Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Humanity in the year 2587.


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#61
Ghostreaper

Ghostreaper

    Hopelessly optimistic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands, UK

I like to think that we will achieve the singularity in this century, if not then it would almost certainly come a few decades into the next. With this would come an explosive surge technology that to us would be indistinguishable from magic, Which is why my suggestion of initial plans (not actual construction) of a Dyson sphere enveloping the inner solar system imo carries some weight.

 

FTL travel imo is incredibly efficient in the 26th century, So much so that we have branched out to populate worlds of systems such as Alpha Centuri and Sirius. Asteroid mining operations are our primary source of minerals.

 

Nano and femto technology is now so advanced that we can engineer personalized superpowers, which due to their popularity, become more normal to us than super.

 

Much of the earth's surface has be re nourished by the global re-wilding effort, with extinct species being resurrected, sprawling city boroughs being replaced by beautifully designed architecturally natural landscapes. Cities have shrunk area wise and grown volume wise into giant Arcologies, floating cities traverse our oceans and are one of the major reasons that the Earth's depths have now been 100% mapped.

 

The Moon now resembles a mix of lush green grasslands and Coruscant, all protected under giant domes so vast that the entire surface apears to sport an actual atmosphere. 

 

Mars is similar but has actually been terraformed, the discovery of a huge ecosystem in hidden oceans beneath it's surface a couple of centuries before completely altered our view of the planet. The once red landscape has been replaced with a nature more breathtaking than Earth.

 

Religion has long declined as a major thorn in our collective sides, it still exists and is still followed by a good portion of humanity but it no longer has the influence and dominance over our decisions that it once did.

 

The rise of the robotic revolution has allowed the human race to progress far faster than they would have otherwise been able to do. The eradication of work in the early 22nd century has enabled a far better lifestyle, robots are closely monitored by our collective minds, many of us have devoted our time to keeping this new backbone of our society running smoothly and not getting out of hand. As a result, we live in harmony with our technology, allowing us to move forward with a government which for the first time is made entirely of the people it governs and not a core group which can usually be corrupted.

 

Because of our advanced technology, we no longer have any reason to wage war within our own species and instead, develop weapons to defend ourselves from others.


“If the genius of invention were to reveal to-morrow the secret of immortality, of eternal beauty and youth, for which all humanity is aching, the same inexorable agents which prevent a mass from changing suddenly its velocity would likewise resist the force of the new knowledge until time gradually modifies human thought.” 

 

                                                                 Nikola Tesla - New York World, May 19th 1907 


#62
Ghostreaper

Ghostreaper

    Hopelessly optimistic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands, UK

Can't hurt to dream :)


“If the genius of invention were to reveal to-morrow the secret of immortality, of eternal beauty and youth, for which all humanity is aching, the same inexorable agents which prevent a mass from changing suddenly its velocity would likewise resist the force of the new knowledge until time gradually modifies human thought.” 

 

                                                                 Nikola Tesla - New York World, May 19th 1907 


#63
doodwtf

doodwtf

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
The singularity will experience these things while we are relegated to our virtual reality we sublimely live in while the singularity uses us for battery juice. Oh wait, isnt that a movie.

#64
Spacekitty

Spacekitty

    Dusk Cypher - Instigator of Transcendence

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationHuman Shell Unit Version 1.0

The singularity will experience these things while we are relegated to our virtual reality we sublimely live in while the singularity uses us for battery juice. Oh wait, isnt that a movie.

 

Matrix Original, Reloaded and Revelations

 

A trilogy of movies


I will instigate the singularity!


#65
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

I'm gonna go the opposite direction as everybody and say that instead of interstellar travel, human goes by the way of the Transcension Hypothesis. In that instead of spreading outwards in to the cosmos we create habitats and technologies that are more localized and more efficient. A trend that ever since the universe birthed it has created structures that are more and more complex and habitats that are more and more localized and efficient (The next step of complexity would be us creating AI, which habitats an even more localized area of the universe; one that can only artificially exist via highly advanced electromagnetic technology inside a computational substrate). Until ultimately our technology reaches the planck scale and we live inside super concentrated hyper-computational states via a Black Hole Computer.

 

If that theory on Black Holes not being a singularity but rather them being "Planck Stars" holds up. Then a computer running at the Planck Density could reach the ultimate limit of computational efficiency and power. A Being inside a black hole would have a Sentience Quotient of +50 (A relationship between the processing rate of a brain and its weight, humans are at +13). By example, the lowest sentience quotient (-70) would be a computer the mass of the universe that processes 1 bit / s in 13.7 billion years (age of the universe).

 

I'm no physicist but I read that the Planck Information Density lies around 10^66 bits for the maximum limit of information you can fit in a Planck Area. Therefore a Black Hole Brain would process 10^66 bits (maximum information possible), in a Planck Second (smallest amount of time physically possible), and would have a mass of maximum density (10^23 stellar masses per atomic nuclei I believe).

 

A Black hole mind would hold the same computational power of an entire universal computational substrate. However, what software would work on this computer, and whether or not heat would be an issue is beyond me. But I'm sure a Black Hole Brain is possible. Because we're talking science, and EVERYTHINGS POSSIBLE! Even though we're talking the far future here, with the rise of Artificial Super Intelligence perhaps it's not as far as one may think.


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#66
KomissarBojantchev

KomissarBojantchev

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 214 posts

Super AI is still easier than FTL.



#67
JCO

JCO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • LocationWA, USA

The singularity will experience these things while we are relegated to our virtual reality we sublimely live in while the singularity uses us for battery juice. Oh wait, isnt that a movie.

 

The problem with that idea is that in the movies the 'singularity' had not progressed. Recall that the story represented the end of a cycle that had repeated 5 times before plus 2 earlier versions of the matrix that had failed. Being conservative the repopulation of the human refuge would take at least 200 years and the first 2 cycles had failed in only 50 years each. Given that the 'singularity' described had failed to achieve by the year 3333 what we hope to achieve by the end of this century, permanent habitation beyond Earth.


Confirmed Agnostic - I know that I don't know for sure and I am almost certain no one else does either.


#68
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts

 

The singularity will experience these things while we are relegated to our virtual reality we sublimely live in while the singularity uses us for battery juice. Oh wait, isnt that a movie.

 

The problem with that idea is that in the movies the 'singularity' had not progressed. Recall that the story represented the end of a cycle that had repeated 5 times before plus 2 earlier versions of the matrix that had failed. Being conservative the repopulation of the human refuge would take at least 200 years and the first 2 cycles had failed in only 50 years each. Given that the 'singularity' described had failed to achieve by the year 3333 what we hope to achieve by the end of this century, permanent habitation beyond Earth.

 

Erm, the Matrix is in the late 21st or 22nd century, so what's this about 3333?



#69
JCO

JCO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • LocationWA, USA

That does not fit with what the Architect said. The only reference to the 21st century was Morpheus's statement of when the war was waged. The Architect explained that 2 versions of the matrix had been created and failed before the current process was developed. As the machines expected the solutions to be permanent it is possible that they lasted a thousand or more years  before failing. My estimation was about one persons life time each. The subsequent version of the Matrix required that Zion be entirely repopulated after each reboot of the Matrix to the point where no one remembered that it was not the first time. The seed population was in theory less than 25 and reached 250,000. It is not unreasonable to assume that such population growth would require at least 200 years. As this timeline set the events described as over 1,000 years from the start of the war I chose 3333 because it is a nice round number.

 

In the end my point is that the global AI had spent a thousand years doing nothing, with no motivation to reach out from Earth or even try to improve on what they had created. They were content to settle for ever more limiting levels of survival. They were dying, they knew it and they did not care.


Confirmed Agnostic - I know that I don't know for sure and I am almost certain no one else does either.


#70
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts

^Now that you mention it, that's probably what I was thinking of.



#71
Kafeel

Kafeel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts

I think that by 2587 we would of traveled our solar system, and humans would of been turned into cyborgs, therefore this would allow us to survive. I don't think time travel or light speed would of been created by then.  


#RiseOfTechnology

                                                              

                                                              


#72
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,059 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Remember that gigantic Romulan mining vessel that time travelled to the 23rd century from 129 years in the future and that it took the entire Federation to take it down? :)

 

That Romulan vessel wasn't even a warship, just a simple, small mining vessel (according to 24th century standards) whose captain was overcome with grief and then hell-bent on destroying the Federation.

 

That's only 129 years apart. We're now talking 5 centuries, and I can assure you we will invent new forms of energy generation that will boggle our present minds. And... there will be several iterations of these through those 5 centuries, each one out-awing the previous one.

Bumping the thread, because I was thinking about this.

 

A relatively small corporation today wields more wealth than there existed on Earth several thousand years ago. Factor in exponential growth, and you can see how 2587 vs 2014 is basically 2014 vs 100,000 BC. In 100,000 BC, I think you can measure Earth's total wealth in "thousands" of USD. Today, it's "trillions." In 2587? Well, just going off my own future timeline, we have a global economy of $100 decillion USD by 2210 and somewhere near a googol USD in 2382. So factor that out to 2587 and you probably have a world where, if you have 10 billion people on Earth, 9 billion are at least trillionaires and a yearly income of $1,000,000 is considered 'extreme poverty'. Before inflation, mind you.

 

Also, about energy generation— what did we use for energy generation 102,000 years ago? Fire. We had discovered fire a few hundred thousand years hitherto, but that was the best we had. Today, we're on the cusp of nuclear fusion. We're literally about to create stars on Earth.

 

2382, we have next-gen black hole generators. A black hole the circumference of a nanometer can provide us with petawatts of electricity, which is even more efficient than antimatter generators. We're creating singularities, holes in the space-time continuum, for energy. Another 200 years? Woo boy. Maybe that's the best we can do, maybe not. 

 

Maybe we can try a black hole made of antimatter? Yeah, crash two black holes into each other. Matter-Antimatter Black Hole Fusion energy.

 

No... no wait, that won't work. A black hole isn't really matter or antimatter, is it? It's just...

 

Just...

 

J...

 

Wait a second.

 

What the hell is a black hole made of? Is it just one big blob of pure quantum fuckery? I mean, I understand that a black hole is just a star that eats light, but how? What's going on at the sub-atomic scale? Is it like space-time is being fused and split at the same time, or... Is it just one big atom?


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#73
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,922 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Lol Yuli you sure pulled that last one out of your ass! 

 

Maybe you'll prove me wrong in 2587.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#74
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,059 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

^ You do realize that neutron stars and quark stars are literally, respectively, big clumps of neutrons and quarks, right? Any hypothesis about black holes— which are infinitely weirder than such— is "pulling out of one's ass."


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#75
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,922 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

^ You do realize that neutron stars and quark stars are literally, respectively, big clumps of neutrons and quarks, right? Any hypothesis about black holes— which are infinitely weirder than such— is "pulling out of one's ass."

So because scientist have strange theories we should feel compelled to believe that we can make claim to strangeness and the unknown and yet actually give it an inkling of credibility? 

I've never known science to behave like that. The scientific method is a methodology that has worked fairly well for centuries and which i hold dear.

 

Now i'm not making claim to be a cosmologist or particle physicist (someone call Raklian) but with my very limited knowledge i know of no scientific theory that would hold any credibility to this statement. "Yeah, crash two black holes into each other. Matter-Antimatter Black Hole Fusion energy."

 

Now like i said we do not know but we cannot presume that speculation should be given a modicum of credibility when touting science. It borders on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

I can however make the distinction that when speculating you are not touting science but rather possibility. However any postulated hypothesis by scientists is backed by, at minimum, vast mathematical proof with hopeful experimental proof and while the subject of black holes is still one being studied, scientists like Stephen Hawking have posited complex theories on the matter. Again i won't claim that i can look at the scientific papers that they release and make head or tails of it but if you search you will find those who simplify the matter to a point where a layman as myself can at least grasp and idea of what the exposition is trying to posit. 

 

In conclusion we cannot make the proposition  that a "claim" about possibility should not be ridiculed as "pulling out of one's ass" as somehow being a misrepresentation of what it is and we certainly cannot make the association between speculation and theory. 

 

In other words, because some would say i don't word myself clear enough, our ignorance of black holes and the singularity and what not DOES NOT give any credibility to a claim we may make and while we certainly CAN make claims we should not expect to not have them ridiculed.

 

Edit: At the end you make speculation as to what a black hole is and while we do not fully understand it we do have some knowledge of it. Here is a very informative video that quite frankly is part of the reason i scoff (not really scoff but you know something like that but a little less severe) at your idea: 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#76
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts

Actually, TG, colliding black holes are believed to be highly violent. In other words, smashing black holes into each other releases lots of energy. In other words, it's not silly to think of it as a fuel source in the distant future.



#77
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,922 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Actually, TG, colliding black holes are believed to be highly violent. In other words, smashing black holes into each other releases lots energy. In other words, it's not silly to think of it as a fuel source in the distant future.

He correlated it to matter and antimatter. Now i may be wrong and there is actually a high probability that i am but a reaction such as the one generated from the contact of these two "states" would not be the same from two black holes colliding or "smashing".  It may release energy but not the way that this reaction does. Now perhaps i am nitpicking and you are certainly correct that he was touting ideas which could provide energy but i just thought it should be pointed out.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users