From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Duality of wave/particle, human/divine [Was:... or chavinism?]
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
 
Date:  3 Nov 92 17:08:45 GMT

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?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion