The discussion centers on the concept of self-descriptive physical objects, particularly in the context of 3D printing. The author proposes that a physical object could contain embedded instructions for its own recreation, using a cube as a primary example. The conversation explores the complexities of encoding these instructions, including potential methods such as recursive instructions and compression techniques. The dialogue also touches on the philosophical implications of self-replicating objects, drawing parallels with DNA and the challenges of ensuring accurate reproduction without external support systems.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for 3D designers, engineers, and researchers interested in the intersection of physical object design and information encoding, as well as those exploring the implications of self-replicating systems in technology and biology.
No it doesn't. You do rely on "write the letters that you read", but reading letters is okay as you said, and how to write the letters can be described as detailed as you want.DaveC426913 said:That's true, but describing he description does.
That's not the challenge as-stated, no.valenumr said:This seems like a question of accuracy in reverse engineering. The result of the experiment depends on your accuracy of measurement as well as the ability to reproduce the product at a specific accuracy. Both of these have limits, but it shouldn't be a problem if everything is not quatum-scale, at least technically.
The thought experiment is that reverse engineering the object is cheating.Now, I know what you're thinking "The object already contains a description of itself - in its own measurements! Just measure every relevant coordinate."
Well, that would be an analogue description, and it's pretty prone to error. The description of the object would suffer from measurement error, and that would be compounded each time.
I understood, but I guess what I mean is, it seems the ability to accomplish such a task is only limited by ones ability to describe an object (or measure it) and ability to reproduce such specifications accurately. If we could do such things perfectly, perhaps we would have star trek level transporters.DaveC426913 said:That's not the challenge as-stated, no.
See paragraphs 4 and 5 of the OP:
The thought experiment is that reverse engineering the object is cheating.