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

On 2 Sep 2010 09:00:02 -0000 CryoNet <>
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		

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