(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
