Re:design complexity of assemblers (was: Ramez Naam: redesigning children)

From: hal@finney.org
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 12:44:01 MST


From: "Hal Finney" <hal@finney.org>
X-Mailer: YaBB

[Sent via web interface]

Drexler's proposal was to try to restrict the set of designs to those
which could be modelled relatively cheaply. That's one reason they use
so much diamondoid, it's stiff so the atoms don't move around much.

I think the moving parts do need some careful simulation, I'm pretty
suspicious of some of Drexler's exotic bearings and such. But for the
most part these can be embedded within a diamondoid matrix so you can
use the part in a modular design without having to simulate the whole
system at once.

Plus there's always good old science. You don't necessarily have to
simulate everything, you can build parts and measure them to see how
they work. We've built machines for thousands of years without computer
simulations.

And really the problem isn't building the car, it's building the
assembler. The assembler is probably much more complex than a car like we
have today. (It's different if you're building some kind of super-car.)
Making the tires, or the frame, you're going to be using relatively
homogeneous materials and you just need to know their bulk properties.

Hal

----
This message was posted by Hal Finney to the Extropians 2002 board on ExI BBS.
<http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=53845>


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:22 MST