Drexler-style nanofactories don’t operate in a vacuum, because they don’t exist and no-one has any idea whatsoever how to make such a thing exist, at all. They are presently a purely hypothetical concept with no actual scientific or technological grounding.
The gravel analogy is not so much an argument as a very simple example for the beginner that a nanotechnology fantasist might be able to get their head around; the implicit actual argument would be “please, learn some chemistry and physics so you have some idea what you’re talking about.” Which is not an argument that people will tend to accept (in general people don’t take any sort of advice on any topic, ever), but when experts tell you you’re verging on not even wrong and there remains absolutely nothing to show for the concept after 25 years, it might be worth allowing for the possibility that Drexlerian nanotechnology is, even if the requisite hypothetical technology and hypothetical scientific breakthroughs happen, ridiculously far ahead of anything we have the slightest understanding of.
“The proposal for Drexler-style nanofactories has them operating in a vacuum”, then.
If these wannabe-critics don’t understand that then they have a very superficial understanding of Drexler’s proposals—but are sufficiently unaware of that to parade their ignorance in public.
The “wannabe-critics” are actual chemists and physicists who actually work at nanoscale—Drexler advocates tend to fit neither qualification—and who have written long lists of reasons why this stuff can’t possibly work and why Drexler is to engineering what Ayn Rand is to philosophy.
I’m sure they’ll change their tune when there’s the slightest visible progress on any of Drexler’s proposals; the existence proof would be pretty convincing.
Yep. Mostly written by Armondikov, who is said annoyed material scientist. I am not, but spent some effort asking other material scientists who work or have worked at nanoscale their expert opinions.
Thankfully, the article on the wiki has references, as I noted in my original comment.
Drexler-style nanofactories don’t operate in a vacuum, because they don’t exist and no-one has any idea whatsoever how to make such a thing exist, at all. They are presently a purely hypothetical concept with no actual scientific or technological grounding.
The gravel analogy is not so much an argument as a very simple example for the beginner that a nanotechnology fantasist might be able to get their head around; the implicit actual argument would be “please, learn some chemistry and physics so you have some idea what you’re talking about.” Which is not an argument that people will tend to accept (in general people don’t take any sort of advice on any topic, ever), but when experts tell you you’re verging on not even wrong and there remains absolutely nothing to show for the concept after 25 years, it might be worth allowing for the possibility that Drexlerian nanotechnology is, even if the requisite hypothetical technology and hypothetical scientific breakthroughs happen, ridiculously far ahead of anything we have the slightest understanding of.
“The proposal for Drexler-style nanofactories has them operating in a vacuum”, then.
If these wannabe-critics don’t understand that then they have a very superficial understanding of Drexler’s proposals—but are sufficiently unaware of that to parade their ignorance in public.
The “wannabe-critics” are actual chemists and physicists who actually work at nanoscale—Drexler advocates tend to fit neither qualification—and who have written long lists of reasons why this stuff can’t possibly work and why Drexler is to engineering what Ayn Rand is to philosophy.
I’m sure they’ll change their tune when there’s the slightest visible progress on any of Drexler’s proposals; the existence proof would be pretty convincing.
Hah! A lot of the edits on that article seem to have been made by you!
Yep. Mostly written by Armondikov, who is said annoyed material scientist. I am not, but spent some effort asking other material scientists who work or have worked at nanoscale their expert opinions.
Thankfully, the article on the wiki has references, as I noted in my original comment.
So what were the priors that went into your considered opinion?