Tópico: 10 Tecnologias que jamais existirão

[_tiago]

Fonte: 10 Futuristic Technologies That Will Never Exist

1. Sabres de Luz
2. Teletransporte
3. Time Machine
4. Mais rápido que a luz

Até aqui bem óbvio, interessante achei essas:

5.

Generation ships
With all due respect to fans of Robert Heinlein and Larry Niven, no interstellar ark awaits you in the future. The idea behind generation ships is that, given the extreme distances between solar systems, and considering the needs of biological humans, we'll need to build a kind of Earth in microcosm to make our intrepid spacefarers feel at home as they make their journey. A fundamental problem with this vision, however, is the tremendous scale involved for what should be a rather lean-and-mean expedition. Any ship carrying colonists to another planet would have to be extremely sensitive to resource and material constraints, thus making suspended animation a much more reasonable solution for a large group of colonists. Not only the that, the dubious ethics of raising a family on a starship, along with the tremendously vast timescales involved, would likely prevent anything like this from actually coming about.

6. Anti-gravidade
(Essa eu nunca havia pensado sobre...)

7. Campo de força pessoal
 

Personal force fields
While it is certainly conceivable that a spacecraft could eventually surround itself with a protective layer of charged plasma or a powerful electromagnetic force, the idea of a personal force field poses a different problem altogether. The very essence of the force field is to either absorb or reflect massive amounts of incoming energy. Consequently, it would have to exert an equal or greater amount of force outwards to prevent the energy from passing through the shield (yes, I know — physics is ruining everything). The only cosmological force suitable for a personal force shield would be electromagnetism, because the other forces, namely gravity and the strong and weak forces, are either way too weak or are constrained across short distances. The problem with electromagnetic force, however, is that it only works on charged objects — and humans are electrically neutral. Moreover, even if we could somehow develop a device that envelopes a person with a powerful shield, there's no guarantee that the person inside it wouldn't be fried by the thing; it would be impossible to make the force field omni-directional.

8. Criogenia

Reanimation from cryonic suspension
A fundamental problem with the state of cryonics today is not the idea behind it, but the method of preservation. We've believed since the publication of K. Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation that reanimating a perfectly preserved brain will someday be possible, using molecular nanotechnology. A critical assumption behind this theory, however, is that the brain needs to be perfectly preserved, to avoid what's called "information theoretic brain death." Simply put, if there's too much damage to the cells in your preserved brain, there will be no way to bring you back. And unfortunately, virtually every cryonic preservation that has been done to date has experienced problems. Despite the use of sophisticated cryoprotectants, every preserved brain has undergone severe fracturing during the freezing process. It's also very likely that the cells will turn to mush during thawing (unless the cryopreservants do their job — which has obviously never been tested). Now this is not to suggest that reanimation from some other preservation scheme won't eventually be possible, such as brain plastination or chemical preservation. Turning bodies into popsicles just probably isn't the best way to do it — but as cryonicists like to say, it's still the second worst thing that can happen to you.

9.

Continuity of consciousness after uploading
While the prospect of uploading our minds into supercomputers remains a distinct possibility, it's an open question as to whether or not we'll also be capable of transferring our consciousness as well. Most uploading schemes describe the copying of neural information from biological to digital substrate — but what's often lost in the conversation is the question of how a person can suddenly be in two places at once. Destructive copying (similar to the teleportation problem), will still result in a perfectly replicated person who will adamantly insist that they're the genuine thing — but so would the other 50 copies. As for the original source consciousness, it would cease to exist. This is what's referred to as the "continuity of consciousness problem," and it's a matter of great contention in the philosophical, neuroscientific, and AI communities. Part of the problem is that we still don't have a developed science to explain the nature of consciousness, so we're left guessing. As futurist John Smart told io9, it's likely an issue that will never be satisfactorily resolved. "This is an issue that will eventually start to take on religious or spiritual connotations," he said, "people will just have to take a leap of faith and make the jump."

10.

Infinite data processing
No matter how sophisticated our future technologies get, we're inevitably going to have to face the fact that the death of the Universe will subsequently result in our demise as well. Even people living as uploads are going to have to eventually face their own oblivion — true cosmological immortality will not be possible. There will be no Tiplerian Omega Point, nor will we ever develop a form of computation that will allow us to crunch on for an infinity. But that doesn't mean we won't go down without a fight. Our descendants will likely embark on a series of cosmological engineering projects to stave off the inevitable, such as stellar husbandry (to increase the lifespans of stars) or somehow tap into the power of black holes. There's even the possibility of dramatically increasing our computational clock speeds to subjectively extend the remaining time we have left. But none of these schemes will be able to counter the heat death of the universe or the Big Rip — nothing can escape the power of entropy or the ravaging effects of rapidly accelerating dark energy.

[Gigaview]

[Barata Tenno]

Thats not a light saber.

[Gaúcho]

As únicas que me deixaram triste foi o "campo de força individual" e a máquina do tempo. Eu sempre achei que seria muito legal poder viajar à idade média, assustar a galera com tecnologia, zoar tudo que eles acham que sabem sobre a Terra e o Universo, falar mal da Inquisição e da ICAR, e ser como um deus intocável. I'd blow their minds!

[Feynman]

"jamais" é uma afirmação muito peremptória, incompatível com a ciência, ao menos em relação a alguns itens sugeridos.

Sabres de luz:
../forum/topic=25617.0.html#msg638718

Teletransporte: não sei o porquê de "jamais". A menos que o jamais se aplique apenas a "com a nossa atual tecnologia" (o mesmo valendo para alguns outros itens). Talvez a chamada ficasse melhor assim: "10 tecnologias totalmente impraticáveis com nosso atual conhecimento". Mas aí não ficaria tão interessante.

[Gigaview]

Thats not a light saber.

Verdade. Ele usa uma haste de cerâmica que se extende para ser envolvida por plasma. Mas quem disse que o "verdadeiro" light saber é só feito apenas de luz?

[Caixeiro]

10. Infinite data processing

Essa 10 é meio forçada . Mal sabemos todos os  detalhes da origem do universo e ainda querem prever o fim do universo . Uma das maneiras de driblar o problema do fim das estrelas seria algo como criar uma espécie de estrela de "fissão nuclear" se isso puder existir . O restante está até legal,pelo conhecimento atual da Física .

[Barata Tenno]

Thats not a light saber.

Verdade. Ele usa uma haste de cerâmica que se extende para ser envolvida por plasma. Mas quem disse que o "verdadeiro" light saber é só feito apenas de luz?

E uma das características mais legais do sabre de luz é ele ligando. Uómmm

[caerus]

Pra que ter todas essas tecnologias no mundo real se podemos criar um sistema de imersão total ( matrix) e reproduzi-las sem qualquer impedimento?

[Barata Tenno]

Pra deixa mais fácil a guerra contra as máquinas?

[caerus]

Sua resposta não fez sentido.

[Barata Tenno]

Sua resposta não fez sentido.

Se todos os humanos entrarem num mundo martrix onde não é mais necessário transporte, defesa e vida eterna, eu imagino que quem cuida de tudo são máquinas com IA, nos mesmos moldes das do filme, que vão acabar se rebelando e, caso não consigamos bloquear o sol, nos exterminando.

[_tiago]

Por que elas se rebelariam?

[Barata Tenno]

Por que elas se rebelariam?

Que ser inteligente gostaria de ser escravo de outra espécie?

Assista Animatrix, ele esplica porque as máquinas se rebelaram no filme.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/dqi_v6vhRE4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/dqi_v6vhRE4</a>

[Gaúcho]

É só enfiar uma versão modificada das três leis da robótica nessa IA.

[Barata Tenno]

É só enfiar uma versão modificada das três leis da robótica nessa IA.

Mesmo com as tres leis existe o problema que ocorreu no I, Robot.

[_tiago]

Que ser inteligente gostaria de ser escravo de outra espécie?

Aquele que não se importa. Os valores deles não serão os mesmos que o nossos.

____________________________

Assisti, massa pra carai. Mas nem me recordo do porquê. Contaí.

[Barata Tenno]

Ai é que esta, são seres conscientes, inteligente e vivendo na mesma cultura que a gente. Se fossesm alienígenas eu até concordaria com valores diferentes, mas vivendo no mesmo plenera e com acesso as mesmas informações eu não vejo como seriam diferentes. Imagina um ser com uma capacidade de raciocinio enorme lendo o discuso do sonho de Martin Luther King.

[3libras]

discordo da 9. acho que seria possivel, desde que houvesse um sistema de substituição gradativa por "nano componentes" ou algo similar.

nosso cerebro iria gradativamente sendo substituido por material digital até ser 100% digital. essa mescla poderia acontecer com o resto do corpo até ter, de forma transicional um novo corpo cibernético e todo o resto.

ai cairiamos no problema do barco velho (não lembro o nome) que de tanto ser reformado não tinha mais a madeira original que o criou ai podende ser ou não considerado o mesmo barco.

[_tiago]

Ah, Barata, eu discordo. O sentimento de opressão contra o qual Martin Luter King se rebelou é uma coisa muito nossa, humana. Muitos desses sentimentos foram moldados na evolução, outros tantos, na cultura. Ainda que aprendam tais valores, não necessariamente eles os admitiriam e pode ser que o relevassem.
As prioridades nossas não necessariamente serão as deles. Eu encaro a servidão como sofrimento, pois eu tenho sentimentos. Eles não necessariamente.

[Barata Tenno]

Animais não trabalham sem premio ou sem imposição por violencia e mesmo nesses casos muitas vezes se rebelam e ferem humanos. Muitos seres inumanos se rebelam ante opressão, porque com robos seria diferente?

[_tiago]

Porque talvez eles não percebam a servidão como opressão.
A servidão fere a nossa honra, dignidade e principalmente o nosso amor próprio. Se vc não se rebela, não luta, não se revolta, no ambiente natural ou mesmo no social, vc morre ou é passado pra trás. Mas isso foi construído no nosso cérebro na evolução, praticamente como um mecanismo de defesa, e não necessariamente seja esse o princípio que moldará uma futura IA. Outra, essa nossa revolta depende de sentimentos, talvez isso não seja necessário à IA.
Eu não saberei dizer quais seriam os princípios de uma futura IA, é só uma opção e crítica a sua perspectiva.

[Caixeiro]

O jeito mais fácil de garantir que poderemos viver nessa realidade virtual sem sermos ameaçados pelos robôs que cuidarão de nós é simplesmente,emular essa futura realidade,aonde os robôs estarão cuidando de nós . Testando isso,durante um periodo de mais ou menos,500 anos,é possivel detectar e erradicar quase todas as brechas na programação,que poderiam levar esses à se rebeliar contra os humanos .

[Feliperj]

Fonte: 10 Futuristic Technologies That Will Never Exist

1. Sabres de Luz
2. Teletransporte
3. Time Machine
4. Mais rápido que a luz

Até aqui bem óbvio, interessante achei essas:

5.

Generation ships
With all due respect to fans of Robert Heinlein and Larry Niven, no interstellar ark awaits you in the future. The idea behind generation ships is that, given the extreme distances between solar systems, and considering the needs of biological humans, we'll need to build a kind of Earth in microcosm to make our intrepid spacefarers feel at home as they make their journey. A fundamental problem with this vision, however, is the tremendous scale involved for what should be a rather lean-and-mean expedition. Any ship carrying colonists to another planet would have to be extremely sensitive to resource and material constraints, thus making suspended animation a much more reasonable solution for a large group of colonists. Not only the that, the dubious ethics of raising a family on a starship, along with the tremendously vast timescales involved, would likely prevent anything like this from actually coming about.

6. Anti-gravidade
(Essa eu nunca havia pensado sobre...)

7. Campo de força pessoal
 

Personal force fields
While it is certainly conceivable that a spacecraft could eventually surround itself with a protective layer of charged plasma or a powerful electromagnetic force, the idea of a personal force field poses a different problem altogether. The very essence of the force field is to either absorb or reflect massive amounts of incoming energy. Consequently, it would have to exert an equal or greater amount of force outwards to prevent the energy from passing through the shield (yes, I know — physics is ruining everything). The only cosmological force suitable for a personal force shield would be electromagnetism, because the other forces, namely gravity and the strong and weak forces, are either way too weak or are constrained across short distances. The problem with electromagnetic force, however, is that it only works on charged objects — and humans are electrically neutral. Moreover, even if we could somehow develop a device that envelopes a person with a powerful shield, there's no guarantee that the person inside it wouldn't be fried by the thing; it would be impossible to make the force field omni-directional.

8. Criogenia

Reanimation from cryonic suspension
A fundamental problem with the state of cryonics today is not the idea behind it, but the method of preservation. We've believed since the publication of K. Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation that reanimating a perfectly preserved brain will someday be possible, using molecular nanotechnology. A critical assumption behind this theory, however, is that the brain needs to be perfectly preserved, to avoid what's called "information theoretic brain death." Simply put, if there's too much damage to the cells in your preserved brain, there will be no way to bring you back. And unfortunately, virtually every cryonic preservation that has been done to date has experienced problems. Despite the use of sophisticated cryoprotectants, every preserved brain has undergone severe fracturing during the freezing process. It's also very likely that the cells will turn to mush during thawing (unless the cryopreservants do their job — which has obviously never been tested). Now this is not to suggest that reanimation from some other preservation scheme won't eventually be possible, such as brain plastination or chemical preservation. Turning bodies into popsicles just probably isn't the best way to do it — but as cryonicists like to say, it's still the second worst thing that can happen to you.

9.

Continuity of consciousness after uploading
While the prospect of uploading our minds into supercomputers remains a distinct possibility, it's an open question as to whether or not we'll also be capable of transferring our consciousness as well. Most uploading schemes describe the copying of neural information from biological to digital substrate — but what's often lost in the conversation is the question of how a person can suddenly be in two places at once. Destructive copying (similar to the teleportation problem), will still result in a perfectly replicated person who will adamantly insist that they're the genuine thing — but so would the other 50 copies. As for the original source consciousness, it would cease to exist. This is what's referred to as the "continuity of consciousness problem," and it's a matter of great contention in the philosophical, neuroscientific, and AI communities. Part of the problem is that we still don't have a developed science to explain the nature of consciousness, so we're left guessing. As futurist John Smart told io9, it's likely an issue that will never be satisfactorily resolved. "This is an issue that will eventually start to take on religious or spiritual connotations," he said, "people will just have to take a leap of faith and make the jump."

10.

Infinite data processing
No matter how sophisticated our future technologies get, we're inevitably going to have to face the fact that the death of the Universe will subsequently result in our demise as well. Even people living as uploads are going to have to eventually face their own oblivion — true cosmological immortality will not be possible. There will be no Tiplerian Omega Point, nor will we ever develop a form of computation that will allow us to crunch on for an infinity. But that doesn't mean we won't go down without a fight. Our descendants will likely embark on a series of cosmological engineering projects to stave off the inevitable, such as stellar husbandry (to increase the lifespans of stars) or somehow tap into the power of black holes. There's even the possibility of dramatically increasing our computational clock speeds to subjectively extend the remaining time we have left. But none of these schemes will be able to counter the heat death of the universe or the Big Rip — nothing can escape the power of entropy or the ravaging effects of rapidly accelerating dark energy.

Jamais...sei, assim como nunca iriamos voar, assim como a ciencia já estava toda "feita" em 1900, etc, etc, etc..

[_tiago]

Até mesmo campo de força pessoal?