Responding to the last post in "Quantum Mechanics and Self-Reproducing Machine
Tools", now off list in my reader:

Bruce wrote on the 9th of September:

-------------------------------------------quote
Doug,

This is a kool idea, as many of your posts are (even drill press abuse). I
have two comments - 1. you have not shown proof that "two of everything" or
even "two of anything" is the smallest number required and 2. I think
replication without evolution is undesirable.

Early man used sticks and stones as tools. Everything we currently have
(good and bad) has evolved from those simple beginnings. So I suggest that
the minimum number of anything is very close to zero. Send McGiver to Mars
with a Swiss Army Knife (and an unlimited supply of bicycle spokes and boot
laces) and by the time you get there, you'll have to hunt for a place to
park your shuttle between the Bridgeports.

Now project that evolutionary capacity to a capability that may be available
in ideal environments and simple replication of current technology may even
be undesirable. Grow your lathe ways from a single diamond crystal - now
your iron machine tools are as desirable as the barber's leeches. Evolve
some more and now you can generate any product by selectively ADDING
molecules of the appropriate type to the proper location - why machine by
chip REMOVAL? When your razor gets dull, it can be sharpened by replacing
the displaced molecules not by abrading until a fresh edge is exposed.

Machine tool self-replication is an excellent philosophy exercise - and that
brings me to the next level of evolution. Perhaps we don't really need
THINGS as instances of matter, we can just THINK them and therefore don't
actually need to perform an actual task or build a particular device to know
the cosmic truth. We think through the problems, then we know that we can
build that 42-shot-simiautomattic-revolver with each part perfectly heat
treated and accurate to a couple of milliangstroms. Now that we know, we
don't have to actually build it to prove our knowledge or skill. (Made you
think about some old westerns, didn't it?)

Just some ideas to think about.

Bruce
---------------------------------------close quote

"Machine tool self-replication is an excellent philosophy exercise - and that
brings me to the next level of evolution. Perhaps we don't really need
THINGS as instances of matter, we can just THINK them"

Oh, heck no. Von Neumann, who proved machine self-replication is possible,
Wigner, who proved it isn't, and Drexler, who missed the point, are all
philosophy exercises. They never provided THING. All they did was THINK.

I plan on actually accomplishing self-reproduction of a minimal complement of
pairs of machine tools, hopefully all from one manufacturer. That manufacturer
may support the project financially for advertising or patent rights.

Pairs are required if the technique of "copying" is to remove a part from a
machine and, if the part is within capacity, installing it in the machine that
does the final operation as a simulated workpiece, then moving backwards one
operation at a time, to the first, at which point the stock is installed. As
one machine _may_ be of the same class, pairs are required.

The final operation need not always be on the same class machine, but if,
working backwards from the finished part, even _one_ operation on _one_ part
requires a machine of the same class as the downed, part-removed machine, we
can reduce the problem to pairs but no farther. And this would be a pair of
bench grinders, a pair of hex key sets, pairs of all collets required, but not
necessarily a full set, a pair of collet closers, etc.

I assert you'll always find at least one milled part in a mill, at least one
lathed part in a lathe, at least one surface ground part in a surface grinder,
and at least one cylindrically ground part in a cylindrical grinder, as the
self-reproduction potential of all machine tools is well recognized. In fact, I
am fairly but not sure that any machine tool must contain at least one part
made with "itself", that is a machine of the same class.

"Evolve some more and now you can generate any product by selectively ADDING
molecules of the appropriate type to the proper location - why machine by chip
REMOVAL? When your razor gets dull, it can be sharpened by replacing the
displaced molecules not by abrading until a fresh edge is xposed. "

With six billion potential partners, I'd rather screw than jack off. You said
so yourself above, and I in my answer. I am working ONLY with what we have and
know. Not with grey goo and magic atom-by-atom assembly. Talk about wasting a
cup of gas to buy a gallon of milk. How about 150 KWH to sharpen your razor?

"Now that we know, we
don't have to actually build it to prove our knowledge or skill. (Made you
think about some old westerns, didn't it?)"

No, I insist that we do it, proving it can be done. Once done, it's addictive.
I don't remember my old westerns.

"Early man used sticks and stones as tools. Everything we currently have
(good and bad) has evolved from those simple beginnings. So I suggest that
the minimum number of anything is very close to zero. Send McGiver to Mars
with a Swiss Army Knife (and an unlimited supply of bicycle spokes and boot
laces) and by the time you get there, you'll have to hunt for a place to
park your shuttle between the Bridgeports."

My middle name is McGiver and a machine tool is a bicycle spoke. I have my own
boot laces, thank you. I also use chewing gum as an adhesive because it
linearizes the connection, eliminating the dead band in the mechanical fastener
that supports it, simplifiying analysis and function."

The minimum number of anything is indeed close to zero. It is one in the case
of certain weapons. For much of the rest, you start with two hands and use
both. Thus, the minimum is two, and above I showed another reason why it must
be two in this case. It's an exclusion principle. If one machine is down, you
need a spare. I build almost everything by making the intermediate products
self-upgrade, starting with a brick or a stick.

But such is stock, not a tool, and you only need one piece of stock to make
something. But to make all your tools, using one of each as a model, the spare
will usually be not just handy, but required. One down, the other up. And when
we have two of everything, we can certainly make one of anything. Sometimes we
don't need two, but the only case in which we never need two is stock, and
stock is not self-replicating.

"I think replication without evolution is undesirable."

So do I and that's why there's no grey goo or unassisted replication in my
thesis. God guided our evolution through his random mutation and selection. We
guide the evolution of self-replicating machine tools after we construct the
first one the hard way. They do not do it on their own, since there are too
many scale discontinuities between Pentium and Clausing Colchester. Within
Pentium, it just doesn't happen. Within Clausing, it could happen but we have
to make it happen.



Yours,

Doug Goncz (at aol dot com)
Replikon Research

Read the RIAA Clean Slate Program Affidavit and Description at
http://www.riaa.org/
I will be signing an amended Affidavit soon.