I am hardly qualified to give anything close to an expert opinion on this, and perhaps not even a very knowledgeable opinion, and although I am very interested in the advances of science, my compelling interest in this area is whether this idea of nanotech and/or science in general will ever be able to revive cryonicists. From that perspective, I don't really care all that much about what are the ultimate limit of the capabilities of nano-related science, but whether that upper limit will be sufficient for the revival of cryonicists. "Good enough" is the operative phrase here.
It seems to me, Lyle, after skimming over your article, that your perspective seems, ultimately, to be *static.* And in that sense, I agree with you, that it seems quite possible that the creations of man will never be nearly as capable as man himself--at any particular given time. However, will you agree that man himself, as a group, will be ever more capable of performing more and more complex work--as time goes on?
Time, you see, from my empirical observations, does indeed go on, and on, and on. :-)
For any given time window, your ideas seem sensible. But, taken from a perspective of 200 years down the road, doesn't it seem likely that the creations of man, while not nearly as capable of doing what man, in the aggregate, is capable of at that particular time X, may well be more capable than man *was* in the aggregate at some time in the past, say X-100 years.
And so therefore, in order for man's creations to accomplish what man himself is capable of doing, it is only necessary for a sufficient amount of time to pass. Theoretically, speaking of course. But then as I pointed out earlier, my main concern is only whether science will ultimately be *sufficient* for a certain, limited goal.