Replies

"You mean like a Sears santa is useful"

No. That Santa serves no scientific purpose. His utility is not a scientific one.

"Compared to machine tool approaches organic structures leave a lot to be desired."

But biological ones tend to be better designed and more efficient, which is why they are and will be mimicked. For example, synthetic muscles are currently about 10000 times weaker than actual muscles.

What you are referring to is the inherent shortcomings of engineering when it comes to duplicating the functions of nonlinear systems. It is more desirable to have linear systems because they are easier to engineer.

"You are vastly unaware, apprently, of how much engineering it would take to duplicate a living cell 'from scratch' as you have insisted."

And, contrary to your claim of being well versed in nanotechnology, you are vastly unaware of the ultimate goal of this field. It is to develop atomically precise
manufacturing in an atom-by-atom fashion. The vision is programmable matter.

The reusability of code written for programmable matter will allow building code libraries that are accessible to John Q. Public via the future version of the Internet. The cumulative effect will be that designing custom materials will be a matter of punching up the desired characteristics, and creating life forms may be nothing but tweaking working programs. Making life may become little more than grade school level science projects.

Am I assuming a lot. Yes, I am. And I am well aware that testing my assertion presumes vast leaps in our technical know how. And I am assuming this will happen. Soon.

"You mean like a Sears santa is useful"

No. That Santa serves no scientific purpose. His utility is not a scientific one.

Whereas, an imagined attempt to rigorously produce "life", "from scratch", including every little valve, faucet, and membrane, is just dripping with scientific utility.

"Compared to machine tool approaches organic structures leave a lot to be desired."

But biological ones tend to be better designed and more efficient,

What? In what sense? You really think a mechanical flaggelum would require that many parts, that expensive to procure, feed and maintain? Biological systems only look efficient when you don't take into account the support system that keeps them operational.

which is why they are and will be mimicked. For example, synthetic muscles are currently about 10000 times weaker than actual muscles.

Really? In what sense? When was the last time your sink faucet twisted it's ankle?

What you are referring to is the inherent shortcomings of engineering when it comes to duplicating the functions of nonlinear systems. It is more desirable to have linear systems because they are easier to engineer.

Very few biological functions related to motion cannot be adequaely modeled as linear systems subject to laplace analysis, because motion is inherently linear.

"You are vastly unaware, apprently, of how much engineering it would take to duplicate a living cell 'from scratch' as you have insisted." And, contrary to your claim of being well versed in nanotechnology, you are vastly unaware of the ultimate goal of this field. It is to develop atomically precise manufacturing in an atom-by-atom fashion. The vision is programmable matter.

Another escapee from the back-pages of Analog and F&SF. Nanotechnology has neither an "ultimate goal", nor any plans on the table to produce an exacting copy of "life", literally from scratch.

Am I assuming a lot. Yes, I am. And I am well aware that testing my assertion presumes vast leaps in our technical know how. And I am assuming this will happen. Soon.

Groovy. Having spent most of my life repairing software that was supposedly working fine, for which I had the sources, and could run a debugger, I am not so sanguine about the unlimited potential of itty-bitty minicomputers running amok in the environment, working together to produce ever more useful results.