[quote name='forsandifs' timestamp='1305112309' post='4809356']
How many of you would be able to make a working, programable computer? (i.e. not from pre-built parts)

Please explain this question. What counts as a prebuilt part? Certainly a motherboard or graphics card, but what about a RAM module? A processor? A microcontroller? EEPROM chips? Logic (ie AND, OR NOT, 555 timers etc) chips? Transistors? Resistors? Capacitors?

Where do you draw the line?

If you really do mean NO pre-built parts, then I don't think theres very many people who could do it. You mention the £15 computer that guy built, but he uses plenty of prebuilt things: ARM processor, USB controller, EEPROM, SD card reader, oscillators, resistors, capacitors, wiring (I'm taking an educated guess as to what parts he used - I did not look it up). If you have to build everything from scratch, what about purified silicon?

It of course is possible to do this and thats how we eventually got to where we are today, but there is a LOT of detail and many many components in a modern computer. I doubt any one person could build one from scratch from nothing.

If I can use basic semiconductor components and basic logic and memory ICs, I could possibly build you a very very very simple computer... but it wouldn't really resemble a modern computer and not be nearly as capable.



[/quote]

Exactly, it would take a long time to get back on the track we had before the presumed apocalypse. I could build a very, very simple computer in a few years (if I had to start from scratch), but it would be pretty much useless. I'd need at least a decade of work to make something meaningful and useful. And even then it would be light years behind of what we have today. Not to mention that the given computer couldn't be easily reproduced.

With parts, which is the more likely possibility even in an apocalypse, I would be watching reruns of Star Trek in under a year. Funny thing is, I'd probably have a better computer than the one I have today. Just raid a local hardware store, kill a few raiders, do a quest or two and come home with the epic loot of prewar relics like i7, a 590gtx and 16 GB of RAM sticks. Let the pipboy 3000 guide you

Also, as others have pointed out so far, you'd have a bunch of other things to worry about in an event of an apocalypse. But I must say that I do not agree on the problem of electricity, that's not a huge problem. Generating electricity in a post-apocalyptic world would be crude, but effective.

The truth is, one does not have to recreate computers in its current form. I seriously doubt you'd need to simulate computation fluid dynamics, or to perform extensive data mining immediately after the nuclear war. Computers can be mechanical, hell you could even create one from wood and a fistful of marbles. As to whether they'd be useful or not, that depends on what your requirements are. A simple adder is all you need to keep track of your stock, to estimate value of a trade, or to erect a building, etc. More demanding problems will lead to more complex computers. Since nobody will forget about the existence of electricity in a hurry, some smart cookie will quickly realise that you can make more versatile machines running on electricity.

Just raid a local hardware store, kill a few raiders, do a quest or two and come home with the epic loot of prewar relics like i7, a 590gtx and 16 GB of RAM sticks. [/quote]
Hah, assuming they survived the EMP from nukes.

Our company for example, doesn't print process manuals. Everything is stored online. It means that in a doomsday scenario if someone wanted to turn our plant back on and start manufacturing, there wouldn't be any on-site information on how to do it.

This brings up a question that is bothering me concerning knowledge: which is more important, the external storage, or the human storage? In your example, if the people working at the plant survive your doomsday scenario, then they should have no trouble turning it back on even without the process manuals, simply because they have all that knowledge in their heads. On the other hand, if all the people working there were wiped out, but the process manuals survived, would somebody else be able to turn it back on? If the manuals are written well and with that purpose in mind, then probably yes. Still, it depends.

It occurred to me that a lot of mathematical knowledge (by which I mean contemporary research stuff; high school maths is a different story) seems to be almost entirely in human minds and is next to impossible to recreate from external storage. Of course things are written down in papers and books, but in terms of actually understanding the contents, listening to the author explain things in a small group is orders of magnitude more efficient. I wonder if something similar applies to other fields of knowledge as well.

I wonder if the evolution of computers would take a different route if it were to be reset and rebuilt.

I guess that depends on what design is the most economical to build, and what people know at the time. Perhaps academic or engineering culture could be a factor, too. I say simplicity is king here, and the binary system is probably as fundamental as you can get when it comes to counting, especially from an engineering point of view. Therefore, I'm not surprised if the route will be similar.

I suppose the rate at which we will recover, or rediscover the lost knowledge will depend entirely on how much information we retained from the old world. If almost all knowledge is lost, then we'll revert back to tribal, or clan type of societies, driven by tradition, superstition and/or religious based ideas. Society could go on like this for aeons, especially when there is no need to change. Typical examples can be seen with tribes in the Amazon and New Guniea. I guess, technological explosion requires a cohesive society, with an excess of resources, allowing individuals to divert time towards other creative pursuits.

Also, purely from an evolutionary point of view, being very intelligent may not always necessary be a useful advantage. Adaptability is. For example, if food resources in the new world is so scarce that survival hinges on conserving energy, then it would make sense for energy demanding organs (such as the brain) to devolve, which is kinda bad news for scientific thinking. On the flip side, intelligence allows management of resources, and thus providing a reliable source food, with less work. It's hard to say, really.

This brings up a question that is bothering me concerning knowledge: which is more important, the external storage, or the human storage?[/quote]
I say external storage. For every new human born, he/she needs to start afresh, and learn information. When that person dies, that information is lost. However, if the person writes that information down, then the next person entering this world can take that information on board quickly and add something new to it. Collective learning allowed us to accelerate the quality of living almost at an exponential rate. Here is an interesting philosophical talk on this topic.

If the manuals are written well and with that purpose in mind, then probably yes. [/quote]
Good point. In order to relearn the information, one needs to understand how to decipher it. A pig farmer, living in near-nomadic conditions, may not see the value of a scientific journals beyond fire kindling. This raises another point; for an emerging society to benefit from this information, its contents must be difficult to destroy (i.e.. pig farmer proof), and easy to access or understand. One of the many reasons why we know so much about the ancient Egyptians is because they liked writing in stone, which survived the elements and abuse over the millennia.

Unfortunately, the retention habits of our information right now is not very solid. We have heaps of it, but most of that is stored in very complex systems, often encoded, encrypted, and on volatile mediums. This is going to be a big problem for us in the future. The only good thing is that we have a lot of redundant copies of data, but it may not necessarily true for important stuff (eg. Paris Hilton videos vs. journals on medical advancement). Information loss and the emergence of information graveyards has already begun. We have heaps of old, decaying computer storage devices that are no longer accessible, because the equipment to read them is non-existent. We can also lose the knowledge of how to decode them, especially when dealing with digital rights management and proprietary encoding of information.