Pentagon releases UFO footage

BowdonUK said:
When I was at college we had a class that went on for a slot of 3 hours per week. They had us making a calculator using binary code, 1's and 0's. Apparently computers can't subtract so we had to do different calculations if we wanted a subtraction answer. But I can honestly say after that class I came out of there mentally tired. I've never felt tired like that before. My brain was doing over time and only just keeping up. So I can't begin to imagine the complexity of quantum computing. I'll keep with the abacus! :D
Click to expand...
As I understand it (I don't) quantum computers are still mostly theoretical, and the race to build a "useful" quantum computer is still not won. They're mostly research devices - research, that is, into quantum physics and quantum computers ;)

Some firms are selling time on "quantum computers" already, but there are still respected experts in the field saying, "Beware the hype," and warning that interest in qc may not translate into useful products in the near future. And there are even debates about whether the qc in existence are proper qc, and... remember Theranos? Firms are quite adept at selling things based entirely on hype...
 
Angilion said:
I think the same applies. Quantum computing was an idea, then it became a reality and maybe at some point in the future it will become a practical home device. I don't know why there was a long (by modern standards) gap between the idea and the first working implementation of the idea, but that's probably because I don't understand quantum physics. Come to think of it, was it a long time? A quick look indicates that the idea was first put forward in 1980 and the first working device was in 1998. Maybe the time period from the first general purpose computer (1942 IIRC...nope, 1943) to the idea of a quantum computer is a long period of time by modern standards. My quick look turned up an interesting possible explanation - there was very little overlap between people who were developing computers and people who were quantum physicists.



Martin Cooper. Nikola Tesla didn't invent a mobile phone. He also didn't invent the basis of every piece of tech we use today. The hype about Tesla is extraordinary.

EDIT: Ah, the idea, not the device. Martin Cooper said he got the idea from Star Trek. Not Nikola Tesla. Who wasn't anywhere near as famous then as he is now.
Click to expand...
There are a substantial amount of documentaries on Nikoa Tesla and his creations/theories and the work he started, and would have continued had his funding not been cut thanks to Edison's battle to win over him by any means necessary. It's pretty much unanimous on the fact that the baseline technologies in our devices today are thanks to what tesla thought up that long ago. His Wardenclyffe Tower was actually built, but not long into the project was funding running dry and his legal battles with Edison J.P Morgan etc causing a lot of issues. It got torn down due to all the politics. It was designed to be the first wireless transmission tower.

He has a lot of hype as of the last few years because everyone is suddenly finding out about him on a global scale, whereas he was previously a few pages in a history book in school.

FoxEye said:
As I understand it (I don't) quantum computers are still mostly theoretical, and the race to build a "useful" quantum computer is still not won. They're mostly research devices - research, that is, into quantum physics and quantum computers
;)


Some firms are selling time on "quantum computers" already, but there are still respected experts in the field saying, "Beware the hype," and warning that interest in qc may not translate into useful products in the near future. And there are even debates about whether the qc in existence are proper qc, and... remember Theranos? Firms are quite adept at selling things based entirely on hype...
Click to expand...
QC is not just a theory, it is actively being used today and will only become more widespread and finally reach mainstream use, it's actually advancing faster than expecting, just like how everyone thought that the uncanny valley for AI was many years away still, yet today AI can hold convincing conversations since the learning model datasets it can built (currently GPT4) is expanding so fast thanks to literally everyone on the internet helping that process by chatting with chatbots.

interestingengineering.com

The 5 most significant breakthroughs in quantum computing

Quantum computing is the future. Let's take a look at 5 of the most significant breakthroughs that have happened in quantum computing.
interestingengineering.com interestingengineering.com
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
lso, you're assuming that there is a purpose to the universe. That requires an entity to assign purpose to it, i.e. a god or gods. Or the universe as a god
Click to expand...

Rubbish, loads of stuff flying around the Universe doesn't equal somebody made it :)
That's like saying all the stuff that made us was created by somebody, complete hogwash :)
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Rubbish, loads of stuff flying around the Universe doesn't equal somebody made it :)
That's like saying all the stuff that made us was created by somebody, complete hogwash :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're trolling me or not, due to the smileys. You've ignored what I wrote, quoted a fragment out of context, attached a different meaning to the fragment and then put smileys on that mess, so I guess it's trolling.
 
mrk said:
[..] It's pretty much unanimous on the fact that the baseline technologies in our devices today are thanks to what tesla thought up that long ago. His Wardenclyffe Tower was actually built, but not long into the project was funding running dry and his legal battles with Edison J.P Morgan etc causing a lot of issues. It got torn down due to all the politics. It was designed to be the first wireless transmission tower.[..]
Click to expand...

It got torn down because Tesla mortgaged it and defaulted, so it was repossessed. The owner had it demolished in order to replace it with something less useless. Maybe if he hasn't lived in the Waldorf Astoria instead of buying a house he might not have run out of money. Maybe if more than a couple of his ideas led to inventions that actually worked he wouldn't have run out of money. Maybe if he'd been using radio, which actually works and worked with tech that existed back then, the tower would have worked. But at least Tesla decided to not share the death ray he invented with anyone. Or so he said.

He was brilliant. But he wasn't the font of all knowledge, like he's made out to be recently.
 
mrk said:
There are a substantial amount of documentaries on Nikoa Tesla and his creations/theories and the work he started, and would have continued had his funding not been cut thanks to Edison's battle to win over him by any means necessary. It's pretty much unanimous on the fact that the baseline technologies in our devices today are thanks to what tesla thought up that long ago. His Wardenclyffe Tower was actually built, but not long into the project was funding running dry and his legal battles with Edison J.P Morgan etc causing a lot of issues. It got torn down due to all the politics. It was designed to be the first wireless transmission tower.

He has a lot of hype as of the last few years because everyone is suddenly finding out about him on a global scale, whereas he was previously a few pages in a history book in school.


QC is not just a theory, it is actively being used today and will only become more widespread and finally reach mainstream use, it's actually advancing faster than expecting, just like how everyone thought that the uncanny valley for AI was many years away still, yet today AI can hold convincing conversations since the learning model datasets it can built (currently GPT4) is expanding so fast thanks to literally everyone on the internet helping that process by chatting with chatbots.

interestingengineering.com

The 5 most significant breakthroughs in quantum computing

Quantum computing is the future. Let's take a look at 5 of the most significant breakthroughs that have happened in quantum computing.
interestingengineering.com interestingengineering.com
Click to expand...
Even your own article (in the conclusion) says that qc is _potentially_ revolutionary in sectors x,y,z... but (their words) qc is still very much in the R&D phase.

Call me when those _potential_ revolutions become reality. As said, there are several experts in the field who themselves have said (paraphrasing), "Don't get carried along by the hype, because it may never happen."

A parallel would be the much-vaunted "singularity" in AI, which is always just around the corner - and always described as inevitable - but not a reality in 2023, and unlikely to be any time soon.

Look, I have no doubt whatsoever that some incredibly intelligent people are working on this stuff - but so many potential new technologies never leave the R&D phase. History is littered with amazing ideas that, for whatever reason, failed to make it to market.

QC may well have some very niche applications, but it also may never bring about these amazing revolutions that (some) people promise.

e: Here, have a more pessimistic article from the FT :p

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication
www.ft.com www.ft.com
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
I'm not sure if you're trolling me or not, due to the smileys. You've ignored what I wrote, quoted a fragment out of context, attached a different meaning to the fragment and then put smileys on that mess, so I guess it's trolling.
Click to expand...

You said

Angilion said:
EDIT: Also, you're assuming that there is a purpose to the universe. That requires an entity to assign purpose to it, i.e. a god or gods. Or the universe as a god. It can't be "a complete and utter waste of all those ingredients" unless someone exists who assigns a purpose to those ingredients. Purpose requires sentience.
Click to expand...



You are trolling me.
You have all this matter in the Universe still making Galaxies, Suns, Planets etc which also means that matter can make life wherever possible but you are telling me that if I believe that (which I think most people do) I must believe Gods assigned a purpose to this matter (ingredients).
You're talking rubbish, all this matter just exists (best guess so far from a Big Bang), you don't have to believe anybody created it for it still continues to make stuff.
 
Last edited:
SexyGreyFox said:
You said





You are trolling me.
You have all this matter in the Universe still making Galaxies, Suns, Planets etc which also means that matter can make life wherever possible but you are telling me that if I believe that (which I think most people do) I must believe Gods assigned a purpose to this matter (ingredients).
You're talking rubbish, all this matter just exists (best guess so far from a Big Bang), you don't have to believe anybody created it for it still continues to make stuff.
Click to expand...

I read your post as the simple concept that the ingredients for life exists everywhere, so even simpler life can evolve in the right conditions. How that can be read as you being a believer and claiming God did it takes a real leap of logic.

His/her/their posts have a lot of word soup but no real substance.
 
Last edited:
So it wasn't trolling, which might have been light-hearted. Instead you made up some rubbish, claimed I wrote it and laughed at me for it. Poor form.

SexyGreyFox said:
You have all this matter in the Universe still making Galaxies, Suns, Planets etc which also means that matter can make life wherever possible but you are telling me that if I believe that (which I think most people do) I must believe Gods assigned a purpose to this matter (ingredients).
You're talking rubbish, all this matter just exists (best guess so far from a Big Bang), you don't have to believe anybody created it for it still continues to make stuff.
Click to expand...

Also this:

SexyGreyFox said:
Rubbish, loads of stuff flying around the Universe doesn't equal somebody made it :)
That's like saying all the stuff that made us was created by somebody, complete hogwash :)
Click to expand...

Those sentences are indeed rubbish, but they have nothing to do with me. I didn't tell you that. I didn't write that or anything like it. You wrote it, not me. Just like I didn't say that I believe that Earth is the only place life exists (which was the last strawman you made) but this time you're explicitly attaching the arguments you make up to me. Please stop it.

I'll quote and requote the relevant parts again:

SexyGreyFox said:
[..]It would be a complete and utter waste of all those ingredients if some form of life wasn't on another planet somewhere.[..]
Click to expand...

Angilion said:
[..]It can't be "a complete and utter waste of all those ingredients" unless someone exists who assigns a purpose to those ingredients. Purpose requires sentience.
Click to expand...

If something is just there, with no-one wanting that thing to serve a purpose, it's not being wasted. It's just there. Nobody assigns a purpose to it, so it can't be failing to meet its purpose (i.e be a waste).


As well as that, even if there is a god or gods who created the universe and assigned a purpose to it, that wouldn't mean that life has to be all over the place. With omnipotence, there's no significant difference between creating a solar system and creating a universe. So the hypothetical god or gods could have created the whole universe as a place for humans to grow into, to learn from. Like an activity mat for a baby to crawl around on and examine stuff.
 
Angilion said:
Those sentences are indeed rubbish, but they have nothing to do with me. I didn't tell you that. I didn't write that or anything like it. You wrote it, not me. Just like I didn't say that I believe that Earth is the only place life exists (which was the last strawman you made) but this time you're explicitly attaching the arguments you make up to me. Please stop it.

I'll quote and requote the relevant parts again:
Click to expand...

And once again I'll quote your post that you wrote, why are you denying it?

Angilion said:
Also, you're assuming that there is a purpose to the universe. That requires an entity to assign purpose to it, i.e. a god or gods. Or the universe as a god. It can't be "a complete and utter waste of all those ingredients" unless someone exists who assigns a purpose to those ingredients. Purpose requires sentience.
Click to expand...

I have not assumed THERE IS A PURPOSE TO THE UNIVERSE, you came up with that one.

However I have said it would be a waste of all that matter (ingredients) if life wasn't created anywhere else when all the matter (ingredients) are there, this does not require a belief in God, only a belief that the matter is all there to do it.
 
Last edited:
SexyGreyFox said:
And once again I'll quote your post that you wrote, why are you denying it?
Click to expand...
Because what you're saying is not true. I posted. I quoted my post. I quoted your post. I quoted them both again, explicitly showing one in reply to the other, narrowing it down to as few words as possible so as not to bother people who don't like words. I explained my argument again, still using as few words as possible.

And you still ignored it in favour of making stuff up and pretending it's my argument.

SexyGreyFox said:
However I have said it would be a waste of all that matter (ingredients) if life wasn't created anywhere else when all the matter (ingredients) are there, this does not require a belief in God, only a belief that the matter is all there to do it.
Click to expand...

It also requires a belief that the purpose of the matter is to create life. Without that belief, the idea that matter is wasted if it's not used to create life doesn't apply. Waste is when something is not used for its purpose (or repurposed for some other use, which is just changing its purpose). If there's no purpose, there's no waste. And I'm repeating myself again:

Angilion said:
If something is just there, with no-one wanting that thing to serve a purpose, it's not being wasted. It's just there. Nobody assigns a purpose to it, so it can't be failing to meet its purpose (i.e be a waste).
Click to expand...
 
Angilion said:
It also requires a belief that the purpose of the matter is to create life.
Click to expand...

You are talking rubbish :)
The matter is there, there's a possibility it could do it again, it is not there for a PURPOSE to create life, life and new suns, planets etc is a by-product of the matter.

Why do you think there has to be a purpose to it, why can't it just be a by-product of all that matter that life could happen again?
We know that galaxies, suns, planets & moons etc are continually being formed so why not life?

Angilion said:
And you still ignored it in favour of making stuff up and pretending it's my argument.
Click to expand...

You typed it.

You keep saying I typed it and I said it was you, there it is right at the bottom but you're denying it.
I'm not assuming anything, I just think it's matter flying around the Universe making stuff.

angilion.jpg
 
Am i right in assuming it was just Grusch, Fravor, Graves giving evidence on their encounters to congress? Or were there others, especially the Government, giving new evidence that there are spacecraft and little green fellas in a hangar somewhere?

Will definitely give it a watch if it's the latter but from the summaries i've read so far, it appears to be the former and nothing really new came out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom