I think the iphone would have a much lower assembly number than a person. She mentions an objects assembly number is defined by the minimal possible number of steps to create it, not just how we came up with the object in a particular case, so I don’t think you add the biological entities assembly number to it? An iphone would be a much smaller assembly number compared to humans if so.

The copy number is an important aspect as well that maybe I haven’t gotten to fully reading yet. I would guess the iphones copy number is also quite low in comparison to the number of DNA based lifeforms that have ever existed.

Some combination of copy and assembly number give you a point in life-object space if i am reading correctly so far.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Realistically, you're right about an iPhone having a much lower assembly number than a person, but that makes me curious how an iPhone would compare to a bacteria, but to a point you rightfully made, there are incomparably more bacteria than iPhones. Also, while I'm tempted to think of something like a phone as having a high assembly number given the complexities of things like screens and ICs, realistically once you have one pixel and one gate, scaling things up by 1e6 or 1e9 makes manufacturing quite a bit trickier, but doesn't innately increase the assembly number. On the other hand, I suppose that a single bacteria which is made up of a bunch of organelles, each of which is going to be made up of a bunch of specialized molecules is going to have a lot of unique things rather than many copies of a few things, so I suppose it does seem plausible that a bacteria could have a vastly higher assembly number than a phone in addition to its higher copy number.