sean@aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk (Sean Matthews) (09/08/89)
Since this noticeboard deals with technological daydreams, how about considering an extended (and much more realistic - I think) daydream by A.C.Clarke---as opposed to the E.E.Smith style daydreams that feature here usually. How do people feel about the Rama system in `Rendevous with Rama' as an accurate example of a practically expectable nanotechnology. I define practical as: implementable except practical technological problems---the sort that we can expect to solve by grinding away at them a little at a time, as opposed to those that need a eureka step. (e.g., one that does not assume such improbablites as total knowledge of the *all* of human biology, from the molecular to the psychological---like the `we will be able to live for five million years and never suffer frostbite' discussion). Sean P.S. should `nanotec(h)ology' be spelled with or without the `h'? [I assumed you meant "nanotechnology" and corrected the spelling above. --JoSH]
alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) (09/12/89)
In article <Sep.7.22.14.02.1989.18869@athos.rutgers.edu> sean@aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk (Sean Matthews) writes: >Since this noticeboard deals with technological daydreams, how about >considering an extended (and much more realistic - I think) daydream >by A.C.Clarke---as opposed to the E.E.Smith style daydreams that >feature here usually. One of the purposes of this newsgroup is to debate the issue of whether or not particular visions of nanotechnology are merely E.E. Smith-style daydreams or Leonardi Da Vinci-style prescient premonitions. I think you seriously overestimate the percentage of ideas which appear here that clearly belong in the former category (not that there aren't any :-)). Of course, history shows that short term forecasts are usually over "optimistic" and that long term forecasts are usually over "pessimistic" (assuming that you think increased scientific knowledge and technical capabilities are "good.") Whether the wonders we discuss will largely be realized in the next 50, 500 or 5 million years is open to debate. That most of them will more or less to some recognizable approximation be eventually achieved is a damn good bet (perhaps with significant caveats, restrictions and other unforeseen consequences). If you truly feel that the central premises of Engines of Creation are merely pseudoscientific daydreams, I am sure that the readership here would be MOST interested in the scientific facts which lead you to that conclusion. >How do people feel about the Rama system in `Rendevous with Rama' as >an accurate example of a practically expectable nanotechnology. I >define practical as: implementable except practical technological >problems---the sort that we can expect to solve by grinding away at >them a little at a time, as opposed to those that need a eureka step. >(e.g., one that does not assume such improbablites as total knowledge >of the *all* of human biology, from the molecular to the >psychological---like the `we will be able to live for five million >years and never suffer frostbite' discussion). Ahem. Science is founded on the idea that the scientific method is a valid, workable, usable, EFFECTIVE discovery procedure for obtaining and validating new knowledge about the world. To say that gaining "total knowledge of *all* human biology, from the molecular to the psychological" is improbable is to say that the scientific method probably doesn't work. If it doesn't work, then Science is flawed at its very core, and no formal way of establishing truth exists, and this discussion is then pointless. Please note that the statement "Someday we will be able to travel faster than light in starships that will take us anywhere we wish to go in this galaxy" is quite different from the statement "Someday we will know everything about space, time, motion, velocity, mass and inertia." The former statement would not be supported by most scientists (most would simply contradict it, a few would consent to "maybe.") But for a scientist to reject the latter statement would call into question his very profession. If it is not true, he should be looking for a more meaningfull job that perhaps pays more. Biological evolution is also based on a procedure for discovering true theorems about the ability of replicators to replicate. Every "birth" starts a new test of a new theorem as to what the "best" replicator is. This disovery procedure has succeeded in producing a set of theorems which propose in complete detail, from the molecular to the psychological, how the most successful replicators in history should function. These theorems can be found in each cell's genetic code. If one discovery procedure can produce this knowlege, why can't another be used to "reverse engineer" it? It is not inconceivable that the scientific method is not capable of generating total knowledge of the world. But admitting that total knowledge may not be possible is not at all the same thing as stating that certain specific knowledge is provably (or probably) unobtainable. Such statements require proof. The technological capabilities that we may or may not gain from such total knowdlegde is a good subject for debate in this newsgroup. Whether such total knowledge is obtainable is a separate issue. A negative answer needs substantial proof before it can be seriously entertained. Even if total knowledge is not obtainable, substantial knowledge certainly is, since we have already achieved what some might consider to be a substantial amount of scientifically established facts about the nature of the world in general and the workings of life in particular. So the question then is, "How much (more) CAN we know?" The central point at issue is whether any knowledge that will be needed to create the sort of technology envisioned in Engines Of Creation is provably (or even probably) unobtainable. This does NOT appear to be the case to most informed observers. Those who have the ability to prove otherwise are welcome to do so. ____"Congress shall have the power to prohibit speech offensive to Congress"____ Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL. Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me. Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.
sean@aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk (Sean Matthews) (09/20/89)
In article <Sep.7.22.14.02.1989.18869@athos.rutgers.edu> I write: <stuff deleted, if you want to read it go and look it out> >P.S. should `nanotec(h)ology' be spelled with or without the `h'? > >[I assumed you meant "nanotechnology" and corrected the spelling above. > --JoSH] No, the spelling was deliberate, I intended a portmanteau on `nanotechnology' and `ecology'; i.e., an artificial system that looks like a natural ecology. It seems to me that, in some ways, the Rama system gives a good picture of some parts of a large system built using those techniques. All the `machines/lifeforms' in Rama give the impression of being entirely artificial, but organised on the lines of `natural' life; I think that any such large machine we might build would tend, since we would want all the useful properties that life (like self organisation) has in such a machine, to give the same impression of rationally reverse engineered life. (and as we all know, it is cheaper to reverse engineer proven principles than it is to start anew). It would be much easier to produce a robot like a Raman from a tank of chemicals that it would be to produce a robot like a Unimate. The reason that I think this is the case is that life is `engineered' on self similar principles that work from the very bottom up (most people will have seen the example of the fern generated from a fractal), which is how the sort of manufacturing technolgy that Drexler et al. envision would work. Current engineering is based on the idea of everything just coming together as a whole, since it can rely on the godlike perspective of the person or machine that is puting it together. Getting such a system to work bottom up would be *difficult*. Sean