Is Extrasense's Mathematical Proof Debunking Kurzweil Valid?

  • Thread starter Extropia
  • Start date
In summary, Ray Kurzweil claims that one cubic inch of nanotube circuitry would perform 10^24 cps per second. However, a person known as Extrasense refutes this claim, using the uncertainty principle and calculations on energy and heat production. The validity of Extrasense's argument is questioned due to their reputation as a troll. Some argue that there are other factors to consider, such as the ability to harness heat and the concept of a copy being the same as the original. Overall, the debate continues on the potential of nanotechnology and its impact on human civilization.
  • #1
Extropia
1
0
Hello.

Ray Kurzweil says, in 'Singularity is Near' (I paraphrase slightly) "One cubic inch of nanotube circuitry, once fully developed, would perform 10^24 cps per second".

However, on the MindX forum, a person known as Extrasense has supposedly refuted this claim. ES posted:

Let us do a reality check on your numbers :)

Uncetainty principle:
dE*dT=h dE=h*10^12 = 6*10^-34 10^12 J =6*10^-22 J /per transistor per computation

E= dE*10^12=6*10^-22*10^12 = 6*10^-10 J/sec /per transistor per second

E_extro = 10^19*E = 6*10^9 J/sec = 6*10^9 watt /per 10^19 transistors

So, your inch size computer wil produce approximately as much of HEAT energy as all the electric power output of US!

The possibility you are missing is: the claims that you love so much are totally bogus.'

This would APPEAR to debunk Kurzweil, but I am no mathematician and so cannot tell if this is a genuine, or bogus, mathematical proof. I suspect it may be bogus because its poster (extrasense) has something of a bad reputation as a troll (google his name to see how many forums he has been ejected from for bad behaviour.

So, I was wondering if more qualified people than myself could proofread extrasense's maths-based evidence. Is it bogus or not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
it's funny, I'm working for a company that was founded by Kurzweil and still bears his name on the product. (Ray doesn't own or run any of it anymore, but the Koreans that do own the company retain Ray as some sort of strategic consultant.) anyway, Ray and Walt Disney will someday have something in common: their frozen, freshly (upon death) decapitated head in storage for some future civilization (like Futurama) to recover and make them alive again.

wonderful.

dunno whos numbers are better, but i thought this might be informative.
 
  • #3
hey Ex- still trying to wade through the trolls at MindX? I see that extrasense is still there [makes sense considering he has been banned from every other forum on the internet]

LOL- him and his silly rants against nanotech and quantum computers- I see he is using his made-up 'math' to show how impossible everything is-

first he is still clueless as to the nature of the uncertainty principle- which tells us what kind of information we can get about a particle when it is measured- however any high school chemistry student knows that the bonds and interactions between atoms and molecules are based on the very certain shapes and properties of the electron clouds that those uncertain electrons form- all forms of computing including chemical and quantum computing rely on very predictable rules of chemical and force interactions that have nothing to do with measurements of classical particles-

also it's ironic that he posts these numbers about heat- when there is already an excellent article by MIT's Seth Lloyd right there at KurzweilAI.net that gives detailed hard science answers to what computational power the laws of physics allows for the "ultimate laptop" and what is practical with the manufacturing techniques we know we already have: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0238.html [Broken]

it should be noted that extresense’s warnings about heat are quite curious- as there are a many different forms of material substrates which can be harnessed for both classical and quantum computation that can provide efficient and reliable input/output to temperatures far beyond the core of a star- very hot/very brief physical states have been produced and harnessed by human engineers for many applications for over half a century now- does he really think that molecular computing/ bio/dna computing/ quantum computing elements have the same material limits as IC technology? even so- just considering silicon semiconductors there are already many methods being devised to deal with heat [for example http://www.vxm.com/21R.30.html ] his arguments are similar to those used to argue against human flight or the sound barrier-

BTW- I noticed that there are still 'copy vs original' debates going on over there- I remember all those long hours years ago where several of us old-mindxers laid to rest [we thought forever] the idea that a copy could not be an original- simply because the medical science in recent years has proved definitively how every cell in the body/brain is continuously being replaced by very imprecise biological copy methods [and the atoms and sub-atomic particles in those cells is being replaced every few attoseconds]- and that if you believe that a copy of your mind is not you that you must mourn the passing of your predecessor’s soul every morning when you drop a deuce- the real you is now the poo-you- existing in Time means a person is an ensemble of lossy copies- ironically an 'upload' would be the closest to a true preservation of your current self into the future that you have ever experienced-

it's pretty crazy how much 'but what about the body and the environment!" fuzzy reasoning is posted over there as well- it is rather obvious that the only information that you get about your body and your world is whatever triggers your various sensory neurons and the only affect the world/body can have on the mind is only in how any physical factor can affect/change how your neurons are triggered/suppressed- therefore it is not necessary to deal with the body or the environment- only the EFFECT that the body/environment can have on the behavior of neural activity! it makes no sense that there are still those who argue about the body and the environment- the fact that our physical reality and body is only what our sensory systems perceive has even been pretty well covered in pop-culture for some time now! [remember Morpheus' 'desert of the real' scene with Neo in the Matrix?]- just an observation
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What methods were used to determine the authenticity of the figures?

The methods used to determine the authenticity of figures vary depending on the type of figure and the field of study. In general, scientists use a combination of techniques such as statistical analysis, data validation, and peer review to ensure the accuracy and validity of their figures.

2. How can we be sure that the figures are not manipulated or falsified?

Scientists follow strict protocols and standards when collecting, analyzing, and presenting data. These protocols include measures to prevent manipulation or falsification of figures, such as using multiple data sources and conducting independent verification.

3. Can we trust the figures if they are sponsored by a particular company or organization?

It is important to consider the source of funding for a study or research project when evaluating the authenticity of figures. However, the sponsorship alone does not determine the accuracy of the figures. It is essential to examine the methods and data used to generate the figures to determine their credibility.

4. How do scientists address discrepancies or errors in the figures?

Scientists are trained to critically analyze data and results, and they often use statistical methods to identify and address discrepancies or errors in figures. Additionally, peer review processes allow other experts in the field to evaluate and provide feedback on the figures before publication.

5. Are there any red flags to look out for when evaluating the authenticity of figures?

Some red flags to consider when evaluating the authenticity of figures include significant discrepancies between different data sources, lack of transparency in the methods used, and potential conflicts of interest. It is crucial to thoroughly examine the data and methods used to generate the figures to ensure their validity.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
67
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
33
Views
12K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
6
Replies
175
Views
20K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
27K
Back
Top