X-Message-Number: 21083 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:21:32 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #21066 - #21080 A bit backwards: For Michael C Price: Thank you for your compliment about the inflexibility of my mind. As I said in my last posting, I would find it quite incredible that our present ideas about electrons (or any subatomic particles etc etc) will be considered valid and up-to-date in 500 years --- or even in 100. Since you do not wish to discuss this subject further, I propose a test. If we both survive our suspensions, we will get together and study whatever theories discuss the phenomena we now attribute to subatomic particles. If the notion of electron has changed radically, then you will apologize to me about your compliment. If it remains much the same, then I will admit that you were right about its persistence. So how about that? And if one of us applies the same test while the other did not survive, then I'd like you to remember what I said. And if I survive and you do not, I promise to remember what YOU said. For Mr Kluytmans: I note that presently we have no nanodevices of the kind you describe, though various people have proposed PARTS for them. I have also written math papers and worked on algorithms for parallel computers. This experience gives me a strong skepticism that we can really work out nanosystems to the extent you seem to believe. The problem with theoretical calculations is that we all have a tendency to forget some vital point, which we discover when we actually implement one of the objects we propose. In math, this might be the first draft of our paper: I've never been able to construct more than the simplest of arguments without correcting myself many times. I actually own and have read Nanosystems. I also take seriously how biological "devices" work, if only because they are presently the only instance of complete nanosystems which we can look at and study. In your arguments on Cryonet, you make several assertions which suggest that you think you need pay little attention to living systems and how they work. For instance, YOUR nanodevices will have rigid parts. Enzymes and other biological nanoparts may be rigid sometimes and highly flexible at other times. Rigidity is not a universal advantage --- even if we design our own nanosystems. Nor is it true that biological nanoparts simply "wear out". Sometimes they are eliminated because their presence serves no metabolic purpose at that time, sometimes they can be more cheaply made than the cost of repairing an existing one. For that matter, cells are complex and perform many functions: they are complex assemblies of nanodevices and should not be thought of simply as nanodevices themselves. No, the nanodevices which make them up do not work independently (except in specially constructed laboratory systems). THAT TOO may tell us something about how to engineer our own nanodevices when we make them in the real world rather than in pure theory. It has been years since I read Nanosystems. However I will expand on the point that rigidity isn't always an advantage: suppose we have a nanosized mechanical computer. Fine, and I believe the calculations which say that IF LEFT TO ITSELF it will break down very rarely. Well, if we put it in a universe of its very own, that will certainly be true, but in real life we're going to have to deal with all kinds of external influences, even living things, that could get inside it and mess it up. Especially if it is rigid, such invasions will cause problems. If it is to be part of a repair system for suspended patients, it will go into a milieu in which such problems will show up all over. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21083