John Cuthber

True, nothing which is not internally consistent could be termed a "theory" in science.So we have no need to rely on metaphysics to avoid such things.

While I'm at it: "The simple truth is that metaphysics does not endorse any positive metaphyscial position. If we do not know this, and do not apply it as a constraint on our scientific theories, then we are likely to end up proposing logically absurd theories. I cannot believe any decent scientist would want to do this." Do you realise that no decent scientist would do that? In fact, they could not do it. From wiki "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." No scientific theory can be logically absurd because reality wouldn't support it.. So what you are saying is that the metaphysics that most scientists don't use prevents them from doing something which would be impossible anyway.

Apparently, nobody here had chosen to answer it that quickly. IIRC one of the early methods for making plastics more degradable was to mix the polymer with starch. It wasn't great, but at least when the mircobes ate the starch the product fell apart. The word biodegradable isn't very well defined so the question is difficult to answer. Also, since NBR isn't biodegradable, if you converted it into something which did biodegrade, you wouldn't have NBR any more. Whether the material would still be usable is another matter.

"Okay. Metaphysics is pointless. No hope for a fundamental theory then. ." Unless, of course, the fundamental theory comes from somewhere else- like physics perhaps. Did you not spot the non sequiteur in your assertion?

Well, according to wiki "The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes" So, it's part of evolutionary biology then. What does the metaphysics actually add by way of a solution? Can it, for example, help people who have lost their sense of taste? Or is it just people talking a lot of bollocks about the senses while real scientists try to fix the actual problem? I presume that, when you said "he scientific answer, according to some (Chalmers, McGinn et al) , would be to assume that it is intractable and give up on it." you were ignoring the fact that some scientists don't think that's the issue: the point is that metaphysics doesn't add anything but a further layer of abstraction which helps nobody. In short "Metaphysics solves problems in metaphysics" so it's a bit like theology- pointless.

"So why would they argue that metaphysics cannot help solve this problem..." What problems has metaphysics solved so far?

Because nanotech is what we call technology that depends on things built on a nanometre scale and the gold particles in red glass are sub micron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloidal_gold

Given past behaviour, which option would you bet on?

Yes, I know what direction "j" is. but, as I have already said, I can't specify a direction other than j without using one of the other named directions as a reference so I need 2 parameters. Your system would work if everything were always exactly on one of your chosen lines, but in the real world only a small fraction (strictly, zero) of points will be on that line. You need another parameter to account for them. And you still will need three after you reply to this.

True, for example polar coordinates are (by convention) always positive. But there are still 3 of them. You keep saying direction as if it's one parameter. It's two. In 3d you still need 2 parameters to specify the direction. Nothing you are going to say will alter this fact

We have been using nanaotech since the Roman empire: we just didn't know it at the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranberry_glass

Argh! Will people please stop saying this "highly purified water is not really that healthy as you may lose minerals." However, as you say, pure water has no taste. Re. "Could this be psychosomatic, because I feel like I can still taste the water." Yes. And it's rather difficult to see what else it could be if the water is fit to drink.

The problem is that NNW is a direction in a plane. If you want to specify a direction in 3D then you need 2 angles- a latitude and a longitude. To specify a point in 3D you also need a direction. So, as I said (and countless others have said before me) you need 3 dimensions to specify a point in three dimensions. This isn't a debating issue, it's a fact.

Firstly, I saddened to hear that you spend time looking at conspiracy sites. You have been wasting your time. Secondly, having been told (with an explanation) that Hg vapour doesn't get converted to a plasma unless you heat it to about 110000K why post "mercury becomes plasma at 700°F+- not 110,000k?"? Thirdly, Swansont already asked you what you needed to explain, but rather than answering the questions you say pointless things like "three ft. tall .the amount of mercury will be 1/2lb.the internal space will be approximatly 15cubic ft." and so on. So, once again, here are the important questions What coil? How does a plasma create a "magnetic solenoid" "this provides thrust" How does it do that? What interaction is taking place? Incidentally, if you really plan to boil half a pound of mercury, be sure to put up some hazmat warnings for they people who come to recover your body. And, re. "the oldest pics of caduceus have a tornado shaped coil with about ten windings total split between the use of two tubes." No, they do not. That's just silly. They have two snakes.

As I said, it works as long as you are prepared to put up with poor resolution. Your system can't cope with 1,2.5,3 Similarly, if you want to specify an arbitrary point in space with the system you have pictured above you need to be able to say "2.7 units out from the origin along a line that's 73% of the way between the line OA and OB and 21% of the way between the lines OA and OC" that's still 3 parameters: 2.7, 73 and 21. There's really no way round needing all 3 if you want to have arbitrary precision

All this talk of developmental biology is interesting enough, you can get people who "look" male, even though they have no y chromosome and vice versa, but such individuals will be infertile. That's a long way from ideal.

If you have coal, and no concern about CO2 levels, then you can run cars on it. South Africa did so for a long time. http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/downloads/CTL_Brochure_1125921891488.pdf President Carter had a point, he raised it and it seems to have had an effect. Here's a graph of the world's oil consumption since 1950 http://www.worldwatch.org/brain/images/press/news/vs05-world_oil.jpg Up until the mid 70s it was rising pretty much exponentially. Then there's a break in the curve and it rises more slowly. But all the talk of Carter's speech is beside the point. The oil supply is finite so it will run out. All you can argue about is the time scale over which we have to replace it.

Well, I do. You said "It was the president of the United States that said the oil would run out by the end of the 80’s. " But he didn't say that.

Lets pretend that the tea is just one simple chemical which isn't very soluble, and there's enough of it to saturate the water. In that case it doesn't matter which method you use: all the tea ends up as a saturated solution. On the other hand, if you say the tea is mainly insoluble stuff with a little soluble material added then, again, it doesn't matter. All the soluble stuff dissolves whether you add one lot of water or two. The interesting case is where the material is somewhat soluble but also, to some extent, "sticks" to the insoluble stuff (like cellulose) present in the leaf. In that case you end up with a system similar to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_coefficient And in this case, two extractions are better than one. Tea contains a lot of different chemicals and probably all three situations occur with some of the components. So, overall, the two extractions may work better. But it's also possible that the materials which extract better in two stages don't taste nice- in which case you do better with a single extraction if you want nice tea.

I think the answer is "it depends"

But that decimal implies a fraction. That fraction, in turn requires two parameters (some fraction of the way from point a to point b.). So you need two parameters to specify direction and then you need a third to specify the distance. I thought I had implied that in my earlier post when I mentioned half way between two things.. On the other hand, if you are prepared to put up with limited resolution, you can do the job with just one parameter. Start with an origin and have a bunch of cubes spiralling out from it. Count the cubes and you have specified the location to within the nearest cube.(you would need positive and negative numbers).

Do you realise that science isn't just stringing words together?

Most things would not be on a line from the origin through a particular sphere's centre. So you need to account for something whose direction is "halfway between a and b" and "halfway between a and c". So, you are back to 3 parameters. You can't specify three dimensions with 2 numbers. Also, "Given a particular task, a sphere size could conceptually dense pack all of space" spheres don't pack densely- there are gaps.

"Also boiling as a phase change, molten metal to become a vapour, were electron shareing disappears." Not at the temperatures and pressures in a star.

You need to explain what you think you mean by "an even more solidified object" and "super solid substances" You also need to explain why you think there is anything odd about the fact that liquid nitrogen boils when poured into a container that's a lot hotter than the boiling point of nitrogen. It would also help if you knew what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.