----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 AM Subject: Re: Explanation
> > On 16 Nov 2003, at 6:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Let me understand. You are seriously suggesting that viewing physics > > through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing physics through > > a > > physics lens? > > It seems to be better actually :) Uh-huh. I'd appreciate a computer programming lens unifed field theory. ;-) > > By definition, a particle is pointline. When it exhibits > > behavior that is not pointlike, it must be treated in another manner > > (e.g. > > rigid body). By definition, a wave is spread over a volumn. These are > > mutually contradicting. > > That would be a big problem for the way you look at things then... Right, the problem is that particles and waves were both partial understandings. What was needed was a model that included an inherently unobservable wave function, collapse of the wave function into an eigenstate, etc. What was needed was a paradigm shift. Now, that's a word that has been tremendously overused and misused. However, in this case it is very valid. Physics has had two paradigm shifts in ~3000 years, and this was the second one. So, lets go back to different religions. All one needs to argue is that, like particles and waves, different religions have partial imperfect understandings "now I see as through a glass darkly, then I shall see face to face." Some understandings can still be better than others, and some can be way off target, as was the caloric theory of heat. So, I view the arguments about the differences in understanding as no more persuasive than the question "well which slit did the photon go through?" Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
