Printable View
What will happen after the sun dies out.. WIll the human race continue.. I think we will die out in another few thousand decades.... If so what is the meaning of our life.. We strugle so hard day to day.. Have war fight for land etc etc.. But when we see the universe we are not even a dot in it...
>What will happen after the sun dies out..
If I'm correct, when the sun is dying, this star will expand and 'eat' up the planets. So if the human race continues is depending on the fact if we have managed to make living on other planets possible and that we have cities on those planets.
>If so what is the meaning of our life
That is a hard question. I guess everybody has his/her own explanation which may also be based upon religion.
>But when we see the universe we are not even a dot in it.
That's true, we are just a very small part of something which is so large we almost can't understand. Today I read in the paper that scientists have found a new solar system with a planet which looks like Jupiter(?).
This reminds me of one of the greatest SF-books I've ever read: Foundation from Asimov.
I don't think that a disaster happening is 4 billion years is the planet's biggest concern at this time.
The sun will only eat up Mercury and Venus. Although, Tellus will be burnt out and it will be heated up so much even the mountains will melt, so I don't think human will be able to continue living under such conditions anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by Shiro
If I'm correct, when the sun is dying, this star will expand and 'eat' up the planets.
Maybe we can change the course of Tellus, moving it out further in the solar sytem, though. I've read maybe life will appear at some of the moons of Jupiter by then.
I also believe that with the way technology is getting more and more advanced, within shorter cycles, we will indeed be able to have colonized other orbits by the time Tellus is being burnt out.
I believe we might be able to live till the very end, if we can't interrupt that of course. I believe the meaning of our lives, given by evolution, is to reproduce.
>I believe the meaning of our lives, given by evolution, is to
>reproduce.
So, we are only here on earth to reproduce? If so, why do we change. If live on earth was only meant to reproduce, why did life not stay in the phase it initially was? Or do you mean that we reproduce to feed evolution?
There is some truth in it. When live doesn't reproduce, it can't evolute. So in that case, the purpose of live would be to let evolution going on. Then one can wonder, why should evolution go on?
It's just the way things are. Random mutations occasionally occur, if these new mutations are better fitted for the current environment than it's predecessors, it will spread and knock out the ones who are less fitted than themselves.
I believe that there are more factors to evolution than as described above though.
I always thought it was the other way around. If the environment changes, then the mutations will be in such a way that the creatures can fit as good as possible in that environment. Just like some creatures who started living in the ocean for some reason, lost their feet.
Incidental mutation happens. So maybe both scenarios are valid.
As i remember from my youth, the meaning of life is 42.
tell me if i am wrong
i wouldn't worry about our sun's expansion into a red giant. we're safe for a looong time.
ohhhh. that's why there is no insurance against "death or damages due to expansion of the Sun"...
lol
humanity has stagnated its evolutional development because it constantly helps the defective ones who should just die. If humans continue to let those who are weak and dangerous to their society live and reproduce, there will be no evolutionary progress and they will be annihilated by other being who have evolved while humanity has stagnated.
I disagree with the thought about not helping those who need it. There have been many people who should have died earlier in life but were saved by medicine and then went on to contribute something to society. Also, I feel that our technology is a form of evolution. We evolved to be able to create other objects that help us.
Well Humans dont need to evolve.. I think we have reached a stage where we are able to create humans... Cloning!!!! Well when you clone there is no evolution the same genes are being copied... May be in future cloning will become as common as childbirth...
A) Evolution takes place over many many years. Hence, we are evolving and you just probably don't notice it.
B) Part of the evolution is the knowledge of genetics. We might be able to speed up evolution through gene splicing and cloning.
So, you believe that through cloning, we can help evolve the human race? but we are just copying the same genes, as vasanth pointed out.Quote:
Originally posted by golfinguy4
A) Evolution takes place over many many years. Hence, we are evolving and you just probably don't notice it.
B) Part of the evolution is the knowledge of genetics. We might be able to speed up evolution through gene splicing and cloning.
what are you suggesting? that it might be possible to mutate the cells during the process of cloning to add the genetic material of other species (maybe fishes so we can breathe u/w) etc.?
i don't really know about this, but i guess it might be possible; probably not right now, but in the future.
damnit, forgot to log on...
that was me...
Ever since there were humans there's been a method of creating new humans, its called breeding :-).Quote:
Originally posted by vasanth
Well Humans dont need to evolve.. I think we have reached a stage where we are able to create humans... Cloning!!!! Well when you clone there is no evolution the same genes are being copied... May be in future cloning will become as common as childbirth...
And, why do people think that we'll be able to get cloning absolutely perfect? How are our cloning processes and subsequent cell growth processed going to be any more accurately controlled than the ones already used by biological organisms?
The possibilty for random change still exists there by mutation and possible evolution.
The process we're stopping\have stopped is evolution by natural selection, having removed ourselves from many of the natural selection pressures.
And the possibility for tinkering with a genome is definately there for cloning. Just look at the steps
Take cells from subject to be cloned.
Take DNA from subject.
Tinker with DNA if you like, otherwise make a clone.
Get recently fertilised ova.
Remove its DNA.
Add new DNA.
Gestate.
Get clone\ uber-being.
We are born to die. No if's and's or but's about it. What we do in the inbetween then is what sets us apart from everyone else.
IMHO, cloning is not a form of evolution, as it is directed by mankind. And I am of the opinion that we are continually evolving.
Since evolution is a change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. If mankind is involved in natural selection, it is no longer natural, as no human is unbiased.
Just my $.0125 worth.
I imagine the expansion of a star like the sun would happen over a very long long time. Since such is probably the case, it is very well possible that outer planets will become habitable. (i.e. gases burn off and create a useable environment)
Imagine the expansion of the human project in the last two hundred years. It is very likely that we will have answers for these things as they come up due to the amount of knowlege we will have by that time.
Could it be possible that we will be pure energy by that time? Could it be possible that 'Dune-like' space/time folding exists? Could it be possible that we could not even imagine our capabilities a hundred thousand years from now?
There is still reason to live, exist, share, love, think, etc. We are not doomed yet, and our children have a unique opportunity to live a great life even though the future resources seem bleak.... humans persevere.... it is what we do.
I do not worry about it much. Life is good. Have a beer, kick back, relax.....
I really don't think that our future is in cloning. I mean, I'm all for the medical research of therapeutic cloning, but cloning will not help evolution in any way. Besides, we're still so far from working out all the kinks in the process. When scientists create a clone, the clone is not at all like a new being. It's cells still think it's as old as the one that was cloned.
But sometimes I think that we're messing with things that shouldn't be messed with. We've come to a point where not only the fittest survive, and evolution isn't as efficient as it used to be. Our scientist make new discoveries faster that we can think about consequences. Science is a beautiful thing, but it's very dangerous.
Quote:
Originally posted by vasanth
What will happen after the sun dies out.. WIll the human race continue.. I think we will die out in another few thousand decades.... If so what is the meaning of our life.. We strugle so hard day to day.. Have war fight for land etc etc.. But when we see the universe we are not even a dot in it...
the old dies, the new comes~
well wats the use.... We go on breedin and one fine day we are not there...
Errrr... excuse me guys, I just need to go and do some serious breeding:D
"Could it be possible that we will be pure energy by that time? "
No, not possible.
"When scientists create a clone, the clone is not at all like a new being. It's cells still think it's as old as the one that was cloned. "
Interesting point, but not a problem that is insurmountable. (you would think that sperm and eggs would be the same age as the man/woman.....)
"But sometimes I think that we're messing with things that shouldn't be messed with"
There is no "should" and "should not" in any universal sense. If a change can benefit humanity, then using it is a good thing. The "humans should not mess with 'insert scientific development here'" argument surfaces from the public who do not have an adequate understanding of science. The victorian pubic had the exact same reaction to organ transplants, we see it in todays population with cloning/genetic manipulation.
"Our scientist make new discoveries faster that we can think about consequences"
Science is not about application, science is about discovering how and why the world works. That knowledge is then used if people want to use it. It can be used for social good or bad.
Having said that, many people trained in science do go into R&D to apply scientific knowledge, and society has a role to play in determining whether to hinder or encourage R&D in a particular area. The problem is that the public have a poor understanding of the issues and are swayed by the "people shouldn't be messing with this" type of argument instead of actually considering the pros and cons of a given development they often fall into hysteria.
I would also like to point out that evolution is not the force for "advancement" that many people seem to think it is. Evolution merely makes organisms better adapted to a given environment, it is also limited by its mechanism: changes are made gradually, you cannot have arches in nature (because an arch cannot be built up gradually, an arch missing any segment is totally useless).
What this means is that if there was a huge disaster, meteor hits Earth type stuff, it is quite possible that evolution would favour strength over intellect, further more, if an incurable disease sprang up up that could only be passed on male-> male or female -> female, society would disintergrate. Evolution would turn us back into non-social animals.
Basically evolution does not necessarily equal intellect. Furthermore there are several potent hinderances to evolution advancing our intellect any further, 1st off many people believe that we are at our peak intellect already because any increase in brain size means a decrease in brain speed. Even if this were not the case the 2nd problem is that head size is also constrained by the size of female hips, which in turn are limited by our bipedal nature.
It is also worth noting that certain elements of human evolution have been slowed by modern society: medicine, special-learning centres, etc.
Genetic manipulation combined with external gestation, (ie. false wombs) could result in humans with abnormally large heads and hence higher intellects, though as previously mentioned their processing speed and reaction time would be diminised (which could counteract the advantages of having a larger cranium). Stephen Hawking talks of the above scenario in his book "The universe in a nut-shell", i must say though that i find it extremely worrying, not because it would be "weird" or "unnatural" to have humans with large heads (thats just social conditioning) but because it would make humanity fully DEPENDANT on technology, to the point where a natural disaster or a war, if large enough, could totally destroy us. (Without artificial wombs our big-headed brethren would be unable to reproduce..... bye bye human race).
I think the future lies not so much in genetic maniplation (though un-doubtedly it will play a sizeable part; maximising genes for intellect/good looks/athleticism/etc.) but more in the interaction between computers and biology. Basically i reckon we'll all have chips in our head (not neccesarily made out of silicon mind you) that enhance our faculties, link us up to an uber version of the web, etc.
As for surving past the death of the sun, our only chance is to leave the Earth, when the sun forms a red giant, it will expand and heat the surface of the Earth to near 3000 degrees (i think thats the figure though i might be wrong, either way its too hot for life). If we (i say "we" in the most general sense of the word, since whatever "we" are by that point "we" will certainly not resemble todays humanity) are to go on we will we have to flee to space, and find ourselves a new home.
>Basically evolution does not necessarily equal intellect. Furthermore there are several potent hinderances to evolution advancing our intellect any further, 1st off many people believe that we are at our peak intellect already because any increase in brain size means a decrease in brain speed. Even if this were not the case the 2nd problem is that head size is also constrained by the size of female hips, which in turn are limited by our bipedal nature.<
>Genetic manipulation combined with external gestation, (ie. false wombs) could result in humans with abnormally large heads and hence higher intellects, though as previously mentioned their processing speed and reaction time would be diminised (which could counteract the advantages of having a larger cranium). Stephen Hawking talks of the above scenario in his book "The universe in a nut-shell", i must say though that i find it extremely worrying, not because it would be "weird" or "unnatural" to have humans with large heads (thats just social conditioning) but because it would make humanity fully DEPENDANT on technology, to the point where a natural disaster or a war, if large enough, could totally destroy us. (Without artificial wombs our big-headed brethren would be unable to reproduce..... bye bye human race).<
As I recall we already only use a small section off are brain's abilitys. Einsten used only a few percent more and is much more inteligent then anyone here. One could only imagin the possiblites if one could use his or her full brain capacity.
You're all wrong. The true end of humans will occour when those damn dirty apes take over.
The claim over human brain usage is "humans only use 10% of their brains". What is often missed off is the rest of the sentance, "for conscious thought". A huge proportion, 40-60% appears to be entirely dedicated to seeing.
Nearly as misquoted as "The love of money is the root of all evil"
Exactly. At the time being, we can't do anything to change this, so why worry about it? If it's gonna happen, so be it, at least have a good time while you're here.Quote:
I do not worry about it much. Life is good. Have a beer, kick back, relax.....
>>>"Could it be possible that we will be pure energy by that time? "
No, not possible. <<<<<
Yes it is.
"As I recall we already only use a small section off are brain's abilitys. "
Nuh-uh, its a myth. Human beings use 100% of their brain, however not all of it is for concious thought; muscle control, homeostasis, sense input/processing, and a huge amount of other functions use up the rest.
"Yes it is."
... no.... it's not. Do you even know what energy is?
"Energy
3. Strength of expression; force of utterance; power to impress the mind and arouse the feelings; life; spirit;"
Tit for tat Mr. Einstein... perhaps 'electricity' makes you feel better.
You sure have a lot of strong comments about everything, you must have several PhDs in physics, medicine, and others.
And quite the contentious ego you have.... one of those that absolutely cannot be wrong or the world falls apart....
"you cannot have arches in nature"
Yes 'you' can. ;)
Heh not the definition i was looking for, but no matter, it makes no difference; biology cannot "become" "pure energy". It's a nonsense statement.
"perhaps 'electricity' makes you feel better. "
Eh? So you think we can turn into electricity now? Hah, though i suppose about as plausable as turning into "pure energy".
"You sure have a lot of strong comments about everything, you must have several PhDs in physics, medicine, and others"
I have good general and in certain areas specialist knowledge of scientific disciplines. I have been studying science for the last 7 years of my life (and i'm rather good at it if i do say so myself), and intend to spend the rest of my life in the same fashion.
Thing is it's not like you need a Phd, or even a university education to rebuke many of the nonsense statements that get thrown up on the board, any kind of basic scientific education would do.
"And quite the contentious ego you have.... one of those that absolutely cannot be wrong or the world falls apart.... "
Do i have an ego? HELL YEA however in the context of this message board, the reason you think i'm arrogant is because i'm sure of what i talk about and i express myself with reasonable clarity(because i actually know what i'm talking about, unlike some people *cough*).
"Yes 'you' can"
*Sigh* no, 'you' can't, the arch is a classical example used in BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS, to demonstrate an example of a structure that cannot be formed through natural selection.
It's easy to see why; any part of an arch is dependant on each and every other part, you can build an arch of blocks, and once made it will stay standing without any glue/cement and will be able to take a considerable load, however if any brick is removed the arch is useless. Evolution works by gradually accumulating characteristics than confer an advantage, you cannot gradually form a structural arch, because it is only usefull when 100% complete.
1. Can you have an arch in nature?
Sure, happens all the time. Not through biology/evolution/etc, though. Lots of geologic arches happen through geology.
2. Can people turn into pure energy?
Well, what is "pure energy"? I guess e= mc2 means you could, but there wouldn't be anything of people left, it would just be "pure energy".
The question should be more like can the information system/sequence/algorythm making up a person be translated into another form independent of matter. This is a broader question and impinges on theology, but still has scientific roots. Right now the answer is who knows?
>>>I have been studying science for the last 7 years of my life (and i'm rather good at it if i do say so myself)<<<
Yeah like your comments on plants not feeling pain... you were golden on that one. The guy even showed an article to strengthen his concept.
And if you look around at all those little wooden things with green things on them... I am not scientific and all but I think they are called leaves... you will see all kinds of arches. Caves are arches in some respects. There is a rock in AZ that a river found its way through that distinctly resembles an arch standing all by its lonesome. I have climbed it. Bow legged people... now there is an arch for you.
>>>Heh not the definition i was looking for, but no matter, it makes no difference; biology cannot "become" "pure energy". It's a nonsense statement.<<<
Who said anything about biology. (though, I am sure you know that our biological make up is atoms... atoms have energy, both kinetic and a few in there are potential... but that is beside the point) Take your magnificent understanding of science and determine the true abstract of the human entity... the being... that which makes you. The area that science passes... the soul. Some people believe in the possible existence of an entity that makes you that isn't a biological construct.
Mainly I just said "yes it is" to your not possible statement to pick at you a bit.... but the reality of things is that you or any other scientist (even those that know what they are talking about) cannot possibly fathom the existence of the human entity in say 400,000 years (if any form of us even exists at all).
And I am sure, since you are a scientist and all that, you wouldn't believe in a soul or entity that makes up the human project. So you would believe that we as individuals are mere impulses upon organic matter stored within an evolutionary body that meets the needs of our current environment. Ok. So if we are impulses, the posibilty may exist to duplicate each psyche in a computer of sorts in say... 1 million years. The ability could exist to store 'us' in computers.
Take a single computer made solely out of optics where beams of light created by organic lasers are the make-up of you, Clyde the science wizard from cprogramming.com ... another million years passes... new applications are found to support thought processes without the use of cables, but still using organic lasers (available now btw, bell-labs.com) Now you are a set of organic lasers that shoot light through the air held together by a magnetic field perhaps. Another million years....
do you get the point? There is room in the scientific community for plausibility even where there isn't distinct possibility. You can shoot holes in this all day... today, but in a million years... you cannot tell me where we will be biologically or otherwise.
So you are much like a tv lawyer... looks good in the act, doesn't know crap about the reality of law.
Jet, you forgot that I said gene splicing AND cloning. Gene splicing leads to organisms that can be dramatically different. Then, after using this, we can use cloning to speed up this process.
Behold... someone with a brain.Quote:
Originally posted by salvelinus
1. Can you have an arch in nature?
Sure, happens all the time. Not through biology/evolution/etc, though. Lots of geologic arches happen through geology.
2. Can people turn into pure energy?
Well, what is "pure energy"? I guess e= mc2 means you could, but there wouldn't be anything of people left, it would just be "pure energy".
The question should be more like can the information system/sequence/algorythm making up a person be translated into another form independent of matter. This is a broader question and impinges on theology, but still has scientific roots. Right now the answer is who knows?
>> Right now the answer is who knows?
Well Clyde of course... he knows everything. lol ;)
The main sticking point in this now rather petty argument is quite frankly one of everyones use/interpretation of language.
For ease I will start on arches and if I can be bothered onto pure and energy.
You're difference of opinion on arches in nature is down to each of your individual definitions of an "arch".
Clyde, is reading the word arch, and I think, to him it appears an arch is defined by 3 things, shape, function and constuction. An arch is a atructural construction, semicircular in nature, built of a series of wedge shaped components such that the compressive forces hold it together and can be used to securely distribute a load.
This kind of arch, has been around for centuries and was\is a common archetectural device. This arch, does not exist in nature, unless there have been any really freaky rock falls reported.
The other interpretation is an arch is something that is "arch-shaped". And yes, curved things exist in nature.
If people would be as kind to clarify their definitions of "pure energy" to me, I will gladly throw some weight around there as well, I may as well use my physics degree for something every now and again.
:D :D :D LMFAO!! Nice one.Quote:
Bunch of arch-holes
"Yeah like your comments on plants not feeling pain... you were golden on that one. The guy even showed an article to strengthen his concept. "
LOL, yea that article from CNN sure set me straight... *chortles*
"And if you look around at all those little wooden things with green things on them... I am not scientific and all but I think they are called leaves... you will see all kinds of arches"
RobS as already clarified what i mean by an arch, i did not realise the definition was what was being contended.
"Who said anything about biology. (though, I am sure you know that our biological make up is atoms... atoms have energy, both kinetic and a few in there are potential... but that is beside the point) Take your magnificent understanding of science and determine the true abstract of the human entity... the being... that which makes you. The area that science passes... the soul. Some people believe in the possible existence of an entity that makes you that isn't a biological construct. "
*Considers rebuking this nonsense, then just gives in to a fit of hysterics*
"Mainly I just said "yes it is" to your not possible statement to pick at you a bit.... but the reality of things is that you or any other scientist (even those that know what they are talking about) cannot possibly fathom the existence of the human entity in say 400,000 years (if any form of us even exists at all). "
ROFL, you really don't have a clue do you? Cannot fathom the existance of the human entity...... what utter utter giberish, did you not study any biology at all?
"So you would believe that we as individuals are mere impulses upon organic matter stored within an evolutionary body that meets the needs of our current environment. Ok. So if we are impulses, the posibilty may exist to duplicate each psyche in a computer of sorts in say... 1 million years. The ability could exist to store 'us' in computers. "
OMG something thats almost intelligent, CONGRATULATIONS MAN! Anyway, "impulses upon organic matter stored within an evolutionary body".... a fairly meaningless collection of words there, but you are somewhat redeemed by your next statement, it might indeed be possible to recreate the structure of the brain within a computer.
"Take a single computer made solely out of optics where beams of light created by organic lasers are the make-up of you, Clyde the science wizard from cprogramming.com ... another million years passes... new applications are found to support thought processes without the use of cables, but still using organic lasers "
What exactly is an "organic laser"? But ok lets say we have a computer that uses lasers, how are you going to store memory w/o using matter? How are you going to detect a laser without using matter?
"Now you are a set of organic lasers that shoot light through the air held together by a magnetic field perhaps. Another million years....
do you get the point? "
Not really, so theoretically you could make a computer act like a person, and then you could improve the computer's technology:
1) The laser of this uber computer that may or may not exist will still have to use physical technology made of matter. (Laser beams are fired by physical objects, photon detectors are physical objects, etc.).
2) This "pure energy" nonsense is still nonsense, because you would be NO CLOSER TO BEING "pure energy" than you are RIGHT NOW. Mass and energy are equivalent remember, meaning that if you want to define us like that you could claim that we are "pure energy" right now. (Of course such a statement is foolish because the point is that EVERYTHING is "pure energy")
However thats somewhat different from the mythical sci-fi faff where people believe that we will somehow ascend to a higher form of "energy", where they somehow invisage us as beings made of light, (no, no lazers, just light that floats around).
"So you are much like a tv lawyer... looks good in the act, doesn't know crap about the reality of law."
Yea you're right i don't know crap, i must have just fluked all those exams, no no, i know i must have cheated, yea thats it. Man i was SO lucky to have have found the answer papers to all my exams, how else would i have come top in them eh? Someone as awfull at science as me, would have stood no chance.....
You're a funny guy Beta, perhaps a career in comedy rather than programming is on the cards? :)
"Well, what is "pure energy"? I guess e= mc2 means you could, but there wouldn't be anything of people left, it would just be "pure energy". "
Not really, E=mc2 means that we ARE "pure energy", and its STILL a nonsense term, wtf is "pure" energy, as opposed to "impure"? Like bad "unclean" energy, heh. Energy is energy, is the potential to do work.
"The question should be more like can the information system/sequence/algorythm making up a person be translated into another form independent of matter"
The answer is no. You could theoretically, make beta's laser computer but it would still have material components, hence not be "independant of matter". The reason is that matter's interactions are more allow far FAR greater complexity than photon interactions.
Well, you've got a good point about "pure energy", but it's easy enough to get the idea - energy as opposed to matter. Matter can be thought of as compressed energy in a sense, but that trivializes the difference between the two. Light, heat, gamma rays, etc, are energy, while my desk is matter.
I suppose if people were to somehow become translated into energy a material source would be necessary to effect this change, but once converted, wouldn't need the material source. Light from the sun doesn't need the sun once it's produced. If the sun were to vanish immediately, we'd still have eight minutes of light coming our way.
I'm not claiming that people will become energy beings, or even that it's possible. I'm just saying it's not proven impossible.
>>>What exactly is an "organic laser"?
http://www.bell-labs.com/news/2000/july/28/1.html
There are already nearly full optic computers.
>>>You're a funny guy Beta, perhaps a career in comedy rather than programming is on the cards?
At least you are lightening up a bit....
I suppose my whole point in this is that our conversations don't have to be points to 'win' as you seem so vehement in doing.
and....
"I'm not claiming that people will become energy beings, or even that it's possible. I'm just saying it's not proven impossible." and therein lay a chance, though it may be a small one.
And my question was "is it it possible...", to which you gave a valid opinion... but I assumed correctly... that others like salvelinus would have an nearly opposite opinion.
It is based on sci-fi, but a lot of science fiction is based on what scientists think are possibilities... Isaac Asimov for example.
Anyway... I lean toward the plausable in any regard... discovery is met by developing an idea and finding supporting reasons why the idea is valid or invalid. I guess we will have to agree to disagree....
>>I suppose my whole point in this is that our conversations don't have to be points to 'win' as you seem so vehement in doing.
I think your missing the whole idea in debating. In a debate someone one come's in with fact, then another with a different fact. A debate depend's on the (in a forum) poster's frame of reference. I read all the post's and when i'm i feel i have a high enough frame of reference on the subject i post. After being debated
by someone with a higher frame of reference on the subject it's quite nice to look even
further into subject to challenge your idea's.
On the outside it look's like someone is a "know it all", but to the poster it's all in an attempt to improve their own frame of reference, and when you see alot of debating by a single person say clyde, we'll... that's just clyde's way of improving your frame of reference( be it chock full of condescension)
Do a search for frame of reference
and see what you come up with, it'll help get you into the world of debating. (if you so desire)
"I lean toward the plausable in any regard... discovery is met by developing an idea and finding supporting reasons why the idea is valid or invalid. I guess we will have to agree to disagree...."
Ok, i guess we will. I believe what i do for a reason; its simply not feasable to make a computer soley out of photons which is i think what you actually mean by "pure energy".
"It is based on sci-fi, but a lot of science fiction is based on what scientists think are possibilities... Isaac Asimov for example. "
Science fiction can certainly have interestin things to say, in fact I personally think that much of Asimov's world is quite possible, if not probable. BUT just because something occurs in a sci-fi book does NOT mean that it is possible in reality; Science fiction is constrained by the imagination, reality is constrained by the laws of physics, the two are very different.
"I suppose my whole point in this is that our conversations don't have to be points to 'win' as you seem so vehement in doing."
Perhaps i was a little hard on you, though in my defense if you had said: "Is there are possibility that through use of photon interactions we could build a computer powerfull enough to synthetically recreate the human brain" rather than "is there are possiblity that we could become pure energy" I would have been less so (i would still have explained why it couldn't be, but with less vehemence).
Try this site for scientists view of some of the ideas discussed here. One view here is that traditional physics looks at the universe on a machine model, while another view is to look at it on a software model. Sort of equations v. algorthyms.
It's probably not a majority view, but it's an emerging and respected view.
"Matter can be thought of as compressed energy in a sense, but that trivializes the difference between the two. Light, heat, gamma rays, etc, are energy, while my desk is matter. "
But you see there really isn't any difference between the two (atleast that's what my two physics student flat mates told me, so if i'm wrong RobS is welcome to jump in and tell me so) mass is considered to just be another form of energy, no less so, than light, heat, etc.
"I suppose if people were to somehow become translated into energy a material source would be necessary to effect this change, but once converted, wouldn't need the material source"
It is simply not feasable to "convert" people into energy, photons are vastly more simply in terms of number of possible interactions than matter. They also can never stand still!
". Light from the sun doesn't need the sun once it's produced. If the sun were to vanish immediately, we'd still have eight minutes of light coming our way. "
But light from the sun is just a stream of photons, you cannot reproduce complex systems using just photons.
The only way you could consider doing this, is by somehow scanning a human being, there disintergrating him, then building him from the ground up. At the point during the two phases our human being would just be a bunch of 0s and 1s on the computer, thats about as close as you can get to "pure energy". Furthermore even that scenario is horribly flawed; You would need advancements in nanotechnology that are simply unrealistic (we are talking about individually placing every molecule in every cell, in a specific position, even if you somehow generate all your cells biologically then try and fit them together its stil pushing the bounds of realism by quite a long way), AND you would need a hard drive the size of a galaxy to store the information..... i don't think so, its just not a feasale scenario at all.
I have read the articles on the number of computations the universe could do before. But, its simply a theoretical calculation that albeit interesting most physicists believe doesn't actually have a physical meaning. (There was an article in the New Scientist about it a couple of weeks ago).