upvote
The self-replication assumes also that there is enough energy stored in each planet (or coming from a Sun) to do the work... That is pretty much unlikely.
reply
And stored in the specific forms the machine can exploit.

Over a long enough timescale, though… really, really slow solar trickle charge to a space-capacitor bank? A thousand years’ suns, culminating in a glorious orgy of smelting?

reply
Unless the capacitor breaks down before it's charged, one of the main problems discussed in the article.
reply
Any chemical bond is a potential source of energy. Plenty of sources of potential energy too able to be converted to work.
reply
That's the source, but for chemical reactions you also need a sink. For instance gasoline is not usable as an energy source without an oxidant. Take away the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere (an asteroid has no atmosphere at all) and now gasoline has no potential energy available. Asteroids have no available oxidants (regolith was already fully oxidized long ago).
reply
I would also think that self-replicating probes would work more like living things. He seems to be imagining that we make probes like modern machines, and then find ways to let them build themselves. But nature found much easier solutions.
reply
Life as we know it until now has big difficulties outside goldilocks zone. It would theoretically be possible to make microbes (or fish?) that float high in Venus atmosphere, if we put money into 200 years of research, but no way life as we know it could ever break up and "eat" an asteroid.
reply
reply
Very interesting. I didn't know about them.

But I still think it's impossible on an asteroid. No nitrogen, very little sunlight, wrong temperature, zero pressure, etc. They are already at their limit on Earth.

reply
I hate this assumption that many sci-fi enthusiasts seem to make, that as long as something is not ruled out by currently known physics rules, it doesn't matter that we have no idea how it could be built, there will be some way in some plausible future.

When we see currently insurmountable problems in creating a piece of technology, it's absolutely possible that we'll never be able to build it. Even if it is theoretically constructible, there is no reason to believe that the way to build it would be found before, say, the sun runs out of hydrogen.

reply
This isn't elaborated on in the piece, but it does mention that it's written in the context of the Fermi paradox. Adding 50,000 years of technological development and a 1,000 year rebooting phase at each star system doesn't meaningfully change how long it would take life to spread when considered against the 13,500,000,000 years since stars developed.
reply
It's absolutely possible that we'll never be able to build it.

There's absolutely no evidence of that on the article.

reply
> There's absolutely no evidence of that on the article.

If you treat evidence as in the law of excluded middle, then yes. But if you are ready for a probabilistic evidence, then the article is a piece of evidence.

It chains Fermi Paradox, and our lack of knowledge how to do metallurgy in space. They both combined raise probability of impossibility of Von Neumann probes. It is not a proof that rules out Von Neumann probes, but it raises doubts about them.

reply
Of course not. That isn’t what the article was trying to say.

The thesis was, “I would like to suggest that the hardest part is the one that gets a single sentence: ‘mines local material and builds a copy.’” And so naturally the points in the article are only trying to support that point.

The closest we get to what this thread is talking about is the concluding remark on the Fermi paradox. Which doesn’t rest on the idea that it’s a practical impossibility; just on the suggestion that it may be hard enough that we can’t just assume civilizations that are in principle capable of building them are likely to actually do it.

reply
> there is no reason to believe that the way to build it would be found before, say, the sun runs out of hydrogen.

A lot of computational power can be thrown at the problem in this time. So, the problem should admits no shortcuts, no decomposition into simpler problems, no alternative ways to get similar functionality that allow shotrcuts or decomposition. The result should look like a jumble of atoms that somehow produces the required functionality.

I wonder which problems can admit only this kind of a solution.

reply