ewbrownv comments on The hard limits of hard nanotech - Less Wrong

19 Post author: lsparrish 07 November 2010 12:49AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (53)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Johnicholas 08 November 2010 04:02:39AM 4 points [-]

In order for us to observe biological (as opposed to intelligently designed) nanoscale engineering in the wild, it must be possible for it to have evolved.

If you look at genetic algorithms, they don't find all, many, most, or the best solutions - they find solutions which have paths of a certain type leading to them. You could call these paths axis-aligned, where each gene corresponds to an axis. E.g. http://www.caplet.com/MannaMouse.html

The applet only has two genes, and so doesn't have any of the changing-numbers-of-genes phenomena that we expect in the real world, but it gives a rough sense that evolution works in a specific, simple, and not very smart manner over the fitness landscape.

Comment author: ewbrownv 08 November 2010 05:09:42PM 1 point [-]

Indeed. An even bigger constraint is energy consumption - natural life forms operate under absurdly constrained energy budgets compared to machinery, which sharply limits the materials they can be made of and the performance they can deliver.