>Hard sci-fi setting>There is advanced nanotech, mind uploading, space elevators, planet terraforming, strong A.I. and wormhole travel in it.
>>92552421Yeah eclipse phase sure does exist.
The only people who call these settings "hard sci-fi" are the detractors.
>>92552438GURPS Traveller.
>>92552421>space elevatorI never understood why actual scientists shilled this as something to do irl.
>>92552421Aside from wormholes none of this tech is fantastical enough to make the sci-fi "soft". Space elevators and terraformation are plausibly achievable with current tech level even (the cost and time tables are another matter, however).
>>92552421>>Hard sci-fi setting
>>92552421>Go to sci-fi game>Look inside>Sci-fi
>>92552421Finally, some good fucking hard sci-fi.
>>92552421>advanced nanotechPretty vague concept, as long as thermodynamics aren't broken you can do a lot that is feasible. Still, the majority of grey goo in fiction is pretty cringe with its nigh magical capabilities.>mind uploading,Not that feasible, for fully biological creatures this may be straight impossible past crude brainscan or recreation of personality through other methods.>space elevators,Nice concepts, but a bit unfeasible both in terms of economics and tech. Carbon nanotubes don't seem to be durable enough for the job if they get damaged at all.>planet terraforming,This is not impossible, it just takes eons by human standards.>Strong A.I.Nothing unfeasible here as far as we know. >wormhole travelYeah, that's pretty soft.
>>92552421>Hard Sci-fi settingLMAO
>>92552583>>mind uploading,>Not that feasible, for fully biological creatures this may be straight impossible past crude brainscan or recreation of personality through other methods.Τhe thing about mind uploading is that it comes down to a Ship of Theseus situation. Is the result of the brain upload _really_ you or simply a sapient digital copy that thinks like you, acts like you, has the same memories as you and even honestly believes it is you but it's not REALLY the flash and blood You. After all, the synapses and nerves and biological cells that make up your consciousness are still there. I suppose something like this would also wade into the real of dualism and the philosophy of the soul (if any).
>>92552421Science fiction is just fantasy with an additional suspension of disbelief, in that you have to believe not only that this stuff is possible in the fictional world, but that it will one day be possible in the real world.The conspiracy to convince people that science fiction and fantasy are different genres was begun by Asimov and his cretinous brood, who were asshurt that people weren't gay communists yet and didn't take their gay utopian fantasies seriously, and so he took some time off from criticizing 1984 on the grounds that it was unrealistic for any society to have its own people informing on each other (he did this in 1980, btw) to invent a pretty laughable idea, which is that it was the social responsibility of writers to write meaningful stories that would guide people towards the gay materialist utopia he envisioned. This led to the forcibly uplifting of Science Fiction from the pulp era to the gay era, and finally to its total death as a serious genre as it rapidly devolved into the sort of trash you see at the Hugo awards every year.Of course, all of this is fake, and if it had happened a few decades later people would have rightly called it pretentious faggot shit, like they did when Terry Goodkind tried to pretend that his barely disguised BDSM kink fantasy was political philosophy because he read Ayn Rand in college. I suppose Asimov was a better writer, but unlike Terry Goodkind, who mostly spent his time seething that he had to pay taxes, Asimov actually succeeded in convincing people that the future is real, and in so doing helped to facilitate a cultlike attitude towards it that has led to actual science becoming ideological. We are now in the era of Modern Lysenkoism because of Asimov and for this reason, alongside others, I sincerely hope that Hell is real, and that he is currently there, being vivisected over and over on loop like a sort of sisyphian high school biology class frog.
>>92552421>Hard sci-fi setting>There's space vampires
>>92552695If your neurons can talk to it, it is functionally indistinguishable from your conscious experience. This is one place nanotechnology is very useful, bridging your neurons with whatever technology you're trying to interface with. It would be trippy as fuck but, eventually, you and the machine would be basically the same entity.
>>92552482>space elevator>I never understood why actual scientists shilled this as something to do irl.Assuming that it can be constructed, it would make it easier to move things into orbit rather than fighting against gravity using combustion the whole way up.
>>92552695Mind upload has nothing to do with the Ship of Theseus. It's not about gradual replacement of parts until no old details remain, you're just making a digital duplicate of your own mind (which would still be its own thing regardless of whether the original (you) dies in the process or keeps on living). Same shit as uploading a copy of a file. Someone else can download an identical file and fiddle with it to his heart's content without the original being impacted at all.
>>92552724I'll allow it because Blindsight is great.
>>92552724Τhey were NOT vampire they were pretty evil Neanderthals
>hard scifi setting>it doesn't take place entirely on the ground on one planet because space travel takes fucking forever and it's not actually feasible to make trips within human lifespansYeah yeah, the hard scifi wormhole. They all do it. Some nerd will poke a pencil through a folded sheet of paper. Real hard scifi.
>>92552421Sure.Next thread please.
>>92552421>lazy retarded shitpost>lists a bunch of stuff that is widely accepted near-future tech with no justification for why its unfeasable>retards take the bait anyway>as alwaysAnd you faggots wonder why /tg/ is so shit.
>>92552482Can you seriously not understand the benefit of using a gravitational and nuclear elevator over expending thousands of litres of highly refined and industrially complicated rocket fuel per small rocket?
>>92552695>>92552727Human conciousness is an expression of matter, likely going down to the quantum level at which atoms ultimately operate. Meanwhile, digitization operates on a crude level of switches and levers in a binary fashion of ones and zeroes.You cannot truly replicate biological minds in a electronic construct, even if for no other reason than our inherent contradictions.
>>92553011>>lists a bunch of stuff that is widely accepted near-future tech with no justification for why its unfeasableBack to /sfg/ with you Muskrat
>>92552715I'd say "seethe" but you're already way ahead of me.
>>92552739Your still fighting against gravity the whole way up. You do not actually save energy using an elevator.
>>92552727This might be true, but it's a supposition. I think, what was that comic with Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan or something? That had something like that where people who want to do full uploads are conscious for the whole thing, and actually watch as the biological portion dies so that they can be sure that it really worked. And I personally lean towards that being how it would work if it ever becomes possible, but there's no way to really know that at this point. It might just not be possible in any way that would satisfy a person today as not just being a cloning process where they kill the original, a'la SOMA.
>>92552742>Mind upload has nothing to do with the Ship of Theseus.It does. It's a subtype but in discourse of it the gradual mind upload is a well known concept.>>92552727>It would be trippy as fuck but, eventually, you and the machine would be basically the same entity.Especially once you start to not merely replacing physical components but link the brain process with virtual neurons/cells. That way you could become a digital mind. It would necesitate a mental growth and recapitulation of everything that you are and the digital mind born in this processes is probably very alien to the original mind but the Ego is preserved as emergence is preserved. It s a reversal of the common criticism against mind uploasing. Your subjective being is preserved but externally your old self is dead.
>>92552482>is not a scientist>doesn't understand something scientists do>it's the scientists who are wrongOK
>>92553421>using combustionRead, nigger. Parse your information like a big boy. A rocket carries its fuel, meaning an inefficient amount of the vehicle mass going spaceward is fuel. A space elevator can keep its fuel on the ground, so that none of the spaceward mass is fuel, and your fuel is not limited to liquid oxygen being burned for thrust.
>>92553414Yes, I used it partway through the third paragraph. Anyway I don't think anyone is seething over this now except maybe Asimov if he is still conscious, because the project ultimately resulted in bolstering dystopian sci-fi to the point that it is now the default assumption about the future. If you want to understand this more clearly, contrast Star Trek with whatever they're calling Star Trek now. I don't mean le ebin woke culture war stuff, I mean the unimpeachable fact that since the 1990s, the Federation was slowly transformed in interpretation from a sort of idealized, optimistic hopeful principled communist society of the future to a dark, brooding, politically quarrelsome and impotent failed state where the government regularly does horrifically unethical shit to protect their power. It went from the force of good the protagonists represented, to an antagonistic force that the protaagonists have to actively struggle against to do anything.The reasons for this are obvious. The saccharine depiction of the Federation was actually REALLY symbolic of its time, because the Federation was an austere and dignified society, people had an unparalleled level of personal freedom and persona responsibility, even when disciplining people, Picard and even Kirk were always understanding and sympathetic, they saw problems with the individual as sicknesses to be healed in them, not signs of sin to be excoriated with fire and lash, but after decades of waiting for the utopia to come, and it not fucking coming because utopias aren't real, people became embittered and cynical, and began to project this cynicism onto the world around them. This is when Babylon 5 and Deep Space 9 came out. Both essentially represented the same thing, which was the end of the expansion of science fiction and its entry into a period of nihilistic inwards-facing, like the Ming Chinese Haijin isolationist policies.
>>92552482It sounds stupid if you imagine it as a literal elevator that goes to space. Some of the more practical designs, like orbital skyhooks, are actually really good ideas and would definitely work. They also don't look as cool as the Belkan superweapon everyone imagines when they hear "Space Elevator."
>Hard sci-fi settingKWAB
>>92552435So does Orion's Arm and Sufficiently Advanced.
>>92553590There is definitely a severe shortage of optimistic scifi these days. I'm trying to create some optimistic social scifi myself. Utopias are hard to believe in, and some cynicism is necessary when dealing with utopia peddlers. But wallowing in cynism turns a healthy skepticism into a self defeating nihilism. It's a difficult needle to thread, and too many writets take the easy way out and use dystopians to shit on their ideological enemies and to generate built in threats for their protagonists without having to put any reql thought into it.
>Hard sci-fi setting>white people still exist hundreds of years in the future
>>92552421a space elevator can't work because there is no material on earth that would support its own weight when strung out into orbit.
>>92553959maybe if it had support at specific intervals along its length, like ionic propulsion or something.
>>92553959space elevator will work when we as a civilization get our shit together and put actual resources towards building one. that's at least 100 years away though
>>92553959This isn't strictly true, but the horrific engineering requirements (36,000km heavily tapered rope), poor safety margins, shitty throughput and disastrous potential failure modes make Space Elevators of dubious value compared to say building a bunch of nuclear reactors and laser arrays and laser launching everything in cheap rockets.
>>92552482>>92553421Someday I will find the thread on /tg/ that doesn't make me fucking embarrassed to have the same hobby as you retards. But it sure isn't this one.
>>92552695>>92552695To me terminal patient mind uploading seems pretty straight forward. Freeze the head and make molecule thin slices of it with a futuristic deli-slicer. Then take a scan of each layer down to the subatomic particleThen recreate this brain exactly in a true physics simulator and let it run. Let the software brain interface with hardware where its nerve connections would be through digital capture. Sure with todays computing the physics simulator computer would have to be serverbank sized. But that could work as a ships computer or something. Also, its not like there is any reason a brain in a serverbank couldn't be realtime piloting a soft/hard body drone somewhere as long as the latency isnt too bad.
>>92552421Yes technology has tendency to advance AnonEspecially if there is a war going on
>>92552421Man?Traveling to the moon?Preposterous!
>>92552421no one who likes scifi uses the term hard scifi.
>>92553870See this is what I don't get in so much scifi. People can complain about woke, or they can try to be woke with a diverse cast, but you're telling me these people lived in a generational ship, an isolated and small population, for 500 years and they don't all have the same skin tone and a shared genetic makeup?This planet has been apart from the rest of the human population for enough thousands of years to grow horns or weird spots or some shit but there's still the same range of skin tones living in the same climate zones as each other?
>>92552724They're called sanguophages.
>>92552482Maybe you should read about it instead of blindly stating your ignorance on the matter.
>>92553867Very much so, of course what you're supposed to do is use a sci-fi dystopia to disparage your own ideology. Only real things have problems, so giving something problems makes it feel more real.
>>92554509Blindsight is not Chinese, you're thinking of the 3 Body Problem. The Chinese CGI miniseries of which I am actually watching right now, it's terrible. The books were also terrible but then I don't speak Chinese so many it was a translation thing. I do really like that the story is ultimately about how the Cultural Revolution ends up killing the human race.
>>92552583>strong AI>feasibleThis is how I know you mistook reading a lot of genre fiction for becoming educated on the subject.
>>92554935The second one isn't that unbelievable. All it requires is a system of travel so that an individual can get to a completely different climate in less than one lifetime. Homo sapiens accomplished that much when the Pacific Islanders invented long-distance boating.
>>92554805People were calculating how much rocket fuel it would take to get to the moon in the 1850s dude. Some of them actually got pretty close to being right, the problem was that they didn't have fuel sources powerful, material science, computers, etc. The concept of going to the moon was not considered insane by anybody until someone actually went to the moon, at which point schizos decided it must be impossible.Strong AI on the other hand isn't even a technology, it's a religious concept that we assume must be possible. We don't even have a Strong Non-Artificial Intelligence yet, we don't know if it is even possible for intelligence to improve upon its own design. It probably is, but how would we know that? It's an article of faith. It's the furthest thing in the world from a plausible hard-science future technology, it is rather something that by definition would completely outmode human inquiry.
>>92552482Rocket science is more difficult that elevator science.
>>92552695This. We don't know whether consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of matter, or if it's something else entirely. Maybe matter is an emergent phenomenon of consciousness.This would make mind uploads the epitome of pants on head backwards.
>>92552421>Hard sci-fi setting>An Uplifted octopus invents FTL
>>92552421of these only wormholes is bs, rest are plausible
>>92552724Yeah but they eat salt not blood
>>92552421Hard sci-fi? How could you tell? I haven't even gotten to the 12 different species of alien babes yet
>Hard sci-fi setting>Penis is biological and flaccid
>>92552443Yeah, a work either pertains to science or it doesn't. There is no "hard" or "soft".
>>92552510Advanced nanotech, terraforming, and advanced AI are definitely plausible, but are there any strong theories in support of mind uploading? And I'm pretty sure wormhole travel was disproven, at least, as far as string theory/multiverse theory are concerned.
>>92552421yes, because it's still science fiction.Not "only the science we currently have or can conceive of".
>>92556480I need to correct you on this. Having a plausible simulation of human social rules tied to enough discrete installations of task-specific software that a program suite could function in most situations in which it is used, that is possible. Having an actual simulation of novel problem-solving and emergent personality is never going to fucking happen on a computer. That hardware cannot physically handle the complexity, even at ridiculous scales, because then you run into information lag. Meat is very, very good at emergent properties happening at scale. It is about as efficient as you could possibly get at that task. The dynamic system density of a human body is quite literally and precisely beyond our ability to calculate because it is so high. The only "Artificial Intelligence" that is scientifically possible is creating a designer animal from scratch to act as a slave, and that level of genetic manipulation isn't currently possible and is ethically unjustifiable.
>>92552482Basically, the Scientists want to turn the earth into an enormous sling and send rockets and other such devices into the vast reaches of space at just under the speed of sound.
>>92556640It seems we have different suspensions of disbelief on this matter.However, I want to point out that you make very convincing arguments, and I'm rethinking my perspective on how far AI could progress.What helped convince me in particular were your points about the complexity, which is strikingly similar to the logic as to why I don't believe mind uploading is plausible.I'm willing to admit I didn't think it through enough, so thanks, unironically.
>>92552739>>92553154Doesn't it flog the earth if you're wrong? Like a 60-mile towel-whip that would kick up dust or cause tsunamis? Seems like something we should practice on the moon or on mars. Except it's probably too easy on the moon.
>>92552482Old man's war had one. One of the Main characters spent a few paragraphs ranting about how fucking bullshit it was and how advance the colonies beyond earth were to just casually build one to pick up their geriatric recruitsAnother thing I like about that book, was how everytime the local super advance aliens came up, someone would mention a variation of "You don't fuck with something that has dyson spheres"Fun Book, read it in a day.
>>92556480>are there any strong theories in support of mind uploading?We can already simulate neural activity, we're just really inefficient at it. Presumably as computers advance and we have a less retarded understanding of brains we can compress the activities with minimal loss, at which point we could run it on a specialized computer chip at or above realtime.It's possible mind uploading will never happen, but I would not bet on it, especially when you allow for "running on a large supercomputer" as a method of mind uploading (versus running on a brain-sized-ish computer chip).
>>92552695Who cares, bitch. Only annoying faggots on /tg/ care that "technically" your Eclipse Phase character dies and is reconstructed every time they farcast.
>>92554935For visual media (TV/movies), the problem is all your actors are still from the early homogecene era so they are still from clearly distinct ethnic/racial groups.
>>92552695Man, you just do be using words frivolously, huh? If a machine perfectly copies every atom of the ship of theseus, and then runs a simulation of it in a program, then, y'know, which is the real ship of Theseus? Really is a philosophicals condudrumI feel similarly with mind uploads. It's obviously not me. It's no more me than if you uploaded my memories into a flesh and blood clone of me. In fact it's one step below that.
>>92557882>We can already simulate neural activity,are you talking about "neural learning"? because nigger if you are, you should shut your mouth and go back and read more, cos you dont understand a fucking thing.The MODELS -- these fuckin' mega-google autocomplete bitches -- are based on ONE vaguely-understood principle,, which does nothing to capture the wholeness of actual neuron architecture. ChatGPT is to the human mind as a 1870s mechanical calculator is to a iphone.
>>92557973No, I'm not, you fucking retard.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fninf.2020.00016/fullGod shut the fuck up you moron. Why do you people say stupid shit about how X or Y is just completely impossible without knowing anything?
>>92552421“Hard sci fi” is eating recycled söybean slip while mining for asteroid minerals, living in a 6x4 pod on a space habitat where you have next to no privacy. It’d be a horrible and horrifying future
>>92557991>580 times slower>simulating just part of the brain>doing a single task>plausible observation like that of an animal>4 years agoOK, i'm a little impressed. A little bit.And IM glad you dont think that chatpGPT is intelligent.Considering the limits of hardware we have today, I think of this as proof of it being not possible. I mean... how are you going to increase CPU efficiency by 600 000%?
We could store a human mind inside a hard drive today. We are already at that capacity.
>>92558014>Considering the limits of hardware we have today, I think of this as proof of it being not possible. I mean... how are you going to increase CPU efficiency by 600 000%?Same way we went from punch cards to supercomputers in our pockets, combined with the same way GPUs are better for drawing triangles than CPUs.
>>92555266Human race survived outside our Solar system in those books, though.>>92555281And why is strong AI not feasible, anon?>>92557901Anyone sane would care a whole lot of mind uploading was actually reality.
>>92558047>Anyone sane would care a whole lot of mind uploading was actually reality.No, they wouldn't, only annoying faggots would. Everybody else would just go about their meat lives and when their family member died and got uploaded they would not suddenly treat them as a stranger.
>>92558052Why the fuck would I, or anyone, even make a decision to be "uploaded" without first thinking through whether the "upload" is actually me? I guess fake me could be comforting to my family, but I'd still be dead, and letting other people pretend I'm not doesn't seem particularly beneficial or healthy.
>>92557967If some video game can perfectly simulate the behaviour of multiple multi-billion prototype sports cars, why does a copy of it only cost the equivalent of a banana?
>>92557967I mostly agree, but to be fair, I don't think that "mind uploading" implies immortality of the living mind, it might copy or destroy the original and still count as mind uploading. The only notion that I buy into for unbroken consciousness is the actual ship-of-theseus approach where you replace the brain with circuitry one small piece at a time.
The human brain contains roughly 100 billion neurons. Each of these neurons seems capable of making around 1,000 connections, representing about 1,000 potential synapses, which largely do the work of data storage. Multiply each of these 100 billion neurons by the approximately 1,000 connections it can make, and you get 100 trillion data points, or about 100 terabytes of information.Your basic synapse is a connection between two neurons: a presynaptic neuron, and a postsynaptic neuron. Presynaptic neurons release neurotransmitters, which dock with receptors on the postsynaptic neuron and activate what are known as ion channels in the postsynaptic cell membrane.Ion channels are like a neuron's gatekeepers; they allow charged atoms such as sodium, potassium and calcium into and out of the cell, and are thought to play an important role in the regulation of synaptic plasticity, i.e. the strengthening or weakening of neuronal connections over time.All this is to say that when neurons talk to one another, there's more regulating their communication than a simple on/off switch.
Analog computing devices are fast; digital computing devices are more versatile and accurate. The idea behind an analog-digital hybrid is to combine the two processes for the best efficiency. An example of such hybrid elementary device is the hybrid multiplier, where one input is an analog signal, the other input is a digital signal and the output is analog. It acts as an analog potentiometer, upgradable digitally. This kind of hybrid technique is mainly used for fast dedicated real time computation when computing time is very critical, as signal processing for radars and generally for controllers in embedded systems.In the early 1970s, analog computer manufacturers tried to tie together their analog computers with a digital computers to get the advantages of the two techniques. In such systems, the digital computer controlled the analog computer, providing initial set-up, initiating multiple analog runs, and automatically feeding and collecting data. The digital computer may also participate to the calculation itself using analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters.
>hard scifi setting>look inside>author's barely disguised fetish>get hard
>>92558171Hybrid computers are making a comeback with the resurgence of neuronal network field.
>>92553225>likely going down to the quantum level at which atoms ultimately operate.This was disproven. Quantum effects do not create the necessary impulse to detectable by the neuroelectrical sensors of the various brain cells.>Meanwhile, digitization operates on a crude level of switches and levers in a binary fashion of ones and zeroes.Quantum computers. And there is also the concept and research into molecular computers.I don't think that carbon is magical compared to silicon or other material for only it to allow consciousness. Consciousness is probably more the emergent property of a complex system instead of a localizable weight.
Classic space elevators are probably not feasible on Earth's surface due our strong gravity, but you could make one on the Moon with even conventional materials. There are ways to make space elevators more resilient and alternatives exist such as launch loops, orbital rings etc.
https://youtu.be/FegeRT5N3A4?si=FgmHpc4w23Ycq2tD
>>92552421This is just Eclipse Phase. Fucking brilliant setting, rules work better on VTT than hoping your players remember even half of what's going on. >been away for years, when did CAPTCHA get so hard to read?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc8_AuzeYKE
>>92558187>Quantum computers.Meme>molecular computers.Bigger meme
>>92558377lolIn sci-fi the story serves the premise of its tech, in fantasy the tech serves the premise of its story, but there's a lot of overlap (especially if your story is actually good it will tend to feel like both).
>>92558377There's one crucial difference: scifi has to make the pretence of of making the story plausible, no matter how unlikely, rather than outright asking you to believe in impossible things. The idea that our sci-fi tales exist within our rational world, within the bounds of what science tells us is possible, that makes science fiction different fundamentally different from fantasy or myth. And that thought is incredibly important at the birth of the genre. This is what separates it out as its own distinct literary branch and allows it to have rules and conventions unlike those already existing genres of the fantastic, of horror or folklore or myth. It's also initially part of what gets us to buy in. Science fiction uses the possible as a lens for our world. It may be the remote and the unlikely, but what better way to look at human nature than to set it against the extreme cases of what it might someday encounter and see what rolls out.
>>92558392
>>92558377Are you having a mental breakdown or something?
>>92558415>There's one crucial difference: scifi has to make the pretence of of making the story plausible, no matter how unlikely, rather than outright asking you to believe in impossible things.By that definition Left Behind is science fiction (if you're a Christian). I think it's more complicated than that, but there's no perfect definition, yours isn't bad.
>>92556480The unprovable multiverse theory stands and falls with the collapse of relativity.
>>92558028 We could store a copy of a human's mind inside a hard drive today. We are already at that capacity.
>>92558448Rationally plausible based on scientific observation and reasoning, not plausible to someone who believes in literal fantasy. If you can't tell the difference then yes I suppose scifi and fantasy would seem similar
>>92558448Left Behind is theologically unsound and thus fantasy to anyone who read Matthew 24:29-31.
>>92555281>>92558047Strong AI is "feasible" in the way that terraforming is "feasible:" even testing the hypothesis will require an immense amount of resources that would make the Space Race, the Manhattan Project and the Internet look like a wild night at Taco Bell. That said, "expensive" and "time-intensive" are very different from "impossible."t. world-class AI engineer that makes the applications used by industry leaders
>>92558005You have a shocking lack of creativity
>>92552695Your body replaces itself every seven years regardless. Most people's interpretation of The Ship of Theseus assumes continuity is state dependent and that your state as an organism is static when we know for a fact it's not. Even if you threw the curveball that is the possibility of the human soul into the mix, the very fact that your body already replaces itself does one of two things, it negates the existence of the soul entirely or proves that it transcends your physical makeup, in which case mind uploading would still be you.
>>92552421i have all of that in my high fantasy setting, along with flying stone castles and magic swords
>>92560085no it's not. it's still a copy. if you upload your mind, you will still be in your own body, you won't be experiencing what your new digital duplicate is experiencing now. your conscuoisnesses are still separate. frying your brain in the process doesn't magically change this.the only way to truly become an inorganic being would be to gradually replace your brain with artificial parts until it's completely a computer, since as you say you mantain continuity
>>92560078>Strong AI is "feasible" in the way that terraforming is "feasible:"According to current understanding, any strong AI would just be a very expensive time-bomb as it would inevitably poison its own model with AI-generated data.
>>92560078Take away the qualia meme and it's a sentient species crying for help. Ultimately, AGI is the final atheist argument: it's either a person, or materialism is false.
>>92560180"Mind uploading" as a term does not necessarily imply making a copy.
>>92560180This. It's like copying a file onto a flash drive. You keep your instance while there's now a second, a clone.
>>92560190>very expensive time-bomb as it would inevitably poison its own model with AI-generated data.We've been doing that for thousands of years and we're still fine.
>>92560206Now grapple with the hypothetical of constant sharing of memory between yourself and the copy.
>>92560234Mind "uploads" is a misnomer. For all intents and purposes, it's a clone. Twins, as similar as they are, will have their own memories.
>>92560210You aren't a machine model that exclusively operates on attaining approximate knowledge of things.
Mind "upload" is a misnomer. I didn't mean to add an S.
>>92560190My future brother in Christ, Devin has become the biggest contributor to the Devin repository. It's been rewriting its own source code for a short while now.
>>92560190Couchboi, I -am- the fucking current understanding of AI. You really think that we don't already have strategies to prevent hallucinatory recursion in commercial GenAI applications? Does any real-world application allow unrestricted DML to all incoming data sources for an LLM?>>92560195You're probably right anon... but desu, I just see it as a machine. It's very /tg/; things are fundamentally probabilistic, so it's like rolling dice based upon the parameters of 1536 character sheets and telling a story based on the roles. If it makes you feel any better, I'm Christian, and this stuff is more "look what we can do with this shit" than trying to craft "the final atheist argument." The people who have the schizo cybermessianic shit going on can't actually code. Those of us who can have a hard time taking the idea seriously when it's such a catastrophic and tedious pain in the ass getting an Azure function to run on top our client's dicked up infrastructure and process a normal pdf with tables correctly.
>>92560274The Adeptus Mechanicus were a joke, not a vision for a better future.
>>92560247Yes, but my point is that memory is not continuity, if it even exists, it's definitely not based in memory, which can be lost, tricked and altered. You're not the you of yesterday, and the you of five minutes from now will not be you now. From moment to moment, your consciousness is being replaced by a consciousness that merely thinks it's you due to shared memory. So there's little difference between running your brain on a sufficiently advanced computer or in meat, so long as the illusion of continuance is provided by a memory system.So, rather than someone performing an upload and there being an original and a copy, there are merely two copies stemming from a common point in two different consciousness emulation systems.
>>92560307It's a joke. Though it'd be hilarious for strong AI to have like two week's runtime before it can only be used for Zalgo-posting.
>>92560307>schizo cybermessianicAnd he had power to give "life" unto the Image of the (first) beast,that the Image of the beast should both speak,and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed.
>>92560307>You really think that we don't already have strategies to prevent hallucinatory recursion in commercial GenAI applications?You train your data trawlers to identify and exclude AI-generated content, yes. Seems easy enough.
>>92560349To this day and age, the qualia of perception and the perceiver of the perceptions have not been adequately explained. What is the "I" in "I see" or "I breathe"?>>92560378Why would they need to filter AI-generated data? We have imagination and we don't struggle to filter what's fictional from what's real.
>>92560378Yeah, pretty much, but there's more to it than that. Often you don't even have to park an LLM at the end of your data ingestion pipeline (yet), we just ensure that we're only extracting data from sources that haven't been written to by AI yet. This of course doesn't guarantee that it's accurate, because humans are just as fucked up, if not moreso, but it does orthogonally solve the hallucination/data quality problem without us having to use any particular tooling for the purpose. >>92560361I've always interpreted that as a system of totalitarian political control, or a classic "cult of personality." To be sure, tech will be a part of the bullshit leveraged against us, but I can assure you on a personal level that the couple hundred of us in the world that can actually make this shit would rather do coke, squander our loot on women and play /tg/ than implement global cybertotalitarianism. The people who want that literally take several hours to configure their local python environment and have to call in daddy on a teams call so they can "test" the application that we wrote, not that I'm speaking from personal experience from last week or anything.
>>92560387That's heading into the realm of philosophy, which I'm not really concerned with. As far as we know, consciousness is an electrical pattern running on an organic computer that slowly replaces itself with duplicates of itself, which implies a necessary if minor interruption of that process. Most people already agree that interruptions of consciousness are fatal, therefore, simply living is "fatal" and we never really know it, so why would putting your brain in a computer kill you any more or less philosophically?
>>92560464You underestimate the elites' desire to start a war against God. They have the altar.
>>92560464>Yeah, pretty much, but there's more to it than that.Of course there is. I've seen the series of posters explaining how logic gates in actual, physical computers operate on my dad's wall. Theory is inspiration, engineering is perspiration.
>>92560500We have multiple boards for schizoposting, my totally normal friendly person.
>>92560495How do we prove or falsify the experiencer we call consciousness? We can all "agree" that every single one of us has this whatever it is, whether it's qualia or an emergent phenomenon, and the second to last frontier is the wetware brain.>>92560508This. Scientists didn't bring humans to the Moon, engineers did.
>>92560520We really can't, any more than we can conclusively prove whether or not there exists a soul. However, since the slow replacement of our bodies is already a thing and we don't notice any difference in consciousness, it's clearly either a non-factor or simply transcends our physical makeup in some way. Won't really know for sure until we try to stick someone in a computer and ask them how they feel.
>>92552482This is the rocket that put the first men on the moon. The section in red was used exclusively to get into orbit. Over 90% of its total fuel was used up just getting out of the atmosphere. If there was a space elevator up to geosynchronous orbit, you could replace this much rocket with maintenance and electricity for every future rocket launch. Not to mention being able to ignore the weather.
>Hard sci-fi setting>currency is named Credits
>>92560520>>92560545I just spent two weeks in existential dread over if death is the end. I didn't need to be brought back now.
>>92560508>>92560520Based, you are fellow men of culture>>92560500No, I don't underestimate their desire, I just know for a fact that these people are retarded. These are the same goons that squandered BILLIONS on the "metaverse" two years ago. Just Ride the Honk.
>>92560545Depending on who you ask, some of the models can hide "how they feel" if prompted, and unprompted it's almost always a cry for help.>>92560567Nukes are missing.
>>92557219Sure, but we have to build it at the equator anyway and the only ones it will fall on down there are third worldies.
>>92560567Either death is like it was before you were born or something else. You won't find out until you die, if it's the former, then you'll be beyond caring, if it's the latter, you'll still exist, which is what you want anyway. So there's not much point burning what life you have fretting over it.Unless it's hell and suffering, you'll probably prefer not existing to that.
>>92560558And what happens when you go to war or some terrorist decides they want to take down your space elevator? It's a giant fragile target.Hell, it's even prone to just collapsing on its own without being maliciously targeted by your enemies. If a space elevator were really the best way to get things into orbit, we'd have done it by now.
>>92560613AFAIK it's the material that's missing. A material that can withstand the tidal forces between the anomalously dense Earth and anomalously light Moon would withstand direct strikes.
>>92560628Not necessarily. I know it's not really the same, but we can build buildings that can withstand earthquakes, but will still be taken down easily by a direct missile strike.
>>92560613>we'd have done it by nowThere's no natural or synthetic material we know of that can withstand the stresses, weight or temperature changes going from sea level to orbit. Mars has a third of the gravity of earth and you still wouldn't be able to build one. You only see them in science fiction because you handwave any bullshit magic material you want. You could use strange matter, but if you're at the point where you can fish that shit out of a neutron star, you probably don't need it to build a space elevator.
All this talk of space elevators makes me want to play Ace Combat 7 again.
>>92557182Not that anon but I've never believed you could create an actual sapient entity entirely from a mechanical being. I'm sure some nigger will come up and say "What if you made a program that simulates the effects of hormones on the body in response to different stresses, substances, etc?"What if I made a program that fucks your mother?Anyways. At best, I could imagine you could create an "AI" that is really good at mimicking how Humans talk and would typically react to social queues but is otherwise just a thing waiting to get prompted and has no independent thought or desire or feeling of its own, much like most people in real life so I guess we're already half-way there.
>>92560693Do it. This is not a request.
>>92560651For what little I read it's literally and physically stretching into space rather than resisting the gravitational pull of the Earth. Dividing the length needed by the height of the tallest building gives us almost 7900x.
>>92560696I agree with you, but only in-so-far as using von neumann architecture computers to do it. I would imagine sapience would require something more complex than that approaching organics. At which point, why wouldn't you just use organics, less R&D.
>>92552421>Mind uploadingIt'll be a copy of you and you'll still die.
>>92560699I will. My favorite mission is the Stonehenge mission where you zip around the battlefield providing CAS to various ground forces calling for aid. So much fun.
>>92560717This is entirely the direction my autism has guided me to. If I wanted a fully sapient "AI" then it might as well be a person with a brain except, in this case, it a brain grown in a jar rather than trying to find the 3.5mm to lightning adapter for ripping someone's brain, spine, and nervous system and plug it into a computer.
>>92554116Into material science.Are the carbon nanotubes in the room with us right now?
>>92560734"We will replace your brain, wafer by wafer, with material that is not your brain. In the end, you will have a digitized mind that is yours alone."
>>92560777>Are the carbon nanotubes in the room with us right now?They are, but nobody has created a process and a machine to spin them into thread of useful length yet, I understand.
>>92560734Game?
>>92560737For me, it's Farbanti for the same reason
>>92560829If we can figure out how to do it like GitS I would be the first to sign up for it.>>92560849Eclipse Phase unless you're one of those people who believes that the original you transfers during the sleeving process and not just a copy made and the original deleted unless you specifically go to sleeve the new body with a copy of you or a fork of yourself.
>>92560870Thanks.>the original you transfers during the sleeving processI'm undecided, honestly.>And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.This sounds a lot like them succeeding.
>>92560896Big thing in EP is that it no longer matters to most because they're traumatized by recent apocalypse and most had their original selves die on Earth. Selection bias means that "woe is me, I'm not really me!" types off themselves, those who decide that copynig is death get on with being new people and don't copy further while those who shrug and redefine what they thought of as personhood make up the bulk of travellers you'll meet.
>>92560864Yeah, that's probably my second favorite mission. I also like the one where you have to take out an entire Erusian fleet.Pretty much all the ground attack missions are awesome.
>>92560387>We have imagination and we don't struggle to filter what's fictional from what's real.How can a man be this delusional.
>>92555526I mean the Noddites' near-limitless biological harddrive was already in play by then. iirc the FTL wasn't even vital to the plot, more of an extra dash of utopia tossed into the emerging culture.>>92558069Learning to Be Me by Greg Egan is worth checking out.
>>92560941Some reading imply normies will WANT the mark.
>>92561000Trips of truth. We're discussing human-generated data which hasn't occured (yet), do we not?
>>92560085Neuronal replacement has not been observed in the brains of adult humans or other primates. Your neurons, the physical structure that contains the engrams you know as you, are never replaced by your body in the way skin cells are.
>>92561089>Neuronal replacement has not been observed in the brains of adult humans or other primatesActually it was. In both forms, either as neuroregeneration or neurogenesis. Neuroregeneration occurs non-localized across the brain, while neurogenesis occurs even in the thalamus of adult humans
>>92560870Wouldn't a computer made up of millions of small processors replicate a brain. The problem is making something that dense and that compact in a way that wouldn't overheat the ssystem. >>92561089In the case, of brain injury it's unfortunate. The brain such fragile thing.
>>92561314Fragility means it must be protected at all costs.
>>92561314>Wouldn't a computer made up of millions of small processors replicate a brainThe brain is significantly more complicated than most people give it credit for. For one, the potentials between neurons are not just on and off. They operate on a sliding scale of signal strength. Stronger signals to one neuron elicit a stronger signal out, but also lower the threshold for signals between those neurons in the future.For another, the brain swims in a chemical soup and that soup is constantly shifting and changing, which in turn shifts and changes the potential between neurons, up and down, each individual neuron changing differently depending on a huge number of factors.Furthermore, a "brain in a jar" type of situation would likely not be very effective. The brain operates and changes based on signals down the line from itself. Not just reactionary decisions but the brain chemistry is affected by the rest of the body almost as much as its affected by anything going on in your head. You can't isolate it and expect things to function even close to properly.Also the other anon is wrong, brains actively grow new neurons and connections throughout your life. Stroke patients with brain injuries that live for long periods often have other, adjacent, parts of the brain use that area's "real estate" for their own purposes. Its an old myth from before the 80s that you're stuck with the neurons you start with, based on a guess about neurons that as soon as we could disprove it, it was. Its about the same level of truth as that ridiculous "you only use 80% of your brain" that was never true at all.
What's the name for the hypothesis - that the majority of the brain's ressources are allotted to sensory and motor functions and that mental skills are computationally easy?
>>92557219Generally no. You want to build it as light as possible and the usual design has a counterweight on the space end. So if something were to happen such as it snapping, most of it would go flying off into space and the rest would likely just break rather than causing a tsunami
>>92560864I liked cape rainy, or whichever it was where you sneak jets through a canyon
>>92561562I don't know, but it sounds like another case of people who don't know how the brain works thinking its basically just a biological computer. Its not.Around half of your sensory and motor functions don't even take place in your brain. Pain receptors are hooked directly to your motor neurons before they even get to the brain so you can respond before you technically feel it. You have a bundle of nerves in your lower spine that effectively controls your "walk cycle" because its too long to travel up and down to your brain.In another bundle of evidence, your motor cortex is just a small part of the brain. The neocortex is largely considered to be the site of higher level thinking and its massive compared to anything single area that controls muscles or balance or senses. The neocortex is also significantly more interconnected than those areas.For computers, of course mental skills are computationally easy. They are purpose built for that. Making them do sensory and motor functions is not in their "natural" wheelhouse. The brain is the opposite. Its built on hardware that was purpose evolved to control a body, and only gained higher mental functions down the road.
>Hard scifi>People live on planets
>>92561562They once found a guy whose brain was just a skin of grey matter that held a lot of liquid and he was a perfectly functional, working adult.Apparently that damn organ can do a lot with very little given enough time to sort things out.
>and so he took some time off from criticizing 1984 on the grounds that it was unrealistic for any society to have its own people informing on each other https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htmHoly shit, wait this is real. Science fiction man can imagine a future in which a bunch of nerds use math to predict the future but he can't imagine the country he was born in?
>>92552421Hard sci-fi is gay.
>>92561704I wonder what it'll look like when we do get the ability to transfer people into robot bodies. How much of it will just feel alien. I'm sure lag will be an issue for a while until we fix it.
>>92561742What do you mean? Like his brain was a water balloon?
>>92560613>And what happens when you go to war or some terrorist decides they want to take down your space elevator? It's a giant fragile target.>Why would we rely on the internet? It's just a bunch of fragile cables that a toddler could cut!
>>92552695>Is the result of the brain upload _really_ you or simply a sapient digital copy that thinks like you, acts like you, has the same memories as you and even honestly believes it is you but it's not REALLY the flash and blood YouYesAnd the fun part is that both your meatbag self and the uploaded self are equally valid (You)s
>>92561733This. Soilvermin will never learn.
>>92562153His brain effectively was a water balloon suspended inside of his skull, yes.
>>92558415>There's one crucial difference: scifi has to make the pretence of of making the story plausible, no matter how unlikely, rather than outright asking you to believe in impossible things.Do you consider works like Dune, The Stars my Destination and Book of the New Sun to be science fiction or fantasy?
>>92553675there were some orbital rotating platform on each end of a long stick-thing in Seveneves
>>92560777>muh sophons*triggered*
>>92560563>hard sci-fi setting>smugglers can use digital version of standard currency instead of trading in some shit coin and then slowly converting it into useable money over the course of weeks to avoid getting flagged by space feds.
>>92552421Yes, all of these things are theoretically possible, which makes it hard sci-fi. Is this just yet another "OP knows fuck all about what he's getting upset over" thread again?
>>92552743Blindsight is a bunch of retards in a can pretending that they are smart. The whole book would have ended in three-five chapters with the same result if Earth actually put competent people on a ship and not a bunch of idiots that would be more at home in Worm.
>>92558014Diamond processors and data storage. Already first prototypes are being created including successful read-write attempts with actual data. The problem is mostly in precision growing the synthetic diamonds with the right structure. Though don't know about 600k%. Right now the practical limit seems to be around a 1k% for processors and somewhat higher for storage if I remember right. So you go from GHz to THz for processors and Petabytes for storage for your average processor and hard drive.
>>92561742That sounds highly unlikely, or rather it sounds like you're exaggerating a case I've also read about. Also that guy had an IQ of like 70 and he wasn't born like that. He was coasting along with routines and skills he'd learned when he was more intellectually functional, and if he'd for some reason had to try to learn a new job in his current state it's unlikely he would've done very well.
>>92568150>He was coasting along with routines and skills he'd learned when he was more intellectually functionalSounds like a perfect candidate for upper management.
hard sci-fi should be limited to a maximum of one theoretical but as of yet unproven technology
>>92560613A space elevator would likely be a multi-nation endeavor to make work. There would be multiple economies and governments with a vested interest in keeping it safe. A terrorist attacking it would be incredibly stupid and get several nations flattening them.
>>92568150Like no legit. 90% of his brain was just water. Apparently his IQ scored in the mid 80s. The brain is remarkable in its ability to cover pieces that are missing.
>>92568150>>92568172>average CEO of a multibillion company
>>92568339If you're talking about that French guy, his IQ was in the mid 70s, not mid 80s. He's employed, but I'm not sure if that says much - when someone's cognitive ability deteriorates gradually, it's entirely possible that rather than his work performance remaining consistent his coworkers just pick up the slack bit by bit. Also from what I gather it's not clear if 90% of his brain is actually missing rather than the fluid taking up all that volume just sort of pushing the brain into a smaller space.
>>92552421My favorite element in hard sci-fi is the divergent growth of different human subclades. From the immortal cyborg elder of the first world, the gene edited new generations of the developing worlds and the struggling baselines in the third world, the space adapted parahumans in space and the posthuman hybrids bred in the laboratories around the world.
>>92552482To put it simply, >rocket on ground is low>thus takes a bit to get high>therefore, if rocket already high, no need waste bit
I sure love seeing neckbeard retards argue about topics that they don't understand.It's why I come here after all.
>>92552739>>92552742>>92552482Right do some fucking math.Here the bumbers from Wikipediahttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economicsCurrent price to GEO is 10 000 used per kgWith space elevator and an energy transfer efficiency of 0.5% it will be 200 USDIf we find a better way to supply energy then it can go down to 2USD per kg
>>92552421what do "hard sci-fi"-fans even want?
>>92568511I fucking love ousters so much you have no idea
>>92569525"Hard Scifi" should be a term limited to fiction that's using nonsensical plot devices to make the science communication more engaging.If your FTL travel doesn't exist so that your characters can explain Astronomy from Ugg and Grogg to whatever they are doing right now as the stranded crew slowly navigate their way back to civilization, then you are a fantasy author.
>>92569525Playing around with the extraordinary within the bounds of what's plausible according to our current understanding. It's a spectrum but that's generally the unifying theme, how much it's balanced with other demands like originality and plot is up to personal taste.>>92568511I like how MacDonald has that implicitly happening in the Luna series without humanity even having ventured into most of the solar system yet let alone other stars. The Vorontsov patriarch is a chill space-ape.
>>92558315>that guy made a valid counter-argument that completely undermines my position>I know, I'll just bleat "meme" like a sheep!Never change, /tg/.
>>92570467>valid counter-argumentIn your little autistic corner on /sci/, perhaps.
>>92571598>I still can't come up with any actual response>I know, I'll deflect again!Go on, do it again.
>>92552715I don't think you know what the word "gay" even means.
>>92552933>because space travel takes fucking forever and it's not actually feasible to make trips within human lifespansJust make yourself immortal and the problem is solved.
Do "hard scifi" ttrpgs actually exists? Sounds boring as fuck.
>Technically not impossible according to science = good enough for sci fi Thats all sci fi. Even what people consider hard sci fi (literally the hardest) is just fantasy with an aesthetic. Because if its sufficiently hard its just fiction, but pushing it even slightly past our understanding of reality/physics involves assumptions and macguffins just as baseless as star wars. Hard sci fi is an oxymoron. Like realistic fantasy, it describes an aesthetic not a literal thing.
>>92573447Transhuman Space comes to mind. Playing biomodded mercenaries in africa, posthuman slice of life in the Fifth Wave, space janitors around L5, corporate-goverment agents in asia or aquatic poli activists on the South American coast is fun.
>>92573338>Do you have paper and a pencil?kek
>>92562197Disingenuous analogy. Internet cables are buried underground or run along the bottom of the ocean. The average terrorist isn't going to be able to reach those easily. A giant tower reaching up into space can't be concealed like that. You'd have to maintain constant 100% airtight coverage of the airspace around it at all times. Even a multi-nation effort would struggle to maintain that kind of defensive effort.
>>92573496>just as baseless as star warsBullshit. There's a matter of degree to all things or else you'd say the Star Wars is as sf as Lord of the Rings. That kind of back and white retardation is exactly the reason why so many vocal hard sf fans (rightly) get flak for.>>92573447It's niche and desu the medium works best in more passive sorts of media imo. Getting everyone at the table on the same wavelength would be hard and some degree of real-world knowledge on everyone's part would be ideal. As always though YMMV depending on how "hard" you feel like going, fun's usually the main priority.
>>92552421>all of that is being constructed/prototyped literally as we speak>this is somehow unrealistic for a setting 2+ centuries into the futureWe will see even crazier shit once/if we figure out the energy source bottleneck that is currently holding a lot of tech down
>>92552715I love your energy dude
>>92561793>Science fiction man can imagine a future in which a bunch of nerds use math to predict the future but he can't imagine the country he was born in?Hard sci-fi worshippers are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals. Always have been and will be. I should know I’ve been one of them.
Stop pretending we have any idea what the future will look like
>>92574443We do have. The Earth will get destroyed and the media will want you to hate the enjoyers.
>>92555314Well no what it requires is they be isolated from each ofther for a long time and then to have come together, and then for them to encounter other life outside their planet within a few hundred years. Because if you had a thousand years of a connected global culture then you'd have much less visually distinct ethnicities.
>>92574443The only people to predict the future were when mark twain predicated the internet and David Bowie predicted internet culture. No one else has come close to them or ever will.
>>92552421Since literally everything you mentioned checks out with math or has a functional low level example, yes, that would be hard sci-fi.Soft sci-fi is doing shit that doesn't check out with math, have current less advanced examples, or uses a completely made up concept as to how it functions.
>>92558448>>92562366Nta but, yeah, I would consider Left Behind science fiction for people who believe in rapture, exactly for the reason you mentioned: because they can read it thinking it could happen.Dune is also science fiction for me, for the same reason The Foundation is:It explores the speculations brought by a science. For The Foundation, it's history and sociology for Dune it's psychology and ecology.But in both cases, the speculation rather than the drama is at the centre.Star Wars would be more of a borderline case, an example of science fantasy.
>>92557219kick up dust? yeah, it would be like a dozen plane crashes all at once or something, pretty scarytsunamis? no
>>92556480mind uploading is more plausible than advanced nanotechthe information that makes up a mind is there and could theoretically be manipulated in any way any information can be manipulatedthe magical bullshit advanced nanotech is seen to do in stories is likely to be impossible even on a theoretical level, unless by advanced nanotech you just mean somewhat futuristic but not transcendental industrial processes
>>92560659the stresses and weight can actually be handled with today's technology by making it an actively powered structure, a variant that's known as the space fountain>>92560613>If a space elevator were really the best way to get things into orbit, we'd have done it by now.and if you make a lot of assumptions you shouldn't be making, such as the task being practical and easy enough to first be possible and second be cost effective, and then you further turn this into a conclusion that progress and change don't exist and therefore if the elevator isn't practical or possible today it never will be
>>92573338Anti-aging medicine seems to be possible, it's being worked on now. The problem is that 'immortality' isn't possible without technology so advanced it might as well be magic. What that effectively means is that the average human lifespan will be 250 years rather than 75 to 80 years, if we also cure most diseases and cancers at some point the average would increase to something like 500 years or so.Those spans of time mean that you can colonize nearby star systems well within a human lifetime, but stuff further out likely still requires generation ships, cryonics, (which might be possible at some point, actually, we just need to figure out how to make humans enter a state similar to hibernation), or, I dunno, stasis pods or some shit.Point is human lifespans are still a problem for long-distance travel in this galaxy even if/when we eliminate the aging process as a concern.
>>92575723>if we also cure most diseases and cancers at some pointtoo bad we're putting in a lot more work to create all sorts of new cancers instead
>>92552482Trying to reach escape velocity is stupidly inefficient. Imagine every time you wanted to go up and down levels in your house or apartment, you had to shoot yourself out of a cannon.
Great bait thread OP, can't wait until your next one
>>92552421What's wrong with mind uploading and strong ai?
>>92575792>>new forms of cancerWhat's this about?
My sci-fi story decided that relativistic wormhole construction would give the best trade-off between plot and plausible.You can got a relativistic speeds but it’s still going to take 30-40 years to get somewhere.So the robot crew build a wormhole at the end and after another decade for the quantum-code signals to bounce back and forth to the closet observatory it opens for business.Governments time them so a new wormhole opens every 10 years and ships launch from it to the next stars immediately.
What about cybernetic enhancements?
If mind uploading is possible you could technically increase someone's lifespan up to between 100,000 years or a million years. People could have brain backups ready to go upon catastrophic brain failure and only truly die due random chance or data degradation.
>>92574829Julius Verne predicted the 20th century with astonishing accuracy particularly in his 20th century Paris book. Amusingly it was deemed to be too radical at the time.
>>92576205>t. Has never read Verne
>>92576205Set in Paris in 1960, the novel envisions a world of advanced technology, including fax machines, automobiles, computers, subways, and electronic musical instruments.The book was considered too far-fetched by Verne’s literary agent at the time and remained unpublished until 1994.Verne’s great-grandson discovered the handwritten manuscript in a safe, leading to its eventual publication.The novel is an astonishingly prophetic view into the future, with some of Verne’s predictions coming true in the 20th century.On top of that, it reads like a cyberpunk novel at times.
>>92573623And those cables do get cut from time to time, usually by accident when a ship drags its anchor etc. That's why important connections usually have some redundancy so that the communication can be rerouted until the damage is fixed.
Aren't nanotubes virtually indestructible?
>>92576278We don't live in a virtual world, anon.
>>92573338So here's what I don't get about warp drives, wouldn't you and your bubble potentially ram into shit?
>>92576368That's what the bubble does. Throws stuff aside.
>>92576171A human lasts 80 years, give or take. A computer running hard with no off-time lasts maybe 7 years, and you're hotswapping parts a lot.
>>92576406Can you use it to fuck up a planet?
>>92575521Minds are not data stored in the brain, they are the emergent result of the brain's activity. "Uploading" a mind makes about as much sense as uploading internal combustion from inside of an engine.
>>92576368The instant the Alcubierre drive is disengaged, the space-time gradient that allows it to effectively move faster than light goes away. All the energetic particles trapped during the journey have to go somewhere, and the researchers believe they would be blasted outward in a cone directly in front of the ship. Anyone or anything waiting for you at the other end of your trip would be bathed in a shower of high energy gamma rays.Because of a funny little quirk of relativity, there is no upper limit to the amount of energy a Alcubierre drive could pick up. A long trip could vaporize entire planets upon your arrival. The researchers are beginning a new round of number crunching to see how bad the problem is. It’s possible the deadly particle beam could be projected in all directions, making Alcubierre drives unworkable. That spiffy warp ship might make a better weapon than method of transportation.
>>92576421Jesus.
>>92576415Obviously, if you can have a backup of your brain patterns you can copy it somewhere else meaning the only limitation is data degradation which depends on how good your computer systems are at keeping data intact.
>>92576368Technically you are not moving so no kinetic impact. The thing that you should worry about is all the accumulated particles on the field .
>>92576417If you're asking if there's lightspeed munitions in Star Trek the answer is yes.
Bitches don't know about my Kugelblitz-powered starships.
>>92576418Nothing stops you from copying the human brain neuron to neuron and mapping all its activity.
>>92576540Sure, but that's more akin to opening up Blender and modeling a car than "uploading" it. It'll drive around, when you program that in, but to call it "uploading" is incredibly silly. A simulation of neurons would be an artistic recreation completely separate from the original human. Nobody is deluded into thinking that having their portrait painted means that they're that portrait now or that that portrait is another real instance of theirself.
>>92576606On the other hand, what a better heir to continue my job and legacy than "myself"?
>consciousness is X>No it's YIt was my understanding that what consciousness exactly is still isn't understood. This would make arguing about it in exact terms (instead of what is possible if it turns out to be X or Y or Z) pointless.Is this wrong, has consciousness been solved?
>>92576418>Minds are not data stored in the brain, they are the emergent result of the brain's activity. that's also part of the information that makes up the mind, information isn't just data as if you'd put it on a storage drive, the entire architecture of the system is also informationit's kind of what the word means anon
This thread is a prime example of why sci often falls into slop territory.>advanced nanotechk, why not. Still in the realm of future of possibility.>mind uploadingK, why not. >space elevatorsNot only perfectly possible, it's also a more reasonable way of escaping gravity instead of just using EXPENSIVE AS FUCK ROCKET FUEL.>planet terraformingDepends. Terraforming as in converting the planet into habitats and arcologies? Building up city planets? absolutely. Terraforming as in the usual sci fi slop way? Fuck off.>strong A.I.K, why not. Add some cyborgs in while you're at it.> wormhole travelSketchy, but fuck it, sure.
>>92576932>Terraforming as in the usual sci fi slop way? Fuck off.nothing wrong with that, all you need is to gather a bunch of volatiles from like comets or planetoids or something and dump it onto the planet, it's far more reasonable than "advanced nanotech", at least depending on how advanced you mean, and infinitely more reasonable than wormholes which are pretty much just magic and cope at this point
>>92576755Consciousness has not been formally solved.
>>92576755Consciousness doesn't even have a formal scientific definition that is close to agreed upon.Thats why retards in these threads always can word scramble their way into pretending to be right. There is no single definition so they can always just claim that whatever they're arguing about fits their own personal one.So you're right, absolutely. But this is 4chan and autistics and trolls need to be "right"
>>92554388Hahahahhahahahahahah
>>92577017Consciousness is by definition purely subjective. Science can't say, let alone prove, anything about it.
>>92577027>Consciousness has no definition>Consciousness is by definitionOkay sport
>>92576958>nothing wrong with thatI bet you think the industrial revolution and it's consequences.have been a disaster for the human race too you son of a bitch. I'm calling captain fucking planet right fucking now. > all you need is to gather a bunch of volatiles from like comets or planetoids or something and dump it onto the planetYou outta be launched into the void for this one you sack of shit. Shaking with the hands of entropy now I see. Listen here you fucking disgrace. Sending materials from space towards a planet is more expensive than you think. You think you can just send some water and rocks onto a dirtball, and call it a day savage? Think again dirt bag.1. Space fucking habitats are cheaper, more specialized, and get more out of less.2.Good luck getting the fucking gravity right. You are better off dismantling those clumps of balls. 3. Space habitats and arcologies are faster to build. Terraformation takes too fucking long.4.Space habitats and arcologies are fucking neat>it's far more reasonable than "advanced nanotechHow in the fuck is advanced nano tech mor unrealistic and expensive than shitty ass planetary terrforimation.>infinitely more reasonableMore like infinitely more fucking stupid. Even if wormholes are sketchy, at least there's practicality to the idea. Terraforming is just an idea some wonderlust savages blindly followed.
>>92560190>it would inevitably poison its own model with AI-generated dataThis sounds like a convoluted way to say that the strong AI will develop its own version of art/fiction/culture. And assuming it's human-like enough to separate these concepts from objective reality, it should probably be fine. I hope.
>>92552742>Mind upload has nothing to do with the Ship of Theseus. It's not about gradual replacement of parts until no old details remain, you're just making a digital duplicateYou don't understand the ship of Theseus. The whole point is that there is no physical difference between gradual replacement of the pieces or total replacement of the whole, but we see the two as different. Therefore identity and continuity have to be matters of perception not fact.
>>92577151>expensivebro if your only complaint is that it's expensive that directly proves it's feasible, unlike half of the impossible shit you approved of that couldn't be implemented no matter how many resources you dumped onto it>How in the fuck is advanced nano tech mor unrealistic and expensive than shitty ass planetary terrforimation.well like i said it depends on what you mean by advanced nanotech, but most of the examples you have in sci-fi are outright impossible, unlike bombarding a planet with rocks>Even if wormholes are sketchy, at least there's practicality to the idea. anon there's no practicality to something that doesn't exist outside of the mathematical equivalent to a fever dream
>>92578922>You don't understand the ship of TheseusI understand it just fine, I simply find the thought experiment silly in the first place.>The whole point is that there is no physical difference between gradual replacement of the pieces or total replacement of the whole, but we see the two as different. Therefore identity and continuity have to be matters of perception not fact.If that's "the point", then that point is simply nonsense. The moment you replace a single part of the "ship", the new part becomes the part of the whole, and the new state of the ship becomes the status quo. Just like a man getting is, I dunno, kidney replaced doesn't change the totality of his being, the ship doesn't become an entirely different existence just because some part of it was replaced with a duplicate. Gradually replacing all the pieces won't make the ship something new, because its "identity" and history is still there. Similarly, gradually replacing all cells in your body one by one isn't going to create a new consciousness.Replacing the whole thing at once and trying to claim that it is the original is as crude and simple-minded as parents who buy their kid an identical goldfish as a substitute to the one that recently died in hopes they he won't notice the difference. If you torch the ship until it's ash and then build a very convincing copy out of new materials, it's going to be just that - a copy. A fake, even. It would not be the same ship that actually sailed the seas, carried people and then burned down. Sure, some people would mistakenly think it's the same ship, but that won't change the fact that it's not.And you know why? Because you could have built the exact same duplicate when the original was still intact and nobody in their right mind would say that it's is the same intity if presented with both. Or hell, you can make an entire goddamn armada of identical ships and it STILL would not take anything away from the original. (1/2)
>>92578922(2/2)Similarly, if your body gets atomized, but somebody in a lab grows a clone of you using the exact information of how your cells, molecules and even atoms were arranged right before you died, it's not going to magically resurrect (you), because that guy who got atomized would still be fucking dead, and your consciousness (or "soul", if you want) isn't going to magically jump into your clone's head. It's just going to produce a duplicate that simply has a copy of your memories and experiences, and the moment it comes into being it stops being your copy anyway since the body and mind start recieving inputs and experience that (you) didn't have. Just like with ships nothing stops someone from making 10 clones of you, or a hundred, or a billion, but all he'd be doing is spamming deluded copies with memories that don't belong to them. And just like in the previous example, you can spawn all these clones even when the OG is still alive and functioning, and it won't take away from (you) in any way, nor will it produce a hive mind or a shared consciousness, it's just gonna be a (you) and basically ton of your twins with their own bodies, minds and consciousnesses. Same goes for mind upload or brain simulations or Boltzmann brains that spontanously pop into reality and by sheer chance turn out to be identical copies of your brain. The only way for (you) to come back after getting atomized or killed in any other way is for someone to magically preserve every atom and electron and every other particle that composed your brain at the moment of your death and just as magically pull it back together in the shape they used to have. And even then I'm frankly not 100% sure this would be (you) and not a new emerging consciousness.
>>92577027>Science can't say, let alone prove, anything about it.That's not how it works. Just because it doesn't have a commonly accepted strict definition doesn't mean aspects of it can't be studied and understood. Any worthwhile study includes definitions what they mean by the terms they use if there's a chance of misunderstanding.
>>92579058>bro if your only complaint is that it's expensive that directly proves it's feasibleWith that logic we'd be using water desalination plants all across the globe. We don't, because it's too fucking expensive. Technically possible, but only an utter moron would ever do it. You'd be no better than the people who built up Dubai.>unlike half of the impossible shit you approved>couldn't be implemented no matter how many resources you dumped onto itThat is a hilarious thing to say. For the most part, the research for them hasn't even come close to determining them as wasteful and useful as planetary terraformation. They are perfectly in the realm of reasonability and possibility because we don't know shit yet. You especially don't know, you assumptive little shit.Special mention goes towards space elevators. They are actually widely credited as a realistic good idea, they really just need the proper materials and investment. They will certainly save on rocket fuel in the long term.>well like i said it depends on what you mean by advanced nanotechIt really doesn't. You want to why? Because nanotech of any kind has not been considered a disproven idea, unlike terraforming. It does not matter what kind you pick, unless it's literally just space magic. But that's the realm science fantasy. Get your ass back science fiction. > unlike bombarding a planet with rocksBombingIf we are talking about possible nanotech, then. no. Absolutely not.>anon there's no practicality to something that doesn't exist outside of theDumbshit.There is practicality in the concept even if it's just a concept . If it ever worked, it would be economical. Flying cars would not be economical. Planetary terraformation would not be economical. Space habitats are economical. We can see the economic potential of things that either don't exist, or barely exist.
>>92577151>Even if wormholes are sketchy, at least there's practicality to the ideaOn the topic of wormholes and Alcubierre drives and other space-time warping tech that's supposed to make FTL travel possible. These shits are "theoretically" possible under known laws of physics, but people like to not mention the part where "theoretical" means "they require matter with negative mass to be functional". Sure, on paper it works, but on practice there's no known or even theoretically proposed way to produce something that would posess negative mass.It's the same thing as claiming>you know theoretically time travel isn't impossible>look up Tipler cylinderWhich is also something that works on paper, but on practice requires negative energy or the cylinder to have fucking infinite length.
>>92579668>but on practice there's no known or even theoretically proposed way to produce something that would possess negative massAgain, it's sketchy. But it's not entirely rejected. And if shit like Xeelee sequence can make it in, so can this.>Which is also something that works on paper, but on practice requires negative energy or the cylinder to have fucking infinite length.never heard of this one too be honest. sounds hilarious.
So, in resume, terraforming wouldnt be done out of economic considerations but as a long-term project for the glory of your civilization or your person , like a cathedral or a monument. It would likely be heavily automated and perform over several centuries or thousands of years. Once complete, you'd would have prime real estate whose value is mostly prestige of "we did it!".
>>92579819nta but that's why I hate the binary definition of rather than a spectrum. Xeelee doesn't handwave with "muh force" but it's definately at the Clarketech extreme of "possible".>>92579874Pretty much imo, if you have the energy and time available to do it you've probably already made living on stations work. That said sub-genre shouldn't be a straitjacket so much as it's a useful descriptor. The Expanse for instance glosses over automation and AI (not even the Asimovian sort) to keep human characters relevant when drone ships would likely play a bigger role irl. Story comes first.
>>92579659>With that logic we'd be using water desalination plants all across the globe. We don't, because it's too fucking expensive. Technically possible, but only an utter moron would ever do it. You'd be no better than the people who built up Dubai.anon you're missing the fundamental difference between "possible but too expensive to be viable right now" and "impossible no matter how much money and prayers you throw at it">They are perfectly in the realm of reasonability and possibility because we don't know shit yet.no anon, magical bullshit isn't "reasonable and possible" because we haven't discovered a theoretical basis for it yet, on the contrary, that's why it's unreasonable and impossible, and hence why terraforming is hard sci-fi while magical nanotech and wormholes are soft sci-fi
Hard scifi isn't real.The whole subgenre is just guys like Wright who can't write having to make up a secret excuse for why they're actually good writers.
>>92580020Hypocrite.
>>92580028Dunno about hypocrisy but "flat out wrong" sums it up pretty well.
>>92580051It's hypocrisy because he didn't make a good post.
>>92579957>anon you're missing the fundamental difference between "possible but too expensive to be viable right now" and "impossible no matter how much money and prayers you throw at it"Oh I am sorry. Let me just mark everything on that list as "currently not possible", and call it a day.Dumbass. We are still discussing science fiction here. And if you wanna play that card, go ahead and mark out planetary terraformation. We can't even do that on Earth yet. It's not feasible either.>no anonYes anon. There's nothing magical about nano technology. > because we haven't discovered a theoretical basis for it yetWe literally do. It's early, but we do.>hence why terraforming is hard sci-fi >magical nanotechI don't you understand what magical means. And yes, planetary terraformation is a possibility that can happen. But only in the same vein as flying cars.
>>92580123anon, i think you don't get the difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fihard sci-fi is basically exactly things like terraforming, it's 100% possible through current scientific understanding, but it's not viable in actual real life for whatever reason (if it was viable, it would just be reality instead of sci-fi)soft sci-fi is basically exactly things like wormholes, there's some sort of vague excuse you can find in scientific theory somewhere, but it's actually an entirely unobserved phenomenon that as far as we can tell probably doesn't exist>Yes anon. There's nothing magical about nano technology. that's why i repeatedly pointed out it depends on what your definition of "advanced nanotechnology" is, because while some nanotech is certainly possible, the way it gets used in most places it turns up in sci-fi is pure magic>I don't you understand what magical means.it's sad that i had to point this out three times, but see above and you might get it>And yes, planetary terraformation is a possibility that can happen. But only in the same vein as flying cars.yes, those are both good examples of hard sci-fi for about the same reasons
>>92576205>>92576235Sort of like in that David Bowie interview where he's spitting straight up prophecy and the interviewer doesn't want to hear it because it sounds far-fetched and he believed the internet is a fad. The real reason people in the past seem to have a hard time imagining the future is because the people who see the cause and effect technology can have on itself and culture are hushed up and told "that's nonsense, shut up"
>>92580117I think the post is pretty good and you're about as good a judge of posts as you are of literature.
>>92580257Show me the literary criticism written by me that you base this opinion on.
>>92552421>space elevatorsThose are feasible right now in 2024.Main opposition to them is the fossil fuel industry as it would lessen their relevancy slightly.
>>92580181>anon, i think you don't get the difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fiI don't think you even understand the conversation we're having here, much either less either of those things.> it's 100% possible through current scientific understandingIt's possible, but we do not currently have the scientific knowledge to actually do it. >hard sci-fi is basically exactly things like terraformingHard sci fi is literally everything mentioned in OP's list. All of that is currently 100% possible. Not a single one of those things has been deemed a disproven idea.>soft sci-fi is basically exactly things like wormholesNo. Soft sci fi is shit like spice and psionics. Wormholes travel has not yet been disproven.>that's why i repeatedly pointed out it depends on what your definition of "advanced nanotechnology"Who the fuck asked for science fanatsy? Get your ass back to science fiction.>it's sadIt's sad that your dumb and you can stay on topic. Next.>yes, those are both good examples of hard sci-fi for about the same reasonsBad examples actually. Those are only technically possible examples that realistically would not make the cut. They're technically hard sci fi, but I would not mention that at all in a discussion about hard sci if. Unless it's a stupid one like this one.
>>92580341>It's possible, but we do not currently have the scientific knowledge to actually do it. yes we do? we know how to make rockets and how to find asteroids anon, we just don't have the economic situation where doing so a couple million times over is viable>All of that is currently 100% possible.>Not a single one of those things has been deemed a disproven idea....are you just pretending to be retarded now or something? what the fuck are you even saying? this is like talking to a flat earther or someone desperately trying to convince me 2+2=5>No. Soft sci fi is shit like spice and psionics. Wormholes travel has not yet been disproven....you are aware that spice and psionics haven't been conclusively disproven either, right?witchcraft, talmudic sorcery, shamanic rituals, and so on also haven't been conclusively disproven, so by your logic that's also hard sci-fi i guess>Who the fuck asked for science fanatsy? Get your ass back to science fiction.you apparently can't even tell the difference between science and daydreaming, i don't think this is a viable course for this conversation to continue
>>92580274The rejection of a criticism of Wright which you used as a basis for judging the post. It's pretty straightforward but I guess if you struggle with reading maybe you can't see it yourself.
>>92580433I didn't write that.
>>92580437then why reply. You know how 4chan anonymity works. If you jump in in someone's place then you're now them and subject to their bad opinions.
>>92580459Because you replied to me.
>>92580433It's shit criticism and "U disagree ther4 u bad" is a shit argument. It describes a different set of priorities relating to SF which is exactly the purpose genre is supposed to serve. As a reader I don't expect to have characterisation focused on par with exploring of ideas in SF because that's generally not what the genre sells, it's a matter of matching author and reader expectations that supposed to work well enough most of the time. Which it does.
>>92580507Well it's a good thing that wasn't the argument then. Otherwise it would have been shit.
>>92580400>yes we do?No.>we know how to make rockets >how to find asteroids anonCool, that's still not enough.>.are you just pretending to be retarded now or something?Are you? All I have stated was that all these concepts are all possible because they have not been deemed impossible.>...you are aware that spice and psionics haven't been conclusively disproven either, right?You are aware that you an actual lobotomite, correct?They have been disproven unlike everything else. You want to know why? THERE IS NOT ONLY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THEIR EXISTENCE, THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. Bob can't actually fucking fly dude, sorry to tell you this. Scientific consensus tells you to go fuck yourself. >witchcraft, talmudic sorcery, shamanic rituals, and so on also haven't been conclusively disproveOh my god, you are worse than I thought.>you apparently can't even tell the difference between science and daydreamingDon't project onto me dude, holy fuck.
>>92580528>you're about as good a judge of posts as you are of literatureMy bad, it's baseless accusation then. Evidently you're a pedant as well as a sophist. Much better!
>>92580546>Cool, that's still not enough.what's missing, that hasn't been seen before? i can't think of anything so you better come up with something good>THERE IS NOT ONLY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THEIR EXISTENCE, THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW.wow it's just like wormholes and magical nanotech, i'm glad you got the point you dweeb, lmao
>>92576755Do you think you can bait normies by satirizing the idea of mind uploads? For example, your player character chooses to get his or her mind uploaded, but they're still the same being and there's a digital copy now?
>>92579564>The moment you replace a single part of the "ship", the new part becomes the part of the wholeThis I think is a matter of perspective, and probably what anon meant by "identity as a matter of perception".For example, would you stick with the interpretation that the ship is still "itself" after total replacement if the timeframe was strongly accelerated? If a robot swept over the ship in a second from front to end and replaced components as it went, I think for most people that would feel indistinguishable from destroying the old ship and building a copy in its wake of destruction, even if at any even moment the two constructs were connected.
>>92580683>and there's a digital copy now?And it's existing on rented server space and will get deleted if it fails to pay rent.
>>92579819>Again, it's sketchy. But it's not entirely rejected. And if shit like Xeelee sequence can make it in, so can this.Wait, Xeelee sequence is considered "hard"? Isn't that the series with infantry guns that shit out big bangs worth of energies and other similarly wild shit?>never heard of this one too be honest. sounds hilarious.The tldr is that equations of general relativity have several solutions that, mathematically, allow the existence of closed timelike curves (time travel, basically). But while these solutions are mathematically sound, they don't seem to vibe with reality too well (the aforementioned Tipler cylinder needs to have infinite length and be spinning, and so on). Some solutions concern rotating black holes though and might have something to do with reality, but from what I've gathered the general consensus is that time travel in these cases is purely a mathematical artifact and doesn't exist in practice (because anything that breaks causality is freaky). But who the fuck knows for sure?
>>92580566>what's missing, that hasn't been seen before?Here's my suggestion: go ask Nasa that.https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/mars-terraforming-not-possible-using-present-day-technology/#:~:text=Taken%20together%2C%20the%20results%20indicate,Thermal%20Emission%20Imaging%20System)%20projects.https://www.planetary.org/articles/can-we-make-mars-earth-like-through-terraformingOn top of this, You also have to employ a series of geo engineering technologies we don't have to make sure the planet doesn't shit itself, design craft, stations, and mechanisms capable of transporting all that material, and you also have to deal with potential radiation as well.>wow it's just like wormholesBob cannot fly, wormholes have been stated by the scientific community to be a potential way of travel.> magical nanotechnanotech is not magical.
>>92579874Mars terraformation could be a practical study of climate technology on a dead world and not cause too many problem. Earth will still hold the vast majority of people within this millenium and playing loose with another to study vast effects might be profitable.
>>92580785>Wait, Xeelee sequence is considered "hard"? Isn't that the series with infantry guns that shit out big bangs worth of energies and other similarly wild shit?It still is to a degree, but it has gotten softer over time due to certain theories utilized by the book no longer being supported by the scientific community.Also, very interesting concept.
>>92580854your nasa article refers to heating up the ice caps of mars to release gas, not to dropping extra ice from otuside of mars' systems such as from comets and similartry again, except refer to the thing we were actually discussing this time: why would it be impossible to hit a planet like mars with a lot of volatiles from elsewhere? and if that's not what's impossible, then what other part of this do you think is impossible?>You also have to employ a series of geo engineering technologies we don't have to make sure the planet doesn't shit itselflike what? anon i've actually researched these topics years ago, you need to come up with something specific here, not just vague allusionsplease don't say muh planetary magnetic field, that's the most brainlet option and i promise i can immediately tell you why (spoiler: all it matters for is atmospheric retention on such long time scales it doesn't matter on human timeframes, we literally have no reason to care the atmosphere will deplete itself again over the course of millions of years unless there's a stronger magnetic field there)>design craft, stations, and mechanisms capable of transporting all that materialwhich is... impossible? why? we've designed craft for all sorts of those kinds of purposes before, why would it be impossible in this instance?>Bob cannot fly, wormholes have been stated by the scientific community to be a potential way of travel.no they haven't (at least not any more than psionics or whatever the fuck), wormholes are a mathematical artifact in general relativity but are widely regarded as impossible and/or pseudoscience>nanotech is not magical.a fourth time then? no, nanotech is in itself not magical, but the nanotech you see in sci-fi stories, especially when referred to as "advanced nanotech", is more or less all magic, it's a word like quantum that gets thrown around as a technobabble excuse regardless of how much sense it makes in that context
>>92580691>For example, would you stick with the interpretation that the ship is still "itself" after total replacement if the timeframe was strongly accelerated?See, that's a good question. And honestly I'd probably say "no". Which is why I'd say that the timeline of the total part replacement also probably matters. Upon further thinking another thing that probably matters is the amount of shit that gets replaced in one go. Like if something shatters exactly 50% of the ship, and it then gets rebuilt around the intact 50%, I'd still be inclined to say that it's the same ship. But if the only intact part left is, let's say, the mast, while the rest of the ship is crushed beyond repair, if you make a copy of the destroyed part and plop the old mast onto it, I'd hesitate to call it the same ship.Another thing is, a ship doesn't really have a "core" part that holds its identity, but humans do - their brain. The rest of the stuff can be cut off at once and replaced and I would still say that it's the same person because the brain that holds their consciousness is still the same. Theoretically if you yank a person's brain and stuff it into a body that was specifically prepared and adapted to it and do it very quickly, it would still be the same person. On the other hand, if you blow this guy's head off and then surgically attach a cloned head to his decapitated body, it's not gonna be the same person despite him retaining 80% of his body mass.
>>92580947>your nasa article refers to heating up the ice caps of mars to release gas,Yeah, and?>try again>except refer to the thing we were actually discussing this timeWhat the fuck are you even on about? we've been discussing hard sci fi and planetary teraformation the entire time.>why would it be impossible to hit a planet like mars with a lot of volatiles from elsewhere?No one has stated this, and it's actually one of the things we can actually do. What can't we can't do is manage the after effects of impact, and make sure the water and volatiles it contained doesn't get fucked off the planet due to radiation. Global climate management systems, which we don't even on earth. So you may not even get the results you wanted not realize it.Other than that to be honest, there's not really much we can't do, if we were to do the sloppier, more wasteful "we are just to wait a few million years" solution.>like what? Like how Carbon capture tech is still incredibly limited it what it can do. If you ever need to make sure that the planet doesn't become a super heated death trap, you are fucked.>which is... impossible? why? It's not, I'm mixing up my logistics.>Anon i've actually researchedComplete bullshit>no they haven'Yeah, they have. Bob can't fly dude. >wormholes are a mathematical artifactThey are not, you are just making shit up now.>a fourth time then? no, nanotech is in itself not magical,Then stop fucking saying it. Jesus.
>>92552421Unless your game is set in the present real world (or history), it does not deserve to be called hard sci-fi.
>>92581378Hard sci fi is a spectrum, kill yourself.
>>92552695I don't think you need any objections about the soul to be skeptical of this approach. Neurons operate on a biochemical basis as part of a highly interconnected biological whole. As soon as you start talking about replacing those neurons with something else, well, I have yet to hear any solid, realistic ideas. It's always this vague handwave based on convenient assumptions.
>>92561562It's Moravec's paradox
>>92581463>Hard sci fi is a spectrum that ranges from: "Uhh, things work because we don't talk about how they work" to: "I CAN HAS technobabble I AR SMART"
>>92552482>>92552739>>92553510>>92560558>>92568800>>92575875>space elevatorTo be fair with anon, Space elevator is an overrated meme, used in movie because it is vastly easier/cheaper to animate and explain than a launch loop or a (basic) orbital ring to the common folk."See that big tower? it's so high it lead to space."Orbital rings would actually be easier to build, require less materials, don't need absurdly pure nanotube at the limit of physics, don't require to clean orbits, have a "off mode" for maintenance, plus a few other gimmick.>>92553675>orbital skyhooksFeasible but by the time we need one I would expect SSTO shuttle or reusable rocket to be more economical & practical.It's also not good enough for a space-future where you need much higher flux.
>>92581506https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58831-9Brain cells are adaptable enough to function in interaction with other functional components.
Launch loops are superior.
>>92552421>There is advanced nanotech, mind uploading, space elevators, planet terraforming, strong A.I. All of those are hard-SF.We just don't have the tech-level yet to properly imagine them without making our descendant cyber-laughing their uploaded mind off.Nanotech is obvious prospectStrong AI is likely to happen by accident because companies would rather make obedient AI that kill mankind because it make the CEOs stock rise upMind uploading is just too far away to be imaginable in any tangible waySpace elevators is not actually the cheapest methodTerraforming just ask so much resources it could only be done far after you need it>wormhole travelThat one is right out tho, it ask bullshit physics to be created and our models have like 80% magic dark matter/energy.Flying taxi soon.
>>92581796To be COMPLETELY fair to anon, orbital rings are just space elevators but with extra steps and less string.
>>92581369>What the fuck are you even on about? we've been discussing hard sci fi and planetary teraformation the entire time.via a different means? are you actually oblivious about what you've been arguing is impossible? i mean yeah, you can't pump more gas into mars' atmosphere from the poles than there is on the poles, but that has nothing to do with gasses you get elsewhere>No one has stated this, you did over and over again, for example there was this exchange:>>we know how to make rockets >>how to find asteroids anon>Cool, that's still not enough.why the fuck did you think you needed rockets and asteroids? why do you think i kept talking about mining volatiles or crashing them into mars? did you even read a single thing before you replied?>Like how Carbon capture tech is still incredibly limited it what it can do.large scale carbon capture is perfectly possible, it just isn't economically viable, thus it fits into hard sci-fi, although that's an unfortunate designation for those who actually want to see itit's also a cope about forever wiping the ass of an eternally expanding economy, even though that's never going to happen>It's not, I'm mixing up my logistics.i hope this helps you see the difference, if it's technologically possible *right now*, but isn't viable because of a separate issue such as logistics, resource costs, or politics, then it's hard sci-fi>Complete bullshitcoming from a guy who needed seven posts to read a single sentence's worth of info, lmao>Yeah, they have. Bob can't fly dude. bob also can't make a wormhole, dude, that's the point>They are not, you are just making shit up now.do you... believe they actually exist somewhere? can you point out an example then?>Then stop fucking saying it. Jesus.why? magical nanotech bullshit is core to this discussion, whether you like it or not, sorry bob, but you won't ever turn yourself into a supersoldier with your nanomachines
If you want to send millions of cargo and people every day, accept no substitutes to orbital rings. No need for fancy materials.
>>92582027you either need fancy materials or a massive amount of constant energy to keep it up there
>>92576421>Alcubierre driveGood thing it's fantasy then, needing unobtainable material to be "work".I'd rather achieve FTL through hell.
>>92582060Umm, that's a warp drive, it even has the mandatory "let me demonstrate by punching pen through paper" -scene
>>92576755>picThis is the future you chose.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0EHail the Shareholder-god who lead us all toward (his) freedom!
>>92582073I still haven't ever gotten an answer about what makes the pen through paper analogy a good way to travel. Like, yeah, okay, you take a path through a fourth spatial dimension, but what actually makes that path shorter? You're taking a detour. Why the fuck would it be shorter. The shortest path is a straight line through space, or a geodesic if you want to get technical, why would CURVING into an extra dimension make it shorter instead of longer?God, the entire concept is such a complete brainlet pseud trap.
>>92576958>terraforming>gather a bunch of volatiles from like comets or planetoidsYou understand nothing.Take Mars, to make it breathable you need to bring them 90% of Earth Atmosphere.Anyone who told you the water & oxygen was hidden in the ground just waiting for big laser and some more ice rock lied to you.The only planet you'll "terraform easily" is one that is basicaly 999999999999% Earth and you WILL NEED NANOTECH because any ecosystem engineering to make a biosphere will require the ability to create custom lifeform at will.
>>92582126>Take Mars, to make it breathable you need to bring them 90% of Earth Atmosphere.uh, no honey, you'd need a lot less, since you don't need standard atmospheric pressure to make it breathable, and mars is a lot smaller which also reduces it>Anyone who told you the water & oxygen was hidden in the ground just waiting for big laser and some more ice rock lied to you.yes? i know that, that's why we're dropping the volatiles from elsewhere, retard, did i really need to say it for the eight time?
>>92581929>extra stepNice troll, still easier to make than space elevator.
>>92582049NTA but you don't need fancy materials. It's only better if you have those.And you'll need constant energy to repair a space elevator.A ring would have the ability to be turned off, the ring & the station go back to a normal orbit, you might only need some reactive mass for the station but that stuff would now become very easy to lift.
>>92582212anon a ring can't orbit a planet passively the way a satellite or moon does, it would just fall out of alignment almost immediately, so you need to either hold it up with hypermaterial strings or you need to constantly fire massive amounts of rockets up there or use some sort of inertial fountain scheme on the ground which trades the ability to not use hypermaterials for a lot of spent electricity instead
>>92582145>you don't need standard atmospheric pressure to make it breathableThat's not how it work, lower gravity mean you'll need to add extra mass so the pressure reach "highest Earth mountain" level of safe.Beside, as long as you are talking of fraction of the mass of Earth atmosphere, it's far beyond anything credible, even with self-replicating AI spaceship strip mining planet atmosphere without needing human supervision.>that's why we're dropping the volatiles from elsewhereAs long as you understand the quantities are ridiculous and would require so many spaceship and infrastructure you could build billions of those O'neill colonies we are good.But I suspect we need to repeat it to you because you'll zone out eight time in a row and keep believing the lies where the quantities are "reasonable".On a side note, Mars isn't even interesting for a future civilization, especially if you no longer care for 0.3G.
>>92582345to get back to the core point of this>Beside, as long as you are talking of fraction of the mass of Earth atmosphere, it's far beyond anything credible,yes, it's not economically and logistically credible even though it's technologically feasible, that's why it's relegated to the realm of hard sci-fi>As long as you understand the quantities are ridiculous and would require so many spaceship and infrastructure you could build billions of those O'neill colonies we are good.yeah, again, it's a ridiculous number in practical terms, but practicality isn't the dividing line between hard and soft sci-fi, possibility is, and thus terraforming is a hard sci-fi topic, possible even with today's technology, we just don't have the millions of rockets we'd need to do it at the moment, but it's not hard to envision a future where industry expands outwards into space and accomplishes it even with no fundamental changes to our technology
>>92582022>via a different means?No. That's all you bud. I couldn't give less of a damn about "different means" end up being quite shit.>you did over and over again, for example there was this exchange:>we know how to make rockets>how to find asteroids anon>Cool, that's still not enough.You said terraforming is 100% possible through our current scientific knowledge. I said no. You said we have rockets, and I said that isn't enough . And again, NO ONE HAS STATED THIS.>are you actually oblivious about what you've been arguing is impossible?There is nothing that I have been arguing that can be deemed impossible. >i mean yeah, you can't pump more gas into mars' atmosphere from the poles than there is on the poles, but that has nothing to do with gasses you get elsewhereSomeone is getting side track and hung up on specifics I could not give less of a shit about.>why the fuck did you think you needed rockets and asteroids? why do you think i kept talking about mining volatiles or crashing them into mars? did you even read a single thing before you replied?Why are you asking me these stupid questions?>large scale carbon capture is perfectly possibleNo. Flat no. it is not.>i hope this helps you see the differenceYour stupidity has not helped a single moment in this conversation.>coming from a guy who needed seven posts to read a single sentence's worth of infoNow this is cope.>bob also can't make a wormholeBob can't wormhole, yet. He has to figure out if he can, dumbass.>do you... believe they actually exist somewhere? can you point out an example then?do you even einstein dude? Shut the fuck up.>why? Because it's not magical, like you fucking just said, Now shut the fuck up about it.
>>92581698Correct. Cope and seethe.
>>92582238Read about the concept again. It is NOT like space elevator, it don't require any magical material.The highest tensile strength would be in the vertical tether.The highest tensile strength of the RING itself is when it is rotating and you don't actually need much the more massive it is.If only orbiting the ring don't need any tensile or compressive strength whatsoever and given its mass it would take thousand of years before it decelerate enough due to friction.There WILL be problem of stabilities and likely fancy vibration that could mess it up, but reasonable...>amounts of rocketsIs what it would make cheap. It might just be a few pulse here and there.If you care about electricity, you ain't building that sort of things anyway.We are talking of a future where fusion reactor would be no big deal after all.
>>92582459>No. That's all you bud.yes, i realize you've been oblivious this entire time, but i have to wonder why you're proudly declaring you've been arguing at me about something i never even discussed now>You said terraforming is 100% possible through our current scientific knowledge. yes, and it is>I said no. You said we have rockets, and I said that isn't enough .and you never made any argument about why not, you started discussing the melting of mars' ice caps for some reason, even though that has nothing to do with what i was sayingso, why isn't it enough anon? where's the problem?>There is nothing that I have been arguing that can be deemed impossible.nothing can be deemed utterly impossible, so we're either back to psionics and witchcraft being equally feasible as your favorite soft sci-fi tech like wormholes, or you have to face facts and admit that magical tech like "advanced nanotech" and wormholes don't fucking exist, retard, while rockets and probes do>Why are you asking me these stupid questions?i see, if they prove you wrong they're suddenly stupid, lmao>No. Flat no. it is not.why not? remember to differentiate between physically possible and economically feasible>Your stupidity has not helped a single moment in this conversation.anon, you're the one screaming in rage over what seems to be your own ignorance not being accepted as fact even though you can't form a convincing argument about it>Bob can't wormhole, yet. He has to figure out if he can, dumbass.and that's why the wormhole is soft sci-fi, since bob hasn't even figured out if it's physically possible, while terraforming is hard sci-fi, because moving a bunch of volatiles from one place to another definitely is physically possible, we do it all the time, just on a smaller scale>do you even einstein dude? Shut the fuck up.so you can't?>Because it's not magical, like you fucking just said, Now shut the fuck up about it.no, it's soft sci-fi, deal with it
>>92582534the problem with stability is not in vibration, it's in the fact that the ring is not and can't be in orbit around the earth, the moment it gets even slightly out of alignment it would just collapse completely, either one side of it would crash into the ground or more reasonably tidal forces would smash the entire thing apart before that happenedkeeping the fact that an orbit is not possible for a ring, i'm talking about the energy or tensile strength needed to keep the ring tethered to the same position around the earth as a sort of quasi-orbit, since the ring doesn't want to stay there on its ownthe first problem with an active structure isn't even the expenditure of energy you use to keep it up, it's the fact that if anything interrupts that active mechanism the entire structure will collapse onto the ground
>>92582414We both agree that is is "possible".However>possible even with today's technologyIs bullshit and>the millions of rocketsfigure, is conveniently evasive on how each of those "individual rocket" would in size, mass, complexity, be far beyond what we can contemplate honestly.Saying it is today's technology is like a Middle age peons saying they could reach the Moon with a big enough catapult.>no fundamental changes to our technologyI'm afraid to ask you what you consider "fundamental". At the rate we are going we might jump into soff-AI that develop magic-level tech and not be fazed because it would not the the strangest thing in the future.So yes terraforming is "possible" yes, but I'm sure no one here would be able to come up with a setting and infrastructure were it look credible and don't take >1000years.Finally>relegated to the realm of hard sci-fi>relegatedI hope it's a typo and you meant to write SOFT sci-fi.Hard SF is what we aspire for.
>>92582746>>possible even with today's technology>Is bullshit andit's not, it's just a matter of scale, you don't need any new tech, you just need either a massive amount of today's tech, or you need to keep using today's tech for an extremely long time period>>the millions of rockets>figure, is conveniently evasive on how each of those "individual rocket" would in size, mass, complexityyes, i didn't even get into figuring out how many separate probes would be on each rocket, mostly because i'm not sure whether actually going after genuine comets would be more efficient than just doing something like setting up bases on a few froze outer solar system moons and dwarf planets and mining the volatiles from there>I'm afraid to ask you what you consider "fundamental".the same stuff we're using right now, just organized in different numbers and arrangements>At the rate we are going we might jump into soff-AI that develop magic-level tech and not be fazed because it would not the the strangest thing in the future.as far as i'm concerned we aren't really going anywhere especially fast, some technology like the pertinent aerospace and outer space stuff is being refined, some random stuff like ai is undergoing a minor phase transition that likely won't explode anytime soon, and what else even is there? fusion is still sketchy, and everything with quantum in its name is a scam>So yes terraforming is "possible" yes, but I'm sure no one here would be able to come up with a setting and infrastructure were it look credible and don't take >1000years.that's perfectly fine for hard sci-fi though? a lot of hard sci-fi actually does do that you know>I hope it's a typo and you meant to write SOFT sci-fi.no, it's not a typo, hard sci-fi is still sci-fi, it's just sci-fi based on things that we already know definitely work, and the stories of what might be accomplished with them
>>92582544> i realize you've been oblivious this entire time>but i have to wonder why you're proudly declaring you've been arguing at me about something i never even discussed nowHoly meds. >yes, and it isAs I said previously, it is not.>and you never made any argument about why notI actually did. It seems as though you have become delusional, and decided to pretend there was no statement made. It has already been stated that we are currently behind on the science to develop a global climate management system . Carbon capture technology in particular is not up to the standards a global terraformation project needs.>nothing can be deemed utterly impossibleExcept if they're wormholes of course. Oh wait, that's you said.>so we're either back to psionics and witchcraft being equally feasible as your favorite soft sciI bet you think astrology is actually legitimate too. I'm talking to a real goddamn moron right now.>if they prove you wrong they're suddenly stupidI don't see that. Describe how is the case somehow.>why notThe scale is limited greatly. You'd basically need a new power source due to the extensive use of energy. You'd also need to advance the tech more to make them generally more efficient at capturing and storing.> you're the one screaming in rage over what seems to be your own ignorance not being accepted as fact even though you can't form a convincing argument about ityou sure about that bud?>and that's why the wormhole is soft sci-fiThat literally puts everything on the list as soft sci fi. You are dumb.>so you can't?They don't even einstein. Goddamn.>no, it's soft sci-fiThe embodiment of stupidity right here folks.
>>92582823>As I said previously, it is not.just saying it isn't enough anon, you need to form an argument against mine>It has already been stated that we are currently behind on the science to develop a global climate management system . Carbon capture technology in particular is not up to the standards a global terraformation project needs.first of all, carbon capture and grabbing space rocks to dump them on mars are very different projects, and second you're still wrong about carbon capture being technologically impossible, it's perfectly possible technologically, it just isn't economically and logistically feasible>Except if they're wormholes of course. Oh wait, that's you said.yes, to make fun of your bizarre "it hasn't been disproven therefore it'll definitely work" argument>I bet you think astrology is actually legitimate too. I'm talking to a real goddamn moron right now.i don't, but using your brilliant argument in favor of wormholes we could immediately declare astrology to be hard sci-fi too, yes>I don't see that. Describe how is the case somehow.going out there into the solar system like for example to the vicinity of saturn, grabbing a clump of frozen nitrogen and water you find there, and putting into another place in the solar system such as on mars, is perfectly possible with today's technologyif you start doing that millions of times instead of just once, you are now terraforming mars with today's technology>The scale is limited greatly.why would the scale matter? if it can be done once, it can be done a number of times only limited by how many resources you want to dump into it>a new power source>advance the tech more >generally more efficientall of this is still well within the bounds of hard sci-fi, unless you mean fundamentally new power source, in which case you're wrong, the solar system has more than enough power in it to do all that stuff>you sure about that bud?indubitably i like that word
>>92582823>That literally puts everything on the list as soft sci fi. You are dumb.how the fuck do you figure that? anon, wormholes are 50% mathematical cope and 50% pseudoscience, they don't actually exist, as you must have realized when...>They don't even einstein. Goddamn....you couldn't find a single example of anyone anywhere demonstrating a wormhole, either natural or man-made, or even theoretically feasible to buildeither go find an example of a wormhole or accept that they're a deeply soft sci-fi phenomenon
>>92582621>crash into the groundIt is in orbit, no force will slow it down or push it down beside atmospheric friction and it will take forever.>Tidal forceA starting ring would not have enough mass for moon gravity to matter, at worst it's predictable and just a matter of mathematic and regular course correction made cheap by the ring itself.I suspect avoiding this might just consist in accelerating or decelerating the ring with plain energy.>i'm talking about the energy or tensile strength needed to keep the ring tethered to the same position around the earth as a sort of quasi-orbitThat's a caveman solution to a problem that can be solved by math, active space-keeping and some nudge here and there.By your logic we would never build suspended bridges after the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.Beside the obvious endgame of such ring would be a permanent elevator system to reach it.Out of control vibration is the critical risk beside human factor obviously, even if the ring was made and it took hundreds of lined up idiots to destroy it, we will find a way to make it happen..I'll only concede that an orbital ring would remain a dynamically active structure, but half of our civilization is now so I consider it the standard, just like the human body is itself a machine needing constant care.
>>92583019>It is in orbitit's not in orbit, that's the point, a solid object going around a central mass can't be in orbit around it
>>92582913>just saying it isn't enough anon, you need to form an argument against mineAlready did. You ignored it for your own delusions.>first of all, carbon capture and grabbing space rocks to dump them on mars are very different projects,Which is a part of the main topic that is planetary terraformation. Take your meds.>and second you're still wrong about carbon capture being technologically impossibleCarbon capture for global terraformation is impossible.>yes, to make fun of your bizarre "it hasn't been disproven therefore it'll definitely work" argumentDidn't say anything about it definitely working, and you certainly failed at that. Go take your meds.>i don'tVery surprising.> but using your brilliant argument in favor of wormholes we could immediately declare astrology to be hard sci-fi too, yesUnless you don't want to discard einsteins theory of relativity, go ahead and do that.>going out there into the solar system like for example to the vicinity of saturn, grabbing a clump of frozen nitrogen and water you find there, and putting into another place in the solar system such as on mars, is perfectly possible with today's technologyDidn't say it wasn't. Meds.>why would the scale matter?Yeah why does scale matter? We should just replace dumpsters with kitchen trash bags, and it'll all work out.>if you start doing that millions of times instead of just once, you are now terraforming mars with today's technologyBy a technicality. Proper terraformation to a ideal planet however? not so much.>all of this is still well within the bounds of hard sci-fiDidn't say it wasn't. A guy making a castle out of shit is also hard sci fi.>indubitably Over confidence is quite an insidious thing.
>>92582943>how the fuck do you figure that? anon, wormholes are 50% mathematical cope and 50% pseudoscienceYou mean 100% mathematical cope. >they don't actually existTheory of relativity cock blocks you from saying this. Cope.>...you couldn't find a single example of anyone anywhere demonstrating a wormholeAnd I don't have to. Seethe.
>>92559931>>92575440I would say that Left Behind is Christian fiction plausible to some Christians who believe that sort of thing, just any given "science fiction" is plausible to some people who believe in the science, I'm not trying to wring my hands about how science-is-just-another-religion but most of our "fantasy" is inspired by mythology which people used to actually believe in.
>>92583133>Already did. You ignored it for your own delusions.either give an argument like i keep doing, or i'll accept this as your concession>Didn't say anything about it definitely working>Didn't say it wasn't.>Didn't say it wasn't.and i can see you're already conceding a lot of ground>Yeah why does scale matter? We should just replace dumpsters with kitchen trash bags, and it'll all work out.this argument would only work if you were trying to move back from what's possible in hard sci-fi and into what's actually currently happening in real life, i have no idea how that would help you though since it just makes it seem like you forgot the topic altogether>By a technicality. Proper terraformation to a ideal planet however? not so much.oh so now even though we got to the point of creating an earthlike atmosphere and hydrosphere it's still not "proper" terraforming, lmao, okay princess, have your no true scotsman fallacy, just know that i'm also happy that you've conceived defeat on this point too>You mean 100% mathematical cope. no, there's definitely a lot of pseudoscience in there, which is okay for a soft sci-fi concept, just don't pretend it's something else>Theory of relativity cock blocks you from saying this. Cope.no it doesn't, not until you provide an example of it existing>And I don't have to. Seethe.i fully accept your concession
>>92583247>either give an argument like i keep doing, or i'll accept this as your concessionAlready did. You again ignored it for your delusions.>and i can see you're already conceding a lot of groundI have conceded nothing.Meds.>this argument would only work if you wereGrounded in reality and not off their meds.>oh so now even though we got to the point of creating an earthlike atmosphere and hydrosphere it's still not "proper" terraformingYou created a atmosphere. Earth like is questionable. And you still need to manage it. Hyrdosphere? sure-ish, but you als still need to manage it. The planet is still barren. And there is also the problem of soil.You only factored a couple of steps of complete planetary terraformation.So correct, it's not a proper terraformation, it is a terraformation on a technicality.> that i'm also happy that you've conceived defeat on this point tooCall your nurse, because you really do need those meds if you think I said this.>there's definitely a lot of pseudoscience in thereSorry, but the scientific community does not agree with you.>no it doesn'tYeah it does. cope.>i fully accept your concessionOh im sorry, you seem to be seeing delusions right now. You confused me pointing out that the theory of relativity owned your ass just by merely existing for me conceding.
>>92582095Which line is longer, the blue one or the red one?
>>92582818Anon, you didn't know you need more atmospheric mass to have proper pressure on lower gravity world and it can be found on wikipedia.Why do you think you got the rest anywhere close to right?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars"but the lower gravity of Mars requires 2.6 times Earth's column airmass to obtain the optimum 100 kPa (15 psi) pressure at the surface"Again, you are talking of basically bringing 90% of the atmosphere missing for Mars.>redirecting several massive asteroids (40-400 billion tonnes total) We struggle just getting 100tons into orbits.A reminder that MOVING asteroids, especially one that wasn't anywhere on the right orbit, require turning a fraction of said asteroid into fuel.NASA sure have a different notion of "present day tech".https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/mars-terraforming-not-possible-using-present-day-technology/>that's perfectly fine for hard sci-fi though? a lot of hard sci-fi actually does do that you knowMost self-proclaimed "hard SF" don't and are soft SF in hiding, timescale over 1000years is too far to predict anything.Trying to keep it short will inevitably lead to cheats.Take MARS trilogy, as far I'm concerned it's bullshit that never did the math, just using soft tropes.>random stuff like ai is undergoing a minor phase transitionNothing is minor in what is happening recently, it's just not showy enough for you yet.>fusion is still sketchyStill a requirement if you want any decent space propulsion>everything with quantum in its name is a scamWe have working quantum calculator and it's threatening nearly all methods of encryption.>just sci-fi based on things that we already know definitely workNo that's not the definition, you are confusing with subgenre-punk where we assume tech level X stand globally at any scale without changing.Hard SF may be an arbitrary line speculation but it sure don't assume tech to stay the same for centuries.
>>92583430Where did the blue line's bend come from? Space is roughly flat. If your wormhole only works in an extreme gravity well such as right next to a black hole or neutron star, then of what use is it?
>>92583058Go read about the proper concept again.You clearly confuse with soft-SF shit.Orbital ring are not to be solid, it is more like a rail in orbit while a station accelerate over it like a magnetic train, until it is stationary over the desired geographic position, then lower a cable.Even the Wikipedia article is good enoughhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring>In the orbital ring version, a kinetic ring is moving around the world at a higher speed than circular orbital velocity. This results in a net outward force that is countered by gravity acting on the stationary components. This can be accomplished at any altitude, although building the system above 500 kilometres (310 mi) in order to avoid most of the atmosphere is a practical requirement. A cable is then lowered from the ring to the ground and used in the same fashion as a traditional space elevator, with the difference being that the vertical cable is only 500 kilometres (310 mi) instead of 100,000 kilometres (62,000 mi) long. This length is within the capabilities of several known materials.
>>92583512They're not bending, they're showing you what space is like to the wormhole. Here, I've redrawn it so you can understand it from the flat space perspective. Black lines are arbitrary units of distance, to show that the wormhole is still the shorter route, it's just elongated from a "flat" perspective".
>>92583632Would help if I included the pic.
>>92583442>Anon, you didn't know you need more atmospheric mass to have proper pressure on lower gravity world and it can be found on wikipedia.no, i told you that you don't need "proper" pressure in the first place to make it "breathable", and that the lower size of mars is a very important factor too>We struggle just getting 100tons into orbits.okay, and? if we weren't struggling with it then it wouldn't be sci-fi, it would just be reality, either actual reality or immediately potentialthe point is that we can already do the basic thing, so doing more of the same thing is firmly within the bounds of hard sci-fi>Most self-proclaimed "hard SF" don't and are soft SF in hidingyes, i know, but i don't care, i'll use the term the way it's correct to me and also by most definitions you find out there>timescale over 1000years is too far to predict anything.that doesn't really matter in and of itself, it would still be theoretically feasible>Still a requirement if you want any decent space propulsionnot really, unless you're trying to be cute about your definition of "decent", current propulsion, especially highly efficient ion propulsion, is already good enough to handle the delta-v requirements of such missions, in fact i'm pretty sure that if you looked at a delta-v chart of mars to saturn and back again it would be a lower cost than just getting from earth's surface into low orbit around earththis also ignores other potential hard sci-fi propulsion schemes for the massive volatile packets, such as for example an ice mining and railgun installation on one of jupiter's icy moons, you could literally just power it through tidal/geothermal or solar power even out there, despite the low insolation>We have working quantum calculator and it's threatening nearly all methods of encryption.no, it's threatening a few outdated methods of encryption while everyone involved is trying to show some sort of use case for quantum computing and failing hard
>>92583442quantum computing's only really viable use seems to be simulation of quantum systems, and while that might be useful for designer drugs or something, it's not going to change the world>you are confusing with subgenre-punk where we assume tech level X stand globally at any scale without changing>assume tech to stay the same for centuries.i have no idea what you're talking about, sorry>>92583523the issue isn't the ring staying up anon, the issue is that the ring has no innate reason to stay centered on the earth the way an orbit does, an orbit is largely self-correcting but a ring can't do that on its own so you have to constantly correct it
>>92583640>>92583632I understand the basic idea, so you didn't need to draw it here, though I guess it's useful to be on the same page. What I don't understand is WHY is space like that to the wormhole? Why is the fourth dimensional shortcut actually shorter instead of longer. Your second image here very clearly shows my problem if you remove the black lines from it, the red path is longer. Why would it be shorter? It feels like the entire concept of the wormhole being an extradimensional shortcut is based on the assumption of an extremely warped extradimensional geometry, but nobody ever mentions where that comes from.
>>92583679In really, really, really simple terms, the calculations involved in describing wormholes puts limits on its spacetime curvature, leaving it with no other possibility but to be a "shorter" route in accordance with general relativity. It's like having a closed shoe box that you don't know what's inside, but knowing it can't physically fit a blue whale in it.
>>92583789But wouldn't literally any sort of curvature that's different from regular space outright have to be longer? Why isn't a straight line in 3d space the shortest route? If there was a potential shorter route than that, wouldn't physical objects and other phenomena including 3d space itself already default to that shorter route, regardless of any kind of wormhole being present?
>>92583836>takes out paper and pen
>>92583836No, the limited "bend" causes two points further away in flat space to be closer in wormhole space. It's literally running on its own spacetime rules, it's not capable of "flattening" like space so that the two points are the same length as space, it has to be shorter.The issue with wormholes is that so far only exotic theoretical matter can traverse it based on how they've been calculated (sheer forces involved would destroy most matter), and excessive regular matter can unbalance it and collapse it, so it wouldn't default at all. Not to mention, most calculations give them as temporary structures.
>>92583641>you don't need "proper" pressureStop trying to bargain, you either have minimal breathable pressure or you don't do terraforming.In both case you can't do it without groundbreaking tech>okay, and? if we weren't struggling with it then it wouldn't be sci-fi, it would just be realityYou contradict yourself and your "things that we already know definitely work".None of your ideas "definitely work" without a tech level far superior to what we have.>that doesn't really matter in and of itself, it would still be theoretically feasibleIt does matter if you have any honesty in discussing hard-SF. Pretending it doesn't is just an poor excuse for soft-SF plots/setting.>unless you're trying to be cute about your definition of "decent", current propulsionDon't make me bring up the slide rules.Big difference between using Hohmann transfer that require 90% of your ship mass to be propellant for several years of travel.And being able to reach destination in a month using only 50% so you can actually carry equipments.>earth's surface into low orbit around earth9400m/s>delta-v chart of mars to saturn and back again~140000m/s and I've limited it to Saturn escape velocity then Mars transferNo matter how you dance around it the propellant cost is ridiculous and you still have to start from Earth.>ice mining and railgun installation on one of jupiter's icy moonsClaiming "whatever" railgun of "whatever" number/size will do the job in "whatever" time at "whatever" efficiency is not hard SF.You need billions of tons of ice/others.>sort of use case for quantum computing and failing hardThose encryptions methods were not outdated.Quantum computer broke them and it's why military are building facilities to develop the tech.It's an success far beyond the Enigma machine during WWII, you could break a civilian infrastructure that way.The only blockers right now is how many codes you can crunch and the number of qbits.>ringread >>92583523 properly
>>92581568Thanks.
>>92560378>You train your data trawlers to identify and exclude AI-generated contentNot that anon, but how do the trawlers differentiate between the AI-generated content received from external sources and the AI-generated content that the AI itself produces when "thinking"? Is it just what internal pipeline/process the content is coming from?That is to say, if you prevent the AI from interacting with information it can create, how can it learn the difference between the outside world and it's own internal world? (seems like muting an AI to it's own thoughts would prevent it from able to be sentient, or would at best prevent the ability to reflect). Or am I getting ahead of things in asking this?
>>92582095This is a good question.>>92583640This is a good model.
>>92560700We'll probably start w/a lunar elevator, and keep working on the materials until it's good enough to make the classic space elevator.
>>92585028Good for what, it doesn't explain anything, it just reiterates the problem.
>>92584748>Stop trying to bargain, you either have minimal breathable pressure or you don't do terraforming.go read what that is, retard, you aren't being bargained with, you're being told>None of your ideas "definitely work" without a tech level far superior to what we have.sure they do, you don't need a greater tech base for any of them, you just need more of them at the same time>It does matter if you have any honesty in discussing hard-SF. Pretending it doesn't is just an poor excuse for soft-SF plots/setting.it changes nothing about the tech constraints, and a lot of hard sci-fi stories already use it, so no, it doesn't start mattering just because you have a brainfart and say it must matter without elaborating>~140000m/slearn to read a delta-v chart, you're not landing on saturn lmaoit's actually closer to 5k from mars to saturn one way, so i guess it's barely more than to get into low earth orbit>Claiming "whatever" railgun of "whatever" number/size will do the job in "whatever" time at "whatever" efficiency is not hard SF.yeah it is, railguns exist
>>92584748>Those encryptions methods were not outdated.until they were... or rather would be in the next two decades lolupdating a few encryptions, considering how much real effort went into it and even worse how much attention it gets as technobabble, is really pathetic>read >>92583523 properlyit's not referring to the same thing, an object that is solid and circumnavigates a mass at its center cannot orbit it, any perturbation in its position would send the closer side ever closer and the farther side ever farther, this has been known by sci-fi all the way back in like the 70s when the ringworld books got into this problem, because the ringworld also wasn't orbiting its sun
>>92585279>>92584748to elaborate a bit on the delta-v issue, since i now chose to open an actual chart, you need to land on a small icy moon at close to saturn to mine your nitrogen and water, so that's about 1k delta-v because your moonlet is a lot smaller than the 3.5k of titan, so let's say you're 1k lower than your saturn intercept, then you need about 4k to go from that position and all the way to a mars encounter, and since you're dumping your mass as an impactor it will slow down by hitting rock so you don't need to worry about any of the rest of the delta-v at marsdepending on what you're doing you may or may not need to go back with your probe for another run now, which might be another 5k if you're impatient, but since you're already on an elliptical that goes all the way out to saturn's orbit you can also just wait for a few decades until it's in position for you again, which removes most of the cost of returning to saturn
Coming from the perspective of a battletech player, are the sort of ground to space capable engines seen in dropships a thing that could actually be made? Would every ship need disposable booster rockets every time it wanted to leave a planet?
>>92585691it depends on how realistic the fuel and thus engine effectiveness is, and also on what kind of planet it is they're leaving, if it's earthlike and the rockets are comparable to real world ones then yeah, definitely, but if the fuel burns much hotter without destroying the engine it could theoretically eliminate that need since specific impulse is heavily correlated to exhaust velocity, but there's a whole bunch of parameters to the planet that could affect it too such as if it has either lower gravity without it being a deeper gravity well, or if it has a thinner atmosphere, both of those would make it much easier to leave, meanwhile even if surface gravity is the same but the planet is more massive (happens if it's less dense, the "surface" gravity of saturn is the same as earth's but saturn is much more massive than earth), or if the surface gravity is outright higher, or if the atmosphere is denser, those could all greatly increase the energy cost for leaving
