Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [hackers-il] Is Capitalism the Ideal or the State of the Art?

Expand Messages
  • Nadav Har'El
    ... I thought about this a little bit, and there s a solution to the mass problem: If the amount of mass entering the house was larger than the amount exiting
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 3 6:32 AM
      On Tue, Apr 03, 2001, To hackers-il@yahoogroups.com wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Is Capitalism the Ideal or the State of the Art?":
      > And we also
      > need mass for the mass of the object we're going to create. But where are
      > we going to get that mass? Of course, we can take cheap mass like earth or
      > sea-water, or something like that, but getting that mass and transporting it
      > is non-duplicatable work - just like now, if you want to buy earth or water
      > you have to pay someone for it. (Using air as that mass is problematic,
      > because you need a lot of air for even a small mass, and this will generate
      > a lot of wind in the cities ;))

      I thought about this a little bit, and there's a solution to the mass problem:
      If the amount of mass entering the house was larger than the amount exiting
      the house was positive, then after some time the entire house will be filled
      with stuff (this is a known problem even nowadays ;)) so that is _not_ what is
      actually happening. So in a steady state you could keep the outgoing mass
      (sewage and garbage) within the house, for "recycling" into new things. You
      will still have some mass deficiancy (because some food mass will be lost as
      CO2 and H2O that are harder to collect, and because you'll have a slow but
      constant increase of the "stuff" you collect in your home), but this
      deficiancy can probably be filled by sucking in air (at around 1.2 kg per
      cubic meter, if I remember correctly).
      For the sake of our atmosphere, cities will estimate the amount of air they
      are using, and have manchines that convert sea-water (for example) to air.
      This will probably be done high above ground so that the generated hurricanes
      of air don't effect people (or birds, or whatever). Perhaps this air can be
      generated with high entropy (i.e., hot) to act as the entropy-sink we also
      need (see my previous post).

      I once heard there's a book called something like "The Physics of Star
      Trek", explaining how the things seen in Star Trek can be possible. Has
      anyone read it? Does it say anything about object replication?



      --
      Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Apr 3 2001, 10 Nisan 5761
      nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
      Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |If God is watching us, the least we can
      http://nadav.harel.org.il |do is be entertaining.
    • Oleg Goldshmidt
      ... Aren t you running into the entropy problem here? ... Sounds like alchemy. Not really, of course, since transformations between elements are one the
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 3 7:35 AM
        "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

        > So in a steady state you could keep the outgoing mass
        > (sewage and garbage) within the house,

        Aren't you running into the entropy problem here?

        > have manchines that convert sea-water (for example) to air.

        Sounds like alchemy. Not really, of course, since transformations
        between elements are one the biggest technological achievements of
        the past century. However, we are talking about transformations
        between elements like oxigen and nitrogen (the latter is not present
        in water IIRC), called "metals" by astronomers. Ask astronomers, and
        they'll tell you that nuclear reactions involving "metals" -- the
        so-called CNO cycle -- are exceedingly slow. The only places in the
        universe where metals are produced are star interiors (no, the Big
        Bang can't do it). I'll skip the details, at least until the list
        applies a moderate peer pressure.

        > Perhaps this air can be generated with high entropy (i.e., hot) to
        > act as the entropy-sink we also need (see my previous post).

        You need energy for that... A truly vicious circle.

        Check the subject - we have wandered very far from it, haven't we?

        --
        Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
        "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
      • Nadav Har'El
        ... Yes, as I said you ll need a way to relieve you of the excess entropy somehow. Entropy sewers? Releasing a small part of the air back to the atmosphere
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 3 8:33 AM
          On Tue, Apr 03, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Is Capitalism the Ideal or the State of the Art?":
          > "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:
          >
          > > So in a steady state you could keep the outgoing mass
          > > (sewage and garbage) within the house,
          >
          > Aren't you running into the entropy problem here?

          Yes, as I said you'll need a way to "relieve" you of the excess entropy
          somehow. Entropy sewers? Releasing a small part of the air back to the
          atmosphere very hot? Releasing hydrogen (you can release more atoms per
          weight, so you increase the entropy)? I don't know.

          > > have manchines that convert sea-water (for example) to air.
          >
          > Sounds like alchemy. Not really, of course, since transformations
          > between elements are one the biggest technological achievements of
          > the past century. However, we are talking about transformations
          > between elements like oxigen and nitrogen (the latter is not present
          > in water IIRC), called "metals" by astronomers. Ask astronomers, and
          > they'll tell you that nuclear reactions involving "metals" -- the
          > so-called CNO cycle -- are exceedingly slow. The only places in the
          > universe where metals are produced are star interiors (no, the Big
          > Bang can't do it). I'll skip the details, at least until the list
          > applies a moderate peer pressure.

          Of course, there are several technical issues I didn't mention because I
          thought that everybody knows about them and they are straightforward to
          think about (but not to actually implement), and also because I thought
          they had no relevance to the capitalism issue. These issues is how to create
          the atoms or simple molecules you need (will you require input of the same
          mulecules, say "cartridges" of oxigen, hydrogen and iron, or will you
          convert any material to the atoms you need? The latter is more flexible of
          course), and how to actually manufacture the object in question (this is
          a seperate issue all together - see for example the best-seller "Nano" about
          nanotechnology).

          > > Perhaps this air can be generated with high entropy (i.e., hot) to
          > > act as the entropy-sink we also need (see my previous post).
          >
          > You need energy for that... A truly vicious circle.

          It's not a vicious circle. Assuming we have the proper "alchemy" technology,
          energy is equivalent to mass, and you can create both of them from any mass
          like sea-water (if you don't like to use the E=MC^2 theory for that, just
          think of converting water to petrol, and then using up that petrol, or convert
          water into Uranium and do some fission :))

          So you if you have mass you have plenty of energy - it's getting rid of all
          that entropy which is the problem.

          Again, think of plants: why do they go into all the trouble of using sunlight
          (which is not available at night, in winter, under trees, etc.) when the
          "obvious" alternative will be to use the warmth of the ground they are on?
          After all, even a frozen ground contains a lot of heat energy (the point where
          it does not contain any more heat energy is "absolute zero" -273 celcius).
          Sounds a good idea? Well, it isn't. The second law of thermodynamics says
          that you cannot move heat energy from a cold place to a warmer place (an
          action that decreases entropy) without investing more energy in making
          something else warmer (thereby increasing the entropy of the system back) -
          so the plant will only waste energy. This is how refrigerators and air-
          conditioners work. A refrigerator indeed pulls heat energy out from the
          objects in it, but far from producing energy - it needs to waste that and more
          energy just to run this refrigeration cycle. Touch the back of a refrigerator
          to get a feel for that energy that goes to waste because of thermodynamics.

          Thermodynamics is actually a very interesting subject, but quite difficult
          to comprehend at first (I still don't think I fully understand it all).

          > Check the subject - we have wandered very far from it, haven't we?

          Not really! We were talking about whether replication machines will relieve
          you of the need to depend on others (i.e., pay others money), and I was saying
          how you still have some unsolved (or at least which I don't know the solution)
          problems that will keep your dependence on others. The thermodynamic issue
          was only one of the issues I raised.

          Certainly it has nothing to do with hacking, but the original question
          didn't either :)

          P.S. If you consider this only as a philosphical question, not a question
          with physical issues, it becomes a pointless question. This is because
          your replication machine can "philosophically" create a whole new planet
          for you, filled with copies of friendly and compliant people that will
          serve you, and an army with a huge arsenal to fend of the attacks of
          lawyers on your planet, so none of the financial issues are relevant any
          more :)

          --
          Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Apr 3 2001, 10 Nisan 5761
          nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
          Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Why do doctors call what they do
          http://nadav.harel.org.il |practice? Think about it.
        • Oleg Goldshmidt
          Allow me to re-arrange your posting a bit to put the following two statements together: ... ;-) I wholeheartedly agree with both statements. Having studied
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 3 8:55 AM
            Allow me to re-arrange your posting a bit to put the following two
            statements together:

            "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

            > Of course, there are several technical issues I didn't mention because I
            > thought that everybody knows about them and they are straightforward to
            > think about

            > Thermodynamics is actually a very interesting subject, but quite difficult
            > to comprehend at first (I still don't think I fully understand it all).

            ;-)

            I wholeheartedly agree with both statements. Having studied physics
            for quite a few years, and worked in the area, 10% I tend to think that
            everybody knows everything relevant, and 90% of the time I am baffled
            by things I can't understand...

            > course), and how to actually manufacture the object in question (this is
            > a seperate issue all together - see for example the best-seller "Nano" about
            > nanotechnology).

            By Ed Regis? Is it worth reading? The Amazon reviews are mixed at
            best...

            > if you don't like to use the E=MC^2 theory for that

            No, I don't. I don't know how to handle antimatter that is implicitly
            involved in this formula... ;-)

            > So you if you have mass you have plenty of energy - it's getting rid of all
            > that entropy which is the problem.

            I just mentioned another one, a purre technicality, of course.

            > > Check the subject - we have wandered very far from it, haven't we?
            >
            > Not really!

            I forgot to put a smiley there.

            > The thermodynamic issue was only one of the issues I raised.

            Maintaining income gap as a means of keeping the world's entropy in
            check? [NB: no smiley here]

            > P.S. If you consider this only as a philosphical question, not a question
            > with physical issues, it becomes a pointless question.

            <troll> That's true about any question, isn't it? </troll>

            --
            Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
            "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
          • Nadav Har'El
            ... Yes, it s by Ed Regis. It s mostly a biography of Eric Drexler (see www.foresight.org), some guy who dabbled in the issues of nanotechnology (mostly
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 3 9:53 AM
              On Tue, Apr 03, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Is Capitalism the Ideal or the State of the Art?":
              > > course), and how to actually manufacture the object in question (this is
              > > a seperate issue all together - see for example the best-seller "Nano" about
              > > nanotechnology).
              >
              > By Ed Regis? Is it worth reading? The Amazon reviews are mixed at
              > best...

              Yes, it's by Ed Regis. It's mostly a biography of Eric Drexler (see
              www.foresight.org), some guy who dabbled in the issues of nanotechnology
              (mostly talking, in my opinion). It isn't one of the greatest books I've
              read, I have to admit. A lot more talk and politics than actual technical
              details. You might say it was _slightly_ interesting, not more than that.

              >
              > > if you don't like to use the E=MC^2 theory for that
              >
              > No, I don't. I don't know how to handle antimatter that is implicitly
              > involved in this formula... ;-)

              Ooops... You're right... I forgot about the other laws of conservation,
              like conservation of baryonic number (or whatever it called, you know
              that quantatity that protons and neutrons have 1 of and electrons or
              photons have 0) and spin (bosons like photons have whole numbers, fermions
              like protons and neutrons have half numbers) and charge. So that I guess if
              these laws of conservation are not overruled by the "grand unified theory",
              whatever that will be, you'll need to either keep the same numbers and types
              of elementary particles in your original "raw" material, or be prepared to
              handle the extra matter (or anti-matter).

              Sounds complicated, but seems a lot better than keeping seperate stocks
              of chemical elements lying around. "Damn, I ran out of chloride. Now all
              my food will taste bland." :)

              --
              Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Apr 3 2001, 11 Nisan 5761
              nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
              Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Early bird gets the worm, but the second
              http://nadav.harel.org.il |mouse gets the cheese.
            • Oleg Goldshmidt
              ... As I said earlier, keep a star around (a yellow G-type would do quite nicely, thank you), point the remote at it, and press the fast forward button... ;-)
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 4 1:11 AM
                "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

                > Sounds complicated, but seems a lot better than keeping seperate stocks
                > of chemical elements lying around.

                As I said earlier, keep a star around (a yellow G-type would do quite
                nicely, thank you), point the remote at it, and press the fast forward
                button... ;-)

                --
                Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
                "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.