We're getting dumber as time goes on. We aren't doing any of that.
Yes thats why i also put past in there.if you are doing interstellar navigation almost by definition you are doing time travelling to the future.
Because you have to be moving at relativistic speed.
Time travel not possible even in theory.
Teleportation not possible even in theory.
Interstellar travel possible in theory.
So that's my pick.
You mean via entanglement?What about quantum teleportation? That's already been achieved
We would encounter murderers from the future there'd be endless terminator 2 plots going on thats why I think its not possibleIf people could time travel wouldn’t we encounter visitors from the future?
We're getting dumber as time goes on. We aren't doing any of that.
What about quantum teleportation? That's already been achieved
We havent done it yet to know but if its an exact copy down to the atoms then it has all the info for your consciousness, no?It's death. Can't teleport consciousness IMO.
Not necessarilyWe havent done it yet to know but if its an exact copy down to the atoms then it has all the info for your consciousness, no?
Nice if you believe that but its not hard scienceNot necessarily
Mind–body dualism - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
even if it is all physical, which hasn’t been established, you’d be making a copy of yourself and destroying the original
That’s the point, it hasn’t been established whether conciousness is reducible to physicsNice if you believe that but its not hard science
christ right here on the neogaf discussion board? Ok, give me a few days to type up my nobel prize winning replyIf you disagree, I’d love for you to try to establish that conciousness isn’t irreducible to physics
David Chalmers is a Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science at NYU as well as co-director of NYU's Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness.christ right here on the neogaf discussion board? Ok, give me a few days to type up my nobel prize winning reply
combining philosophy and hard science in theory, two great tastes that dont taste great together imo. I need paper in my hand facts, show your workDavid Chalmers is a Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science at NYU as well as co-director of NYU's Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness
Nice if you believe that but its not hard science
I think this is one of the hardest to solve philosophical questions.Nice if you believe that but its not hard science
What future? probably there will be a nuclear war and most of us will be wiped out, Fallout teached me and i'm building my bunker
yeah ok, Scotty.Hilarious none of you picked teleporting.
scientists have already managed to teleport particles/energy.
interstellar travel faster than the speed of light is a pipe dream
It's not a leap of faith, it's been proven. You don't even have to assume anything about quantum mechanics to prove it, you can show that any theory which is locally real (this basically means that it is in principle possible to predict the outcomes of measurements) has to satisfy certain measurable constraints. Specifically, there are bounds on the strength of correlations between different measurements. This is known as Bell's Theorem, which was first shown in the 60s and has been tested experimentally over and over again. It is a very powerful test; when we do these experiments we don't have to know anything about quantum mechanics, the results by themselves tell you that nature cannot be locally real, independently of what the correct description of nature is. Conveniently though, QM perfectly describes the outcome of these experiments.The premise in quantum physics of "true" probability is probably wrong. Randomness and probability has always only ever been a substitute for things we fail to model deterministically. The flip of a coin depends on the coin's initial position and rotation and the infinite factors in the mind and body of the coin flipper. These factors are mitigated by increasing the sample size so we are left with a pure model with a 50-50 split given an ideal flip from alternating starting positions.
When an atom can be known to be in 2 possible places, naturally we only find out upon observing which of the 2 places it really was in. This has been modeled as "it exists in both places until the act of observation, at which point reality actual manifests" but there is no compelling reason to believe that reality hadn't already manifested prior to the observation. QM has the prior state as "undefined" but there's no reason to believe that it really is so in reality.
Einstein was right. We are probably just hitting a limit of understanding and found it expedient to use a probabilistic model. But to say that the underlying reality is probabilistic is a leap of faith.
Therefore, I wouldn't expect very much magic from quantum physics.
The most plausible would be interstellar travel, but I don't think humans would ever be able to make it without quantum magic, and imho quantum magic doesn't exist.