Re: Life as Nano


jodawi@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Here's a claim:
>
> "Too many stories treat nanotechnology as magic, where little bots can
> do anything at all with seemingly unlimited constraints."

If there are so many stories like this, then they should be easy to find.
So there is no reason not to cite specific examples. No point starting a
discussion on a premise that may be false.

That said, for the moment I'll assume the premise is true:

> "This ignores the fact that nanotechnology already exists and is quite
> constrained: it's called life."

"Life" is not a technology. Consider the field of space technology and
this statement:

"This ignores the fact that space technology already exists and is quite
constrained: planets orbit the sun and moons orbit the planets."

It'd be a strange (and non sequitor) argument to use to show that one
could (or could not!) build, say, rockets to the moon.

> "If you don't see living things doing something like
> what you want your nanobots doing, and doing it as quickly as you want
> your nanobots doing it, then you're probably misunderstanding how
> powerful your nanobots can be."

I think the underlying thrust is wrong because, unless I mistake your
meaning, it could be used to say something like:

"I've never seen a living thing carry three astronauts to the moon and
return them safely to Earth, so it can't be possible."

There are lots of things that biological systems cannot do - directly.
Indirectly they can (and have) placed humans on the moon, but the last
crucial steps all fundamentally rely on repeatable, deterministic
machines and mechanisms. So a human moon mission begins with organized
collections of semi-stochastic systems on the molecular scale (cells)
which in turn eventually invoke deterministic machines and mechanisms on
the macro scale.

Nanorobots would begin as collections of organized collections of
deterministic systems on the molecular scale and - well, they don't need
to scale up to acquire the essential characteristics of repeatability and
determinism! (Humans would communicate their requirements, but are
otherwise just along for the ride.)

> How true or false? Any better-worded similar sentiments out there on
> the net?

IMHO False. Not sure that my sentiments are that well worded, but
hopefully they give you another slant on things.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lock-free reference counting
    ... "Mark Wooding" wrote in message ... moon. ... This is all about determinism -vs- non-determinism. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Lock-free reference counting
    ... "Jon Harrop" wrote in message ... moon. ... This is all about determinism -vs- non-determinism. ... unpredictable whereas reference counting is not. ...
    (comp.programming)