assuming that this current simulation is very good) no matter how advanced we get, we will not be able to peel it away.

Finally, if we get to the point of extracting energy from empty space and make matter directly out of energy, then there will be virtually no limitation on how many people can fit on Earth. We will have no environmental footprint at all beyond the physical land or sea area that we need to inhabit (which is actually very small compared to the total area of the planet). I think that even with people living forever, the fact that we will probably be able to live on any planet in the solar system or beyond, as well as on space structures will mean there will not really be any overcrowding. On a related note, I think that even if we develop the technology to be able to put the world back the way it was before the industrial age, there might never be the will to do that. That era will be looked at as just another historical period that came to an end for "natural" reasons (even if natural here means human intervention; we're part of nature too). How many people today long to bring back the dinosaurs? We will surely clean the air, etc. (assuming we will need air to breathe) but the idea that we will feel the urge to restore the earth to a random point in its history does not make sense to me. It might be the sentimental wish of some, but they will probably be a fringe minority. We may have simulations of pre-industrial earth as museums, but that will probably be it.

Those thoughts above are not necessarily related to each other. Indeed, some of them contradict each other. It was not my intention to make them consistent with each other.

I hope some of you will find some of the above interesting. I am by no means "married" to any of my ideas. I welcome discussions, comments, etc.

Thanks.

[Logically Irrational]

Hi Rye, and welcome to the forum! I just had some thoughts on what you posted.

My first thought is that if we are indeed heading toward a technological singularity in the middle of this century, then the rest of the timeline beyond that point is meaningless because it is by definition impossible to predict. With exponential growth in the computing capacity of AI beyond the singularity, perhaps we will all be destroyed by AI. Or maybe some or all of the scientific advancements that are currently assigned by the timeline to the 2100s or the 2200s will take place in the 2060s.

From what i can tell (since the timeline doesn't have a specific entry for when the singularity will occur), the site goes on the assumption that climate change, resource depletion, and other factors will push back the singularity. The first real mention of it is in the 2200 section, so I would guess sometime in the late 22nd century (again, according to the timeline). really, after 2200, the timeline is almost entirely speculation anyway, so I think it works as just imagining what will happen after the singularity has occurred.

Second, if we are going to master direct manipulation of matter at the atomic (or smaller) level, then any mention of "mining" beyond that point does not make sense. If we can turn anything into anything, why would we be mining asteroids or the moon or other planets?

I think the main reason we would need to mine after we get the ability to control matter at the atomic level would be that we still would need resources. We could definitely make anything one would need, but you still need a resource base to get it from. As far as gaining matter directly from energy. that's another story entirely.

Fifth, on virtual reality, I think there is a serious risk to our entire race losing the will to live in the "real" world. When simulations become advanced enough that they are indistinguishable from reality, it could seriously put an end to our entire civilization. Depending on how advanced we have become by then, perhaps the "real" world will be run entirely by AI and all of humanity will be asleep in multiple virtual realities. Terraforming Mars, traveling to the stars, etc., will be the farthest thing from our minds when we could have anything, be anything or do anything in our own customized virtual world.

I don't know about this. For sure, there will be a number of people who cut themselves off, just like we have shut-ins today with TV and the Internet. However, I think that reality will always hold some advantage over virtual reality. Just look at it this way. Compared to today, virtual reality will give us unprecedented freedom and leisure time.
But compared to 1900, the same is true for today, and still the vast majority of people don't utilize the Internet and such nearly as much as they could. It's something psychological, but making a world for yourself that's just instant gratification won't work for a lot of people. Actually, the best way I can think to illustrate this is the Twilight Zone episode, "A Nice Place to Visit."

On a related note, I think that even if we develop the technology to be able to put the world back the way it was before the industrial age, there might never be the will to do that. That era will be looked at as just another historical period that came to an end for "natural" reasons (even if natural here means human intervention; we're part of nature too). How many people today long to bring back the dinosaurs? We will surely clean the air, etc. (assuming we will need air to breathe) but the idea that we will feel the urge to restore the earth to a random point in its history does not make sense to me. It might be the sentimental wish of some, but they will probably be a fringe minority. We may have simulations of pre-industrial earth as museums, but that will probably be it.

I think the reason that people would want to put the world back to the way it was would be that the world in 2200 is essentially a hellhole. Nature isn't just adjusted, it's essentially collapsed. It's done this before, and taken a long time to get back to normal. I imagine that returning the environment to its previous state would go beyond the whims of a fringe minority. This goes back to what I said earlier about real things holding an intrinsic advantage over simulate things.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree with me.

[CallMeKari]

On a side note, there is a very high probability (some would say a virtual certainty) that we are right now living in a simulation. And that outside of this current simulation, it is impossible to tell what "reality" is really like. All bets are off. Does the "reality" outside the simulation even consist of Carbon-based life? Do the same laws of physics that we know apply? Is matter made of atoms and their constituent subatomic particles? Does "their" universe consist of galaxies, stars and planets? This of course is a pointless discussion because (assuming that this current simulation is very good) no matter how advanced we get, we will not be able to peel it away.

Is it sad that all I thought about while reading this paragraph was The Matrix? If this is a simulation, it sucks. Real bad. If our species is advanced enough to make a simulation this real, we really need to hire new writers.

Finally, if we get to the point of extracting energy from empty space and make matter directly out of energy, then there will be virtually no limitation on how many people can fit on Earth. We will have no environmental footprint at all beyond the physical land or sea area that we need to inhabit (which is actually very small compared to the total area of the planet). I think that even with people living forever, the fact that we will probably be able to live on any planet in the solar system or beyond, as well as on space structures will mean there will not really be any overcrowding. On a related note, I think that even if we develop the technology to be able to put the world back the way it was before the industrial age, there might never be the will to do that. That era will be looked at as just another historical period that came to an end for "natural" reasons (even if natural here means human intervention; we're part of nature too). How many people today long to bring back the dinosaurs? We will surely clean the air, etc. (assuming we will need air to breathe) but the idea that we will feel the urge to restore the earth to a random point in its history does not make sense to me. It might be the sentimental wish of some, but they will probably be a fringe minority. We may have simulations of pre-industrial earth as museums, but that will probably be it.

I hope we will never have to worry about overcrowding. Then we won't have to compete for resources, at all, ever, no fighting. Awesome. And why will people restore the planet you say? Cuz it'll look pretty. I know that's a crappy answer but I highly doubt that the way things look will ever stop being important to humanity. Or any life form. It's just nice for things to look nice.