[extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:05 AM John K Clark jonkc at att.net wrote:
>> it is a mistake to think that the burden of proof
>>  lies on Smalley.
>
> I disagree, I think the burden of proof is on
> Smalley. Drexler is proposing a construction
> machine, lots of such devices have been made;
> to say it is imposable even in principle for this
> particular construction machine to ever exist you
> need to identify which law of physics it would
> violate. Smalley has not done this and neither
> has anyone else.

I agree.  An analogy might prove helpful.  Imagine I were to say, "It's
impossible for humans to live on Mars."  "Impossible" is a pretty tall
order and the burden on proof would be on me to show why.  Even if no
human ever sets foot on Mars, that would NOT constitute a proof of
impossibility.  If even every human that lands on Mars -- assuming some
eventually do -- dies immediately on landing that would also NOT
constitute a proof of impossibility.

>> I think it was David Hume that said that
>> extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>> evidence.
>
> Yes, and the claim that a machine that
> organizes matter in a certain manner
> will always be imposable is extraordinary.

I agree.  (I suspect Hume would too, from my reading of him.  He railed
against absolute knowledge in empirical matters.  Smalley's claim of the
impossibility of nanoassemblers strikes me as just a such a claim of
absolute knowledge.)  It assumes that Smalley can either divine the
future or knows physics better than our current understanding.

BTW, there is a monster in the lake near me.  I have to feed it every
now and then.  On a totally unrelated matter, would you guys like to
hold the next convention here?  There's a nice convention center by the
lake...:)

Later!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/