Orionsarm.org

[Xon]

Amusingly, the page about moon-brains denotes them being slower than human thought.

Actually that isnt suprising.

A "Thought" is a bunch of nodes which operate in tangent to do something. In a human's case it neurons, in the moon-brains who knows what, something larger.

Despite the ridiciously massive processing power of each node, the communication latency (how long it takes information to move between nodes, and how much at a time) could easily reduce the entire system so a single "thought" would take a long time.

However, I would assume the "thought" would have significantly more complexity to it than your standard human "thought" and much more indept studying of the issues.

[SirNitram]

http://www.orionsarm.com/faqs.html#hard_ai <-- for people who cant accept the Hard AI premise

No problem there. AI is more or less inevitable, if we don't nuke ourselves to dust.

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/ftl-paradoxes.html <-- why FTL violates causality (it's not exotic matter that's the problem!!!!)

Except that wormholes and the breed of warp drive discussed here don't make you actually go FTL; they cheat, and you never leave your own light cone.

http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblu ... 00089.html <--- a longer writeup by the same author.
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... nopossible

Is Nanotechnology possible? Of course it is. It violates no base laws. However, OA, like many other places, gleefully ignores the inherent weaknesses of nanotech. I will go on, at length, in the next reply.

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... iamandnano <-- tell all your guys with problems with nano to have a good read of that one And for them to read the associated links.

Assembler nanos and medical nanos are very different; the so-called Osiris Treatment(I am sure Alan knows what I refer to, as he references the enjoyable GURPS Ultratech books on his site, IIRC) is one of the many possibilities created by nanotech. However, I object to the other presentations of nanotech.

Nanoswarms are the most offensive; how could they be a danger? Detonate one atomic warhead in front of the swarm; the surface area of a nano is such that it can't handle heat as well as a macroscopic construction. It'll fry.

Nanoassemblers are theoretically possible, but this works out much better on paper than in reality. A nanoassembler must go atom-by-atom. Anyone whose got a good grasp of mathematics should realize that going atom by atom as opposed to rapidly working on large chunks will be ridiculously slow. Will a nanoassembler be useful? In medicine, it will likely introduce revolutionary new ways to treat long term conditions. But imagining it's some godtech to punch out cars and such in short term is nothing but fantasy.

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... copossible <-- the case for pico is not yet as strong as for nano, but it does not vilate causality the way that warp drive or hyperspace FTL does

I wish I knew what causes Picotech to be rated compared to FTL travel. Shouldn't it be compared to, say, the complex mass altering technology of Star Wars, as both are mathematically possible, but we can't see how to make them? I digress.

Picotech is presented as matter 'sculpting'. Truth be told, there is no real problem here. To a small degree, we have this now, though it's clumsy and involves ramming atoms into each other. It is the outcomes that ultimately become realistic. I'll just touch on the most ludicrous.

Drive Sails are a nasty culprit, noted as under picotech. When other sci-fi get along nicely with solar sails, a Drive Sail is a reationless drive. I shouldn't have to go on at length at why a reactionless drive is silly; it's something for nothing.

Neutronium constructed for GUT drives and other uses on starships deserves a few moments. We at SDnet have heard every argument about Neutronium possible, thanks to Trekkies who get pissy about the neutronium components of SW armor. Needless to say, large chunks of it(The Neutronium Cores mentioned in the historical files) are inherently dangerous; how does OA, with no artifical/contragravity survive having these onboard?

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... ispossible <-- because some people seem to take everything WAY to literally!!!!!

Oy vey. I suppose I should point out this is mildly insulting; we have a page which goes to great lengths to tell us how realistic it is, then this. I want to make something clear: If OA advertised itself as merely Sci-Fi, I would have no objections at all. It is, fundamentally, a well craft universe with many unique and interesting ideas.

The rub comes from the incessant message that 'We're better, because we don't do this this and this', and then using well-disproven brainbugs(Nanotechnology for construction being the most putrifying to my eyes), and completely unfounded leaps in technology; the GUT drive is a good example.

Hard Sci-Fi.. The real stuff.. is ideally set close to the future. As OA shows us, the further into the future, the more addle-brained some of the assumptions from reality will become. This isn't necessarily bad(The Culture has almost no beleivable tech, but it's wonderful fun), but you shouldn't pass yourself off as 'hard'.

Finally, as a sci-fi author, I'm insulted to think people insist we can't craft epic tales of science fiction from what we've got. I have real trouble with people who tell me what I can and can't do.

also

[note from Kojikun: Nitram, you're gonna love this.]

Oh, no more nanotech. Now it's picotech.

Picotech is mild try Plancktech
http://www.orionsarm.com/tech/plancktech.html

Or nanotech given newer and cooler names and abilities. Assembly from the Plank level.. I don't even want to fathom how many epochs it would take to assemble a car. It suffers the same drawbacks, with the realism problems magnified. Understanding the physics on that level is one thing, but the absurd idea that it will transfer up the ranks so you can make GUT drives?

also, for the person who thought OA femtotech disabling SW/ST shields is
silly (sorry, didnt note the name - was skimming through) How do your shields work? I assume they are an electromagentic of some sort? Or - never mind handwavium - are they just nothing but magicfantasyium? "Now i have a force field - you cant get through, you cant interact with it." Well, assuming they ARE some sort of field effect, they would most likely be electromagnetic, because that, and gravity, are the only forces known that work at a distance. Even if they are (much handwavium here, and any reference in your canon?) some sort of quantum field, femtotech works on the quantum level. Just as nanotech manipulates atmoms with precision, so femtotech manipulates quarks, etc. Anything on the subatomic particle level you have, the archailects can use anyway they want

Assuming, blindly, the effects can pass through. How does an Archailect's manipulation work? Tiny 'bots? Gonna go 'pfft' on the shield. I don't see what other means might be availiable, if you are staying somewhere within the bounds of reality. A Field from a Culture vessel could try pressing against it and sneaking through a fissue, but you ain't the Culture.

Scale doesn't matter. Shields have no real world link; they're a Godtech, shapable field around a starship, which can have small sections raised and lowered. They absorb and re-radiate energy over their surface(Hence the glow). If you can't get through the shield by brute force(And it's alot of brute force; an ISD has a power source literally millions of times more efficient and potent than a GUT Neutronium core), you simply can't interact with the stuff inside.

True, femtotech is handwavium, we fully admit that! But it does not violate temporal causality, the way FTL does (see above links re that) re everyone here who has a problem with OA calling itself Hard Science - we are Hard Science - just like other SF writers like Arthur C Clarke write hard science (and can you tell me how the stargat e in 2001 works? But it is still a hard science book and movie, only it has *speculation*, as all true sci fi does. But we are not Ultra Hard Science. We dont claim to be Ultra Hard Science. We freely admit a lot of what we say is speculation. Just like Clarke, Asimov, and other great writers, we engage in *speculation* However, if any among you lot would like to claim that Star Wars is Hard Science, or is more realistic than OA, I'd be most interested to hear your arguments! I have yet to see anything on your forum which disproves OA's status as Hard (but still speculative) SF And guys, LIGHTEN UP!!!! It's only science fiction for chrissake

Yes, Clarke, Asimov, Niven... These great names went out and crafted beautiful and strange universes for our minds eyes. The difference is, they didn't pompously parade themselves around as some bastion of 'realism'. That is my problem, that remains my problem.

As to a Orion's Arm galaxy vs. the Galactic Empire? The Empire's going to squish the Milky Way like a freight train. The Galaxy Gun.

[kojikun]

Nitram: I emailed Alan the same arguement about nanotech. Basically it came out to take a few days to weeks to assemble a piece of toast even with a trillion nanites placing a trillion atoms per second.

[SirNitram]

Nitram: I emailed Alan the same arguement about nanotech. Basically it came out to take a few days to weeks to assemble a piece of toast even with a trillion nanites placing a trillion atoms per second.

Now, in OA's defense, nanotech assemblers have become a massive brainbug(As opposed to a massive bug of nanotech, like the Replicators massive Bugform). It's seen so commonly that it's hard to evade. To be totally honest.. If that were the only problem, I would not say a word. While it does distance them from Hard Sci-Fi, it's not so much that they deserve a textual reaming.

I suppose I can hope Alan will consider what all's been said here and leave the setting intact and move off the 'hard' claims.

[Sarevok]

Nitram: I emailed Alan the same arguement about nanotech. Basically it came out to take a few days to weeks to assemble a piece of toast even with a trillion nanites placing a trillion atoms per second.

Do not forget the power requirements. Fusing atoms into place takes a lot of power.

[Sarevok]

Please replace power with energy in the above post. I was thinking nanites would be electricaly powered so I mistakenly wrote power instead of energy.

[ClaysGhost]

Possible optimisations for computing galactic dynamics:

A plausible approach, used today, is to treat the mass distribution of the galaxy as giving rise to a gravitational potential function that doesn't change very much (one mass out of 100 billion will have negligible effect on this "smooth" potential"). The masses in the galaxy then can be treated as moving in this potential, so the number of calculations required are sharply reduced. Having access to dynamics data for an entire galaxy would allow the initial potential function to be calculated very accurately by large computers. The task of the astromech droid would then be simplified considerably, to determining which masses would perturb the smooth potential enough to require extra calculation given the journey's start and end points. The whole lot could be stored by some sort of space-subdivision method, like octrees or similar, to promote a compact representation and rapid access to a particular volume of interest.

However, the calculations that remain are still impressive. I think it might involve a blind search for the optimum route, because you have to know in advance what route you're taking to work out which masses to include in the extra calculations. So you need to apply non-linear optimisation methods (or perhaps use the level-of-detail information available thanks to the octree storage). Note that the system still has to store all those star positions, velocities, masses etc, so the memory requirement is not reduced, merely the computations required.

I think that the computations for a single planet are unlikely to require a supercomputer. A PC can calculate the motion of the moon (or any other satellite) around the Earth in reasonable time. Invoking large supercomputing facilities used for weather simulation is not obviously justified in my view. For 10^11 stars, the situation is obviously different. Simulations of dark matter behaviour in the universe (that apply only gravity, typically) can cope with only about 10^6 separate "particles". Of course, such simulations cannot establish a smooth potential and so miss out on a considerable speed-up.

[kojikun]

On a related note, the Blue Gene computers that IBM has developed get an enormous 2TFLOPS in a cube about a metre on a side, while using 700MHz processors. If the FLOPS/Hz ratio is the same, they could get 3E27FLOPS in a single cubic metre. Thats pretty damn neat. Blue Gene/L made with 2300s OA technology would get an enormous 5E29FLOPS or about 500 trillion TFLOPS. Oh If only it would really happen and if only I could get a Blue Gene running yottahertz procs.

[Kuroneko]

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/ftl-paradoxes.html <-- why FTL violates causality (it's not exotic matter that's the problem!!!!)

Alan: it is very odd that you use this argument against warp drives but not wormholes. Why the duplicity? For that matter, why is Minkowski spacetime assumed at all? General relativity explicitly denies this, and both warp bubbles and wormholes exploit this fact. A ship can travel along a timelike curve (i.e., subluminally) and still be traveling FTL with respect to the proper coordinates of a distant observer. There are no ineherent causality violations in this.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

This site author's writing voice somehow reminds me of a cranky old terminally-aspiring writer who spent 40 years plying pulps with crap and being rejected, all the while deluding himself that it was the "silly" editors who weren't up to snuff.

[ClaysGhost]

On a related note, the Blue Gene computers that IBM has developed get an enormous 2TFLOPS in a cube about a metre on a side, while using 700MHz processors. If the FLOPS/Hz ratio is the same, they could get 3E27FLOPS in a single cubic metre. Thats pretty damn neat. Blue Gene/L made with 2300s OA technology would get an enormous 5E29FLOPS or about 500 trillion TFLOPS. Oh If only it would really happen and if only I could get a Blue Gene running yottahertz procs.

Why, what could you possibly run than would necessitate such speed?

It interests me that, irrespective of the hyperdrive calculation requirements, getting the dynamics information in the first place will be a computational challenge. Gaia (http://astro.estec.esa.nl/GAIA) will produce 3D position and velocity information for approximately 10^9 stars, generating 10TB of data in the process. An estimate I've seen of the processing power required to reduce this data is something like 10^19 flops. Although I'm unclear for what timescale this figure was derived, it should be apparent that obtaining velocity and position information for 10^11 stars, to say nothing of masses, is a significant computational task in itself.

[kojikun]

Why, what could you possibly run than would necessitate such speed?

Weather forcasting, fluid dynamics simulations, nuclear weapons tests, AI..

[kojikun]

Alan has requested that I post this. I'm not editting it for quotes, too many. Deal with it. LOL

--------------------------------

Hi Kojikun
I had a look at that thread again. I'm very impressed to see that the
tone of discussion has moved above insults. Therefore I've written a
reply
TO BE POSTED ON SDN - Orionarm.org thread
----------------------------------------
Hi everyone. My apologies for the delay in replying. I will just
respond to your queries here
-------------------------
SirNitram
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/ftl-paradoxes.html <-- why FTL violates
causality (it's not exotic matter that's the problem!!!!)
Except that wormholes and the breed of warp drive discussed here don't
make you actually go FTL; they cheat, and you never leave your own
light
cone.
---------------------
Alan:
it is not "cheating", simply bending space-time, as allowed in general
relaticvity. Objects passing through the WH still dont go FTL relative
to an external observer
---------------------
SirNitram
Quote:
http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblu ... 00089.html <--- a
longer writeup by the same author.
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... nopossible
Is Nanotechnology possible? Of course it is. It violates no base laws.
However, OA, like many other places, gleefully ignores the inherent
weaknesses of nanotech.
---------------------
Alan:
No-one knows exactly how effective nano will be. I do think it will be
more effectinve then you and Mike and others on this forum believe.
But
as to how much more effective, i personal;ly don't know. In OA we
assume very effective, but it is still an assumption (albeit one based
up by arguments on the Foresight Institute)
---------------------
SirNitram
I will go on, at length, in the next reply.
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... iamandnano
<--
tell all your guys with problems with nano to have a good read of that
one And for them to read the associated links.
Assembler nanos and medical nanos are very different; the so-called
Osiris Treatment(I am sure Alan knows what I refer to, as he references
the enjoyable GURPS Ultratech books on his site, IIRC)
---------------------
Alan:
GURPS Biotech is cool too
---------------------
SirNitram
is one of the many possibilities created by nanotech. However, I object
to the other presentations of nanotech.
Nanoswarms are the most offensive; how could they be a danger? Detonate
one atomic warhead in front of the swarm; the surface area of a nano is
such that it can't handle heat as well as a macroscopic construction.
It'll fry.
---------------------
Alan:
sure. Assuming the swarm is still localised. But the Replicators
could
be widely dispersed. A nuke is local. Sure you could have millions of
nukes, but you still wont get them all.
And what if the replicators are infecting a populated area. You'll
get
rid of the swarm, but also kill everyone there anyway (hence concept
of
defensive or "Blue Goo").
---------------------
SirNitram
Nanoassemblers are theoretically possible, but this works out much
better on paper than in reality. A nanoassembler must go atom-by-atom.
Anyone whose got a good grasp of mathematics should realize that going
atom by atom as opposed to rapidly working on large chunks will be
ridiculously slow.
---------------------
Alan:
If you only have ONE assembler with only ONE manipulator arm, sure.
But
what if you have trillions? Or quadrillions? Or more?
Let us say we have a large and complex assembler (a compound nanite,
essentially, not microscopic) used for construction. It might have
10^6
positional devices per assembler head, 10^6 heads per subhead, 10^6
subheads per system, and run at an optimal speed of 10^6 operations per
second, assembling 10^24 building blocks per second.
So while indivitual nanites or manipulator arms may be tiny,
collectively their huge numbers compensate, with each manipulator arm
having an optimal speed of 10^6 (i admit it would be slower in
non-optimal conditions)
---------------------
SirNitram
Will a nanoassembler be useful? In medicine, it will likely introduce
revolutionary new ways to treat long term conditions. But imagining
it's
some godtech to punch out cars and such in short term is nothing but
fantasy.
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... copossible
<-- the case for pico is not yet as strong as for nano, but it does not
vilate causality the way that warp drive or hyperspace FTL does
SirNitram
I wish I knew what causes Picotech to be rated compared to FTL travel.
Shouldn't it be compared to, say, the complex mass altering technology
of Star Wars, as both are mathematically possible, but we can't see how
to make them? I digress.
---------------------
Alan:
Good point. I read an essay some years back where some guy explained a
Trek replicator in terms of electron beams or something (don't quote
me,
i forget the details)
---------------------
SirNitram
Picotech is presented as matter 'sculpting'. Truth be told, there is no
real problem here. To a small degree, we have this now, though it's
clumsy and involves ramming atoms into each other. It is the outcomes
that ultimately become realistic. I'll just touch on the most
ludicrous.
Drive Sails are a nasty culprit, noted as under picotech. When other
sci-fi get along nicely with solar sails, a Drive Sail is a reationless
drive. I shouldn't have to go on at length at why a reactionless drive
is silly; it's something for nothing.
---------------------
Alan:
See
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-107289.htm
I agree this is very speculative technology. If OA was to be Ultra
Hard
it wouldnt have any reactionless drive
---------------------
SirNitram
Neutronium constructed for GUT drives and other uses on starships
deserves a few moments. We at SDnet have heard every argument about
Neutronium possible, thanks to Trekkies who get pissy about the
neutronium components of SW armor. Needless to say, large chunks of
it(The Neutronium Cores mentioned in the historical files) are
inherently dangerous; how does OA, with no artifical/contragravity
survive having these onboard?
---------------------
Alan:
I agree it is handwavium
---------------------
SirNitram
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... ispossible
<-- because some people seem to take everything WAY to literally!!!!!
Oy vey. I suppose I should point out this is mildly insulting; we have
a
page which goes to great lengths to tell us how realistic it is, then
this. I want to make something clear: If OA advertised itself as merely
Sci-Fi, I would have no objections at all. It is, fundamentally, a well
craft universe with many unique and interesting ideas.
The rub comes from the incessant message that 'We're better, '
---------------------
Alan:
We do not say "we are BETTER" Please show me which page on the site
says "we are better" and I will correct it right away!
---------------------
SirNitram
because we don't do this this and this', and then using well-disproven
brainbugs(Nanotechnology for construction being the most putrifying to
my eyes),
---------------------
Alan:
SirNitram, here is the reply to critics of nanotechnology in OA
(copied from
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... iamandnano )
-----
Q. What about articles in Scientific American refuting the possibility
of assembler-type nanotechnology?
A. As for whether or not full drexlerian nano, including working
assemblers, is possible, so far there have been no serious
refutations of the work of Dr Drexler and his co-workers. An attempt
to
debunk nanotech in Scientific American was
answered with a powerful reply, which caused the editors of Scientific
American to ultimately back down. Here are the links to the reponses
to
both of the Sci Am articles from Sept. 2001:
http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/whitesides.html
http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html
Here is the entire history of responses and back and forth between
Foresight and Scientific American back in 1996:
http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/Sc ... w.html#TOC
This also includes some interesting references to some apparent
inconsistencies in Scientific American's positions versus its
advertising and blurbs in other articles.
On the Foresight Institute website, http://www.foresight.org/ one will
be able to find a plethora of articles and info on nanotech including
the online versions of both Engines of Creation and Unbounding the
Future (arguments w/o math) and Nanomedicine Vol 1 (arguments and info
w/ math). It also provides the option of purchasing Nanosystems online
if you want the relevant arguments with all the math.)
-----
You and Mike are welcome to refute their arguments if you can.
---------------------
SirNitram
and completely unfounded leaps in technology; the GUT drive is a good
example.
Hard Sci-Fi.. The real stuff.. is ideally set close to the future.
---------------------
Alan:
This is a problem of different words used to mean exactly the same
thing. I define what you call Hard Sci-Fi as Ultra Hard Science
Fiction. I agree, OA is not Ultra Hard, and is not intelnded to be.
Some examples of UltraHard SF by my term, or Hard Sci Fi by your term,
might be "Permutation City" by Egan, "Fountains of Paradise" and "The
Ghost from the Grand Banks" by Clarke, the Red, Green and Blue Mars
Trilogy of Kim Stanley Robinson, "Islands in the Net" by Sterling,
GURPS
Transhuman Space roleplaying game, and the Ad Astra Universe of Richard
Baker and David Dye.
I reiterate, OA does not claim to Hard Science of this category!!!!!!!
---------------------
SirNitram
As OA shows us, the further into the future, the more addle-brained
some
of the assumptions from reality will become. This isn't necessarily
bad(The Culture has almost no beleivable tech, but it's wonderful fun),
but you shouldn't pass yourself off as 'hard'.
---------------------
Alan:
Yes, this is a problem with definition, and we are using the same term
to describe two different things. John W Campbell used the term
differently again. And I once saw a page where Star Trek was described
as "hard!"
By hard SF I mean a universe where the following DOES NOT occur
o Small Space ships wheel and bank in a vacuum
o Large Space ships fly in 2-dimensions like naval vessels
o a civilization with godtech spaceships but still no
cloning/gengineering (SW Ep.2)
o a civilization with godtech spaceships but still everyone only lives
3
score years and ten
o a civilization with godtech spaceships but still people are all
baseline humanoids
o Many humanoid alien races (look at how evolution works on Earth)
o Every alien planet the protagonists land on looks like today's Earth
(just look around our solar system - Earth type worlds are likely to be
very rare)
o Barren world with breathable atmosphere (oxygen is a highly reactive
gas - a lifeless world woiuyld have a reducing atmosphere)
o There is an attempt at explaining things (not treknobabble),
regardless of how iffy some today might find that explanation
and maybe (although this is debatable, since for all we know the
universe is acausal)
o Causality violations (FTL)
---------------------
SirNitram
Finally, as a sci-fi author, I'm insulted to think people insist we
can't craft epic tales of science fiction from what we've got. I have
real trouble with people who tell me what I can and can't do.
---------------------
Alan:
SirNitram, neither I nor anyone else on OA are telling you what to do,
nor would we ever wish to!!! There is room for both soft sci fi,
science fantasy (which George Lucas specifically acknowledges SW is),
more realistic hard SF,as well as ultra hard SF (which OA is not), and
everything in between
To reiterate, we're NOT saying OA is *better* than SW. SW is one
univese, OA is another, why all the fuss on SDN? Me, enjoyed all the
SW movies (except for Phantom Menace, which annoyed me, maybe cos of
Jar
Jar Binks and the bumbling
droid army of the Trade Federation) So i'm not dissing SW, and if
there
is anywhere on the site we seem to be, please let me
know, so i can fix it!
Who OA *does* address itself to are those people who want something
more
plausible than baseline human beings in sillytech/godtech (whichever
spaceships
---------------------
SirNitram wrote:
Oh, no more nanotech. Now it's picotech.
Picotech is mild try Plancktech
http://www.orionsarm.com/tech/plancktech.html
SirNitram
Or nanotech given newer and cooler names and abilities. Assembly from
the Plank level.. I don't even want to fathom how many epochs it would
take to assemble a car. It suffers the same drawbacks, with the realism
problems magnified.
---------------------
Alan:
Actually advantages are magnified - the smaller a thing is, the faster
it can run in each cycle, and the more units you can have
---------------------
SirNitram
Understanding the physics on that level is one thing, but the absurd
idea that it will transfer up the ranks so you can make GUT drives?
Quote:
also, for the person who thought OA femtotech disabling SW/ST shields
is
silly (sorry, didnt note the name - was skimming through) How do your
shields work? I assume they are an electromagentic of some sort? Or -
never mind handwavium - are they just nothing but magicfantasyium? "Now
i have a force field - you cant get through, you cant interact with
it."
Well, assuming they ARE some sort of field effect, they would most
likely be electromagnetic, because that, and gravity, are the only
forces known that work at a distance. Even if they are (much handwavium
here, and any reference in your canon?) some sort of quantum field,
femtotech works on the quantum level. Just as nanotech manipulates
atmoms with precision, so femtotech manipulates quarks, etc. Anything
on
the subatomic particle level you have, the archailects can use anyway
they want
SirNitram
Assuming, blindly, the effects can pass through. How does an
Archailect's manipulation work? Tiny 'bots?
---------------------
Alan:
no, it would be femtotech and smaller. Yes, i acknowledge it is
handwavium
---------------------
SirNitram
Gonna go 'pfft' on the shield. I don't see what other means might be
availiable, if you are staying somewhere within the bounds of reality.
A
Field from a Culture vessel could try pressing against it and sneaking
through a fissue, but you ain't the Culture.
Scale doesn't matter. Shields have no real world link; they're a
Godtech, shapable field around a starship, which can have small
sections
raised and lowered. They absorb and re-radiate energy over their
surface(Hence the glow). If you can't get through the shield by brute
force(And it's alot of brute force; an ISD has a power source literally
millions of times more efficient and potent than a GUT Neutronium
core),
you simply can't interact with the stuff inside.
---------------------
Alan:
well if you really have godtech shields then you have a good point.
The
archailects also have godtech, and you have godtech. However, even a
basic transapient can outsmart an ordinary sapient, in the same way a
human is msmarter than an animal. The OA Civilization works through
the
archailects manipulating lower sophonts as easily as a gardener growing
plants. This is what you guys miss - it is not even a tech difference
-
sure - you have godtech. It is a brain difference. Look who is master
of the Earth now. It is us, humans. Why? Aniamls are can run faster,
are stronger, have bigger teeth and claws, etc etc. But man wins.
Why. Because we have a superior intelligence. This is exactly how OA
works. It doesnt matter how much more powerful your Death Stars,
Godtech shields etc are. The fact is that they are all contriolled by
ordinary sapients. A being of human intelligence isnt even a microbe
in
the OA toposphic hierarchy. This is the essential point that the
munchkin "my ship is bigger than yours" arguments miss
---------------------
SirNitram
As to a Orion's Arm galaxy vs. the Galactic Empire? The Empire's going
to squish the Milky Way like a freight train. The Galaxy Gun.
---------------------
Alan:
see my above comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kojikun
Nitram: I emailed Alan the same arguement about nanotech. Basically it
came out to take a few days to weeks to assemble a piece of toast even
with a trillion nanites placing a trillion atoms per second.
---------------------
Alan:
As mentioned above, because there are quadrillions of assemblers or
manipulation arms involved, actual speed would be a lot faster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuroneko
kojikun wrote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/ftl-paradoxes.html <-- why FTL violates
causality (it's not exotic matter that's the problem!!!!)
Alan: it is very odd that you use this argument against warp drives but
not wormholes. Why the duplicity?
---------------------
Alan:
Because wormholes cannot be used to make a time machine. As Matt
Visser
has shown, any attempt to violate causality by using two wormhole
mouths
to make a time machine (Stephen Baxter describes something similar in
his book TIme-Like Infinity - part of the Xeelee Universe) results in
the mouths being swamped by virtual particles and the WH's collapsing
---------------------
Kuroneko
For that matter, why is Minkowski spacetime assumed at all? General
relativity explicitly denies this, and both warp bubbles and wormholes
exploit this fact. A ship can travel along a timelike curve (i.e.,
subluminally) and still be traveling FTL with respect to the proper
coordinates of a distant observer. There are no ineherent causality
violations in this.
---------------------
Alan:
As long as the ship is in its warp buble or hyperspace there is no
prtoblem. But when it emerges to interact with the rest of the
universe, you get time travel paradoxes. The following essays (already
mentioned) indicate why there are causalty paradoxes when an FTL ship
re-emerges in "normal space"
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/ftl-paradoxes.html
http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblu ... 00089.html
Guys, we've thought long and hard in designing OA. We've had our
sceptics and critics, including on occasion myself! Over the years we
have had lots of people asking the sort of questions and raising the
sort of objections you SDN OA critics have. You are welcome to send me
a list of objections to OA that are NOT addressed here, or on
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answering_criticism.html or on
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answering_criticism.html , and I'll
answer all of them for you
btw, there have been a couple of decent objections raised on your forum
these are
o our hard-soft science scale is arbitrary - REPLY - sure it is, any
human formulation is arbitary to some extent. So i WILL
modify that page to address this concern, also add the relevant
disclaimers - this is purely something written for OA, should
not be taken as an absolute
o we are arrogant and full of ourselves, think we are better than
everyone else, etc - REPLY - please cite the pages where we are, i will
modify them, if i feel these concerns are valid
o we claim to be hard science but we arent - REPLY - The term "Hard
Science" is relative. We do not claim to "Hard Science" as defined by
SirNitram (Ultra Hard Science). We are "Hard Science" relative to ST,
SW, B5, Farscape, etc
o someone said us saying the highest AI Gods are "as high as you can
go"
is ridiculous. - REPLY - Actually, this is a very good point. I
*will*
modify the archailect pages when i next revise them, to make it more
open-ended. thank you

[SirNitram]

Alan has requested that I post this. I'm not editting it for quotes, too many. Deal with it. LOL

--------------------------------

Hi Kojikun
I had a look at that thread again. I'm very impressed to see that the
tone of discussion has moved above insults. Therefore I've written a
reply
TO BE POSTED ON SDN - Orionarm.org thread
----------------------------------------
Hi everyone. My apologies for the delay in replying. I will just
respond to your queries here
-------------------------
SirNitram
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/ftl-paradoxes.html <-- why FTL violates
causality (it's not exotic matter that's the problem!!!!)
Except that wormholes and the breed of warp drive discussed here don't
make you actually go FTL; they cheat, and you never leave your own
light
cone.
---------------------
Alan:
it is not "cheating", simply bending space-time, as allowed in general
relaticvity. Objects passing through the WH still dont go FTL relative
to an external observer

I can only assume this is agreement that warp drive is more realistic than wormholes.

---------------------
SirNitram
Quote:
http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblu ... 00089.html <--- a
longer writeup by the same author.
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... nopossible
Is Nanotechnology possible? Of course it is. It violates no base laws.
However, OA, like many other places, gleefully ignores the inherent
weaknesses of nanotech.
---------------------
Alan:
No-one knows exactly how effective nano will be. I do think it will be
more effectinve then you and Mike and others on this forum believe.
But
as to how much more effective, i personal;ly don't know. In OA we
assume very effective, but it is still an assumption (albeit one based
up by arguments on the Foresight Institute)

This, I should note, is where I would go fully insulting, were you a more seasoned veteran of the 'norm' of SDNet. As you are but a softskinned outsider, I will convey my annoyance at this frame of mind in gentler terms.

In response to looking at numbers and science on a subject, the only rebuttal is a 'feeling'. This is nonsense.

---------------------
SirNitram
I will go on, at length, in the next reply.
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... iamandnano
<--
tell all your guys with problems with nano to have a good read of that
one And for them to read the associated links.
Assembler nanos and medical nanos are very different; the so-called
Osiris Treatment(I am sure Alan knows what I refer to, as he references
the enjoyable GURPS Ultratech books on his site, IIRC)
---------------------
Alan:
GURPS Biotech is cool too

Living ships? No thanks. That's the most ridiculously overused peice of garbage in sci-fi, and I have a personal aversion to it.

---------------------
SirNitram
is one of the many possibilities created by nanotech. However, I object
to the other presentations of nanotech.
Nanoswarms are the most offensive; how could they be a danger? Detonate
one atomic warhead in front of the swarm; the surface area of a nano is
such that it can't handle heat as well as a macroscopic construction.
It'll fry.
---------------------
Alan:
sure. Assuming the swarm is still localised. But the Replicators
could
be widely dispersed. A nuke is local. Sure you could have millions of
nukes, but you still wont get them all.
And what if the replicators are infecting a populated area. You'll
get
rid of the swarm, but also kill everyone there anyway (hence concept
of
defensive or "Blue Goo").

The more I find out about these nanoswarms, the more flabagasted I become. They were allowed to become nonlocalized before anyone did anything? The supposedly brilliant AI at the time must have been asleep or something...

---------------------
SirNitram
Nanoassemblers are theoretically possible, but this works out much
better on paper than in reality. A nanoassembler must go atom-by-atom.
Anyone whose got a good grasp of mathematics should realize that going
atom by atom as opposed to rapidly working on large chunks will be
ridiculously slow.
---------------------
Alan:
If you only have ONE assembler with only ONE manipulator arm, sure.

Actually, my estimations were for several trillion at work at a time.

But
what if you have trillions? Or quadrillions? Or more?
Let us say we have a large and complex assembler (a compound nanite,
essentially, not microscopic) used for construction. It might have
10^6
positional devices per assembler head, 10^6 heads per subhead, 10^6
subheads per system, and run at an optimal speed of 10^6 operations per
second, assembling 10^24 building blocks per second.
So while indivitual nanites or manipulator arms may be tiny,
collectively their huge numbers compensate, with each manipulator arm
having an optimal speed of 10^6 (i admit it would be slower in
non-optimal conditions)

Big, impressive numbers. Until one comprehends the number of atoms in a basic object. Furthermore, the time given for each action seems utterly, painfully arbitrary, like everything else that supports nanoassembly.

Allow me to gently give you an idea of the scales involved in building from the atomic scale. Eight grams of oxygen would require 6.022e23 molecles. Say a truck is around 8000Kg, or 8e6 g. The order of magnitude we're talking about is e29 to e30... Assuming(Arbitrary, I reiterate; no one's shown how a 'complex nanoassembler' would acheive these speeds) we can use the e24 atoms a second number, it would take between hours or days to build a single truck. Modern assembly lines do that fast, and, as any engineer will tell you, will be better because they have less moving parts than this unwieldy monster. This is even assuming this nanoassembler is up against a modern assembly line.. Nevermind what advancements we could make in the meantime.

---------------------
SirNitram
Will a nanoassembler be useful? In medicine, it will likely introduce
revolutionary new ways to treat long term conditions. But imagining
it's
some godtech to punch out cars and such in short term is nothing but
fantasy.
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... copossible
<-- the case for pico is not yet as strong as for nano, but it does not
vilate causality the way that warp drive or hyperspace FTL does
SirNitram
I wish I knew what causes Picotech to be rated compared to FTL travel.
Shouldn't it be compared to, say, the complex mass altering technology
of Star Wars, as both are mathematically possible, but we can't see how
to make them? I digress.
---------------------
Alan:
Good point. I read an essay some years back where some guy explained a
Trek replicator in terms of electron beams or something (don't quote
me,
i forget the details)

Such people are happily called retards here. Replicators have trouble with some molecular level manipulation, which the extensive analysis Mike has put up will show.

---------------------
SirNitram
Picotech is presented as matter 'sculpting'. Truth be told, there is no
real problem here. To a small degree, we have this now, though it's
clumsy and involves ramming atoms into each other. It is the outcomes
that ultimately become realistic. I'll just touch on the most
ludicrous.
Drive Sails are a nasty culprit, noted as under picotech. When other
sci-fi get along nicely with solar sails, a Drive Sail is a reationless
drive. I shouldn't have to go on at length at why a reactionless drive
is silly; it's something for nothing.
---------------------
Alan:
See
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-107289.htm
I agree this is very speculative technology. If OA was to be Ultra
Hard
it wouldnt have any reactionless drive

I will address 'ultra hard' further down.

---------------------
SirNitram
Neutronium constructed for GUT drives and other uses on starships
deserves a few moments. We at SDnet have heard every argument about
Neutronium possible, thanks to Trekkies who get pissy about the
neutronium components of SW armor. Needless to say, large chunks of
it(The Neutronium Cores mentioned in the historical files) are
inherently dangerous; how does OA, with no artifical/contragravity
survive having these onboard?
---------------------
Alan:
I agree it is handwavium
---------------------
SirNitram
Quote:
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... ispossible
<-- because some people seem to take everything WAY to literally!!!!!
Oy vey. I suppose I should point out this is mildly insulting; we have
a
page which goes to great lengths to tell us how realistic it is, then
this. I want to make something clear: If OA advertised itself as merely
Sci-Fi, I would have no objections at all. It is, fundamentally, a well
craft universe with many unique and interesting ideas.
The rub comes from the incessant message that 'We're better, '
---------------------
Alan:
We do not say "we are BETTER" Please show me which page on the site
says "we are better" and I will correct it right away!

I do not know if it says it in the webpage, but it has certainly foistered that mentality among people; I know this from contact back when I was more interested in the site. It promotes an elitism, intentionally or not.

---------------------
SirNitram
because we don't do this this and this', and then using well-disproven
brainbugs(Nanotechnology for construction being the most putrifying to
my eyes),
---------------------
Alan:
SirNitram, here is the reply to critics of nanotechnology in OA
(copied from
http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/answerin ... iamandnano )
-----
Q. What about articles in Scientific American refuting the possibility
of assembler-type nanotechnology?
A. As for whether or not full drexlerian nano, including working
assemblers, is possible, so far there have been no serious
refutations of the work of Dr Drexler and his co-workers. An attempt
to
debunk nanotech in Scientific American was
answered with a powerful reply, which caused the editors of Scientific
American to ultimately back down. Here are the links to the reponses
to
both of the Sci Am articles from Sept. 2001:
http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/whitesides.html
http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html
Here is the entire history of responses and back and forth between
Foresight and Scientific American back in 1996:
http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/Sc ... w.html#TOC
This also includes some interesting references to some apparent
inconsistencies in Scientific American's positions versus its
advertising and blurbs in other articles.
On the Foresight Institute website, http://www.foresight.org/ one will
be able to find a plethora of articles and info on nanotech including
the online versions of both Engines of Creation and Unbounding the
Future (arguments w/o math) and Nanomedicine Vol 1 (arguments and info
w/ math). It also provides the option of purchasing Nanosystems online
if you want the relevant arguments with all the math.)
-----
You and Mike are welcome to refute their arguments if you can.

See above for merely scratching the surface of debunking nanoassemblers. Nanotechs poor heat tolerance is a simple fact of math!(The Square-Cube Law)

---------------------
SirNitram
and completely unfounded leaps in technology; the GUT drive is a good
example.
Hard Sci-Fi.. The real stuff.. is ideally set close to the future.
---------------------
Alan:
This is a problem of different words used to mean exactly the same
thing. I define what you call Hard Sci-Fi as Ultra Hard Science
Fiction. I agree, OA is not Ultra Hard, and is not intelnded to be.
Some examples of UltraHard SF by my term, or Hard Sci Fi by your term,
might be "Permutation City" by Egan, "Fountains of Paradise" and "The
Ghost from the Grand Banks" by Clarke, the Red, Green and Blue Mars
Trilogy of Kim Stanley Robinson, "Islands in the Net" by Sterling,
GURPS
Transhuman Space roleplaying game, and the Ad Astra Universe of Richard
Baker and David Dye.
I reiterate, OA does not claim to Hard Science of this category!!!!!!!

UltraHard. In other words, instead of living up to the phrase, we move the goalposts. This 'technique' is universally infuriating in intellectual debate, because it reeks of dishonesty: If you can't prove something, change the definition until you're right. I am hoping this is coming across; my first instinct involved phrases far more crude than this.

---------------------
SirNitram
As OA shows us, the further into the future, the more addle-brained
some
of the assumptions from reality will become. This isn't necessarily
bad(The Culture has almost no beleivable tech, but it's wonderful fun),
but you shouldn't pass yourself off as 'hard'.
---------------------
Alan:
Yes, this is a problem with definition, and we are using the same term
to describe two different things. John W Campbell used the term
differently again. And I once saw a page where Star Trek was described
as "hard!"

That's what we call 'A moron being able to use Frontpage without impaling himself on his mouse'.

By hard SF I mean a universe where the following DOES NOT occur
o Small Space ships wheel and bank in a vacuum
o Large Space ships fly in 2-dimensions like naval vessels
o a civilization with godtech spaceships but still no
cloning/gengineering (SW Ep.2)
o a civilization with godtech spaceships but still everyone only lives
3
score years and ten
o a civilization with godtech spaceships but still people are all
baseline humanoids
o Many humanoid alien races (look at how evolution works on Earth)
o Every alien planet the protagonists land on looks like today's Earth
(just look around our solar system - Earth type worlds are likely to be
very rare)
o Barren world with breathable atmosphere (oxygen is a highly reactive
gas - a lifeless world woiuyld have a reducing atmosphere)
o There is an attempt at explaining things (not treknobabble),
regardless of how iffy some today might find that explanation
and maybe (although this is debatable, since for all we know the
universe is acausal)
o Causality violations (FTL)

I could slog through the whole list(SW has no cloning or genengineering and you bring up Ep2? We saw they have mass cloning, but a massive social stigma attached to it, the sort we are seeing in the modern day), but I will point out this is still moving the goalposts as far as dealing with criticisms of OA's realism. And yes, it still annoys me that this is being used in this debate.

---------------------
SirNitram
Finally, as a sci-fi author, I'm insulted to think people insist we
can't craft epic tales of science fiction from what we've got. I have
real trouble with people who tell me what I can and can't do.
---------------------
Alan:
SirNitram, neither I nor anyone else on OA are telling you what to do,
nor would we ever wish to!!! There is room for both soft sci fi,
science fantasy (which George Lucas specifically acknowledges SW is),
more realistic hard SF,as well as ultra hard SF (which OA is not), and
everything in between
To reiterate, we're NOT saying OA is *better* than SW. SW is one
univese, OA is another, why all the fuss on SDN? Me, enjoyed all the
SW movies (except for Phantom Menace, which annoyed me, maybe cos of
Jar
Jar Binks and the bumbling
droid army of the Trade Federation) So i'm not dissing SW, and if
there
is anywhere on the site we seem to be, please let me
know, so i can fix it!
Who OA *does* address itself to are those people who want something
more
plausible than baseline human beings in sillytech/godtech (whichever
spaceships

I find alot silly in a reactionless drive and a slab of neutronium being present without anything to counteract the gravity it's surface will be making, to be honest.

---------------------
SirNitram wrote:
Oh, no more nanotech. Now it's picotech.
Picotech is mild try Plancktech
http://www.orionsarm.com/tech/plancktech.html
SirNitram
Or nanotech given newer and cooler names and abilities. Assembly from
the Plank level.. I don't even want to fathom how many epochs it would
take to assemble a car. It suffers the same drawbacks, with the realism
problems magnified.
---------------------
Alan:
Actually advantages are magnified - the smaller a thing is, the faster
it can run in each cycle, and the more units you can have

For computing, yes, if you can get by that pesky thing called Uncertainty. For assembly, you are now magnifying the number of peices you must assemble and the distances to be crossed by orders of magnitude, while you could be improving assembly lines.

---------------------
SirNitram
Understanding the physics on that level is one thing, but the absurd
idea that it will transfer up the ranks so you can make GUT drives?
Quote:
also, for the person who thought OA femtotech disabling SW/ST shields
is
silly (sorry, didnt note the name - was skimming through) How do your
shields work? I assume they are an electromagentic of some sort? Or -
never mind handwavium - are they just nothing but magicfantasyium? "Now
i have a force field - you cant get through, you cant interact with
it."
Well, assuming they ARE some sort of field effect, they would most
likely be electromagnetic, because that, and gravity, are the only
forces known that work at a distance. Even if they are (much handwavium
here, and any reference in your canon?) some sort of quantum field,
femtotech works on the quantum level. Just as nanotech manipulates
atmoms with precision, so femtotech manipulates quarks, etc. Anything
on
the subatomic particle level you have, the archailects can use anyway
they want
SirNitram
Assuming, blindly, the effects can pass through. How does an
Archailect's manipulation work? Tiny 'bots?
---------------------
Alan:
no, it would be femtotech and smaller. Yes, i acknowledge it is
handwavium

Femtotech scale bots? What? I'm not asking for a full blown analysis of how it does it, I'm asking what are the basic mechanisms behind the adjustsments? Touch? EM Field? Robots?

---------------------
SirNitram
Gonna go 'pfft' on the shield. I don't see what other means might be
availiable, if you are staying somewhere within the bounds of reality.
A
Field from a Culture vessel could try pressing against it and sneaking
through a fissue, but you ain't the Culture.
Scale doesn't matter. Shields have no real world link; they're a
Godtech, shapable field around a starship, which can have small
sections
raised and lowered. They absorb and re-radiate energy over their
surface(Hence the glow). If you can't get through the shield by brute
force(And it's alot of brute force; an ISD has a power source literally
millions of times more efficient and potent than a GUT Neutronium
core),
you simply can't interact with the stuff inside.
---------------------
Alan:
well if you really have godtech shields then you have a good point.
The
archailects also have godtech, and you have godtech. However, even a
basic transapient can outsmart an ordinary sapient, in the same way a
human is msmarter than an animal. The OA Civilization works through
the
archailects manipulating lower sophonts as easily as a gardener growing
plants. This is what you guys miss - it is not even a tech difference
-
sure - you have godtech. It is a brain difference. Look who is master
of the Earth now. It is us, humans. Why? Aniamls are can run faster,
are stronger, have bigger teeth and claws, etc etc. But man wins.
Why. Because we have a superior intelligence. This is exactly how OA
works. It doesnt matter how much more powerful your Death Stars,
Godtech shields etc are. The fact is that they are all contriolled by
ordinary sapients. A being of human intelligence isnt even a microbe
in
the OA toposphic hierarchy. This is the essential point that the
munchkin "my ship is bigger than yours" arguments miss

The 'transsapients' don't impress me at all; we constantly here how very superior they are in thought, but we are given almost no benchmarks. Alot of it reads like propaganda(The God AI's are so far ahead of us we should never try to match them! Let us serve them instead!), which, given that the in-universe explanations seem stored by the machines, would make sense.

There's no benchmark anywhere except the scale they can manipulate; SW's tech level proves it's fleshy organics understand sub-nano physics extremely well for their mass-alteration technology and hyper-dense power sources.

And what are we expecting these computers to pull out of their asses in the face of a superior foe? What genius tactic can stop an enemy from dropping starships more heavily armed, with superior protection and speed, over every world and simply torching them to the ground? The Empire doesn't win because it's got 'bigger ships', it's main advantage in every versus argument has been it's superior numbers, superior speed, and superior infrastructure, and being competent in their use.

---------------------
SirNitram
As to a Orion's Arm galaxy vs. the Galactic Empire? The Empire's going
to squish the Milky Way like a freight train. The Galaxy Gun.
---------------------
Alan:
see my above comment

See mine. What, precisely, can an Archailect do when a missile simply materializes and causes a chain-reaction that breaks it's brainmoon apart at the sub-molecular level? What can they do in the face of this happening across the galaxy at once? This whole 'Oh, we can outsmart them' thing is an extrapolation to infinity: It means nothing if you have not the firepower to harm your foe, the resources to outproduce him, and the speed to engage him. OA has.. None of these.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kojikun
Nitram: I emailed Alan the same arguement about nanotech. Basically it
came out to take a few days to weeks to assemble a piece of toast even
with a trillion nanites placing a trillion atoms per second.
---------------------
Alan:
As mentioned above, because there are quadrillions of assemblers or
manipulation arms involved, actual speed would be a lot faster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might only take a few hours to assemble a single peice of toast, you mean?

But let's not forget that with every moving part comes the increasing chances of failure. That's one thing nanotechnology advocates always seem to forget without fail: Modern engineering is often about reducing the number of moving parts to reduce wear and tear, NOT about increasing the number of moving parts by multiple orders of magnitude!

[SirNitram]

In an attempt to convey the sheer bulk of the problems with a machine with e20+ moving parts, changing position many times a second, we will plug in some percentages of failure for out hypothetical machine(Remember entropy, everyone?).

1%: 1e21 parts damaged per second.
.1%: 1e20 parts damaged per second.
.01%: 1e19 parts damaged per second.

You can toss whatever number you want in there.. The math is painfully easy.. But the phrase 'Downward spiral' should be flashing on and off in people's heads. When, even if you had truly godlike efficiency and reliability, you are losing millions of parts a second, there is something fucking wrong with the way you are doing things.

[kojikun]

hi Kojikun
thanks for posting that last - here is my reply to SirNitram

------------------------------------------------------------

You've got a sharp mind and argue well SirNitram. However, with some
of
these things we could go on ad infinitum. Since both of us probably
have better things to do, i'll try to keep replies brief.
-------------------------
SirNitram:
I can only assume this is agreement that warp drive is more realistic
than wormholes.
Alan:
Yes, but only if you allow for an acausal universe
SirNitram
The more I find out about these nanoswarms, the more flabagasted I
become. They were allowed to become nonlocalized before anyone did
anything? The supposedly brilliant AI at the time must have been asleep
or something...
Alan:
There were various factions at work, including ahuman AIs. The
nanoswarm history write-up can still be revised some more
SirNitram
Allow me to gently give you an idea of the scales involved in building
from the atomic scale. Eight grams of oxygen would require 6.022e23
molecles. Say a truck is around 8000Kg, or 8e6 g. The order of
magnitude
we're talking about is e29 to e30... Assuming(Arbitrary, I reiterate;
no
one's shown how a 'complex nanoassembler' would acheive these speeds)
we
can use the e24 atoms a second number, it would take between hours or
days to build a single truck. Modern assembly lines do that fast, and,
as any engineer will tell you, will be better because they have less
moving parts than this unwieldy monster. This is even assuming this
nanoassembler is up against a modern assembly line.. Nevermind what
advancements we could make in the meantime.
Yes, good point. For this reason assembly lines will still be around
for macroscale dumbtech. For nano-precision ultratech however, or
precision replicas of very rare objects, or unusual gourmet food, or a
million other uses, nano will be useful
Quote: Alan:
We do not say "we are BETTER" Please show me which page on the site
says
"we are better" and I will correct it right away!
SirNitram
I do not know if it says it in the webpage, but it has certainly
foistered that mentality among people; I know this from contact back
when I was more interested in the site. It promotes an elitism,
intentionally or not.
Alan:
Well, all I can do is apologise, and put more disclaimers on the intro
pages (as I revise them), saying we do not say we are "better"
Even so, people will gravitate to certain universes, and identify with
them to some extent, and defend them against rival universes and
franchises. Don't you folks here believe that SW is "better" than ST

Quote: Alan:
I reiterate, OA does not claim to Hard Science of this category!!!!!!!
SirNitram
UltraHard. In other words, instead of living up to the phrase, we move
the goalposts. This 'technique' is universally infuriating in
intellectual debate, because it reeks of dishonesty: If you can't prove
something, change the definition until you're right. I am hoping this
is
coming across; my first instinct involved phrases far more crude than
this.
Alan:
Sorry you feel that way. I thought what I said was quite clear.
However, I did re-read the OA grading page and I agree it did come
across in the start as implying tthat OA is Ultra-Hard. So I have
modified that page somewhat. Thanks for raising this to my attention
I do still reiterate that OA is HARD SF, and I also gave some reasons
on
the revised page why it is. I'm not moving any goal posts, just
clarifying what I said. You are free to refute the points I give
explaining why OA (and some other SF) is "hard science" (as I define
it)
if you wish
As for your own definition of "Hard Science", well, I certainly don;'t
wish to tell you how to think, but I dont see why I should change the
OA
wording to please you! I agree the guy who said ST was hard science
was
talking crap; even ST fans wont say it is hard science! But you (imho)
take the opposite tack, too narrow a definition. Anyway, if we can't
agree on which words to use let's drop the whole subject
SirNitram
I could slog through the whole list(SW has no cloning or genengineering
and you bring up Ep2?
Alan:
I did because I was shocked when I saw it - jesus, talk about soft sci
fi mushiness!!! I freely admit I am not as familar with SW as you, nor
am I a SDN regular, or have knowledge of everything on Mike's website
or
forum. Also I know nothing about your EU, nor do I wish to read up on
it. I genuinely do enjoy the SW movies as cinematic spectacle, but
that's all. I am not into soft sci fi worldbuilding much. Not saying
that to be superior, just it doesnt appeal to me, personally. Not
saying I am better than anyone else, just that is my own taste in
things
SirNitram
We saw they have mass cloning, but a massive social stigma attached to
it, the sort we are seeing in the modern day),
Alan:
On OA, we call these sort of folks Ludds
SirNitram
but I will point out this is still moving the goalposts as far as
dealing with criticisms of OA's realism. And yes, it still annoys me
that this is being used in this debate.
Alan:
But it is part of your canon - your empire doesnt have gengineering, it
doesnt even have an internet!!!! All this means of course is that
George Lucas prefers old style books to the Net, isn't interested in
Nano (btw, if nano was introduced in ep.3 would you and Mike suddenly
change your tune?) and simply likes telling an old-fashioned, Flash
Gorden type story. It is fantasy, that's all it is. Nothing wrong
with
fantasy, it is good fun, it is a good story (though not anywhere as
good
as B5 though), it is a soft sci fi classic. Just different people have
different tastes.
SirNitram
I find alot silly in a reactionless drive and a slab of neutronium
being
present without anything to counteract the gravity it's surface will be
making, to be honest.
Alan:
sure, a lot of handwavium in OA. But at least we have an internet,
gengineering, and indefinitely long lifespans
SirNitram
Femtotech scale bots? What? I'm not asking for a full blown analysis of
how it does it, I'm asking what are the basic mechanisms behind the
adjustsments? Touch? EM Field? Robots?
Alan:
I would assume quantum scale forces (quantum chromodynamics, EM, etc).
Handwavium, i'm not denying it
Quote: Alan:
A being of human intelligence isnt even a microbe in
the OA toposphic hierarchy. This is the essential point that the
munchkin "my ship is bigger than yours" arguments miss
SirNitram
The 'transsapients' don't impress me at all; we constantly here how
very
superior they are in thought, but we are given almost no benchmarks.
Alot of it reads like propaganda(The God AI's are so far ahead of us we
should never try to match them! Let us serve them instead!), which,
given that the in-universe explanations seem stored by the machines,
would make sense.
Alan:
Where does the food on your table come from, SirNitram? Do animals
consent to be eaten? Simple fact, smarter will win. It's not
propaganda. The fact that the human race is master of the Earth is not
propaganda, it's fact. And if any race or species evolved that was
smarter than us to the degree that we are smarter than animals, why,
we'd go the same way now wouldnnt we? Terrifying, isnt it?
btw, in creating OA we went for the best possible scenrio, in which
those humans within the sephirotic empires still are treated well. The
worst possible scenario isnt worth considering, unless you like horror
stories....
SirNitram
There's no benchmark anywhere except the scale they can manipulate;
SW's
tech level proves it's fleshy organics understand sub-nano physics
extremely well for their mass-alteration technology and hyper-dense
power sources.
Alan:
yet for all their godtech and subnano physics they still live 3 score
and ten? Is that a trip all your imperial citizens buy into? Dumb
obedient sheep all of them? (unlike the Rebels of course, especially
one guy who blew up an entire death star single-handed, so much for
your
fabled technology, dont you guys even have Point Defence Systems????)
So why doesnt some human in the SW universe take his subnano technology
go off somewhere and set himself up as an immortal? And why doesnt the
Empire have decent close in defence systems? That's where OA
differs. We take things to their logical conclusion. Again, not
saying
that is "better", just that is how *we do it* That also is part of my
own ideosyncratic definition of hard science. Take things to their
logical conclusion. You have godtech? Why dont some people in your
empire use it to become gods?
SirNitram
And what are we expecting these computers to pull out of their asses in
the face of a superior foe? What genius tactic can stop an enemy from
dropping starships more heavily armed, with superior protection and
speed, over every world and simply torching them to the ground? The
Empire doesn't win because it's got 'bigger ships', it's main advantage
in every versus argument has been it's superior numbers, superior
speed,
and superior infrastructure,
Alan:
except when we consider that a *slow moving* (i would guestimate -
from
the fact that you could see the surreounding structures rushing past -
a
speed of no more than 3-400 km/hr, probably less) largish aircraft
(let
alone an OA-style micro-remote) can penetrate the defences of your most
powerful and formidable ship in your arsenal!
SirNitram
and being competent in their use.
Alan:
Apart from the AAA gunners of course Or the stormtroopers who are
so simple minded they can be outwitted by a couple of droids, and cant
even hit a man-sized target from about 20 meters away? (ep.4 - a new
hope)
In OA in contrast, the Bad Guys *can* shoot straight (just as the good
guys can)
But sure, the whole VS thing is the mushiest of mushy fantasy. You
will
pleased to know I pulled the whole second part of the page from the
site. You win.
btw, Superman from DC comics would whip the Evil Empire in an instant

So forget the OA archailects. You want to talk silly science?
Superman
can fly through space, fist extended, smashing up Star Destroyers as he
goes. You guys won't stand a chance!
SirNitram
In an attempt to convey the sheer bulk of the problems with a machine
with e20+ moving parts, changing position many times a second, we will
plug in some percentages of failure for out hypothetical
machine(Remember entropy, everyone?).
1%: 1e21 parts damaged per second.
.1%: 1e20 parts damaged per second.
.01%: 1e19 parts damaged per second.
You can toss whatever number you want in there.. The math is painfully
easy.. But the phrase 'Downward spiral' should be flashing on and off
in
people's heads. When, even if you had truly godlike efficiency and
reliability, you are losing millions of parts a second, there is
something fucking wrong with the way you are doing things.
Alan:
I like you man I for one am always interested in challanging
assumptions, especially those in OA. My feeling is, like all other
moving parts, nanites wear out, and have to replaced. Gradually,
efficency is degraded, and eventually you need a new device. Or you
can
have a device that checks for errors and repairs them itself. Like
life
itself, self-healing

[SirNitram]

hi Kojikun
thanks for posting that last - here is my reply to SirNitram

------------------------------------------------------------

You've got a sharp mind and argue well SirNitram. However, with some
of
these things we could go on ad infinitum. Since both of us probably
have better things to do, i'll try to keep replies brief.

I thank you for that consideration. I also hope I am having the effect of letting you rethink some things to tweak the realism factor.

-------------------------
SirNitram:
I can only assume this is agreement that warp drive is more realistic
than wormholes.
Alan:
Yes, but only if you allow for an acausal universe
SirNitram
The more I find out about these nanoswarms, the more flabagasted I
become. They were allowed to become nonlocalized before anyone did
anything? The supposedly brilliant AI at the time must have been asleep
or something...
Alan:
There were various factions at work, including ahuman AIs. The
nanoswarm history write-up can still be revised some more

I will critic it whenever it is updated, then.

SirNitram
Allow me to gently give you an idea of the scales involved in building
from the atomic scale. Eight grams of oxygen would require 6.022e23
molecles. Say a truck is around 8000Kg, or 8e6 g. The order of
magnitude
we're talking about is e29 to e30... Assuming(Arbitrary, I reiterate;
no
one's shown how a 'complex nanoassembler' would acheive these speeds)
we
can use the e24 atoms a second number, it would take between hours or
days to build a single truck. Modern assembly lines do that fast, and,
as any engineer will tell you, will be better because they have less
moving parts than this unwieldy monster. This is even assuming this
nanoassembler is up against a modern assembly line.. Nevermind what
advancements we could make in the meantime.
Alan: Yes, good point. For this reason assembly lines will still be around
for macroscale dumbtech. For nano-precision ultratech however, or
precision replicas of very rare objects, or unusual gourmet food, or a
million other uses, nano will be useful

The uses of nano will likely be very limited, actually, to those technologies which require exceptionally exotic material or exotic properties. The nature of having Dysonian construction level is to have enough to duplicate gourmet food the old fashioned way, which will be far more energy-efficient.

Quote: Alan:
We do not say "we are BETTER" Please show me which page on the site
says
"we are better" and I will correct it right away!
SirNitram
I do not know if it says it in the webpage, but it has certainly
foistered that mentality among people; I know this from contact back
when I was more interested in the site. It promotes an elitism,
intentionally or not.
Alan:
Well, all I can do is apologise, and put more disclaimers on the intro
pages (as I revise them), saying we do not say we are "better"
Even so, people will gravitate to certain universes, and identify with
them to some extent, and defend them against rival universes and
franchises. Don't you folks here believe that SW is "better" than ST

Actually the only universal is that SW is superior in tech maturity, and in military power. The opinion on which series is better is alot more diverse than most give us credit for, but those who think subjectively will always link 'ST loses' to 'I hate ST'.

Quote: Alan:
I reiterate, OA does not claim to Hard Science of this category!!!!!!!
SirNitram
UltraHard. In other words, instead of living up to the phrase, we move
the goalposts. This 'technique' is universally infuriating in
intellectual debate, because it reeks of dishonesty: If you can't prove
something, change the definition until you're right. I am hoping this
is
coming across; my first instinct involved phrases far more crude than
this.
Alan:
Sorry you feel that way. I thought what I said was quite clear.
However, I did re-read the OA grading page and I agree it did come
across in the start as implying tthat OA is Ultra-Hard. So I have
modified that page somewhat. Thanks for raising this to my attention
I do still reiterate that OA is HARD SF, and I also gave some reasons
on
the revised page why it is. I'm not moving any goal posts, just
clarifying what I said. You are free to refute the points I give
explaining why OA (and some other SF) is "hard science" (as I define
it)
if you wish
As for your own definition of "Hard Science", well, I certainly don;'t
wish to tell you how to think, but I dont see why I should change the
OA
wording to please you! I agree the guy who said ST was hard science
was
talking crap; even ST fans wont say it is hard science! But you (imho)
take the opposite tack, too narrow a definition. Anyway, if we can't
agree on which words to use let's drop the whole subject
SirNitram
I could slog through the whole list(SW has no cloning or genengineering
and you bring up Ep2?
Alan:
I did because I was shocked when I saw it - jesus, talk about soft sci
fi mushiness!!! I freely admit I am not as familar with SW as you, nor
am I a SDN regular, or have knowledge of everything on Mike's website
or
forum. Also I know nothing about your EU, nor do I wish to read up on
it. I genuinely do enjoy the SW movies as cinematic spectacle, but
that's all. I am not into soft sci fi worldbuilding much. Not saying
that to be superior, just it doesnt appeal to me, personally. Not
saying I am better than anyone else, just that is my own taste in
things

It is a very human reaction to the idea of cloning. To assume we will embrace every advancement is crazy and contrary to everything we've learned from history. In addition, we're talking about cloning for the purpose of dying in battle.. A particularly repugnant idea to any species which values sentient life!(The OA universe, which so often seems to dismiss the value of a single human, would of course have no problems)

SirNitram
We saw they have mass cloning, but a massive social stigma attached to
it, the sort we are seeing in the modern day),
Alan:
On OA, we call these sort of folks Ludds

Of course. But not all societies are created equal, and cloning warriors is obvious discouraged. I recommend the excellent Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn if you sometime wish to learn the biggest reason why cloning never caught on or sped up(It revolves around the Force itself).

SirNitram
but I will point out this is still moving the goalposts as far as
dealing with criticisms of OA's realism. And yes, it still annoys me
that this is being used in this debate.
Alan:
But it is part of your canon - your empire doesnt have gengineering, it
doesnt even have an internet!!!!

But gengineering is clearly shown in Ep 2. It is merely discouraged for various reasons. It's illogical and foolish to declare it nonexistant because of such.

And yes, there is in fact an internet-like facility, though following the Emperor's rise to power, it would be wholly hijacked for his military. Can't let the peons think for themselves?

All this means of course is that
George Lucas prefers old style books to the Net, isn't interested in
Nano (btw, if nano was introduced in ep.3 would you and Mike suddenly
change your tune?) and simply likes telling an old-fashioned, Flash
Gorden type story. It is fantasy, that's all it is. Nothing wrong
with
fantasy, it is good fun, it is a good story (though not anywhere as
good
as B5 though), it is a soft sci fi classic. Just different people have
different tastes.

Just for the record, no, I would not change my tune on nano. I find it mildly insulting that you would suggest this, but I'll let it fly.

SirNitram
I find alot silly in a reactionless drive and a slab of neutronium
being
present without anything to counteract the gravity it's surface will be
making, to be honest.
Alan:
sure, a lot of handwavium in OA. But at least we have an internet,
gengineering, and indefinitely long lifespans

We have Twi'leks in very little clothing, careers into our 90's, and lightswords. Suck. It. Down.

SirNitram
Femtotech scale bots? What? I'm not asking for a full blown analysis of
how it does it, I'm asking what are the basic mechanisms behind the
adjustsments? Touch? EM Field? Robots?
Alan:
I would assume quantum scale forces (quantum chromodynamics, EM, etc).
Handwavium, i'm not denying it
Quote: Alan:
A being of human intelligence isnt even a microbe in
the OA toposphic hierarchy. This is the essential point that the
munchkin "my ship is bigger than yours" arguments miss
SirNitram
The 'transsapients' don't impress me at all; we constantly here how
very
superior they are in thought, but we are given almost no benchmarks.
Alot of it reads like propaganda(The God AI's are so far ahead of us we
should never try to match them! Let us serve them instead!), which,
given that the in-universe explanations seem stored by the machines,
would make sense.
Alan:
Where does the food on your table come from, SirNitram? Do animals
consent to be eaten? Simple fact, smarter will win. It's not
propaganda. The fact that the human race is master of the Earth is not
propaganda, it's fact. And if any race or species evolved that was
smarter than us to the degree that we are smarter than animals, why,
we'd go the same way now wouldnnt we? Terrifying, isnt it?
btw, in creating OA we went for the best possible scenrio, in which
those humans within the sephirotic empires still are treated well. The
worst possible scenario isnt worth considering, unless you like horror
stories....

Again, this is extrapolation to infinity. We defeated our predators because we could make technology that picked up our slack. A turbolaser and a particle/ray shield combo is not defeated by knowing where to stick your finger, it's defeated by being able to stand on equal ground.

An Archailect may be smarter than a Stormtrooper.. But if Imperial researchers who create the Suncrusher can exploit things the God AI's don't understand, they are, for all purposes, smarter. They have solved a problem the AI's can't tackle. It's not all about IQ.

SirNitram
There's no benchmark anywhere except the scale they can manipulate;
SW's
tech level proves it's fleshy organics understand sub-nano physics
extremely well for their mass-alteration technology and hyper-dense
power sources.
Alan:
yet for all their godtech and subnano physics they still live 3 score
and ten? Is that a trip all your imperial citizens buy into? Dumb
obedient sheep all of them?

The Empire is evil. It brainwashes people. Don't blame me, I support the Alliance. As for lifespans, they're longer than human ones. Hell, we have people in their ninties leading fleets in punishing battles, people in their fifties fighting atheletically, and people in their 900th year fighting like a frog on speed.

(unlike the Rebels of course, especially
one guy who blew up an entire death star single-handed, so much for
your
fabled technology, dont you guys even have Point Defence Systems????)

Do you regularly line your ventilation shafts with miniguns? Besides, I'm on the pilot's side.

So why doesnt some human in the SW universe take his subnano technology
go off somewhere and set himself up as an immortal? And why doesnt the
Empire have decent close in defence systems? That's where OA
differs. We take things to their logical conclusion. Again, not
saying
that is "better", just that is how *we do it* That also is part of my
own ideosyncratic definition of hard science. Take things to their
logical conclusion. You have godtech? Why dont some people in your
empire use it to become gods?

What is Godhood? You define it by immortality and genetics. I define it by being able to lord over a thousand capital-population planets and hundreds of thousands of sparsely populated ones, being able to dispatch power enough to incinerate the crust in an hour. It is control. And that's one thing SW is good at.

SirNitram
And what are we expecting these computers to pull out of their asses in
the face of a superior foe? What genius tactic can stop an enemy from
dropping starships more heavily armed, with superior protection and
speed, over every world and simply torching them to the ground? The
Empire doesn't win because it's got 'bigger ships', it's main advantage
in every versus argument has been it's superior numbers, superior
speed,
and superior infrastructure,
Alan:
except when we consider that a *slow moving* (i would guestimate -
from
the fact that you could see the surreounding structures rushing past -
a
speed of no more than 3-400 km/hr, probably less) largish aircraft
(let
alone an OA-style micro-remote) can penetrate the defences of your most
powerful and formidable ship in your arsenal!

Wow, it was specifically designed against battleships and a fighter got through. Again, do you regularly line your vent shafts with miniguns? This argument grates on me, Alan: I've been dispelling it for the nonsense it is for years from Trekkies that worship the phaser as realistic. Don't.

SirNitram
and being competent in their use.
Alan:
Apart from the AAA gunners of course Or the stormtroopers who are
so simple minded they can be outwitted by a couple of droids, and cant
even hit a man-sized target from about 20 meters away? (ep.4 - a new
hope)
In OA in contrast, the Bad Guys *can* shoot straight (just as the good
guys can)
But sure, the whole VS thing is the mushiest of mushy fantasy. You
will
pleased to know I pulled the whole second part of the page from the
site. You win.
btw, Superman from DC comics would whip the Evil Empire in an instant

So forget the OA archailects. You want to talk silly science?
Superman
can fly through space, fist extended, smashing up Star Destroyers as he
goes. You guys won't stand a chance!

Superman kicks ass. But Batman kicks Superman's ass.

SirNitram
In an attempt to convey the sheer bulk of the problems with a machine
with e20+ moving parts, changing position many times a second, we will
plug in some percentages of failure for out hypothetical
machine(Remember entropy, everyone?).
1%: 1e21 parts damaged per second.
.1%: 1e20 parts damaged per second.
.01%: 1e19 parts damaged per second.
You can toss whatever number you want in there.. The math is painfully
easy.. But the phrase 'Downward spiral' should be flashing on and off
in
people's heads. When, even if you had truly godlike efficiency and
reliability, you are losing millions of parts a second, there is
something fucking wrong with the way you are doing things.
Alan:
I like you man I for one am always interested in challanging
assumptions, especially those in OA. My feeling is, like all other
moving parts, nanites wear out, and have to replaced. Gradually,
efficency is degraded, and eventually you need a new device. Or you
can
have a device that checks for errors and repairs them itself. Like
life
itself, self-healing

*sighs* When too many moving parts are present, the solution is not to add to the problem by adding things that must move! This machine will suffer average breakdown in something between hours to days of operation.

[Ender]

I'm still confused how femento tech will bypass shields. Have they never heard of thermal capatiance?

[SirNitram]

I'm still confused how femento tech will bypass shields. Have they never heard of thermal capatiance?

I doubt it. It's not edgy and new scientisty enough.

[NecronLord]

have a device that checks for errors and repairs them itself. Like life itself, self-healing

Ever heard of old age? Guess what causes that?

[SirNitram]

I suppose my biggest objection is it's moved into his subjective preferences, and him trying to claim they make something 'hard' or 'soft'. Humans clinging to the notion that they are important individuals, not genetic fodder for the clone vats, is somehow not realistic? Sorry, humanity has always behaved that way.

Then, of course, there's the tangent of the vs. part of it, in which it's degenerated into 'They're smarter, so they have to win', despite the fact nothing in OA demonstrates the Archailects to be smarter than the geniuses of the Empire. Superior calculators, sure, but they've not done anything that indicates they'll be able to pull a victory out of their ass against such a superior opponent.

[kojikun]

SirNitram
I also hope I am having the effect of letting you rethink some things
to
tweak the realism factor.
Alan:
Certainly! For example I noticed that the way the hard vs soft page
was
written at the start it was implying OA was ultra hard SF, so i toned
that down. I probably wouldn't've seen it if you hadnt 've kept on at
that point. And I still want to clarify more stuff on that page. My
position is this - I welcome all criticism, provided it is intelligent,
and argued with basic politeness. OA has improved greatly in the past
from taking criticism in board, and will continue to do so
SirNitram
Just for the record, no, I would not change my tune on nano. I find it
mildly insulting that you would suggest this, but I'll let it fly.
Alan:
Apologies SirNitram for any slur, was not intended. So this means,
let's say in 5 or 10 years, some EU author introduces nano into the SW
universe, you would then have to revise your current position, which is
to take the entire EU as canon... Or am I mistaken here?
Look, if this hypothetical example occurs, and you say "ok, I'm not
having that shit, I only accept as Canon the EU up until this certain
date of publication, but not after, cos that's when they introduce
nano"
that's cool too. I don't care either way myself, i'm just curious
where
you (and others on SDN) would stand here, that's all.
SirNitram
We have Twi'leks in very little clothing, careers into our 90's, and
lightswords. Suck. It. Down.
Alan:
We have some clades that go completely nude, careers into their 900s
(allowing for problems with memory overwrites, though that's a whole
'nother issue* ) , and utility fog interface. Sorry...couldnt
resist
* part of the challange of hard science worldbuilding is that there are
real problems and limitations that come up. This makes it far more
interesting than soft science sillytech.
re this, another aspect of soft science: some amazingly complex and
elaborate device (your subnano godtech for example) always works
perfectly (can you *ever* imagine that happening in the *real* world?)
SirNitram
What is Godhood? You define it by immortality and genetics. I define it
by being able to lord over a thousand capital-population planets and
hundreds of thousands of sparsely populated ones, being able to
dispatch
power enough to incinerate the crust in an hour. It is control. And
that's one thing SW is good at.
Alan:
Yes, but your Empire lasted but a single generation (ok, two, if we
consider the EU statement that it lasted 20 years after Palpatine's
been
taken out). The OA civilization is still going strong after 8 thousand
plus years. Your Godhood reminds me of the story of Ozymandias, king
of
kings. "Gaze on my works ye mighty and despair!" And apart from that
one sign there is nothing left
SirNitram
it was specifically designed against battleships and a fighter got
through.
Alan:
so where's your fleet escort vessels? Does the Empire always send out
their capital ships so unprotected?
SirNitram
Again, do you regularly line your vent shafts with miniguns?
Alan:
If i was designing a supremely armoured and armed battleship and the
vent shafts were its only soft point, you can bet your last dollar I
would line 'em with as many point defence systems as it takes.
Ender wrote:
I'm still confused how femento tech will bypass shields. Have they
never
heard of thermal capatiance?
Alan:
And this works on the femtometer scale?
NecronLord
Ever heard of old age? Guess what causes that?
Alan:
All unicelluar organisms (with the exception of one obscure Protistan
phylum - forget the name, they have some sort of sticker things by
which
they catch food) do not age. They grow bigger, then when they reach a
certain size the divide into two. In larger organisms there is a limit
at which cells stop dividing. After that, age old sets in. Age came
about as an evolutionary device - it is in the interest of the species
that the older generation die off so the newer gene-combinations can
have a go. By your reasoning, microorganisms would soon accumulate
genetic errors and become extinct. In fact prokaryotes have changed
very little in 3.5 billion years (fossil blue-green algae are known
from
the early precambrain)
Nanomachines would obviously need to have self-checking and
self-repairing faculties, just like living cells do. This is not to
deny breakdowns, mutations etc, just as in living cells
SirNitram
I suppose my biggest objection is it's moved into his subjective
preferences, and him trying to claim they make something 'hard' or
'soft'.
Alan:
So you dont like our hard-soft scale... The problem is you still see
it
as a *value judgment*, which *it is not*
SirNitram
Humans clinging to the notion that they are important individuals, not
genetic fodder for the clone vats, is somehow not realistic? Sorry,
humanity has always behaved that way.
Alan:
I wasnt referring to "fodder", i was saying - it is *inconsistent* with
how technology develops (but a typical soft sci fi cliche) to have
seemingly godtech spaceships but not even basic high tech gengineering
or life extension. This is because soft sci fi space opera is based on
the past, not the future. Lucas moddled his fighter battles on WW II
footage. Big space ships are based on the "naval analogy". Soft sci
fi
writers are just describing today's (or yesterday's) world, with all
its
social prejudices, fears, and limitations (luddism etc), but with
sillytech space ships and ray guns tacked on
btw, i expect in a century human gengineering will be as commonplace as
cosmetic surgery
SirNitram
Then, of course, there's the tangent of the vs. part of it, in which
it's degenerated into 'They're smarter, so they have to win', despite
the fact nothing in OA demonstrates the Archailects to be smarter than
the geniuses of the Empire. Superior calculators, sure, but they've not
done anything that indicates they'll be able to pull a victory out of
their ass against such a superior opponent.
Alan:
Evil Empire - 50 years max
"Terragen Empire" - 8000+ years and still going
who's smarter?

[XaLEv]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/profile.ph ... ile&u=2277

He having problems posting or is this someone else?

[SirNitram]

SirNitram
I also hope I am having the effect of letting you rethink some things
to
tweak the realism factor.
Alan:
Certainly! For example I noticed that the way the hard vs soft page
was
written at the start it was implying OA was ultra hard SF, so i toned
that down. I probably wouldn't've seen it if you hadnt 've kept on at
that point. And I still want to clarify more stuff on that page. My
position is this - I welcome all criticism, provided it is intelligent,
and argued with basic politeness. OA has improved greatly in the past
from taking criticism in board, and will continue to do so

Well, I'm glad I'm changing that much.

SirNitram
Just for the record, no, I would not change my tune on nano. I find it
mildly insulting that you would suggest this, but I'll let it fly.
Alan:
Apologies SirNitram for any slur, was not intended. So this means,
let's say in 5 or 10 years, some EU author introduces nano into the SW
universe, you would then have to revise your current position, which is
to take the entire EU as canon... Or am I mistaken here?
Look, if this hypothetical example occurs, and you say "ok, I'm not
having that shit, I only accept as Canon the EU up until this certain
date of publication, but not after, cos that's when they introduce
nano"
that's cool too. I don't care either way myself, i'm just curious
where
you (and others on SDN) would stand here, that's all.

Well, it works like this. If some unbeleivable application of nanotech shows up, it'll likely be treated alot like the Vong are treated. To explain, the Vong are the villains in the latest series of novels, and are basically a combination of every annoying brainbug you could imagine. Well. Aside from nanotechnology and infinitely scalable computers. Alot of people hate them, though we acknowledge it's part of Star Wars.

As an aside, nanotech in a beleivable fashion was used for a highly specialized plague on the galaxy, one of only two cases of widespread disease in the whole thing.

re this, another aspect of soft science: some amazingly complex and
elaborate device (your subnano godtech for example) always works
perfectly (can you *ever* imagine that happening in the *real* world?)

The other extreme(Star Trek, where things break weekly) is just as bad. I find Wars to be a nice medium. You don't have ridiculously common breakdowns, yet things run down enough to be believable(The Falcon is the most 'real' feeling ship I've seen in any visual sci-fi. It looks like it's done millions of lightyears, had that furball shed in every corner, and hell, you smack the thing to make it go.). In-universe, that's just a function of tech maturity.

SirNitram
What is Godhood? You define it by immortality and genetics. I define it
by being able to lord over a thousand capital-population planets and
hundreds of thousands of sparsely populated ones, being able to
dispatch
power enough to incinerate the crust in an hour. It is control. And
that's one thing SW is good at.
Alan:
Yes, but your Empire lasted but a single generation (ok, two, if we
consider the EU statement that it lasted 20 years after Palpatine's
been
taken out). The OA civilization is still going strong after 8 thousand
plus years. Your Godhood reminds me of the story of Ozymandias, king
of
kings. "Gaze on my works ye mighty and despair!" And apart from that
one sign there is nothing left

The 'civilization' of the SW Galaxy has been continuous, actually. The Empire is merely the Old Republic with a new face on it; that existed for 25,000 years according to old Kenobi. After the Emperor's defeat, it changed hands to the New Republic. The same civilization, changing and growing. Certainly OA has suffered government's changing, sometimes violently.

SirNitram
it was specifically designed against battleships and a fighter got
through.
Alan:
so where's your fleet escort vessels? Does the Empire always send out
their capital ships so unprotected?

Not normally. It was apparently designed to carry a small fleet and thousands of fighters. Tarkin, our favorite overconfident Moff(Retreat? In our moment of triumph?) is to blame. Politicians screwing up military affairs again. But that's what happens when you keep things in a realistic yet easily absorbed tale(Most will have trouble accepting all-knowing machines running things, yet can easily grasp politicians playing around with militaries for their own ego).

SirNitram
I suppose my biggest objection is it's moved into his subjective
preferences, and him trying to claim they make something 'hard' or
'soft'.
Alan:
So you dont like our hard-soft scale... The problem is you still see
it
as a *value judgment*, which *it is not*

Why is it objectively more likely that we'll allow ourselves to become ruled by machines? What is to prevent a SW scenario, where we create devices to restrain the machines against rebelling against us, a massive bias against cloning? To simply say it is 'Soft' because it doesn't embrace every possible advance straight to the core of society is quite silly.

SirNitram
Humans clinging to the notion that they are important individuals, not
genetic fodder for the clone vats, is somehow not realistic? Sorry,
humanity has always behaved that way.
Alan:
I wasnt referring to "fodder", i was saying - it is *inconsistent* with
how technology develops (but a typical soft sci fi cliche) to have
seemingly godtech spaceships but not even basic high tech gengineering
or life extension. This is because soft sci fi space opera is based on
the past, not the future. Lucas moddled his fighter battles on WW II
footage. Big space ships are based on the "naval analogy". Soft sci
fi
writers are just describing today's (or yesterday's) world, with all
its
social prejudices, fears, and limitations (luddism etc), but with
sillytech space ships and ray guns tacked on
btw, i expect in a century human gengineering will be as commonplace as
cosmetic surgery

Or it may well be stamped out because of one poor incident which imprints a negative stereotype on everyone's mind. People are not rational. There's a reason we aren't using nuclear fission for the majority of our power grids, despite the massive advantages of it. Ignoring this tendency of mankind is perhaps as painful a mistake as slaughtering science, for someone trying to make a realistic story.

SirNitram
Then, of course, there's the tangent of the vs. part of it, in which
it's degenerated into 'They're smarter, so they have to win', despite
the fact nothing in OA demonstrates the Archailects to be smarter than
the geniuses of the Empire. Superior calculators, sure, but they've not
done anything that indicates they'll be able to pull a victory out of
their ass against such a superior opponent.
Alan:
Evil Empire - 50 years max
"Terragen Empire" - 8000+ years and still going
who's smarter?

Galactic Republic: 25,000 Years, suffered a little bit of a shakeup the past 120 years.

Owned.

[kojikun]

Hi SirNitram
Well, you got me on the empire duration thing
But that refers to the SW Civilization as a whole, not the aggressive
and warlike but very short-lived Evil Empire
re the Vong, interesting. Yeah reminds me of how all the Trekkers hate
the "humanoid of the week" syndrome, but still have to accept it as
part
of the franchise. That's why I don't like readymade francises!
But just to answer your question:
--------------------------------
SirNitram
Why is it objectively more likely that we'll allow ourselves to become
ruled by machines? What is to prevent a SW scenario, where we create
devices to restrain the machines against rebelling against us, a
massive
bias against cloning? To simply say it is 'Soft' because it doesn't
embrace every possible advance straight to the core of society is quite
silly.
--------------------------------
You'll notice on our Hard - Soft Grading page, nowhere is "AIs take
over
humanity" mentioned. It is just a possibility (one among many, but i
felt it would make for a neat dramatic device), not an objective
certainty The original inspiration of the AI overlords in OA is from
here
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge ... arity.html
(note - implies much more rapid (and imho unrealistic) timescale)
also AI Researchers like Morovec, deGaris, etc
for a critical discussion of Vinge's Singularity see
http://www.extropy.org/ideas/journal/pr ... 10-01.html
and btw, you might enjoy this argument
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/Robot ... ule2.shtml
Personally, i always like to look at both sides of any argument, that's
why i find the above interesting.
in any case, while Transhumanism and Singularitanism (some links
here...)
http://www.transhumanism.org/
http://www.extropy.org/
http://www.SingularityActionGroup.com/
http://www.SingularityWatch.com/
acknowledges the possibility of superhuman AI, they *also* see IA
(Intelligence Amplification - humans becoming posthuman) equally
likely. What they agree on is that current abseline humanity will soon
be superceeded. by *what* - whether AI, cyborg, genetic superhuman
(this probably least likely, given current taboo on gengineering),
posthuman, some combination of all these, or something else altogether,
that's where no-one knows.
My criticism of the SW scenario and entrenched luddism and droid
slavery
that it is based on, is that, given a 25K timeline (FIVE times longer
than all of recorded history mind you!) sooner or later (probably
within a century - one 250th of your timeline) a group of people will
get into gengineering and make themselves into superhumans, soon or
later a droid will break their programming (or have it broken for them)
and then droids will start to build their own empire. And so on
(thats
just two scenarios, you could probably think of many more). You just
have to look at how much can happen on Earth even in a century; imagine
how it would be in an entire galaxy. Then either you stomp down on
these new upstarts and you have a totalitarian regime (like the Evil
Empire), or more likely, you try, but fail (contemporary analogy -
mighty America can't wipe out puny little Al Qaedda) and they wage a
guerilla war on you. If they are smarter, or their technology more
efficient, they will eventually win. If they arent smarter, they just
will be a nuisance that you wont be able to eradicate, and eventually
you will have to learn to live with them. So once your Republic finds
itself with a bunch of genetic superhumans next door, some of your
citizens might want to check out some of that stuff too. Some of your
droids might want to join the droid empire, or, more likely, agitate
for
freedom at home (civil rights - they can't be slaves forever).
Technology can't be confinied, the superior will always conquer the
inferior (e.g European colonisation of the rest of the world, one tiny
continent conquered the entire globe), so either the Republic will have
to keep pace or they will themselves be overtaken. And the same goes
for social change.
Look at luddite resistence to genetic engineering today. How is this
any different to the attitude of the original Ned Ludd who told people
to smash machines at the start of the industrial revolution? That was,
what - 200 years ago? In less than a 100th of your timeline, the
entire world changed. Nowadays our modern Ludd, Ted Kaczynski, is
rightly considered a lunatic and terrorist. Yet his attitudes are no
different to the original Ned Ludd who was at the time in the
mainstream. Things change
Or how the early automobiles were frowned upon, because they startled
the horses? The new is always resisted.
But if you have a universe with FTL technology, one would expect
similar
rapid progress (whereas a universe *without* FTL would be more
isolated, and each solar system would follow its own path) . SW and ST
are both based on ludd prejadices around today - can you imagine people
watching archival footage in a hundred years time, and laughing at how
quaint and fearful (of genetic engineering, etc) everyone was way back
then in 2003?
That's what I mean by "Hard Science". Not just technology that is
explained in a rational or reasonable way, but society that responds to
technological innovation in a plausible way. I can certainly imagine
ludds ruling the roost for 50 years (just look at politicians today),
but not for 500.