Self-descriptive Physical Object

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of self-descriptive physical objects, particularly in the context of recreating 3D printed items without the original design files. Participants explore the implications of encoding instructions within the object itself and the challenges associated with accurately reproducing complex shapes and designs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a 3D printed object could contain instructions for its own recreation, but acknowledges that this would complicate the design process as the instructions would need to be encoded within the object itself.
  • Another participant points out that DNA serves as an example of an object that contains the information necessary for its own replication, though they note that external conditions are required for this process to occur.
  • Some participants argue that if standards are established for encoding information (e.g., writing dimensions on the object), the problem becomes trivial, as long as all parties adhere to the same standards.
  • There is a discussion about the limitations of using written instructions on an object, with some asserting that such writing does not constitute part of the object itself and thus does not meet the criteria for self-description.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the feasibility of creating truly arbitrary self-descriptive objects, suggesting that any encoding scheme could be circumvented by modifying the object in a way that disrupts the encoding.
  • One participant draws a parallel to computer programs that can print themselves, but others challenge the validity of this analogy, emphasizing the difference between the output and the original object.
  • There is a recognition that if arbitrary support systems (like software or biological environments) are allowed, the problem may become trivial, as predefined objects could be used as references.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some agreeing on the potential for encoding information within objects while others contest the practicality and implications of such encoding. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of creating truly self-descriptive objects without external support.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions about external conditions required for replication, the definitions of self-description, and the implications of using standards for encoding information. These factors contribute to the complexity of the discussion.

  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
That's true, but describing he description does.
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.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
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.
That's not the challenge as-stated, no.

See paragraphs 4 and 5 of the OP:
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.
The thought experiment is that reverse engineering the object is cheating.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
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.
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.

I suppose your argument relating to information theory, or information encoding is more on topic, but I think the point is relevant.
 

Similar threads

High School Inscribing a circle in an Oblique Square (Drafting)
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Questions about momentum and force as well as normal force/friction
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
High School PEMDAS and the Ambiguity of Mathematical Notation in Physics
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
High School Proof Pertaining to Possible Paths Through 3 Dimensions
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
High School Does Spacetime Have Physical Existence?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
High School Cartesian Space vs. Euclidean Space
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School What are multiplication and division?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
High School Joystick Geometry: Making a User Control for Opacities
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School Before understanding theorems in elementary Euclidean plane geometry
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K