Imagining the tenth dimension
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
P
paulnotbilly
Guest
Regarding processing power, the answer to the amount of memory required may be this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4857306.stm
Holographic advance aids storage
Magnetic disks have a storage density of about 37.5Gb per square inch
A US firm says it has set a commercial data storage record by achieving 515 gigabits (Gb) per square inch.
InPhase Technologies says it reached the level using a holographic drive, which has a higher capacity than conventional magnetic storage media.
It said the technology could eventually lead to a holographic disc that could hold more than 100 DVD-quality movies.
InPhase expects to unveil its first holographic drive later this year, with products of up to 1.6 terabyte coming.
More storage
Holograms use a three-dimensional image generated by lasers to store information.
The concept has been around for several decades but the optical storage technology has only become feasible in the last few years.
Chief technology officer Kevin Curtis said previous tests carried out in April 2005 had only achieved 200Gb per square inch.
By comparison, magnetic disks, such as those used in the hard drives, can manage a storage density of about 37.5Gb per square inch.
"We are particularly pleased at the rate of improvement," he said. "The latest results from our ongoing tests on holographic data density have surpassed expectations."
InPhase says the benefits of holographic data storage will include allowing technology managers to archive data in less space.
The first generation of InPhase drives will have a capacity of 300Gb on a single disk.
"The technology represents a potential alternative to incumbent technologies for archival storage requirements," said Wolfgang Schlichting at analysts IDC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4857306.stm
Holographic advance aids storage
Magnetic disks have a storage density of about 37.5Gb per square inch
A US firm says it has set a commercial data storage record by achieving 515 gigabits (Gb) per square inch.
InPhase Technologies says it reached the level using a holographic drive, which has a higher capacity than conventional magnetic storage media.
It said the technology could eventually lead to a holographic disc that could hold more than 100 DVD-quality movies.
InPhase expects to unveil its first holographic drive later this year, with products of up to 1.6 terabyte coming.
More storage
Holograms use a three-dimensional image generated by lasers to store information.
The concept has been around for several decades but the optical storage technology has only become feasible in the last few years.
Chief technology officer Kevin Curtis said previous tests carried out in April 2005 had only achieved 200Gb per square inch.
By comparison, magnetic disks, such as those used in the hard drives, can manage a storage density of about 37.5Gb per square inch.
"We are particularly pleased at the rate of improvement," he said. "The latest results from our ongoing tests on holographic data density have surpassed expectations."
InPhase says the benefits of holographic data storage will include allowing technology managers to archive data in less space.
The first generation of InPhase drives will have a capacity of 300Gb on a single disk.
"The technology represents a potential alternative to incumbent technologies for archival storage requirements," said Wolfgang Schlichting at analysts IDC.
S
Shrunkensimon
Guest
Is it just me, or does that "hypercube" have a Swastika hidden within it? When i looked at it for the first time, thats what i saw :S
Russ
Jedi Master
I don't know what you mean, and don't know why I have to do it :)John G said:
But assuming you mean my perception of spacetime, it turns the flux into a suggestion, rather than a fact.
When I look at all that I can percieve, its mostly suggestions. Suggestions are what is really there. There is a very limited amount of "proof". What is there proves itself by its existence - it is its own evidence. Something that is sensed, can't prove the existence of what is not sensed, it only suggests that something is not sensed.
Most people assume that the suggestion of what exists in the unsensed, is proof of what exists there. But they are wrong to do that imo. They shouldn't believe that its proof. I think its better to start from the point where nothing is proven until its not suggested - its actually "there" all at once, permanently (ie. right now).
That doesn't mean to say that my mind is closed to suggestions, or that I can't act on them. But that all of my actions are "parallel" to the understanding that there is no proof. This way, if what is suggested is really true, my emotions are responding correctly - responding to what I know, rather than what I blindly believe. I can't do anything wrong like this, because I'm not saying I'm right.
John G
The Living Force
I was just using something from real physics as an analogy that sometimes you have to make some assumptions or approximations for a while in order to arrive at a more satisfying proof later but yes I agree it's not a suggestion/emotion thing but more a thing using techniques from Jungian psychology, math, physics. You kind of plod along comparing things and finding patterns. Very very important to study the ideas of others so you aren't starting from scratch. Studying can also of course mean throwing out some ideas of others, but even ideas you mostly disagree with can have a helpful detail.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
I think what John meant is that at some point you have to stop and focus on where you appear to be at the moment - to make calculations that can provide clues to what that 'where you are' is. Calculations - or experimental 'factual' data have no meaning if the parameters or values are constantly changing due to the infinity of possible universes. If you continue to float, in an every changing reality, then you have no chance to try to actually calculate what this momentary reality, we appear to be in, might actually be.
Perhaps it's merely a statement about 'pay attention to objective reality left and right' - to get a grasp on figuring out what really 'is'. If I'm way off, feel free to let me know.
;)
Perhaps it's merely a statement about 'pay attention to objective reality left and right' - to get a grasp on figuring out what really 'is'. If I'm way off, feel free to let me know.
;)
Russ
Jedi Master
There seems to be two types of objective reality though. One is, the absolute objective, the other is the objective "after" assumption.anart said:
EG. If I went to the shops, and then came back and told someone I had just been to the shops, and named the exact shop, starting point and route taken, that would be an objective statement based on assumptions. However a lot of people would simply call it objective. If I lied, and said I went to a different shop, then it could be said that the objective truth is that I didn't go to that shop, but I went to a different one. But its not really objective, as it is saying that something happened in the past, and no one knows if that exists, aside from a suggestion of it. I think there are other reasons why its not objective, but thats the main one imo.
Absolute objectivity is different to that, osit. Its like laser which draws a line around what you know without any doubt whatsoever, and seperates it from that which is associated with any amount of reason why it can't be true. If there is even the tiniest speck of doubt, the laser goes around it and its in the "unproven" section. Not untrue though, just unproven.
So, with absolute objectivity, the only way to proof that I "went down the shops" would have to be a line of "me's" going to the shops, in the person who is asking's perception, in order for me to "prove" it. The whole event would have to be there. The person would have to see a clear line of me, and the whole area - they would have to see my starting position, my destination, and my finishing position all at once, and they would have to see everything I done on the journey, all at once, and the whole event must not be a memory, it must actually be happening. Then, as it is happening, they might have a chance of saying that is the objective truth. Otherwise, its not, imo.
Russ
Jedi Master
I agree, theres nothing wrong with assumptions (as long as they are known to be assumptions), or considering the views of others, actually I can't think of a better way to gain information and inspiration. But the being of the person doing the reading, has to be of the right nature to make use of what is written. Someone can consider the views of others and fully believe it, like certain new-agers (believing in commander ashtar etc). I think that all incoming data, even thoughts, should be subjected to the crossroads of whether they are true or not - clearly defining what they are, and where they are (by "where", I mean, intellectual centre etc). I think in some ways, we do have to start from scratch, in the area of discernment anyway.John G said:
Where this falls down IMO is when you bring in the concept of "conscious selective reality denial" such as psychopathy. For instance, a psychopath may know that they can "get" something from you ("loosh" ect), by denying the reality that you, in fact, did go down to the shops. Thus, even if you could present such a hypothetical "line of me's" to "prove" to the psychopath that this was "absolute objective reality", the psychopath would still deny it. Think of Orwell's "1984" - "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"Russ said:
It thus seems to me that proof is a function of choice on the part of whom you are intending to "prove" something to. This applies equally to ourselves, which is why the very axioms of objectivity and subjectivity in these kinds of discussions can be confused from the word Go. Often, we don't even have any clear idea ourselves of what consitutes objectivity and subjectivity, because we have been purposefully infected with pathological subjectivities since birth.
Fortunately for us, it seems there are ways and means available to address this situation OSIT. (Ref: works of Gurdjieff, Mouravieff).
Russ
Jedi Master
I completely agree, however I was not suggesting that it would be used in that way. I was talking more about a situation with two people who aren't psychopaths (looking for proof). Also a more personal thing, ie. how you prove things to yourself.Ryan said:
Like, if I was told something, such as someone going down the shops, I can choose to believe it, and base my actions on it, or I can act on the assumption that its true, whilst knowing that I actually don't know if its true or not. Then I would know that I am merely experimenting, I don't antcipate an outcome, but acting with the knowledge that the outcome isn't known.
Well, aren't you making an unstated assumption right there?Russ said:
Also, psychopathy doesn't necessarily have to be a factor, although it illustrates the point well. Narcissism, Schizoidia, and plain old stubbornness can produce the same "reality denying" responses in "normal" people.
Yes. This is a key difference between objectivity and subjectivity in my opinion - the ability to act based on probabilities rather than certainties.Russ said: