Article View: bit.listserv.xtropy-l
Article #467Limits to physical size with nanotech
From: Hal Finney
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 01:19
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 01:19
60 lines
4061 bytes
4061 bytes
A few comments on Robin's idea: The term "upload" doesn't really seem appropriate here. I think of that as referring to a person who is living in a computer-simulated virtual reality. What we have here is more of a transformation or alteration. We would still live and work in the physical world. It's true that our brains (and perhaps some or all of our bodies) would be changed from organic matter to nanotech machinery, but we would still have the same basic relationship to the world that we do now. Given that the point of this is to provide some of the advantages of nanotech, like the mental speedup, while still allowing a familiar world, some people might want to make the world as familiar as possible. If we kept the "mind speedup wrt body" term at 1, and shrunk our bodies by a factor of about 250 (speeding up our minds by the same amount), some aspects of the world would still seem normal. Inertia would be unchanged, the heft and resistance to acceleration of objects being based on their composition of wood or stone just as they are for big people. (This is assuming our arms still get their power from organic muscles.) But gravity would seem lower, by a factor of 16 (square root of 250). We would be living in a 1/16 g gravitational field. We could jump a dozen of feet in the air, carry 16 people on our backs, etc. This would have lots of implications for architecture - we'd probably build upwards more, with poles in place of ladders for easy climbing between levels, or simple jumping-off areas. Living in a 1/16 g field may not be normal enough for some people. They could slow their minds down by another factor of 16. (They would still be 16 times faster than normal people.) Things would then fall at a normal rate. But inertia would now be screwed up. Things would have almost no resistance to motion, and gravity would seem very weak, these two factors exactly cancelling each other to allow for a normal rate of fall. This wouldn't be right. What they need to do is to also weaken themselves by a factor of 16 - make their muscles 16 times less strong. Now, inertia is right, gravity is right, and they can lift just the right amount. I'm not sure about the metabolic aspects. I think, given the higher surface to volume ratio, that the slowed-down people could breath at what would be for them a normal rate. (The fast people would have to breathe unnaturally slowly.) I suspect, not having worked it out, that body temperature would actually be about normal for the slowed-down people. They'd probably have to eat at about a normal frequency as well. Maybe someone could check the details. The big problem with the 16-factor slowdown and 16-fold weakening is that such people would be vulnerable to other animals, particularly the insects with whom they would be competing. Perhaps they could have two modes of operation, a normal mode for day-to-day life and a "turbo" mode where they become 16 times faster and stronger, a fit opponent for a marauding beetle. Hal Finney hal@ghs.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9306230119.AA20426@nano.noname>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UUNET.UU.NET!GHSVAX!HALShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fdeb7,e651e230878da66d
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdeb7,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-06-22 18:31:49 PST
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UUNET.UU.NET!GHSVAX!HAL
Return-Path: <@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU,
@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-xtropy-l@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
Return-Path: <@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:ghsvax!hal@UUNET.UU.NET>
Message-ID: <9306230119.AA20426@nano.noname>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.xtropy-l
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 18:19:59 PDT
Sender: Extropians - discussion/development of Extropian ideas
<XTROPY-L@UBVM.BITNET>
From: Hal Finney <ghsvax!hal@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject: Limits to physical size with nanotech
In-Reply-To: Robin Hanson's message of Tue,
22 Jun 1993 16:13:29 PDT <9306222311.AA06616@relay1.UU.NET>
Lines: 60