CryoNet #32820 - #32824

CryoNet - Fri 3 Sep 2010

    #32820: Re:Nano-nonsens [yvan Bozzonetti]
    #32821: Smalley & perspective [Ettinger]
    #32822: Has Mark Plus even read "Nanosystems"? [Perry E. Metzger]
    #32823: Re:[Perry Metzger] Re: Cryonet #32800 [MARK PLUS] [Keith Henson]
    #32824: Re: [LongevityReport] "Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry... [John de Rivaz]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32820%2D32824

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32820
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:34:03 +0200
Subject: Re:Nano-nonsens
From: yvan Bozzonetti <[email protected]>

--0015175cb810147763048f46de3b

>
> From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>
>
>
<snip>


>
> As a rule of thumb, it seems to me that a new technology can progress
> quickly if it exploits the correct principles of physics from the
> beginning, something that I have yet to see demonstrated in
> Drexlerology.
>
>
Clearly the sole thing we can call "nano" are molecular or atomic force
microscope and the like.
Yes they can handle nano object, yet these devices are not "nano" themselve.
Drexler-like thinking has all the marks of bogus pseudo-science.
It must be time to quit and look at real world.
To get better MRI for example could teach us about what is the molecular
state of frozen object, it could tell what is the basic cause of "cold
toxicity".
Until we move in this direction, we will be in the death end of Drexler-like
plain stupidity.

Yvan Bozzonetti

>
>
>

--0015175cb810147763048f46de3b

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32820

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32821
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Smalley & perspective

Content-Language: en

The invocation of Smalley's name to impugn Drexlerian nano is mildly  
interesting and ironic, partly because Smalley himself has been called the  
father of nanotechnology. Here's a little guilt by association, taken from Wiki,  
suggesting that Smalley was a creationist and Christian fundamentalist:
 
"The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was  
right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. We are the 
 only species that can destroy the Earth or take care of it and nurture all 
that  live on this very special planet. I'm urging you to look on these 
things. For  whatever reason, this planet was built specifically for us. 
Working on this  planet is an absolute moral code. ... Let's go out and do what we 
were put on  Earth to do."
 
Well, we all have our flaws, and Smalley, who was a Nobelist in  chemistry, 
can be forgiven his at least in some contexts, but we need a reminder  that 
he could err. We also may need a reminder that in any great scientific  
controversy, some of the leading experts have to be wrong, else there wouldn't  
be a controversy. The controversies regarding quantum theory are more than 
a  century old and going strong.
 
What emerges is the simple fact that Drexlerian nanotech is a huge and  
inherently difficult field with relatively tiny resources devoted to it for a  
relatively short time. I take no stock in the singularity, so I don't see 
any  sudden early miracles, but I do see eventual success as inevitable, if  
civilization endures. 
 
I am also puzzled by those who say we should repudiate Drexlerian nanotech  
but retain our confidence in the eventual success of cryonics. That success 
will  depend in part on nanotech, by one name or another.
 
Robert Ettinger

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32821

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32822
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:43:53 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Subject: Has Mark Plus even read "Nanosystems"?
References: <[email protected]>

On 2 Sep 2010 09:00:02 -0000 CryoNet <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >Let me start by saying that if nano is impossible, you are
> >impossible, because you are made of molecular machines. How do you
> >function if molecular machines can't function?  
> 
> Yes, and the existence of the Hula-Hoop shows that a sufficiently
> advanced civilization could build Larry Niven's Ringworld.

The comparison is ridiculous. Clearly, a hoolahoop is not a
ringworld, they are simply objects of the same vague shape. However,
you are actually made out of actual molecular machines, not
approximations of molecular machines. You contain rotor driven
mechanosynthetic devices in the membranes of your mitochondria driven
by the flow of a proton gradient. You contain tiny CNC machines that
turn mRNA scripts into polypeptide chains with astonishing precision.
There is no approximation here, no analogy, you are a collection of
molecular machines. Real, true, 100% molecular machines.

Even if we could never achieve anything beyond what actual biology
can do, actual biology makes tools that, if we could fully harness
them, would be more than good enough for the jobs we have.

As it is, however, "Nanosystems" makes a compelling case for why we
can do far better than biology. This should not be surprising in
principle, because biology is not the result of conscious design.
However, Drexler's work is more than a mere musing of this sort. He
goes into excruciating detail on the theory behind molecular machines,
the principles behind the design of such molecular machines, and he
presents actual designs.

The book is an astonishing tour de force, combining ideas from
chemistry, physics, mechanical and electrical engineering, computer
science and other fields, and as someone who has taken the time to
check, let me note that he gets the details right.

He also spends an astonishing fraction of the time carefully
responding in advance to every possible criticism and gap in the
reasoning he can anticipate. Time after time in going through the book
I hit a question in my mind of the form "but how the hell could you
manage THAT" only to have Drexler subsequently answer the precise
question I anticipated.

I would go so far as to say that Drexler's book is one of the finest
pieces of scientific writing I have ever seen.

There are, to be sure, real technical nits in the book that someone
versed in the literature will find. It is far from perfect, and I
hope to someday present Eric with a list of corrections for a second
edition. However, I will emphasize these are nits. The overall ideas
are entirely sound.

Now, I can say this because I've read the book and have worked hard to
get the background needed to understand it. I can say this because in
addition to reading I've spent many, many hours on each chapter,
carefully making sure that I understood the content. The reason I know
there are flaws is that I've tried the analysis for myself, and here
and something is wrong, and the reason I know the overall analysis is
correct is because I've walked through it on my own.

If you have done neither, I suggest that your reputation is not
enhanced by having strong opinions about work you have neither read
nor understood.

I posed a direct question: HAVE YOU READ NANOSYSTEMS. DID YOU
UNDERSTAND IT. You haven't answered. I demand an answer if you are
going to continue your "critique".

A scene from Whit Stillman's "Metropolitan" comes to my mind. Those
familiar with it will recall the moment where Tom tells Audrey that in
spite of his strong opinions about Jane Austen, he has never read a
single one of her novels.

It takes a certain kind of chutzpah to criticize a work you have
neither read nor understood. It appears that you are a man possessed
of such chutzpah.

If I am wrong, please say so and we can go on to discuss Drexler's
reasoning in detail. For example, what do you find mistaken in his
analysis of the positional uncertainty of components in the face of
thermal noise and quantum effects? What do you find mistaken about
his analysis of the design constraints on nanomechanical bearings? Do
you have a complaint with his discussion of the reasons why
electrostatic motors are possible at the nanoscale while
electromagnetic systems would not be? Is his analysis of the options
for control of nanomachines (including acoustic control) incorrect,
and if so, why?

However, if I am correct and you've read none of the book, I would
suggest that you say so explicitly, so that the rest of us can ignore
your opinion as completely uninformed.

I now bluntly ask, again, HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK? DID YOU UNDERSTAND
IT. You will get nothing more from me than that litany from now
on. Every time you say anything on the topic, you're going to face me
there holding up a sign for everyone else to see asking you that
question. Whether you  fail to answer or answer in the negative, I
think people will know what to make of what you think.


Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		[email protected]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32822

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32823
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:21:15 -0700
Subject: Re:[Perry Metzger] Re: Cryonet #32800 [MARK PLUS]
From: Keith Henson <[email protected]>

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:00 AM, MARK PLUS <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

snip

> The "molecular machines" in biology don't incorporate principles from
> macroscopic mechanical engineering, because those principles don't
> work on that scale.

Can you be specific about which fail at the nanometer scale?  I can't
think of any.  Take rotation.  "In the light of independent evidence
for a transmembrane arrangement of the oxidase and for the general
fluidity of the inner mitochondrial membrane we consider anisotropic
mobility of the cytochrome oxidase around an axis normal to the plane
of the membrane as the most likely interpretation."  From "Symmetry,
orientation and rotational mobility in the a3 heme of cytochrome c
oxidase in the inner membrane of mitochondria."

snip

> Drexlerologists have had a quarter century to make their case for more
> people and more funding, in an era when other dubious ideas like
> "green energy" don't seem to have trouble finding resources. What does
> that say about Drexlerology's reputation? In the absence of tangible
> results, you can play the can-rattling "Neglected Visionary" game for
> only so long before you lose status, as Nikola Tesla discovered later
> in his life.

May I inquire as to why human status has anything to do with the
physics of the universe?  As far as Tesla is concerned, the man's
inventions in AC motors and generators underpin the whole power
industry.

> As a rule of thumb, it seems to me that a new technology can progress
> quickly if it exploits the correct principles of physics from the
> beginning, something that I have yet to see demonstrated in
> Drexlerology.

There is no doubt Charles Babbage's technology used correct principles
of physics.  It was even within the current state of the art to have
built his engines.  But it didn't happen for over a hundred years.

Having read and somewhat understanding the physics Eric Drexler
presents in Nanosystems, he has the physics right.  I expect machines
designed on those principles will work.  The problem is that we lack
the tools for getting into this regime.

snip

Keith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32823

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32824
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LongevityReport] "Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry...
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:01:46 +0100

There has been a lot on cryonet about this.

It has been suggested on cryonet that Mark Plus read Drexler's Nanosystems and understood it before he supports the nano-deniers. Maybe more to the point Mark Plus should have enquired of the authors of the nano-deniers' web sites whether they had read and understood Nanosystems, before promoting their material.

But of course if an individual is limited to three score years and ten, and during that period a certain technological development hasn't occurred, then for him it is impossible, rubbish, trickery, and so on. This is exactly what happened to the author of one of the nano-denying web sites
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/nanoshite/ 
He was correct within his own frame of reference. 
But not that of people who live sufficiently far beyond his lifespan (with our without the aid of cryopreservation).

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32824

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************