Submitted by kalavala93 t3_10nhbbs in singularity
kalavala93 OP t1_j68nskz wrote
Excerpt from article:
"A common trope of science fiction is the depiction of nanobots, small robots moving in the body fixing wounds or healing diseases. Unfortunately, we will never be able to create these types of machines. The mechanisms inside a robot a few nanometers large will instantly melt together, while the small metallic arms and claws seen in science fiction would bend and stick to the surface of the particle."
^ can anyone with an interest in nanorobotics qualify this statement?
I kinda want little microbots fixing my wounds and keeping me young. Lol.
GayHitIer t1_j68tm0l wrote
They will still be very useful to detect cancer and diseases.
Also never say never, people who use the word never nearly always get proven wrong.
kalavala93 OP t1_j68waru wrote
True. I'm actually surprised he said never. The field still feels like it's in its infancy.
AsuhoChinami t1_j698iau wrote
Yeah, I have no particular thoughts or strong feelings on nanobots (they would be great obviously but the medical revolution will happen with or without them), but the use of the word "never" makes him look like a tryhard at best and stupid at worst. Look at me I'm such a tuff skeptical badass I tell it like it iz, get bent you starry-eyed optimists holy shit I'm so fucking cool
Sashinii t1_j68wrua wrote
There's no laws of physics preventing nanobots from going into the body and repairing damage. There's plenty of papers and some videos describing the nanomedicine process in detail. Robert Freitas talks about this with Ray Kurzweil in this video.
Yuli-Ban t1_j69vloq wrote
This is true, and I'd hope that superintelligence finds some quirks to exploit molecular nanotechnology.
However, I will say that I'd strongly recommend people not get excited about "Santa Claus machines" or femtotechnology or computronium. The laws of thermodynamics probably aren't changing regardless of intellectual capability, and there's not any physical way to realize these things.
Ok-Jackfruit-7283 t1_j6ccle6 wrote
I've been thinking about this for a while and the only logical conclusion that I can come to is that death will always be inevitable. I think I'm going to kill myself to get it over with now if I'm being honest. Because no matter what I do or how long I live it's still going to end abruptly when I'm not ready, so I don't see any real point to continue living further.
iNstein t1_j6axjgc wrote
I have a very detailed scientific book written by Erik K Drexler who goes into exactly how they would work with detailed maths and diagrams together with simulations. You can believe some gummy bear on the internet spewing their uneducated opinion or you could keep an open mind based on this book written by an accomplished man. I know which side I am leaning.
kalavala93 OP t1_j6b0f7t wrote
I'd love to read it.
iNstein t1_j6b1hyb wrote
Looks like there is one copy left in stock. It is really heavy going tho, you need at least uni level education and probably a lot more.
Edit to add, ISBN is: 0-471-57518-6
kalavala93 OP t1_j6beugy wrote
Don't have a uni education but I'm a cloud infrastructure engineer. I'll probably be fine.
Molnan t1_j6ie2c5 wrote
You'll be fine but it's a long, dry book. I'd start with "Engines of Creation", which is way more fun to read and provides all the basic notions. The Wikipedia entry mentions an "updated version" (from 2007), feely available online. The link is to a web archive of a pdf, but it works. I only recall reading the 1986 version, which I think is still very much relevant despite its age. A more recent introductory text by Drexler is Radical Abundance (2013), but I haven't read it. I say, read Engines, then skim through Nanosystems and keep it for reference, and get deeper into sections you find particularly interesting or where some frequent doubt or objection is addressed.
kalavala93 OP t1_j6b0h3n wrote
Btw I didn't say I believed him, in fact I don't want too. I just wanted the forums opinion.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments