[extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility

[Brett Paatsch]

On Sunday, March 28   Chris Phoenix wrote:

> >>A simple mechanism can be constructed in many different
> >>ways.  All you need is manipulators with a few degrees of 
> >>freedom, and enough precision to do the job.  

> ...  Have you read Merkle's papers?

I have read some. But none contained a spec with a full set of 
parts for an assembler.   Is there one that does?

[Chris] 
> The computer may or may not be nanoscale, depending 
> entirely on what's easiest.

Sure attempts to design of a full set of components for a self 
replicator at any scale would permit the chosen scale of the design
itself to be one of the degrees of freedom.

[Chris]
>  Have you read my nanofactory paper?

I've read at least one of your papers. It did not contain a full set
of parts for an assembler. 

[Brett quoting Chris] 
> > How do you know that "a computer-controlled assembler
> > can be physically quite simple" without have a specification
> > for it that includes a set of physical components? Do you
> > have such a specification showing a finite set of component
> > parts? 

[Chris]
> We have a specification that includes most functional components,
> and supplemental information about range of motion, required 
> stiffness, speed, etc.  We know the functions it must perform. 

Talking engineering:

Having less than 100% of the necessary parts in the system design
for the first prototype amounts to having 0% of a designed (and 
buildable) prototype.

If you don't know how many parts are needed to produce a
full design spec for an assembler then how can you know that you
have "most" of them? 

Talking politics:

The vision articulated in Nanosystems and by Eric Drexler and
others in the Foresight Institute has already played a very useful 
role in getting funding into nanotechnology. 

[Chris]
> Your question about a "finite set of component parts" 
> doesn't  make sense, unless you intend to imply that it might
> require an  infinite set. 

I wasn't implying that.

I said what I meant when I said (in the post you replied to):  

"If Nano-sanjta and genie-machine requiring an assembler 
are the same thing then I don't think "how soon" is the question.

The question is is it possible? And the answer is we don't know
until we see a systems specification that shows a full set of 
components necessary to produce an assembler (at any scale
would be a very good start)

If we knew an assembler could be produced from 300 or even
300,000 parts because those parts together constituted a full
set of elements then we could look at various ways to improve
or better optimise the design and to apply a timeline.

We'd have a basis for working out how long it might take to
build the parts and to assemble assembler number 1. Without
a list of components showing its possible any time and cost 
numbers may as well be numerology "

Is this still unclear?

[Brett]
> > And if it is merely a statement of hope and belief why should 
> > public resources be directed towards it and away from other
> > projects that can show a return on investment?

[Chris] 
> Are we talking engineering and science, or politics? 
> I thought we were  talking engineering, but "hope and belief" and 
> "return on investment" sound political--and shallow. 

In the first post that you replied to I'd said

"In politics, as in engineering, opportunity costs matter as there
are only a finite amount of resources to go around."

I didn't change the subject on you I was talking about both politics
and engineering already.  If you want to split the two go ahead
it doesn't bother me. 

[Chris]
> If we're talking politics, then we should  mention the geopolitical
> implications of some ambitious nation making a breakthrough
> while the current superpower is saying, "Let's not try anything till
> we see it done." 

*You* just mentioned it.

Talking about politics (of funding and risk management):

Without a specification of the full list of component parts how
would you *quantify* the risk of that?  It looks unquantifiable
to me.

- Brett Paatsch