X-Message-Number: 21077
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 23:39:35 +0100
From: Henri Kluytmans <>
Subject: Is MNT science-fiction ?

I wrote :

>>Therefore I agreed, they are "techno-fiction", but not science 
>>fiction. I still haven't seen any valid scientific argument 
>>against the concept of MNT.

Yvan Bozzonetti replied :

>You could as well said that about interstelar travels. Even in this case 
>there have been published technical schemes to get here. For MNT, you have 
>only one idea and no proof it is impossible, a weaker position. 

The MNT concept is a little stronger than you seem to suggest :

There is a roughly detailed idea of how the concept should function.
There are existing proofs of some of its basic principles
(self-reproduction, building objects out of molecular building blocks).
There is theoretical proof (based on well known science) of all 
other parts (even some theoretical experiments).

Indeed, there is no physical experiment to demonstrate the complete
concept in practice yet, but it wouldn't be a concept anymore then, 
would it.

>It is similar to a religious faith: If you can't give a 
>mathematical poof it is false, then I chose to think it is true...


Do you really want me to explain this ?????   :(

>>Please tell me a **valid** scientific argument against the MNT 

>Science is about testable observational or experimental facts. 


Science is about making theoretical models that can predict observational 
or experimental facts. Those models can then be used to theoretically 
analyse unbuild technological designs.

Only when new models are made, or old models are adapted, then 
confirmation by experiments is required, therefore models 
need to be testable to be of any use (and thus religious beliefs 
are not scientifically acceptable models).

However, MNT does not require new models (i.e. new science) ! 

(Oops, I think I just accidentally answered your question why MNT is 
not similar to religious faith.)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21077