The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums





Drexlerian nanotech
#21
(06-22-2017, 12:17 AM)Alphadon Wrote: Anyway, who did think up this idea of free-ranging nanoswarms (which we rather egregiously used at one point)?

I don't know that the idea really can be traced back to any one person. Rather it may have simply been a meme that took root and grew inside the popular zeitgeist.

One of the main ideas (perhaps THE main idea) with nanotech when it first entered the popular attention was the idea of tiny self repping machines that could do amazing things. And the idea of grey goo was both amazing and scary (which tends to grab people's attention).

While the notion of nanofabs (Tea, Earl Grey, Hot - or almost) is very cool, the idea of starting with something that can fit on the head of a pin and remaking entire worlds or solar systems - or possibly destroying ourselves - is a bit more 'Ooh shiney' (and easier to comprehend) at the end of the day. So people may have kind of latched onto that idea and run with it - including in SF, which is in the business of...business at the end of the day.

And some years later - here we are.

Just a theory,

Todd
Reply
#22
Technically, that description *does* apply to some OA tech, it's just in no way the best way to do things.

My lifelong goal: To add "near" to my "baseline" classification.

Lucid dreaming: Because who says baseline computronium can't run virches?
Reply
#23
(06-22-2017, 10:35 AM)Alphadon Wrote: Technically, that description *does* apply to some OA tech, it's just in no way the best way to do things.

That's a rather overly broad and unequivocal statement.

Unless there's something you're not telling us, there's really as yet no real world information or experience that you could have had or even read about that could provide any solid support for saying that.

The bottom line is that no one now alive truly knows what is 'the best way to do things' (or not) when it comes to nanotech applications at this level of sophistication.

Also, statements about 'the best way to do things' that don't include any indication of what 'the best' is or how it is determined, or the circumstances and parameters in which it is operating don't really say much.

Todd
Reply
#24
(06-22-2017, 03:22 AM)Rynn Wrote: It's a nice idea though I'm not totally convinced by this lego style of goods construction.

It is a good idea for a limited set of products. Drexler described it being used for products that wouldn't be subjected to large amounts of stress. Basically, anything that doesn't need to be more robust than wood. Generally, a computer or electric toothbrush wouldn't need to be able to survive being shot out of a cannon.
Reply
#25
(06-22-2017, 10:35 AM)Alphadon Wrote: Technically, that description *does* apply to some OA tech, it's just in no way the best way to do things.

Again can you define what you mean here? Not the best way to do what things under what circumstances?
OA Wish list:
  1. DNI
  2. Internal medical system
  3. A dormbot, because domestic chores suck!
Reply
#26
Quote:starting with something that can fit on the head of a pin and remaking entire worlds or solar systems
Right, sorry. That.

My lifelong goal: To add "near" to my "baseline" classification.

Lucid dreaming: Because who says baseline computronium can't run virches?
Reply
#27
(06-22-2017, 10:35 AM)Alphadon Wrote: Technically, that description *does* apply to some OA tech, it's just in no way the best way to do things.
(06-22-2017, 10:27 PM)Alphadon Wrote:
Quote:starting with something that can fit on the head of a pin and remaking entire worlds or solar systems
Right, sorry. That.

I still don’t get how you’ve come to this conclusion that, in every case, this is the worse approach. Like Todd said one huge advantage to starting from a small spore is that it weighs very little making it more attractive for setting up an automated industrial complex across interstellar (and even interplanetary) distances. Sure a few spores are going to take a lot longer to build up than starting with a factory full of specialist fabs along with thousands of bots, a power grid, megatonnes of refined material etc. But all of that is huge and would result in exponentially more fuel needed. And at the end of the day you might shave off a few months, maybe a year or two. Virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things, and you can use those saved resources (material, energy and fab time) to build something else. For the same resources as sending one factory ship you could send a thousand spores to a thousand different locations.

Technically building a Neumann on a pinhead would be very hard for modosophont technology. They’d have to have very good data on the environment it’s going to land in. Any deviation runs the risk of it dying before it replicates into a sustainable colony. Make things a bit bigger and it gets easier. An insect sized Neumann could rove around for resources if it needed and have more redundancy. Another big consideration (that is often ignored) is replicators aren’t going to be identical. You start with generalists suited to the environment you’re landing them in and once they’ve grown in population enough they begin building different breeds that are specialised for different roles/conditions and can begin building macroscale installations (like how insects build hives; synsects could specialise and build a starter fab).

TL;DR sporetech and neumanns are a more attractive option than dedicating mass industry in cases where the resource/fab time savings are judged to be more valuable than the extra time constraints. We’ve focused on colony probes because it’s the most obvious but there are many examples where it might be true. E.g: Bob the baseline lives in the middle of a vast savannah. He decides he wants a thousand trees planted. He could get his house fab to multiply and specialise until he has a factory complex that can synthesise and plant the trees in a single morning, but it would mean not having access to his fab for a week. Or he could have it make a bottle of replicators that he can spray over the area and wait a month whilst they grow in number and force grow trees. It’s longer, but he doesn’t have to have a giant factory appear next to his house and doesn’t have the inconvenience of not having a fab to use. Of course those are extremes and there are middle grounds but yeah; either way you make a financial decision as to how valuable your fab time and resources are compared to the time to wait for the product.
OA Wish list:
  1. DNI
  2. Internal medical system
  3. A dormbot, because domestic chores suck!
Reply
#28
It occurs to me that we may be somewhat talking past each other here. I have some notions that might clarify things a bit and advance our Canon audit a bit. At work now, will follow up at home tonight. More later.

Todd
Reply
#29
Not neumanns or sporetech in general, but literally ones that fit on the head of a pin, that is, excessive miniaturization is not always good, even if the concept works. And yes, we are definitely talking past each other here.

My lifelong goal: To add "near" to my "baseline" classification.

Lucid dreaming: Because who says baseline computronium can't run virches?
Reply
#30
(06-23-2017, 09:09 AM)Alphadon Wrote: Not neumanns or sporetech in general, but literally ones that fit on the head of a pin, that is, excessive miniaturization is not always good, even if the concept works. And yes, we are definitely talking past each other here.

So, picking up from my earlier post...

Part of the issue here seems to be some possible confusion over what we are each talking about when we refer to 'nanobots' or nanotechnology.

As a starting point, it should be noted that 'nanotechnology' refers to technology where the 'basic unit of measure' is the nanometer. Things like replicators or other nanobots are described as being measured in hundreds of nanometers or more in their major dimensions, not as being a single nanometer on a side or the like - just in case there is confusion on this point.

Beyond that, and growing from this basic starting point, it should be noted that 'nanotech' need not consist of single devices operating alone (indeed that would likely be rare) nor must all nanotech devices be measured in nanometers - they may be significantly larger while containing nanometer scale components or sub-units - with the entire device still easily fitting on the head of a pin (or otherwise being very small, usually too small for a human eye to see). As Rynn has pointed out there are various scenarios where such small devices might be a preferred solution, and the number of scenarios where they might be the preferred solution actually increases as the technology becomes more capable and better able to operate 'in the wild'.

Nanodevices of the same scale and durability of many bacteria or molds might be hugely capable and able to modify the natural world in a variety of ways (the natural version certainly are and do). Whether such tasks could be done more effectively with larger devices would depend on the task and other factors that are in play such as pre-existing infrastructure, mass limits on transport systems, time, capability of the devices in question, etc.

In any case, the first main point here is that 'nanotech' does not always mean 'nanometer size' nor does it only mean individual nanobots or other devices.

The second main issue is a lack of clarity over what exactly is being discussed or described.

Alphadon, you keep making these very firm declarative statements (such as the one here above) while neither fully explaining what you mean nor providing any kind of supporting argument or proof of your premise (which, to be blunt, isn't going to win you any points on this forum). In contrast, both Rynn and I have provided extensive posts laying out our reasoning for taking the positions that we have.

Moving forward, it would be very helpful with dealing with the issue of talking past one another if you were to provide some explanation of what exactly you are talking about when you make a statement and also provide an explanation for why you are taking the position that you are, whatever that position may be. That way we can hopefully address what you're actually trying to say instead of what it appears you're trying to say.

On a final note, and building on what I said above - Bacteria, viruses, molds, and other such things are easily able to fit on the head of a pin, yet operate quite effectively 'in the wild' - in uncontrolled natural environments - not only replicating in vast numbers but sometimes having major effects on the environment, sometimes on a scale to dwarf anything achieved by humans. So your statement doesn't really seem to hold up when compared against the real world.

Todd
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)