On 5/7/2012 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>    wrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
First, nobody cares if you believe it, even if you're a physics graduate 
student.  Second,
it's just a model and physicists everywhere are trying to invent a better one.  
it's a model that has been tested and found to work.
I do believe it, at least as a spatial representation of what matter
does or is at that level of microcosm.

But are you going to keep the faith when string theory comes up with a 
different model?

My personal conjecture is that
there is a progression from literal architecture to figurative
phenomenology the further you go into the microcosmic scale, but
that's beside the point. I was pointing quarks out as an example of
how physics is ok with a 1=3 logic.

I know, but it's a poor analogy. It's not 1=3 logic. Many things are made of three other things, as a proton is made of to Ups and a Down quark which can be separated - but only by making more quarks. But that's not the same as "Three divine persons constitute one person who is God."

I'm not anti science, and I'm
certainly not pro religion, but I am anti Manicheanism.

You're against a good/evil dualism, where matter is evil and mind is good?


They both have
validity and they both overlook a significant portion of the cosmos.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to