Science changes, shouldn't our theology?

Written by Terry Dashner

Continued from page 1

That’s interesting. And again science takes a positive turn towardrepparttar Creator. “Christian readers of Mermin suddenly find themselves in familiar territory, for any deeply Christian account ofrepparttar 105810 creation seems bound to have a relational quality. Fromrepparttar 105811 enigmatic ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26 torepparttar 105812 fully formed descriptions ofrepparttar 105813 Trinity inrepparttar 105814 creeds, Christian thought posits a relationality in God himself. Andrepparttar 105815 universe exists, Jewish and Christian theologians have long asserted, in continuous, ongoing, dynamic, loving relation to God…Under Mermin’s interpretation, at least, QM turns out to be as much an ally as a foe torepparttar 105816 Christian understanding ofrepparttar 105817 world, and some of its most ‘irrational’ elements actually compel a more relational rationality” writes Mrs. Crouch.

Does this twist in science prove anything? No. Why? Because it, too, will evolve over time and change. Nothing is constant but change, saidrepparttar 105818 philosophers of old; however, one thing is certain. Science and Theology are notrepparttar 105819 sworn enemies thatrepparttar 105820 19th century philosophers made them out to be. I believe that one may complementrepparttar 105821 other. But one ofrepparttar 105822 two must never change—belief in God and His relationship to me through Jesus Christ.

Keeprepparttar 105823 faith. Stayrepparttar 105824 course. Jesus is Lord over all creation and soon coming King of Kings.

Pastor T.dash…peace

Pastors a church.

Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in Mathematics

Written by Dr Kedar Joshi PBSSI MRI

Continued from page 1

2. Poincare Conjecture If we stretch a rubber band aroundrepparttar surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without allowing it to leaverepparttar 105809 surface. Onrepparttar 105810 other hand, if we imagine thatrepparttar 105811 same rubber band has somehow been stretched inrepparttar 105812 appropriate direction around a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without breaking eitherrepparttar 105813 rubber band orrepparttar 105814 doughnut. We sayrepparttar 105815 surface ofrepparttar 105816 apple is "simply connected," but thatrepparttar 105817 surface ofrepparttar 105818 doughnut is not. Poincaré, almost a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and askedrepparttar 105819 corresponding question forrepparttar 105820 three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance fromrepparttar 105821 origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since.

SS solution : According torepparttar 105822 Joshian conjecture in Superultramdoern Science (SS), that space has 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions,repparttar 105823 concept of three dimensional sphere (and consequently Poincare conjecture itself) is absurd.

3. P vs NP Suppose that you are organizing housing accommodations for a group of four hundred university students. Space is limited and only one hundred ofrepparttar 105824 students will receive places inrepparttar 105825 dormitory. To complicate matters,repparttar 105826 Dean has provided you with a list of pairs of incompatible students, and requested that no pair from this list appear in your final choice. This is an example of what computer scientists call an NP-problem, since it is easy to check if a given choice of one hundred students proposed by a coworker is satisfactory (i.e., no pair from taken from your coworker's list also appears onrepparttar 105827 list fromrepparttar 105828 Dean's office), howeverrepparttar 105829 task of generating such a list from scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical. Indeed,repparttar 105830 total number of ways of choosing one hundred students fromrepparttar 105831 four hundred applicants is greater thanrepparttar 105832 number of atoms inrepparttar 105833 known universe! Thus no future civilization could ever hope to build a supercomputer capable of solvingrepparttar 105834 problem by brute force; that is, by checking every possible combination of 100 students. However, this apparent difficulty may only reflectrepparttar 105835 lack of ingenuity of your programmer. In fact, one ofrepparttar 105836 outstanding problems in computer science is determining whether questions exist whose answer can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure. Problems likerepparttar 105837 one listed above certainly seem to be of this kind, but so far no one has managed to prove that any of them really are so hard as they appear, i.e., that there really is no feasible way to generate an answer withrepparttar 105838 help of a computer. Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin formulatedrepparttar 105839 P (i.e., easy to find) versus NP (i.e., easy to check) problem independently in 1971.

SS solution : According torepparttar 105840 NSTP theory, one ofrepparttar 105841 major of components of SS, all problems which, in principle, have answers are, in fact, P problems. This implication is based onrepparttar 105842 idea ofrepparttar 105843 non - spatial superhuman computer that takes zero time to process information.

Creator of Superultramodern Science (SS)

    <Back to Page 1 © 2005
Terms of Use