From: parker@ehsn18.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Duality of wave/particle, human/divine [Was:... or chavinism?]
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:02:36 GMT

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:

>>>For some reason the distribution line was missing, and I've restored it.

>>>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.
>	
>>>>  1914  Max Von Laue			Rontgen ray diffration
>>>>  1929  Louis-Victor de Broglie 	wave nature of the electron
>>>>  1930  Chandrasekhara Raman		scattering of light
>>>>  1932  Werner Heisenberg		quantum mechanics
>>>>  1937  Davisson & Thompson		electron diffration

>>[Trivia deleted]

>>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?  

>> (which include things like controlled
>>experiments, physical evidence, extensive testing of a hypothesis to form
>>it into a theory, extensive testing of a theory in an attempt to disprove it
>>(which is more exciting than proving it true), and other such intensive
>>activities).  They do not give out Nobel prizes trivially.  You do not get
>>a Nobel prize for doing "some work" on a topic.  You get the Nobel prize
>>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.

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.

>Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion