I didn't really know where to put this, sorry.

Is there a limit to the advance of technology?
If so, what are the limiting factors?
What would be the consequences of such a limit being reached?
Is there anything that is not achievable by technological means (please try to avoid any religious connotations to this question! )

I think that part of the limiting factors is our knowledge of what surrounds us. We are also limited to the materials to build technology that surround us (we can't invent a new element to suit our needs). I think that anything that does not break the laws of physics (but laws of physics are mostly made up of theories, so even theories can be disproved) can be achieved. We are limited by money, resources and desire to push technology. If all of a sudden, a company decided to create a tiny supercomputer that is cheap and available to the public, then it would imbalance the computer industry. The people with the money will stall technology to make money. THat is part of the reason why we are not driving clean-air cars at the moment. The gas industry would be disrupted. We are slowing ourselves down. Technology will always advance. We can accomplish almost anything if us, as a race, wanted to.

I expect there are very real limits to science and technology; the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, Bremermann's limit (http://www.orionsarm.com/eg/b/Br-Bt.html#Bremermanns_Limit) on computation, causality;

it is likely that if it were possible to break any of these fundemental laws anywhere in the universe some alien civilisation would be doing so within range of our telescopes.

Are there limits? I think it's like asking if there is a limit to the universe. We see not limits to the universe, and for science and technology or the inner the universe, there are no limits in sight either.

We are constantly discovering new phenomena and concepts, and we have been doing so for 10,000 years of our existence as homosapians. Today, we continue to uncover new phenomena and the latest in quantum mechanics is clearly showing us how strange the universe really is, conforming more to a metaphysical paradigm of the universe.

Stone age
Bronze age
Iron age
Mechanical age
Industrial age
Electrical age
Information age
Space age

The limitations that exist, are not imposed by the universe, but by our understanding of the universe. We are barely into the space age, and there is a whole universe to uncover, yet we seem to think we know the universe. This is called ignorance, and it only impedes the growth of science. True knowledge is in knowing, that you know nothing.

We can work within the boundaries of an observable universe, not out of those boundaries into an unobservable universe. Scientific progress, is working at those boundaries, understanding those boundaries, and find ways of breaking past those boundaries.

You must remember, just like we are the effect of a casue of aggregation of cell and neurons; those boundaries are the effect of a cause of an aggregation of quantum constituents. If we can locate the cause; we can alter the effects.

Thus the inner universe is an infinite regression of cause and effect, much like the outer universe

Hence, these laws of relativity, of thermodynamics and so on and so forth, are also the effects of other causes. Therefore, even they can be altered by locating the cause.

Thermodynamics, as it previously dictated, already has undergone a paradigm shift in quantum mechanics. We could not extract more energy than we put in. Now we can, because we have located the cause of the energy: the quantum vacuum. Yet, this is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, because the energy was always there, and we are simply extracting some energy from it - much like water from a well.

We also now understand that gravity is not a rigid force and can be controlled. We now also understand that the speed of light is not the highest speed attainable. We have managed to send pulses at least 200 times faster than c. We know that spacetime moves much faster than C. We know quantum entanglement, which I've always called the universal field, is near infinitely faster than c.

Hence, as always, our paradigms of science are constantly changing. There is still a lot more to uncover:

What is the cause of virtual matter?
What causes the existence of something even before existence?
What causes consciousness?

These are just some questions, of an infinite other questions, that we maybe seeking to know tomorrow. In conclusion: There is an entire universe we have to uncover. We are not even close to understanding it.

I am going to parallel this to alien civilizations, that I know exist, and have been visiting us since early history. They exist in an unobservable universe. They are possibly thousands/millions/billions of years in advance of us in science and technology, and such progress, means breaking past limitations of our observable universe. Hence, why should they not be capable of superluminal travel? That would be mere childs play for such a civilization.

We now also understand that the speed of light is not the highest speed attainable.
On the contrary, nothing can exceed the speed of light.


We have managed to send pulses at least 200 times faster than c. These were only progressive wavetrains coded onto a light beam which itself was travelling at light speed; it remains the case that no information can travel faster than light.We know that spacetime moves much faster than C. It is true that the universe expands faster than light outside our event horizon (which is why it is possible to say that 'nothing' can travel faster than light; in this case it is literally true); if there is any useful application of that expansion I would be very interested to hear it.

No, really, I would. Expansion of spacetime and other geometrical tricks like wormholes might have practical uses. We know quantum entanglement, which I've always called the universal field, is near infinitely faster than c.
but once again, no useful information can be transferred using entanglement, except using classical channels which are light speed or slower. So not quite as useful as you might think.

-----------
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com

Technology is limited by sicence. Science is limited by how much of the universe can be understood. Since the universe is finite in the amount of data it holds and processes and laws if follows, hypothetically science could eventually reach a state of complete understand of everything. Will that happen in our life times?, not unless were immortal and live a few hundred to thousands of years. Will humans be able to understand it all?, hell no, we would need computers, brain augmentation and AI. In fact computers are now needed to comprehend many aspects of science that are beyond human grasp.

On the contrary, nothing can exceed the speed of light.

It would be wrong to say so, rather, you should say as per accepted notions of current paradigms of physics. There is a lot of reason to believe now, that the speed of light is not the highest speed and more understanding may confirm this empirically.

These were only progressive wavetrains coded onto a light beam which itself was travelling at light speed; it remains the case that no information can travel faster than light.

The experiments only show that these pulses travelled faster than the speed of light, clearly showing that the speed of light is not the fastest for any phenomena.

It is true that the universe expands faster than light outside our event horizon (which is why it is possible to say that 'nothing' can travel faster than light; in this case it is literally true); if there is any useful application of that expansion I would be very interested to hear it.

No, really, I would. Expansion of spacetime and other geometrical tricks like wormholes might have practical uses. but once again, no useful information can be transferred using entanglement, except using classical channels which are light speed or slower. So not quite as useful as you might think.

The truth is, quantum entanglement has only been detected to exist. We do not know how to use quantum entanglement for any useful applications as of yet, however, that certainly does not suggest, we never will. The phenomena exists, there is a cause for this, once we can locate this cause, we can control this phenomena.

As you concede, spacetime moves faster than the speed of light, an object cushioned in spacetime, could theoretically "travel" faster than the speed of light with spacetime. This would imply warping spacetime. Again something that presents itself as feasible in the future.

As I said, it is all about cause and effect. If something currently stops us from exceeding the speed of light, it is an effect of a cause. We just need to locate that cause, and control the effect.

Since the universe is finite in the amount of data it holds and processes and laws if follows

That was a very bold assumption. As of yet, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the universe is finite or finite in the amount of data it holds and processes.

actually there is, the universe only has so many laws of physics, if we could understand all of those and have enough computing power we could emulate everything else.

Hence, these laws of relativity, of thermodynamics and so on and so forth, are also the effects of other causes. Therefore, even they can be altered by locating the cause.

Crazymikey,

Do you think that we could manipulate every single aspect of the universe? Surely not such universals as the gravitational constant, the properties of fundamental particles, etc. At the most fundamental level, the universe just 'is'.
I'm not saying that the reasons for the elementary properties of the universe will remain forever unknown. I am saying that we can only act within the framework of the physical laws and constants. Some things are simply inviolable.

Leda,

Many of the physical laws used today are only best-guess approximations and metaphors for reality, and some of the limitations which they place on human ability might well turn out to be illusory. Even if this is the case, I believe that future revision and refinement of these laws will one day reveal barriers which are truly insurmountable. I suppose that the implications would depend on just how much these barriers allow us to achieve. I envisage our distant descendants locked in a bleak, drawn-out struggle to exploit ever-diminishing energy gradients as the universe expands and dims.

Crazymikey,

Do you think that we could manipulate every single aspect of the universe? Surely not such universals as the gravitational constant, the properties of fundamental particles, etc. At the most fundamental level, the universe just 'is'.
I'm not saying that the reasons for the elementary properties of the universe will remain forever unknown. I am saying that we can only act within the framework of the physical laws and constants. Some things are simply inviolable.

For a constant to exist, it has to exist due to a set of parameters, and thus also subject to cause and effect.

We we are constantly, for 10,000 years now, discovering new mechanisms and phenomena, and even today, we still are. It's not that other mechanisms and phenomena does not exist, it's about our comprehension. Imagine everytime we discover a new science, it's like an eye letting in just a little but more light, that does not mean your eyes are wide open.

Even today we know very little about this universe. Do you know how it just "is"? do you know why a positive attracts negative? Do you know how gravity is caused? What is the cause of energy? What is the cause of consciousness? Why is there entropy? Why does energy become mass?

There is so much we don't understand, then how can we say, we understand all or are close to understanding all. Yes, we can only work in our observable universe, but let's not try and work in the unobservable universe, where anything can be possible.

What makes sense to me, just like the universe is an infinite regression of cause and effect, so is the "inner universe" hence why I reject the fundamental and absolute notions of current physics. This is ignorance, ignorance of light, also called blindness.

There is a lot of reason to believe now, that the speed of light is not the highest speed and more understanding may confirm this empirically.Reasons such as?
For a constant to exist, it has to exist due to a set of parametersUmmm... no. If it's a constant it doesn't depend on parameters because it's... ummm... constant.
We we are constantly, for 10,000 years now, discovering new mechanisms and phenomena, and even today, we still areFunny... I thought you said that ETI discovered stuff for us.

So, two points:
1) If the universe has any laws or constants whatsoever, then there are things we can not do.
2) Stop talking out of your ass.

Alright Persol, you asked for it; ignore list. Can't really blame me, I tolerated your stupidity for several months. You never try to understand anything, and instead just mock it, just because you don't understand it or don't read it. I do not have to tolerate such stupidity, and now, I won't.

Funny. I point out flaws in your logic, and you say I don't understand... but never explain why.

Oh well, at least now you have an excuse for not answering my questions. So whose next, WCF or Avatar?

I didn't really know where to put this, sorry.

Is there a limit to the advance of technology?
If so, what are the limiting factors?
What would be the consequences of such a limit being reached?
Is there anything that is not achievable by technological means (please try to avoid any religious connotations to this question! )

I certainly think there are limitations to the level of technology we will be able to reach. For one I do not think that we will ever develope a cure for every disease, nor will we be able to live forever. The human body was designed to slow down and stop over time, to counter this occurance, we would have to completely alter the science in which we were created: egg, from which we get all of the traits that our parents had from their cromosomes, and therefore we would inherit all of their physical and mental flaws. No body is perfect, and therefore will never be able to physically sustain itself for an unlimited period of time, to do this we would practially have to become machines. Even machines will not last forever, therefore this would theoretically be impossible to achieve.
I think the limiting factors would be health, and also certain means of travel, for example, faster than light travel. If this limit was reached, I think civilization would be at a stand-still, and after several thousand years, would begin to fall. At this point of a technological halt, we would be so full of pride and arrogance in our complete mastery of technological advancement, we would eventually fall.
Pride is the downfall of every great society. It happened to the Romans, some say that it will eventually happen to the United States. With no more goals to strive for in the technological race, what would we achieve now as the human race? Would we be content with a stand-still for so long? In every time period, including this one, humans have always strived to advance themselves in technology and by other means, if there was nowhere else to go, I think civilization would eventually colapse.

Hmmm, sure there are limits to technology…cars are a nice example. Their speed is limited by the ‘safety’ of driving on roads, our physical ability to react to change, and their fuel efficiency is limited by oil companies…

I guess our current technology is machine based, while before it was mechanical (biologically driven). There is little reason to doubt that a new type of technological base shouldn’t come along in the next 500 years, and that too will be limited by social considerations and biological ones. Having a science and technology background I’m worried about thinking of technological levels, and development because that can only be understood in terms of a socially set measure.

I mean is an electronic tin opener really ‘better’ than a hand powered twisty one? :p

Technology definetely has limits... as long as you assume the universe has some physical laws. (Fairly safe assumption I say)

That doesn't mean that the mentioned limit isn't WAY WAY off.

Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Even magic operates according to laws-
otherwise it would be unusable.

The Orion's Arm Technology Timeline-

http://www.orionsarm.com/tech/tech_timeline.html

the limits are in sight, but never can be reached.

That was a brilliant timeline, and although complete fantasy, it really has some realistic forecasts based on science and science fiction of today. However, even this technology timeline, as far as it goes, cannot account for the unobservable universe and unobservable phenomena.

It could not account for much of the advanced physics concepts emerging today: biofield energy, quantum computers, anti-gravity, zero point energy, mind control, telepathy, quantum teleportation, simply because it is not aware of them.

Likewise, the more we progress, the more phenomena we uncover, possibly even time-travel, or the discovery of the universe being conscious, or events that occurr on the planet due to quantum directives from the universal conscious. We may discover that the soul does exist, and there are spiritual reals existing in other dimensions. We cannot account for the unobservable universe, so much things that would seem bizarre or magic to us, could be a part of this unobservable univse. In other words, there are no limits in sight, much like there is no end to the universe in sight.

We are aware of quantum teleportation, quantum computers, zero point energy and so on, and have discussed them endlessly in our worldbuilding group;
we even use quantum computers, quantum entanglement and zpe in our scenario- but we place strict physical limits on their potential, based on the current state of theoretical physics.
It appears that none of these effects can be used to achieve the remarkable things some people predict for them.
We have dismissed telepathy and biofields as illusions for the purposes of this particular scenario; although they are used in some of our affiliate projects, you have to draw the line somewhere.

On the other hand, we do embrace artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and smaller tech, and wormhole travel; all these projections may well turn out to be overoptimistic- but those are the parameters we have chosen.

Technology definetely has limits... as long as you assume the universe has some physical laws. (Fairly safe assumption I say)

That doesn't mean that the mentioned limit isn't WAY WAY off.

[negligent speculation]

I agree with you but want to introduce the notion that perhaps the very idea of "technology" will fade into history like the evolution of the big toe, as it becomes so engrained in the foundation of our species that it is barely noticable. I dunno, that's pretty speculative I guess, but it seems to me that before the "limits of technology" are exhausted, it's quite possible that the idea of technology itself will be permanently changed into something else (what exactly remains to be seen of course).

[/negligent speculation]

True, but we today would still define that as technology. They may decide to rename it to some word without any vowels... but it is still technology. I think it will always be noticable, as we are greedy and easily bored animals. If we really wanted to, very few of us would have to work... but we'd be living in 19th century conditions. 300 years from now they aren't going to want to 'slum' to our level. They'll want new shiny things which will require technoloy to keep advancing.

It could not account for much of the advanced physics concepts emerging today: biofield energy, quantum computers, anti-gravity, zero point energy, mind control, telepathy, quantum teleportation, simply because it is not aware of them.

quantum computers..ok, zero point energy..ok, but what's this? mind control, telepathy, ANTI-GRAVITY?! :bugeye: methinks you've been on the :m: a mite heavy.

Please tell me about this currently emerging physics about anti gravity, and especially telepathy. That'd be nice, Then I could root out those evil spies of lord zorovich who've been tracking me accross the galaxy for 2000 years...

We are aware of quantum teleportation, quantum computers, zero point energy and so on, and have discussed them endlessly in our worldbuilding group;
we even use quantum computers, quantum entanglement and zpe in our scenario- but we place strict physical limits on their potential, based on the current state of theoretical physics.
It appears that none of these effects can be used to achieve the remarkable things some people predict for them.
We have dismissed telepathy and biofields as illusions for the purposes of this particular scenario; although they are used in some of our affiliate projects, you have to draw the line somewhere.

On the other hand, we do embrace artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and smaller tech, and wormhole travel; all these projections may well turn out to be overoptimistic- but those are the parameters we have chosen.

Yes and No. You see much of your forecast for thousands of years into the future, depends on popular science and popular science fiction today; name it: nanotechnology, wormhole travel; genetic engineering. This is simply because these are the latest technologies. Had you not even known about nanotechnology, or wormholes, you would have limited yourself even further.

Had you written this in early 20th century, you would be talking about propeller driven flying bicycles, and electricity for centuries. You see, your imagination and your knowledge is the limit.

Now, from the early 20th century, had you had knowledge of the unobservable universe of today, you would know about nanotechnology, genetic engineering, wormholes, and your projection for the future would have leaped light years.

You are doing the same, and although I really do think some of the forecasts were excellent, I think it also very ignorant of cutting edge science, and very partial to certain concepts. e.g. You are willing to consider the existence of wormholes that sustain themselves for years, and see them as a viable means of interstellar travel, yet overlook the absolutely overwhelming energy you would need, I think it's about the energy of hundreds of stars, to construct one. While, dismissing quantum teleportation as unrealistic, when it is considered to be very possible by quantum physicists, provided a powerful computer exists to reassemble you.

You dismiss the possibility of matter generation from space. Yet, it would be theoretically possible to use nanocomputers, to rearrange the atomic structure of, say paper, into a diamond. It would be even possible to use quantum computers, as a replicator system, to replicate matter, from one sample. This would be far more likely than wormholes.

In addition, you near completely reject, anti-gravity, zpe, and mind control technologies and parapsychological phenomena. When they are not only theoretically possible, some are even manifesting: Please read the following articles:

Anti gravity and ZPE technology

- http://uplink.space.com/showflat.ph...sb=5&o=0&fpart=

- http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...3534050248.html

- http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civi...20729_1_n.shtml

mind control; particle beam weaponary; tractor beams

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3485918.stm

- http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/mind_control/

- http://us.altnews.com.au/article.php?sid=376

- http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/...ug/roberds.html

- http://www.datafilter.com/mc/nonlethalWeapons.html

- http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/dew.pdf

- http://www.idsa-india.org/SAARCHIVE...N-FEB-7-01.HTML

- http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/abl/abl011.htm

- http://www.guerrillanews.com/forum/...&sb=5&o=0&part=

- http://www.space.com/businesstechno..._wg_010504.html

- http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y....htm?list433924

You see, what has limited you, is your knowledge and your imagination. Had you known about what I said, you would have drastically have changed your forecast. At the same time, I am limited by my knowledge and imagination, even I cannot dictate what the unobservable universe holds. It could be anything:

Consciousness is discovered to be pervading the entire universe, possibly suggesting a god, that interconnects with the universe via quantum entanglement, and affects the universe by quantum directives, causing events to happen.

We may discover multiple dimensions and spiritual dimensions,vibrating at a higher frequency of existence, co-existing with us; string theory.

We may be able to "hack" into this universal quantum network, and enable certain effects in the universe.

We may discover means of dematerialising into an energy matrix.

In fact, anything we can imagine, could be possible. There are just no limits in sight, because the unobservable universe exists beyond us. This is why your timeline fails, though it an excellent forecast and somewhat realistic, it is also very ignorant of the unobservable universe.

Consciousness is discovered to be pervading the entire universe, possibly suggesting a god, that interconnects with the universe via quantum entanglement, and affects the universe by quantum directives, causing events to happen.

We may be able to "hack" into this universal quantum network, and enable certain effects in the universe.

If a person get's pissed at someone hacking into their system, how do you think god would feel? Maybe we should just infect it with virii instead. Or a DoS attack.

Yeah Invert Nexus, just like there are counter systems in place for every action, there maybe a counter system in place fot the action of "hacking" into the universe. Yet even for that, there may even be an action.

If such a god does exist, he may not be sentient in the way we would imagine him to be. I think if we survive the technical growth we can become god. Yet, the loophole is this, we are god.

crazymik..no just crazy: your 'sources' are laughable. Most of the websites don't exist. The one's about "mind control" are nearly all about brain washing. which is hardly a technological thing. Oh there was one article about mass brain-washing technology being implemented in the UK. hmmmm. have you read it? first it says it'll be used by the police to control officers when their morals might kick in. Then it says 30,000 masts will be deployed to controll the population. Which is it? you can't selectively controll the police unless they happen to be the only people in the viscinity and then what use is that. And more to the point, a massive release of calcium ions in the cerebral cortex? please. I'm no brain surgeon, nor even a biologist. but even I can see that this is horseshit. If there would be any effect (not that it's even possible to cause the release) it would be a complete spasm of every muscle in the body leading to total paralysis. how can you 'control' anyone. No I don't think so.

Go home, crackpot.

The goal of science (which drives technology and vica versa) is ultimately to describe the universe and everything in it under one theoretical framework. Once we have a theory of everything, there are clearly limits as to what we can exploit for technology. Understanding the cause of something does not mean we can change it. Understanding gravity as einsteins warping of space time, or the exchange of gravitons (as yet unproven and purely theoretical) does not mean we can change the nature of gravity as you seem to suggest.

Jethro, attacking someone, you don't know, or just don't have the intelligence to get your head around the concepts they present you, would make you the crackpot. It's quite ironic, now days every tom, dick and harry whose taken a physics 101 in high school, thinks they are scientists ;)

Reject.

Funny how he points out problems in your post and you completely ignore them... yet call yourself a scientist. You're worse than a religious fanatic. At least you kow what crazy stuff it is they believe in. You just randomly grab on to ideas.

You are doing the same, and although I really do think some of the forecasts were excellent, I think it also very ignorant of cutting edge science, and very partial to certain concepts. e.g. You are willing to consider the existence of wormholes that sustain themselves for years, and see them as a viable means of interstellar travel, yet overlook the absolutely overwhelming energy you would need, I think it's about the energy of hundreds of stars, to construct one. While, dismissing quantum teleportation as unrealistic, when it is considered to be very possible by quantum physicists, provided a powerful computer exists to reassemble you.

You dismiss the possibility of matter generation from space. Yet, it would be theoretically possible to use nanocomputers, to rearrange the atomic structure of, say paper, into a diamond. It would be even possible to use quantum computers, as a replicator system, to replicate matter, from one sample. This would be far more likely than wormholes.

That is the concept behind the Audobon Engenerator, which is in the timeline (year 1482 after Tranquillity)
and predates wormholes by nearly a thousand years.

Nevertheless engeneration copying occurs at light speed, not faster. None of the 'cutting edge' concepts you mention involve the transfer of usable information faster than light.
Really, they don't.
http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Quantum_entanglement
Despite its name, quantum teleportation can not be used to transmit information faster than light, because a classical information channel is involved.
And the same with supraluminal pused wave trains; you have to send a continuous light beam with a superimposed pulse that seems to go faster than light but it is just a harmonic effect; you can't send any information with it.

I agree we can not foresee future developments in scientific theory; these are the unknown unknowns that Rumsfeld talks about.
But I myself quite simply chose to believe that parapsychology is bunk- for the purposes of this scenario anyway.
The strange future science we can not predict is unlikely to be shaped by new age fantasies.

"Jethro, attacking someone, you don't know, or just don't have the intelligence to get your head around the concepts they present you, would make you the crackpot. It's quite ironic, now days every tom, dick and harry whose taken a physics 101 in high school, thinks they are scientists"

I called you a crackpot for presenting such dodgy sources about mass mind control and the like. Do you dispute that?

If you rave about mind control conspiracies, and anti-gravity etc. How am I supposed to take your views on anything seriously?

I want to restate something persol said on page 1. If there are any physical laws at all in the universe there are things we can not do.

This I think is the esscence of the argument and should have wrapped it up then and there.

I called you a crackpot for presenting such dodgy sources about mass mind control and the like. Do you dispute that?

If you rave about mind control conspiracies, and anti-gravity etc. How am I supposed to take your views on anything seriously?

And I called you a crackpot, for attacking me, without testing those claims.

Let's just leave it ok. I think you're nuts, but this isn't a forum site for personal arguments. You've no evidence for the things you say are happening around us and untill you do lets quit the bickering.

That's where you bite the bullet Jetthro, because zero point energy and anti-gravity as well mind control technologies are part of real science and being openly discussed in the scientific community. It's irritating when ignorant people insult you, simply because they are not versed in the latest in science. To me, you're the "nut" because only a nut would call some stranger online a nut, when you hardly know them, and especially when you're clearly not educated on the issues. As I said, now days any old joe, whose taken a crash course in Physics, thinks their scientists.

zero-point energy is fine, but let's sort out what you mean by mind control. If you mean brain washing, the use of drugs and subliminal messaging to corrupt a mind then yeah sure that's been going on for a long time. But it is biologically impossible to take over someone by 'remote control' and have them do what you want like some kind of zombie. So maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by mind control and you're not talking about 'puppets'.
About anti-gravity. Would you say it's real science being openly discussed? It's not exactly mainstream is it? Any pro physicist would be very brave to enter into research in that field. There are plenty of amateaurs who have nothing to lose who can explore the possibility to their hearts content. Afterall, aviation came about through so called crackpots inventors when mainstream science said "flying machines, pah!"
So good luck to them, but I remain sceptical. You're right, I'm no expert. I'm only halfway through a Masters in physics, but any significant progress in anti-grav and I'm pretty sure I would have heard something in the department. If there have been developments I don't know about then share, please. But all the websites you listed before didn't seem to exist anymore.

Fine, so you don't know about anti-gravity and advanced mind-control, but that does not mean you insult me, simply because I mention them. The links I posted do seem to be dead, so here are some links:

I would first like to take you through infra and ultra sonic subliminal messages. You said it is possible to corrupt someones mind by subliminal messages. Then, it is possible to hide a subliminal message in a normal sound wave that is infra-sonic and cannot be detected by the conscious mind, but can be detected by the unconscious mind. As well as messages that can be sent to your head, that you hear in your head:

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24441

It is possible to read other peoples mind, by detecting signals when they think. Your mind is like a computer, signals are recieved and transmitted, and they can also be intercepted externally.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994795

Using drugs or neural chips, it is now possible to control devices simply by neural signals, or thoughts. These signals can be used to transmit instructions, and even recieve in structions, that elicit certain responses.

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=8475&repository=0001_article
http://www.bioworld.com/servlet/com.accumedia.web.Dispatcher?next=bioWorldHeadline s_article&forceid=32580

Now, once you can digest it is possible to gain control of the mind with drugs, and neural chips, now you can also consider mind control signals by microwaves, that can cause hallucinations or implant thoughts, or even cause death. This is nothing new, dolphins have been using sonar as a defence, and communcation system for a long time.

http://educate-yourself.org/mc/listofmcsymptoms05jun03.shtml

The truth is mind control technology is being researched for decades, and yes, it is possible to gain complete control remotely of a subject with such technologies.

http://www.webcom.com/~pinknoiz/coldwar/microwave.html

Now, moving onto Anti-gravity:

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml
http://www.wired.com/wired/6.03/antigravity_pr.html
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992611

In other words, your derogative comments against me, were completely unjustified and wrong.

I didn't really know where to put this, sorry.

Is there a limit to the advance of technology?
If so, what are the limiting factors?
What would be the consequences of such a limit being reached?
Is there anything that is not achievable by technological means (please try to avoid any religious connotations to this question! ) No there is no limit. In other words nothing is impossible. We will have learned how to use our brains to manipulate matter by thought. For example a person who has a mastery of the field of medicine and doctoring will be able to cure and heal with his mind. The consequences will be the attainment of omnipotence until we have evolved past our physical existence. I think!

No there is no limit to the advancement of techology. In other words nothing is impossible. We will one day be able to learn how to use our brains to manipulate matter for example. A person who has mastered the field or medicince and doctoring will be able to cure and heal with his mind. The consequences will be omnipotence and we will evenyually evolve past our physical existence.

Unfortunately there are real physical limitations even on the most advanced science.

Frank Tipler had a notion a decade or so ago that the collapse of the Universe into the Big Crunch would allow a practically infinite amount of energy to become available in the far future, allowing humanity's descendants to become literally gods.

However the Big crunch scenario looks increasingly unlikely; and thermodynamics and entropy dictate that far from becoming gods, our descendants will become more and more constrained by the expansion of the universe.

Is there a limit to the advance of technology?Everything has limits. And omnipotence is paradoxical, so obviously technology can't make us omnipotent.
If so, what are the limiting factors?The laws of nature (as they exist, not as we understand them, since they're usually not the same thing). Things like time and energy requirements will always be limitations.
What would be the consequences of such a limit being reached?They're reached all the time in today's technology. Not enough time or energy. The speed of computers using current technology is limited by things that can't be overcome without an advance in technology. If we had reached the limit of technological advances, we'd be unable to make faster computers.
Is there anything that is not achievable by technological meansOther than omnipotence? Technology is the application of science. We take what we learn from science exploit it to make machines and other techological things. I imagine there is very little that we couldn't achieve through technological means given enough knowledge. Technology brings power, and power brings responsibility and various problems. Certain types of problems will never go away matter how advanced or powerful we get.

We are also limited to the materials to build technology that surround us (we can't invent a new element to suit our needs).Actually, we can and have.
I think that anything that does not break the laws of physics (but laws of physics are mostly made up of theories, so even theories can be disproved) can be achieved.That's why a distinction between the laws of physics as we know them, and as they actually exist is useful. I tend to call the laws of physics as they actually exist the laws of nature.
We are limited by money, resources and desire to push technology.We may be limited by money, but money is not an absolute necessity, so is not a true limit. It's an artificial one.

I expect there are very real limits to science and technology; the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, Bremermann's limit on computation, causality;The speed of light isn't necessarily a limit. There are ways to go faster than light within general relativity, and it is possible (even likely) that it is a flawed theory, and a more correct theory will allow for even more possibilities. The laws of thermodynamics... I don't really want to go into right now, but I have my doubts about them. Bremermann's limit is pure scifi, though theoretically there may be such a limit. Though technological advances in the works today are already heading in a direction likely to break that limit.
Causality is one I don't think we can really avoid though.
it is likely that if it were possible to break any of these fundemental laws anywhere in the universe some alien civilisation would be doing so within range of our telescopes.It's even more likely that if an alien civilization were breaking any of these laws, that they wouldn't be fundamental.
Are there limits? I think it's like asking if there is a limit to the universe. We see not limits to the universe, and for science and technology or the inner the universe, there are no limits in sight either.Really? Name one thing without any limits.
The limitations that exist, are not imposed by the universe, but by our understanding of the universe.Not so. They are imposed by both the limits inherent in the universe and our understanding of it. We can go beyond our understanding of it, but cannot change the limits inherent in the universe itself.
We are barely into the space age, and there is a whole universe to uncover, yet we seem to think we know the universe. This is called ignorance,We don't think we know the universe... There's good reason to think we understand some of how it works, at least in our little corner. And if someone did think they knew the universe, that wouldn't be ignorance, that would be arrogance.
True knowledge is in knowing, that you know nothing.I think you mean, the more you know, the more you realise there is to know. I wouldn't call that 'true knowledge'. Not sure I'd call anything 'true knowledge'.
You must remember, just like we are the effect of a casue of aggregation of cell and neurons; those boundaries are the effect of a cause of an aggregation of quantum constituents. If we can locate the cause; we can alter the effects.Assuming it doesn't violate causality. Or any other law for that matter.
You must remember, just like we are the effect of a casue of aggregation of cell and neurons; those boundaries are the effect of a cause of an aggregation of quantum constituents. If we can locate the cause; we can alter the effects.You're using uncommon terms you have not defined. This is a good way for people to not fully understand your comments.
Hence, these laws of relativity, of thermodynamics and so on and so forth, are also the effects of other causes. Therefore, even they can be altered by locating the cause.Laws are not effects. They are causes, and it's kind of inherent in the definition of a law of nature that it can't be altered.
We know quantum entanglement, which I've always called the universal field, is near infinitely faster than c.Uh, quantum entanglement is not a field at all, so why would you call it a 'universal field'? And to say something is 'near infinity' is nonsensical. BTW, the effects of quantum entanglement are instantaneous.
On the contrary, nothing can exceed the speed of light.I guess you've never heard of Miguel Alcubierre.
These were only progressive wavetrains coded onto a light beam which itself was travelling at light speed; it remains the case that no information can travel faster than light.It can with quantum entanglement.
but once again, no useful information can be transferred using entanglement, except using classical channels which are light speed or slower. So not quite as useful as you might think.Actually, it can, and has. They have successfully teleported the properties of an atom to another atom, which is effectively teleportation.

Will humans be able to understand it all?, hell no, we would need computers, brain augmentation and AI. In fact computers are now needed to comprehend many aspects of science that are beyond human grasp.Well, there are ways around even that. No one person has to understand all of it. No one person has all the current knowledge and/or understanding that we possess today.

The truth is, quantum entanglement has only been detected to exist. We do not know how to use quantum entanglement for any useful applications as of yet, however, that certainly does not suggest, we never will.Au contraire. See above.

Since the universe is finite in the amount of data it holds and processes and laws if follows

That was a very bold assumption. As of yet, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the universe is finite or finite in the amount of data it holds and processes.Oh yes there is. But I ask you, is there any evidence to suggest the universe is infinite? I doubt it, yet you seem rather sure of it. Perhaps you can explain why.

For one I do not think that we will ever develope a cure for every disease, nor will we be able to live forever.Really? I would think eliminating the effects of disease would be trivial to a sufficiently advanced society. Living forever, now that's another matter.
The human body was designed to slow down and stop over time, to counter this occurance, we would have to completely alter the science in which we were created: egg, from which we get all of the traits that our parents had from their cromosomes, and therefore we would inherit all of their physical and mental flaws.You're assuming that we'll always exist in these bodies. There is no reason to make such an assumption. Evolution is one reason we won't be this way forever. Technology is another.
No body is perfect, and therefore will never be able to physically sustain itself for an unlimited period of time, to do this we would practially have to become machines. Even machines will not last forever, therefore this would theoretically be impossible to achieve.You assume perfection is required to sustain oneself for an indefinite period of time, though this is not so. You say even machines don't last forever, but they can indeed. You simply replace bad parts. People used to think you couldn't make a perfect copy of an audio recording. The technology has since improved, and now you can make a copy of a copy of a copy... with no degradation.
I think the limiting factors would be health, and also certain means of travel, for example, faster than light travel. If this limit was reached, I think civilization would be at a stand-still, and after several thousand years, would begin to fall. At this point of a technological halt, we would be so full of pride and arrogance in our complete mastery of technological advancement, we would eventually fall.Speed is not the only limit, and light speed is not the highest speed limit. Yet there's no reason to think society would reach a 'stand still'. Even if we reached the limit of science and technology, there's no reason to think that society would degrade and fall apart because of it. Scientific curiosity is by no means the only thing that holds a society together. Also, it's not arrogance if you're right. And, I'd think there'd be more disappointment than pride.
Pride is the downfall of every great society. It happened to the Romans, some say that it will eventually happen to the United States. With no more goals to strive for in the technological race, what would we achieve now as the human race?There are many other goals for a society to reach for. Technology would no longer be an end it itself, but would be a means to an end only. Science and technology are not the only cornerstones of a civilization/society.

It could not account for much of the advanced physics concepts emerging today: biofield energy, quantum computers, anti-gravity, zero point energy, mind control, telepathy, quantum teleportation, simply because it is not aware of them.Mind control & telepathy? I haven't seen these emerge in physics. If you have any references that suggest these are more than psuedo-science, please share.
In other words, there are no limits in sight, much like there is no end to the universe in sight. Actually, we have seen the edge of the visible universe. The width of the visible universe has been measured.
In addition, you near completely reject, anti-gravity, zpe, and mind control technologies and parapsychological phenomena. When they are not only theoretically possible, some are even manifesting: Please read the following articles:Your articles contain very little about actual mind control. Some are about controlling things with your mind, most are 404s, and others are about methods of control without controlling one's mind. Yet others are psuedoscience.
The 404s are due to long URLs (notice the ... that shorten's them). Use BBCode to make text links to avoid that.
Consciousness is discovered to be pervading the entire universe, possibly suggesting a god, that interconnects with the universe via quantum entanglement, and affects the universe by quantum directives, causing events to happen.Wow, you seem to have leapt to quite a few conclusions there without showing your work. ;) Consciousness pervading the universe? More psuedoscience.
We may discover multiple dimensions and spiritual dimensions,vibrating at a higher frequency of existence, co-existing with us; string theory.String theory says nothing about vibrating dimensions, and other dimensions being a 'higher frequency of existence' is your own interjection (or that of whoever you're listening to). It does indicate there are other dimensions, but there's nothing in it to indicate the things you're saying.
We may be able to "hack" into this universal quantum network, and enable certain effects in the universe.Hardly. That's what technology is. Exploiting science. In essence, technology is hacking the universe. There's no way we could "hack" the universe and change the laws by which it operates, or they wouldn't be laws.
We may discover means of dematerialising into an energy matrix.He's not really asking about we can be done, but what can't be done. The limits of technology. I doubt becoming an energy matrix would be at the limit.
If a person get's pissed at someone hacking into their system, how do you think god would feel? Maybe we should just infect it with virii instead. Or a DoS attack.He must be pretty annoyed at everyone with computers then, eh? And it's "viruses", not "virii".

I would first like to take you through infra and ultra sonic subliminal messages. You said it is possible to corrupt someones mind by subliminal messages. Then, it is possible to hide a subliminal message in a normal sound wave that is infra-sonic and cannot be detected by the conscious mind, but can be detected by the unconscious mind. As well as messages that can be sent to your head, that you hear in your head:If it's possible to get a message to your subconscious, then you can become consciously aware of it.
Those messages you hear in your head, they aren't what you think. It's manipulation of sound. With stereo speakers or headphones on either side of my head I can listen to music that does that. They've become adept enough at manipulating sound though, that they can make it appear as though a sound is coming from just about anywhere. Including between your ears, or right beside you. It's not like they're beaming subliminal messages into your brain though.
It is possible to read other peoples mind, by detecting signals when they think. Your mind is like a computer, signals are recieved and transmitted, and they can also be intercepted externally.The electrical signals emitted by your brain barely make it a millimeter beyond your skull, so any device for mind reading would have to be attached to your head. You should check up on your facts before you jump to conclusions.
Using drugs or neural chips, it is now possible to control devices simply by neural signals, or thoughts. These signals can be used to transmit instructions, and even recieve in structions, that elicit certain responses.
Yes, it's rather interesting watching monkeys and people play video games with their minds. :) This is entirely different from what the term "mind control" suggests though.
The truth is mind control technology is being researched for decades, and yes, it is possible to gain complete control remotely of a subject with such technologies.Really? How is it possible? Some of the stuff you link to is psuedoscience. You're drawing unfounded conclusions based on misperceptions of science. You can't completely control someone's mind, especially not remotely.

No there is no limit. In other words nothing is impossible.Wrong. The very sentence "nothing is impossible" is an absolute, which makes it paradoxical. It's saying it is impossible for there to be anything that is impossible. Do you even think about what you're saying? If you still doubt, ask yourself what happens when you push on an immovable object with an irresistable force.

I didn't really know where to put this, sorry.

Is there a limit to the advance of technology?
If so, what are the limiting factors?
What would be the consequences of such a limit being reached?
Is there anything that is not achievable by technological means (please try to avoid any religious connotations to this question! )

People are #1 limitation. Since, science become an $ making profession the number of scientific mediocrities, crooks, hype machines grew exponentially. Today, to succeed in the academic science one must be 1) salesman, 2) salesman, 3) salesman. 9 out of 10 scientific projects in academia are deliberate exercises in futility (my estimate). It is hard to see behind fast changing technology buzz and outright hype, but recent advances in fundamental sciences were quite modest if any. Technology is chewing on 40 years old and older stuff. Without stellar advances in fundamental sciences technology will inevitably stall sooner or later.

Aren't there ways to go around the physical limitations....?
Like, for example, I read somewhere that there are physical limitations for the speed of computers. But those limitations can be broken by using.... magnetism, I believe. Anyone heard of that? they used a particle accelerator to measure the "limit"...


People are #1 limitation. Since, science become an $ making profession the number of scientific mediocrities, crooks, hype machines grew exponentially. Today, to succeed in the academic science one must be 1) salesman, 2) salesman, 3) salesman. 9 out of 10 scientific projects in academia are deliberate exercises in futility (my estimate). It is hard to see behind fast changing technology buzz and outright hype, but recent advances in fundamental sciences were quite modest if any. Technology is chewing on 40 years old and older stuff. Without stellar advances in fundamental sciences technology will inevitably stall sooner or later.
I wouldn't say it is that bad. Some people are in science just for their passion.
I'm surprised people are not paid well to develop new technologies. There's almost nothing more important for us then that....(i.e. 1) health, 2) education, 3) technology).... :/

Aren't there ways to go around the physical limitations....?
Like, for example, I read somewhere that there are physical limitations for the speed of computers. But those limitations can be broken by using.... magnetism, I believe. Anyone heard of that? they used a particle accelerator to measure the "limit"...
I vaguely remember something like that. But that only applies to one particular method of getting a computer to work. Like replacing steam powered cars, with all their limitations on fuel, speed, etc, with petrol driven ones. There are still limits inherent in it, but they are further way.

I wouldn't say it is that bad. Some people are in science just for their passion.
I'm surprised people are not paid well to develop new technologies. There's almost nothing more important for us then that....(i.e. 1) health, 2) education, 3) technology).... :/

In most of the cases, passion without good salemanship will lead passionate scientist nowhere. In the best case, his ideas will be stolen. In the worst case, he'll not be funded to develop those ideas. On the other hand, the ability to hype things (anything) up and sell/get funded is extremely rewarding. It's rough out there. I worked in a big name national lab for quite a while. The question which bothered me was not "why the average staff scientist is paid 80-100k/yr?" The question which bothered me was: "Why are they paid at all?". The air of futility and scam/hype permiated every hole of that place. Employee moral was the lowest of the low. I know, you'll not believe me, but that is my experience. Those passionate scientists with good ideas (passion without substance happens too) must have been concentrated elsewhere at the time.

I'm an optomised, and with that I think there is no limit, to what man can achieve.
we've always had barriers to overcome, would man ever flew if it was'nt for the like's, of de vince and the wright bros.

I vaguely remember something like that. But that only applies to one particular method of getting a computer to work. Like replacing steam powered cars, with all their limitations on fuel, speed, etc, with petrol driven ones. There are still limits inherent in it, but they are further way.
I think that lmiti was a real physical barrier. Such as the speed of light. And they said that we could go beyond that limit by cheating with the laws of physics. I think one of the problems were the amount of heat produced. It is pretty hard to go pass those invisible barriers, but it seems to be possible....

Oh! A good example.... The escape velocity of earth is 11 m/s, right? Well, we definetely can't reach that speed yet. But how did we go to the moon? We accelerated until a certain altitude, and then accelerated once again since at that altitude the escape velocity was much lower. That's what I mean by: we can go beyond physical limitations... ;)

In most of the cases, passion without good salemanship will lead passionate scientist nowhere. In the best case, his ideas will be stolen. In the worst case, he'll not be funded to develop those ideas. On the other hand, the ability to hype things (anything) up and sell/get funded is extremely rewarding. It's rough out there. I worked in a big name national lab for quite a while. The question which bothered me was not "why the average staff scientist is paid 80-100k/yr?" The question which bothered me was: "Why are they paid at all?". The air of futility and scam/hype permiated every hole of that place. Employee moral was the lowest of the low. I know, you'll not believe me, but that is my experience. Those passionate scientists with good ideas (passion without substance happens too) must have been concentrated elsewhere at the time.
80,ooo per year? That's pretty good for a scientist.... :/
Too bad passion is not enough....

I guess I chose well when I decided to go into business...

80,ooo per year? That's pretty good for a scientist.... :/
Too bad passion is not enough....

I guess I chose well when I decided to go into business...

You shall not forget that for every staff scientist in the national lab with 80k salary, there are 50 or more (my guess) of paid like dirt, easily dispensable postdocs, adjuncts, lecturers, permanently visiting something slaves of science, tenure fell through victims, no funding this year victims, etc. Yes, you've made an excellent choice. Leave science for desperate foreigners with limited life choices.

Plato looked up and down and said, "The world is the center of the universe."

Perhaps we will find and chisel through similar walls...

"On the contrary, nothing can exceed the speed of light. ”

I guess you've never heard of Miguel Alcubierre.

-------------------------
I certainly have; his warp drive requires ten times the available energy in the entire universe to work. Perhaps I should elaborate and say nothing can travel faster than light even using Alcubierre drive.
------------------------


“ These were only progressive wavetrains coded onto a light beam which itself was travelling at light speed; it remains the case that no information can travel faster than light. ”

It can with quantum entanglement.
----------
Wrong.
---------------

“ but once again, no useful information can be transferred using entanglement, except using classical channels which are light speed or slower. So not quite as useful as you might think. ”

Actually, it can, and has. They have successfully teleported the properties of an atom to another atom, which is effectively teleportation.
------------------------
No useful information can be transmitted by quantum entanglement or quantum teleportation faster than light. In order for usable information to be transferred from one point in the universe to another by quantum entanglement information must also be sent via classical channels;

see here
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node73.html
and a good discussion of this topic here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_entanglement

I certainly have; his warp drive requires ten times the available energy in the entire universe to work. Perhaps I should elaborate and say nothing can travel faster than light even using Alcubierre drive.Actually, it doesn't. What it requires is negative energy (something known to exist due to the Casimir effect). Also, further analysis of Alcubierre's paper by Chris Van Den Broeck has shown that the (negative) energy requirement is far less than that cited in his paper.
"It can with quantum entanglement."

Wrong.That's not a very good response. Tell us why it's wrong.
No useful information can be transmitted by quantum entanglement or quantum teleportation faster than light.Wrong. They've teleported both photons and atoms.
In order for usable information to be transferred from one point in the universe to another by quantum entanglement information must also be sent via classical channels;Silly. You really should think it through. All that means is it's impractical for some applications. Teleportation & therefore FTL communication still works regardless of the fact you have to have set up the process beforehand. Imagine teleporter stations scattered all over the place. They've all been set up prior to any teleportation taking place, but once there, they can be very useful. Those links are only saying you can't send FTL communications without prior setup, and you can't set it up faster than light.

scientists do not comprehend what simple "Energy" means. they did not come up with anything but circular definition of energy. There is no understanding of relatively obvious things. Leave "negative" energy to the science fiction for time being.

I'm sorry, but it is not possible to send useful information by quantum teleportation, faster than light, whether you set it up before hand or not.
Do please try to read this carefully;
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/QuantTeleport/QuantTeleport.html
As we shall see, the mechanism that beats the Uncertainty Principle is the same one used to beat it in the Quantum Correlation experiments we examined when we discussed Bell's Theorem. We shall also see that although the collapse of the state for the two measurements in the correlation experiments occurs instantaneously, the teleportation can not occur faster than the speed of light.

And the Alcubierre drive may actually become useful for reactionless drives in the distant future, but Chris Van Den Broek has only shown that ftl warp bubbles of 1 electron Compton wavelength in diameter (about a trillionth of a metre) would require 400 Solar masses of negative energy.

But even if you had a Starship Enterprise one picometre long, and four hundred impossible negative energy suns to throw away, you would then run into the causality barrier;

travelling faster than light disrupts the global hyberbolic nature of Minkowski spacetime, allowing causality paradoxes.

If (that is to say) GR is correct.

As you say Einstein may well have been wrong in some respects; just as Newton was. In fact on the balance of probabilities Einstein is almost certainly wrong in some way or other. But if we introduce non-locality into our cosmology then can we be sure that causality is preserved?

I'm sorry, but it is not possible to send useful information by quantum teleportation, faster than light, whether you set it up before hand or not.So you're saying we couldn't teleport, say, a note? Or a person? Teleportation is a reality, and it occurs instantaneously.

- http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796
- http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/13

You cannot send information, or teleport something faster than it would take the necessary apparatus to get there at light speed, granted, but once there, teleportation occurs instantly.
As we shall see, the mechanism that beats the Uncertainty Principle is the same one used to beat it in the Quantum Correlation experiments we examined when we discussed Bell's Theorem. We shall also see that although the collapse of the state for the two measurements in the correlation experiments occurs instantaneously, the teleportation can not occur faster than the speed of light.That's something of a misleading statement. It implies teleportation isn't instantaneous, which it is. What it means is that which I've been saying: that it needs prior setup, and the setup can't be done faster than light. Because of this, there's no implications for causality (yet).

The statement is not misleading; the collapse of the state for the two measurements in the correlation experiments occurs instantaneously, but no information can be transmitted from this collapse, however you set the experiment up;

but if you also send information about the system via classical channels, teleportation is possible. But this teleportation happens at light speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
"Note that despite appearances, this scheme could not be used for superluminal communication, because a classical information transfer is an integral part of the procedure."

It seems to me that, so long as information isn't tied to energy or mass, that information's speed has no limit. It's the untying that's hard.