On 16 Nov 2003, at 11:36 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
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
But how partial and imperfect do you have to go to reconcile the differences? It would appear that pretty much every specific claim in any particular religion has to go. Is there one god or a multiplicity of gods or no gods at all just spirits? Was Jesus the son of god, just a prophet or just a man? When we die do we go to heaven or purgatory or dissipate to nothing or get reincarnated? 'Partial and imperfect' is all very well, but I don't see what is left. 'All of the above' is not a good answer :)
"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.
That may be so, but how can you tell which are which?
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
