Elvithriel

Then you deny your own existance.

Elvithriel

I found an audio file at the foresight institute with some recent interesting advances in nanotechnology. It's from spring 2002.

Recent Achievements in Nanotechnology

Starboy

Evithriel, I appreciate your enthusiasm. You are welcome to believe what you wish. There is no need to speculate as to the future of nanotech since only time will tell, unless of course you have some bets going in the stock market, but if that is the case more power to you. Such a bet is too much of a long shot for me.

Starboy

alek0

There are big differences between biological cells and Drexler's proposed assemblers. Firstly, if you would make a machine the size of a biological cell, it would not be nanotechnology, it would be microtechnology. Secondly, while many complex processes take place in cells, cell functioning is by no means independent on the chemicals used.

Actually, I have less problem with self-replicating than with universal aspect of his proposed assemblers. As I said before, and this objection was not answered - if chemical processes are used, then assembler cannot possibly be universal. For handling different atoms, you may need to use assemblers made of different materials. There is also an issue of whether assembler capable of handling one material to build something would be also capable of handling the material it is built of in order to replicate.

So again - if chemical processes, it isn't universal. If mechanical, wouldn't work for reasons given before.