[extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility

[Brett Paatsch]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I'm going to focus on an extremly narrow set of
> points in this discussion.  The wider set of the discussion
> is very large.

Me too. 

> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 
> > My point was there is no specification for a system to
> > produce an assembler of any finite number of parts.
> 
> This is not completely accurate.  Eric's specification for his
> nanoassembler is reasonably precise (at the 100 nm scale).

Which specification?

>  Given
> the amount of time it took Eric and Ralph to create their
> molecular designs and the scale-up required for the 
> assembler I would estimate you are talking less than five 
> years for a group of clever graduate students. 

It's not *me* that talking timeframes - its me asking which 
specification is the basis for your timeframes? ;-)

> The incentive is high -- they would make their careers.
> There will be only a few people who will claim "we designed
> and built the Drexler nanoassmebler".  

And those who find Eldorado will be rich - there just one l-ee-ttle
problem.  Where's Eldorado?  :-)

On the other hand those who look for Eldorado and don't
find it will be shorter on time and money for other things.  

>Those people will walk on water. They may also go down
> in history as being more significant than Jesus (because they
> may be able to lay a legitimate claim that they have actually
> saved more people).

May (above) is a word that can be replaced with may-not. The
point is why should they choose to try? What basis for confidence
do you offer them that this is a good place to spend time, effort 
and money? 

> > And therefore there is no sound basis for either 
> > (a) estimating how soon that system could be produced 
> > such that the first assembler could be made, or
> 
> Well Zyvex seems to be projecting within 10 years. 
> (Disclaimer: I do not know any inside information with
> respect to Zyvex).  I  simply know Jim to be a good manager
> and someone who wants to make nanotechnology happen. 
> Zyvex in my opinion is in a good position to take one of the
> possible fronts.

So does Zyvex have a specification for an assembler at the 
(microscale even) or not? 

If so, they can probably right their own check for R&D funding.

If not, they can "project" all they like the US is a relatively free
country so far as projecting without promising or legally 
guaranteeing goes. 

For what its worth I hope someone can show that an assembler
is possible at some scale. But wishing won't make it so. Mine
or anyone else's. 

> > (b) suggesting optimisations or streamlines on that design 
> > to bring the estimated time of arrival or assembly of that
> > first assembler forward.
> 
> One does not need to discuss this. 

My point was without a specification to improve on there is
nothing to optimise and no basis for putting down a time
estimate. 

Its like saying the estimated travel time to X is Y. So how do 
we cut down the travel time to X to less than Y? My point is
- its a pointless question until you specify X as a specific place. 

> There are nanoscale assemblers now (from DNA polymerase
> complexes to the ribosome).  

This is a different use of the word assembler. 

> The only questions
> one needs to ask are with respect to what environments in which
> they may be limited to operating and what are the materials they
> are limited to assembling?

The "only questions" in relation to what? - your shifting the frame
of reference. Biology can and does do some limited forms of
assembly that's not the point. 

> > If the computer is not part of the assembler then its not a
> > self-replicating system, if it is, the parts for the computing
> > subsystem have to be included in the parts for building the first
> > assembler.
> 
> As Christine Peterson recently proposed self-replication is
> to be de-emphasized [1] as an component of nanotech. 

This is off-topic but sure others are de-emphasising it too. And
some of them are getting funded. As you have pointed out biology
does some forms of  assembly too. But this is nothing to do with 
"Nano-santa" nano-assembler feasibility. 

> Though
> I may continue to have debates with people such as Robert
> Freitas on the topic -- self-replication and nanotech are not
> tied together.

Agreed. But "self"-replication means different things in different
contexts.

> Though self-replication has been with humanity for thousands
> of years and we should have a balanced perspective with
> respect to its costs and benefits -- it is not necessary to include
> it in the nanotechnology debate.

There's that slippery little word "self" again :-)

That amoebas and some simple bio-critters can "self"-replicate
does not mean we are in a position to do a count down towards 
Nano-santas or Genie machines.   

Cheers,
Brett Paatsch