From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Duality of wave/particle, human/divine [Was:... or chavinism?]
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:47:04 GMT

I have deleted talk.abortion despite my fondness for that newsgroup.

In <BxF14D.GwA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn18.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Date:  3 Nov 92 17:08:45 GMT
>>Lines: 81

>>In <Bwy9A4.Kt3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>>In <1c461gINNf17@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:

>>>>>In article <nyikos.719271158@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>>|> In <fTRK9T2@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>>>|> >And it
>>>>>|> >remains for someone to explain the Christian dilema as the question of
>>>>>|> >the dual nature of light has been already explained by science.
>>>>>|>				        	 ^^^^^^^^^ 
>>>>>|> Really? where?  
>>>>>[stuff deleted]
>>>>>|> please tell me where
>>>>>|> this earth-shattering explanation is to be found, and who the Nobel
>>>>>|> Prize winner is who first provided it.
>>>>>|> 
>>>>>|> Peter Nyikos

>>>>>Nobel Prizes awarded for studies into the wave-particle duality of matter:
>>>>			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>>Kind of misses the point, doesn't it?  Sort of like talking about 
>>>>religious notables who wrote long studies into the human-divine duality
>>>>of Jesus, which Paul Harvey [whose world-view is worlds apart from that
>>>>of _the_ Paul Harvey] was UNFAVORABLY comparing to the alleged 
>>>>EXPLANATION of the wave-particle duality of matter.

>>>No it's not "sort of like talking about ... studies into the human-divine
>>>duality of Jesus".  When one says "studies into" in a scientific context,
>>>one means *scientific* studies

>>There are also historical studies, textual studies, linguistic studies,
>>and (if you can bear to say it) biblical studies.  And why are you only
>>speaking of a scientific context?  
>>>years after the fact, when other researchers have demonstrated that you were
>>>indeed right on the money with your theory (if you're still alive--the Nobel
>>>prize is not given post-humously).

>>All fine and dandy, but it still falls short of explanation.  And I see
>>no indication above that any of these notables got the Nobel Prize for
>>explaining, or even attempting to explain, the dual nature.

>>>Tell me how these "biblical scholars" do their "studies" with such evidence
>>>that could be shared by everyone.  There are no controlled experiments.  There
>>>is no physical evidence.  There isn't much of anything that you can *show*
>>>someone else (assuming you could afford the equipment) to "prove" to them
>>>without an effort to *feel* it themselves.

>>You are confusing ontology with epistemology.  Biblical scholars have a 
>>coherent *theory* of the dual nature of the human/divine in Jesus, 
>>which could well be as deeply researched as anything above.  That they cannot
>>*prove* it, in the absence of an agreement that the bible is inerrant
>>about fundamentals of the Christian faith, is beside the point.

>>>Do NOT try to compare religion to physical sciences.

>>They are very different, granted.  Even theology is very different from
>>the physical sciences.  But then, so is history.  Do you subscribe to
>>the saying that history is bunk?

>No, I am saying that comparing "studies" in a philosophical (or religious)
>sense to "studies" in a physical sense is bunk.

I am still curious to know what your feeling is about historical
studies, since some religious studies are of a historical nature. [For
example, studies into what kind of guard was posted at Jesus's tomb and
what the penalty was for soldiers falling asleep during that kind of
guard.]

>As far as the EXPLANATION about the particle/wave nature of matter, that would
>involve a lot more time and effort to describe than the fact that it *has* been
>explained.  If you haven't seen the explanation and are really interested in
>knowing about it, get a Quantum Mechanics textbook and/or take a course.

I have seen an "explanation" in Eddington's classic _The Nature of the 
Physical World_ but it does not explain the wave/particle duality to
my satisfaction.  Can you suggest a specific textbook?  Taking a course
is not appropriate for me, although as a Professor I have the privilege of 
listening in on courses.  But do you seriously think they "reconcile" the
wave-like properties of matter with the particle-like properties?

Peter Nyikos