The speed of the computers is irrelevant. The network required a living organic link. Simulations, while being fast enough, were rejected by the network.
Simulations did not work. I have no idea why you’re so hung up on this when they did it and it failed repeatedly.
And you are ignoring my first post that said it’s just atoms moving and bonding. “Living” is only a chemical process. I believe it was Robert Hook who when looking at a living cell under the first microscope powerful enough, commented on his disappointment that “cells were just machinery”
Yes their simulation failed because somehow there computers aren’t any faster than today’s computers.
The writers knew it didn’t make any sense which is why they lampshaded it-
Stamets: “At the quantum level, there is no difference between biology and physics. No difference at all.”
No. I’m not ignoring anything. Your points don’t make sense. You keep saying “but simulations could do it” despite the show emphatically saying that the simulations kept repeatedly failing. Whether or not cells are machinery is irrelevant. The network required a living construct to engage with. You can keep trying to use real science on that all you want but the Mycelial Network doesn’t exist. You don’t get to try and force technological limitations on it as we understand them TODAY when the tech is hundreds of years in the future and based on something completely different.
I’m not engaging with this conversation any further. You’re arguing in bad faith and i’m not interested. Goodbye.
despite the show emphatically saying that the simulations kept repeatedly failing.
Which I already said is odd because it means their computers aren’t any faster than today’s computers. If Disco was set in 2025, I could understand why they couldn’t simulate protein folding with enough accuracy. But this is set in the future where they can record every atom with such perfection (Heisenberg compensator) that every atom in a person’s DNA is routinely read, transported across thousands of miles and reconstructed perfectly.
The network required a living construct to engage with.
I already said there would need to be a physical interface between the computer and the mycelial network.
You’re arguing in bad faith
I had already addressed every point that you repeated. The only one ignoring what I wrote is you.
Don’t take Trek so seriously. It’s just a show. It’s ok to point out holes.
Yeah, but that requires a strange alternate future where computers are simultaneously both faster than today’s computers and also not any faster.
And yes the simulation needs a compatible physical interface.
I’m not sure why you’re ignoring what I’m saying.
The speed of the computers is irrelevant. The network required a living organic link. Simulations, while being fast enough, were rejected by the network.
Simulations did not work. I have no idea why you’re so hung up on this when they did it and it failed repeatedly.
And you are ignoring my first post that said it’s just atoms moving and bonding. “Living” is only a chemical process. I believe it was Robert Hook who when looking at a living cell under the first microscope powerful enough, commented on his disappointment that “cells were just machinery”
Yes their simulation failed because somehow there computers aren’t any faster than today’s computers.
The writers knew it didn’t make any sense which is why they lampshaded it-
Stamets: “At the quantum level, there is no difference between biology and physics. No difference at all.”
No. I’m not ignoring anything. Your points don’t make sense. You keep saying “but simulations could do it” despite the show emphatically saying that the simulations kept repeatedly failing. Whether or not cells are machinery is irrelevant. The network required a living construct to engage with. You can keep trying to use real science on that all you want but the Mycelial Network doesn’t exist. You don’t get to try and force technological limitations on it as we understand them TODAY when the tech is hundreds of years in the future and based on something completely different.
I’m not engaging with this conversation any further. You’re arguing in bad faith and i’m not interested. Goodbye.
Which I already said is odd because it means their computers aren’t any faster than today’s computers. If Disco was set in 2025, I could understand why they couldn’t simulate protein folding with enough accuracy. But this is set in the future where they can record every atom with such perfection (Heisenberg compensator) that every atom in a person’s DNA is routinely read, transported across thousands of miles and reconstructed perfectly.
You’re arguing in bad faith I had already addressed every point that you repeated. The only one ignoring what I wrote is you.
Don’t take Trek so seriously. It’s just a show. It’s ok to point out holes.