# Impossible vs Possible



## Hero902 (May 4, 2014)

What is currently impossible that could be possible in the future?

A thousand ago people would say it was impossible to go from america to asia in a few hours. A hundred years ago and people would say it's impossible to have all the knowledge known to mankind in a device that you can carry in your pocket.

What technologies you think we could have in the future that is currently considered to be *impossible*? How could that change the world and the society we live in?


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Cool thread.

I guess my answer will be telekinesis. Not the crazy X-men stuff though. Just some kind of device that can read and interpret brain signals and convert them into a stronger electric/magnetic signal for completing physical tasks on nearby objects. There will certainly be limitations, but I do think there could be advances in that area. And who knows, maybe after one small step, the field of telekinetics will follow its own form of 'Moore's Law' growth.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

Living to 500+. I don't see any reason why not.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

It will be impossible to create an artificially intelligent learning computer!


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

xisnotx said:


> Living to 500+. I don't see any reason why not.


Replication errors in cell reproduction. The errors add up and after something like 7 or 8 sequential replacements, the errors inhibit normal functioning.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

OldManRivers said:


> Replication errors in cell reproduction. The errors add up and after something like 7 or 8 sequential replacements, the errors inhibit normal functioning.


I don't know the biology of why/how cells die...
But if we can go to the moon, we can live to 500. 
Either that, or I'm wasting my life on a pipe dream.


----------



## Belladonne (Mar 22, 2014)

Acidhead said:


> What is currently impossible that could be possible in the future?
> 
> A thousand ago people would say it was impossible to go from america to asia in a few hours. A hundred years ago and people would say it's impossible to have all the knowledge known to mankind in a device that you can carry in your pocket.
> 
> What technologies you think we could have in the future that is currently considered to be *impossible*? How could that change the world and the society we live in?


Life extension technology enabling people (or at least their minds) to "live" forever.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

xisnotx said:


> I don't know the biology of why/how cells die...
> But if we can go to the moon, we can live to 500.
> Either that, or I'm wasting my life on a pipe dream.


Going to the moon was simply a matter of building a bigger version of the WW II V2 rocket. Both the USSR and the USA had captured German equipment and that was the start of development: the Soviets put more of their resources into rocketry and first launched a satellite in earth orbit by sheer force. Then the sophistication of the US enabled the successful -but highly chancy - moon landing.

Changing the basis of life from DNA replication is not possible: even if it were, the results would not be human.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> [...] even if it were, the results would not be human.


You are making the assumption that human nature _is_ invariable. By the theory of evolution, that assumption seems unlikely.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I don't think anyone thought those things were impossible, just very far fetched. They were only impossible by contemporary limitations, they couldn't last forever.

Nothing is impossible really. I think, if humans last long enough, we will be able to create our own universes. With whatever laws we like. We will be like gods. We will even be able to resurrect every human -every living thing- that ever existed. 

Humans, or other higher intelligence, will take the reigns of the universe, and control it. Take it over. Replace its natural state. If it hasn't been done already. 

As John Wheeler said, "All is mutable."


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I think whether something is possible or not depends on the time frame you put it on. It _was_ impossible to travel between Asia and America in few hours for that particular period in time, but not now. So when you say "future" you'd have to define the time frame.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It will be impossible to create an artificially intelligent learning computer!


Please elaborate, I am curious to hear your answer.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

Madman said:


> You are making the assumption that human nature _is_ invariable. By the theory of evolution, that assumption seems unlikely.


Human nature has nothing at all to do with it. It is a matter of basic science. You will die, I will die, everyone on this earth will die, and about 120 seem to be close to the absolute age limit. The chemistry of life is based on carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and trace elements because the bond energy of compounds of those is low and thus reversible, and chains of molecules can be formed -and that is why mutations and growth occur. And it is why evolution happens, and why there are absolute age limits. They are really one mechanism.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> Human nature has nothing at all to do with it. It is a matter of basic science. You will die, I will die, everyone on this earth will die, and about 120 seem to be close to the absolute age limit. The chemistry of life is based on carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and trace elements because the bond energy of compounds of those is low and thus reversible, and chains of molecules can be formed -and that is why mutations and growth occur. And it is why evolution happens, and why there are absolute age limits. They are really one mechanism.


You seem to know your stuff, I am no biochemist or biologist. Nevertheless if the reason for the limit of times human cells can divide until cell division stops are due to genetic causes, it is not far fetched that it can be modified in some way. What about cells that are not subject to the Hayflick limit? The jellyfish _Turritopsis dohrnii _is called the immortal jellyfish, if there exist species which biology allows them to live to a very high age, it seems not impossible to modify human biology to prolong human life.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Madman said:


> Please elaborate, I am curious to hear your answer.


Actually I was just phrasing it like a person of my time who can't imagine such a thing happening. 
I think it's possible to create such an intelligence, but nobody knows how yet. I would also be curious to see what actually happens in the future of artificial intelligence. Science fiction novels tell us how robots will outsmart humans and humans won't be able to control them. I'm wondering if someone in the future will consider this and maybe even decide not to release a large number of hyper-intelligent beings into the world.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Actually I was just phrasing it like a person of my time who can't imagine such a thing happening.
> I think it's possible to create such an intelligence, but nobody knows how yet. I would also be curious to see what actually happens in the future of artificial intelligence. Science fiction novels tell us how robots will outsmart humans and humans won't be able to control them. I'm wondering if someone in the future will consider this and maybe even decide not to release a large number of hyper-intelligent beings into the world.


Okay.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

Madman said:


> You seem to know your stuff, I am no biochemist or biologist. Nevertheless if the reason for the limit of times human cells can divide until cell division stops are due to genetic causes, it is not far fetched that it can be modified in some way. What about cells that are not subject to the Hayflick limit? The jellyfish _Turritopsis dohrnii _is called the immortal jellyfish, if there exist species which biology allows them to live to a very high age, it seems not impossible to modify human biology to prolong human life.


I have a past friend and associate who was the head of a genetics program in a major state university. I was an R&D chemist at the time and learned a bit in our conversations , usually with an agronomist at the same school.
I do remember the jellyfish - and there are amphibians who have unusually long lives. 
Reptiles, I suppose birds, other creatures do not have a chromosomal determination of gender. Crocodilians' sex is determined by hatching temperature: They can live a long time and continue to grow all their life. But in mammals, all the eggs the female will ever have are present at birth. This insures that whatever happens in her breeding life there will be no transcription errors. But near the end of her breeding life damage can occur and genetic abnormalities may then appear in the offspring.

Males produce sperm cells throughout their life. Mutations may appear: I believe, but cannot recall the specifics, that is how chance mutations occur. Favorable to survival, they may be propagated throughout a population over long periods of time.

But the degradation in cell replacement is not mutations but transcription errors - and there is still a lot unknown (especially by me!) 
Can this be prevented? That I do not know. I have read - briefly read, for I haven't had those discussions in quite a few years -that cell death appears to be "programmed" so maybe it could be reduced or canceled. Then maybe a repair mechanism might be developed . . .
To say it is impossible is a bit of a stretch. Just let it suffice that no mechanism is evident, and not enough information is available to encourage the belief that longevity enhancement is even possible. But studies yield surprising results. So I will back away from "impossible" and say "improbable based on current understanding of the subject." Some wiggle room there - read up on it, dig into Scientific American and other possible sources of understandable information. You may be the one to have an "Aha!" moment. . . 

Myself, I am ready to move on. There was a science fiction in the 1930's pulp fiction days of a man who was thousands of years old, and his sole wish was to die. As a kid consuming such stuff, I did not understand - but now, I do. I have a degenerative bone condition that will cripple me. There is a laser surgery that costs about a million dollars and not too certain in results. I'll pass. I am curious about what happens next. . . that's another story all together.


----------



## feeg1 (Feb 12, 2014)

It will be possible that nothing is impossible.


----------



## dumb and dummer (May 18, 2014)

it is impossible to live for ever.

It is impossible to live on the moon.

It is impossible for humans to step foot on Mars.

It is impossible to fully understand the human brain and self awareness.

It is impossible to bring back someone from the dead.

It is impossible to go back in time.

It is impossible to predict the future.

It is impossible to read someones mind.

It is impossible to fully understand the universe.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

is vs will be


----------



## Uralian Hamster (May 13, 2011)

I'm really liking this "Live forever" topic going on here. It's basically genetic hacking. If possible we could cure so many diseases, and maybe even prevent grey hair!


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Food replication, like in Star Trek.

A world without money or need of it... Maybe that will _always _be impossible. Most people I've spoken to seem to think it is. It seems that most people are cynical. Or maybe they're realistic. I like to think it might happen though.

3d printing of cars, houses, clothes.. That's already happening though. And I think such would make way for a world with no need for money.

Holodeck, like in Star Trek.


----------



## Himistu (May 24, 2014)

OldManRivers said:


> I have a past friend and associate who was the head of a genetics program in a major state university. I was an R&D chemist at the time and learned a bit in our conversations , usually with an agronomist at the same school.
> I do remember the jellyfish - and there are amphibians who have unusually long lives.
> Reptiles, I suppose birds, other creatures do not have a chromosomal determination of gender. Crocodilians' sex is determined by hatching temperature: They can live a long time and continue to grow all their life. But in mammals, all the eggs the female will ever have are present at birth. This insures that whatever happens in her breeding life there will be no transcription errors. But near the end of her breeding life damage can occur and genetic abnormalities may then appear in the offspring.
> 
> ...


I support you, but allow me to add what I recall from my undergrad biology.

The transcription problem that limits life occurs in your body regardless of whether you reproduce or not. Every day, your cells replicate and old ones die off. But every time the cells replicate, the DNA has to be replicated. However, according to the mechanics, only so much of the DNA can be copied due to the limitations of RNA copying. There has to be some "tail" for the RNA that consequently skips the end of the DNA. Thus, as each copy is made, the DNA becomes progressively shorter until... not enough is left and you die. Of course, lots of other problems happen before then to kill you (I mean for Pete's sakes, the longer you live, the higher the likelihood of you dying from something other than natural death). So, in short, you can't live to be forever.

Concerning moving our brains to computers - this doesn't make us live forever, it merely stores information in terms of electrical (or optical) signals, which are inherently meaningless. These signals require a computer - which has no consciousness - to interpret them, which it may one day be able to do so to the point of being so realistic that half of the world will be completely convinced that the person is, in fact, alive. *sigh* What's depressing for me is knowing people are going to walk off a psychological cliff.


But concerning what will be a reality that is impossible now: I think one day we will be able to harvest 99% or more of the energy from sunlight.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

Himistu said:


> I support you, but allow me to add what I recall from my undergrad biology.
> 
> The transcription problem that limits life occurs in your body regardless of whether you reproduce or not. Every day, your cells replicate and old ones die off. But every time the cells replicate, the DNA has to be replicated. However, according to the mechanics, only so much of the DNA can be copied due to the limitations of RNA copying. There has to be some "tail" for the RNA that consequently skips the end of the DNA. Thus, as each copy is made, the DNA becomes progressively shorter until... not enough is left and you die. Of course, lots of other problems happen before then to kill you (I mean for Pete's sakes, the longer you live, the higher the likelihood of you dying from something other than natural death). So, in short, you can't live to be forever.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the clarification. I now recall something about "inefficient RNA copying" Those conversations got deep. The agronomist was working on alternate crops from aboriginal American cultures -corn (maize) was a mutation in teosinte that, from small grain heads and meager yields, has become a widely grown, high yield grain crop. There are other crops that might have advantages not realized by maize. Apparently nothing came of it - I have not seen any new food crop emerge. 

I have thought about the inefficiency of solar thermal power, limited by thermodynamics and the theoretical limit of photoelectric efficiency, which I know little about. A quick check in Wikipedia revealed a theoretical maximum of something like 86 percent. That compares to solar thermal in the 20 to 40 percent efficiency, limited by the relative small difference in inlet and outlet temperatures of the process. What I envision is a large and dispersed photoelectric grid, the energy being used to pump water into reservoirs which then drives turbines to generate a steady supply of electric power. Thus daylight energy from the west coast could in effect provide nighttime power hours later via pumped storage hydroelectric power. The efficiency of pumped storage, being mechanical, is not thermodynamics limited. And it is a practiced technology. An overall efficiency of the combined electric grid, photoelectric to hydroelectric, could exceed 75% with known technology.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Food replication, like in Star Trek.
> 
> A world without money or need of it... Maybe that will _always _be impossible. Most people I've spoken to seem to think it is. It seems that most people are cynical. Or maybe they're realistic. I like to think it might happen though.
> 
> ...


Food replication: E =MC squared. If the technology existed, the energy required to make a cup of "Tea, Earl Gray, hot" would be the equivalent of a 100 megaton nuclear bomb - in order of magnitude. Creating mass will never be possible on that scale. 

Money is just an accounting figure for the consumers to pay the producers, who then pay their workers, supplier, and so on. As long as labor is necessary, money will be required.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> Food replication: E =MC squared. If the technology existed, the energy required to make a cup of "Tea, Earl Gray, hot" would be the equivalent of a 100 megaton nuclear bomb - in order of magnitude. Creating mass will never be possible on that scale.
> 
> Money is just an accounting figure for the consumers to pay the producers, who then pay their workers, supplier, and so on. As long as labor is necessary, money will be required.


Scientists are searching for new ways to use fuel. I don't see it as being removed from the realm of possibility.

Money is what makes the system corrupt-- People living in fear of scarcity. You can't really trust people who sell you things because of it. Things are not made in highest quality, they are made to break, so more is bought. Unsustainable.

It should not be necessary.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Scientists are searching for new ways to use fuel. I don't see it as being removed from the realm of possibility.
> 
> Money is what makes the system corrupt-- People living in fear of scarcity. You can't really trust people who sell you things because of it. Things are not made in highest quality, they are made to break, so more is bought. Unsustainable.
> 
> It should not be necessary.


There is no one with a first year physics course would contemplate making matter. If the energy were avaialable and controllable, no way that ordered composits - e.g., food, drink, clothing, could be made. Pure fantasy is not achievable.

In the Star Trek world, that is glossed over - and the Holideck changed dramatically from the first mention - that it was via allusion. It later became real- so real that helideck people could engage in sex with the real people.

As to money, it has always existed. As a young child, I asked why my dad would not go to the store and buy money - a childish absurdity.
If you worked, then would you barter your labor for food? Or do you suppose you could idle away the hours and someone would feed and clothe you, give you nice clothing and electronics? If they did, where would they get theirs? The necessity for accounting of wealth, whether it is a bag of gold coins or entries in a computer. is necessary for even the most rudimental human society. People are lazy and will not work if things are simply given to them. All this has been known from the dawn of civilization and thoroughly developed, most thorough works starting with by Adam Smith, _The wealth of Nations_, publishes 1776. Basic courses in economics generally start there. 

The magic did not go away - it never was. Star Trek and the like are pure fantasy in all aspects, physically impossible for all times. "Scientist?" I was one. The stories are human drama - and the gadgetry and lack of the necessity of labor is simply stage setting for human drama - regardless of the form that the humans take.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> There is no one with a first year physics course would contemplate making matter. If the energy were avaialable and controllable, no way that ordered composits - e.g., food, drink, clothing, could be made. Pure fantasy is not achievable.
> 
> In the Star Trek world, that is glossed over - and the Holideck changed dramatically from the first mention - that it was via allusion. It later became real- so real that helideck people could engage in sex with the real people.
> 
> ...


I would prefer a bartering system, even if still a form of currency. Gifting economies still exist, as well. Even 'economies' (Generally, they are communes), based upon simply sharing chores, and sharing resources.

Hell, even incorporating 'libraries' dedicated to things other than books. If you're finished with it, put it in one of these 'distribution centers', and someone else can use it.

A world where everything is made to be the highest quality, and therefore no wasted materials... No planned obsolescence.

If it _were _possible to remove the monetary aspect of our social economy, perhaps a direction could be taken towards sustainability and progress. And not just as humanity, but as individuals.

If it is as you say, and these things are impossible, then I suppose humanity will just continue to downward spiral. It's unfortunate, but that's a possible reality.

I think that if humanity were _truly _civilized, it would innovate a more sustainable, workable system. No one would be left in scarcity-- To starve, to be without shelter. We would take care of our own.

Perhaps Star Trek and the like are mere idle fantasies, but that's often where great changes start. From the seeds of an impossible idea.

As for mass being made-- It doesn't _seem _likely. But, I wasn't necessarily thinking of materializing mass as much as 3d printing food. It could, and probably will, happen.

The economy, as it is, subsists upon growth and expansion-- It _depends _upon it. And it does so at an alarming rate. Eventually, it will not be _possible _to keep that rate at such a steady growth, without increasing human population _so _exponentially, that we probably wouldn't even have enough air to breathe.

The harsh, bitter truth of reality, is that it may work right now. But, it won't work indefinitely. And it's better to change as soon as one realizes that, to make a more workable, indefinite plan, than to continue to deteriorate and cause more problems.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

@Word Dispenser "the Economy" just is - good, bad, indifferent - and it is the product of human endeavor. It is not an entity. You are a part of the economy.
My Mother in law is approaching 90. She, like many old people, take a pile of pills. All these pills were developed by companies over a period of as many as 10 years before one dime of return was earned. All the research personnel, the grocers who provided food, the truckers who delivered materials, - and on down to the shoeshine boy at the barber shop have to live. Now, how is the research scientist going to barter with the grocer? By promising him that in ten years he will have a pill that will save his child's life? 
What you propose is a very primitive lifestyle where half of the children die from curable disease. And the well-made materials that do not wear out - who build them? Who provides the steel, the ceramics, the rubber for tires? 

And a printer that can combine carbon and water to make glucose, the very simplest molecule of food, is totally impossible. It does grow in plants that someone cultivates and puts their daily labor into doing so, and then someone processes it to pancake syrup, and someone grows wheat, and someone processes it, and someone provides sodium bicarbonate and salt to make pancake fllourr -
That is civilization. Can you grow and process all of what you eat? 

My mother lost two siblings growing up. One stepped on a rusty nail, punctured her shoe and pierced her foot. About 3 days later she had a high fever and in a week died of "lockjaw" - tetanus - because there were no antibiotics to cure it. A brother died of bloody diarrhea, cause unknown. My grandfather had six children - only three lived past 2 years old. Back in 1870 that was common. 
Modern society has its ills, but parents do not have to bury so many of their children. Modern society provides a better quality of life than any time before. 

Utopia is only a word.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> @_Word Dispenser_ "the Economy" just is - good, bad, indifferent - and it is the product of human endeavor. It is not an entity. You are a part of the economy.
> My Mother in law is approaching 90. She, like many old people, take a pile of pills. All these pills were developed by companies over a period of as many as 10 years before one dime of return was earned. All the research personnel, the grocers who provided food, the truckers who delivered materials, - and on down to the shoeshine boy at the barber shop have to live. Now, how is the research scientist going to barter with the grocer? By promising him that in ten years he will have a pill that will save his child's life?
> What you propose is a very primitive lifestyle where half of the children die from curable disease. And the well-made materials that do not wear out - who build them? Who provides the steel, the ceramics, the rubber for tires?
> 
> ...


Who said that medicine will suddenly be obsolete in the society I'm talking about? Did I give 'the economy' an assigned word of value, beyond 'unsustainable'? I never said it was bad. It's just not efficient, or sensible. There are better ways of achieving the same thing.

There will always be work for everyone to do, but as technology improves, the more menial tasks become more obsolete, paving the way for human beings to work at things they enjoy.

I never said that a 3d printing machine would be combining different chemical components. But, much of candy, for example, is made on automated assembly lines. A lot of packaged food is, as well.

You're writing as if you believe that the way society and governments are run is perfect, and there is no room for improvement.

All I suggest is progress-- A change towards a better way to run the system. There's a lot of new technology that would help achieve that progress easily, but isn't being utilized yet.

And... Yes-- Absolutely, I am a part of the economy. I eat, I buy things, I earn money. I didn't deny this.

I also never mentioned the word 'Utopia'. I don't think that is possible. But, I _do _think that improvements of current systems, _are. _


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I never said that a 3d printing machine would be combining different chemical components. But, much of candy, for example, is made on automated assembly lines. A lot of packaged food is, as well.
> 
> You're writing as if you believe that the way society and governments are run is perfect, and there is no room for improvement.


Why mess around with a 2d printer when present technology is faster and and much less expensive?

Maybe you are reading me that way, but I thing the government is our greatest evil.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> Why mess around with a 2d printer when present technology is faster and and much less expensive?
> 
> Maybe you are reading me that way, but I thing the government is our greatest evil.


3d printing won't always be expensive. And expense is a reason why a lot of progress doesn't happen, which is why I focus on monetary value as being counter-productive.

If there are better, more efficient, and sustainable ways of doing it-- Those are the ways I support. :kitteh:

If you believe the government to be the greatest evil... Enlighten me on how you think one might realistically and/or practically improve the existing government?

As it is, I realize my own ideas are flawed, and probably not practical, or even practicable, in the way I've presented them. But, at least they are looking outside the box, and trying, if feebly, to focus on progress.

My views are flexible-- They change when I encounter new information that refines them.


----------

