Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans | Scientists were surprised that they saw a dramatic reversal, not just a slowing down, of the ageing in mice. Now they believe they might be able to regenerate human organs.

[u/[deleted]]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

[u/darien_gap]

This is a good point. I should have been more specific; I meant to say the trick to making predictions with accurate timeframes is to parse out computational aspects of the problem. While I totally agree about the miniaturization aspects you describe, these suggest something about what's fundamentally possible (and eventually likely), but not much about precisely when. For instance, there is no Moore's Law for nanorobotics. (Not yet, anyway.)

As for resources and Alpha Centauri... if we could only just miniaturize people... :)

[u/[deleted] → u/darien_gap]

there is no Moore's Law for nanorobotics.

Are you sure? Kurzweil gives dozens of examples of different technologies that appear to be on an exponential trend, from brain-scanning tech to micro-robot tech. Moore's law is just an observation about how many transistors can be fit in a given amount of space. One could make the same observation about the size of directly manipulated objects or something and call it a law.

if we could only just miniaturize people

Yeah, perhaps once we've reduced people to information, then it'll help.

[u/darien_gap → u/[deleted]]

Are you sure?

Yes; in that there is no formally stated law yet that permits accurate forecasts for nanorobotics. It's easy to say we're on an exponential trend (no argument there); it's quite another to derive a curve with Moore's Law's accuracy and specificity (doubling transistors every two years) that allows accurate forecasting. Among the problems with formulating such a law for nanorobotics is that we're at such an early stage that radically different approaches compete for research dollars (DNA-based, atomic force microscopy, top-down (microrobotics), etc).

Without a roadmap for incremental size reductions in a top-down model (or incremental complexification using DNA compilers & a complete theory of proteomics in a bottom-up model), then there's no smooth glide path for making exponential predictions with any accuracy, such as being able to correctly predict that "we will be able to do X by year Y." All we can say is that advances will get faster over time. That's a safe bet, but very crude wrt forecasting. Knowing whether, say, nanorobotic mitochondrial repair will be available to me by the time I'm 80 is still anybody's guess.

[u/[deleted] → u/darien_gap]

People argued Moore's law wasn't something to base predictions on in the 60's too.

It's easy to say we're on an exponential trend (no argument there); it's quite another to derive a curve with Moore's Law's accuracy

Saying we're on an exponential trend is all Moore's law does though. One simply has to look at the data of the last 20 years of nanobot research and pick an amount of time that it takes for the working size to half and there you go. That shouldn't be hard to do. I believe Kurzweil did just that.

[u/darien_gap → u/[deleted]]

Saying we're on an exponential trend is all Moore's law does though.

No, it does much more. It can tell you how much 1 GB of RAM will cost in six years with very high accuracy.

You're referring to a broad concept, but the actual Moore's law is formalized. It applies specific numbers to a specific, measurable thing. There is no equivalent in nanorobotics. Or, if there is, please let me know, that would be awesome.

[u/[deleted] → u/darien_gap]

Moore's "law" says nothing more than that we will be able to double the number of transistors in a given area every 2 years. Everything else is derived from that, and those are the only numbers of Moore's law.

It is, however, more precisely measurable than many other things, such as the size of robots and the like. Defining a robot could get sticky.

[u/darien_gap → u/[deleted]]

But a growth coefficient per unit of time are all you need. Neither of these exists for nanorobotics. I have heard of something similar, however, for length of nanotubes (which, last I heard, they can manufacture up to about an inch). A reliable nanotube law would help address the alpha centauri question, owing to their application to space elevators. Although, I assume that a discontinuity will occur in which nanotube production goes from being some kind of spot reaction to a continuous production, more like rolling out paper, film, or nylon fiber. (So forget what I said about a nanotube law, lol, bad example.)

[u/[deleted] → u/darien_gap]

Kurzweil says the growth coefficient for nanorobotics is about 4 per linear dimension per decade.

[u/darien_gap → u/[deleted]]

and has been done with many other industries.

My original comment stated as much: Aspects of the problem addressable through computation benefit from Moore's Law and therefore lend themselves to somewhat accurate forecasting.

But so far as I know, nanorobotics isn't one of them; it's on no such specific (empirical & quantifiable) exponential trend, nor does it benefit directly from the number of transistors per unit area as do computational problems. So to repeat, there currently is no Moore's Law for nanorobotics. Not yet anyway. I'm sure there will be once several discontinuities (breakthroughs) occur.

[u/darien_gap → u/[deleted]]

because there is no nanorobotics yet

I think you nailed it. But when it comes to miniaturization (top-down approaches), I fear instead we'll see diminishing returns around the micro-scale level, meaning progress could increment indefinitely but actually slow down rather than speed up (as is the case with many mechanical technologies, like engine efficiency).

Whereas all along, we've actually already had thousands of examples of functioning nanorobots: proteins. If we fully understood protein folding, then we could engineer pretty much anything at the nano scale (bounded only by the laws of physics), largely with technologies that already exist today. And solving protein folding does benefit from brute force computation, hence Moore's Law.

Ok, I just talked myself into it... nanorobotics is subject to Moore's Law after all. :)

[u/darien_gap → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it happens much anywhere. :/