Science changes, shouldn't our theology?Written by Terry Dashner
Science changes, shouldn’t our faith?Terry Dashner……………….Faith Fellowship Church PO Box 1586 Broken Arrow, OK 74013 Since basic science is everchanging, shouldn’t our theology change with it? No. Our theology should remain constant, even when science seems to contradict it. Usually science changes to support, to some degree, what theologians and simple people of faith have been saying all along—“In beginning, God…” Allow me to illustrate this, please. Catherine H. Crouch in her essay entitled, “The Strangely Relational World of Quantum Mechanics” makes a very interesting observation about science in 20th century. Says Crouch, “…Einstein is rightly celebrated for his association with relativity, one of two major innovations in twentiethcentury physics, it’s less well known that he vehemently opposed other theory that rocked twentiethcentury scientific world—quantum mechanics.” Crouch continues, “And, surprisingly, in recent years theory that reportedly caused Einstein to protest, ‘God does not play dice [with universe],’ not only has turned out to be right, but may be remarkably congruent with Christian convictions. Call it quantum leap of faith.” QM speaks of probabilities. For example, take particles which make up your body. QM “…is stubbornly unwilling to tell you where each electron in your body’s roughly billion billion billion atoms is right now. Chances are, they’re all pretty much where you think they are, but there is a real (though extraordinarily small) chance that right now, at least one of your electrons ‘is’ outside of your personal space. In fact, QM refuses to commit to where electron is, preferring instead to say merely that at any given time, that electron has a certain probability of being in a certain place. This idea—that chance, rather than definite predictability, describes behavior of universe—prompted Einstein’s uneasy comment about God playing dice.” What am I getting at? Simply this. QM, a theory not very well understood in its infancy and seemingly at odds with immutable properties of physics, has now taken a dramatic turn toward supporting a Creator who rules over universe. Crouch explains, “Mermin’s [N. David Mermin of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York] central idea is simple: basic elements of physical reality are not individual objects but relationships between what we perceive to be individual objects. Individual objects as such most certainly exist. However, if we insist on knowing properties of individual objects rather than properties of relationships between objects, our efforts are doomed to appear paradoxical and incoherent.”
  Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in MathematicsWritten by Dr Kedar Joshi PBSSI MRI
In this article I address 3 of 7 millennium problems in mathematics announced by Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI), USA. I propose solutions (not all of which are meant to be conclusive) to problems using ideas in Superultramodern Science (SS), which is my foremost creation. (The remaining 4 problems seem to be outside scope of SS.) It is of utmost importance to note that nature of ideas and consequently of solutions is very radical and it would take painstaking efforts to fully understand and appreciate solutions proposed. Also it has to be considered that according to Conmathematics (Conceptual Mathematics) : superultramdoern mathematical science, superultramodern scientific solutions to problems are, though apparently philosophical, in fact, mathematical. Virtually all of 3 problems are such that they demand revolutionary changes in current (modern/ultramodern) sciences. And SS is thought to be an appropriate change. I shall state problems exactly as they are stated on website of CMI. However, statements are ones which are brief and not ones that are official and descriptive. This choice is out of revolutionary nature of solutions which makes it senseless to consider conventional or orthodox symbolic patterns which essentially make (official) statements look complicated and descriptive. 1. Yang  Mills Theory The laws of quantum physics stand to world of elementary particles in way that Newton's laws of classical mechanics stand to macroscopic world. Almost half a century ago, Yang and Mills introduced a remarkable new framework to describe elementary particles using structures that also occur in geometry. Quantum YangMills theory is now foundation of most of elementary particle theory, and its predictions have been tested at many experimental laboratories, but its mathematical foundation is still unclear. The successful use of YangMills theory to describe strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property called "mass gap:" quantum particles have positive masses, even though classical waves travel at speed of light. This property has been discovered by physicists from experiment and confirmed by computer simulations, but it still has not been understood from a theoretical point of view. Progress in establishing existence of YangMills theory and a mass gap and will require introduction of fundamental new ideas both in physics and in mathematics. SS solution : I suppose that light, for example, is a classical wave and photon, for example, is a quantum particle. It’s an assumption in modern/ultramodern science (relativity theory) that no massive entity travels at (or above) speed of light. From Superultramodern Scientific perspective [in particular, NSTP (Non  Spatial Thinking Process) theoretical perspective] space is a form of illusion, mass is bulk or quantity of matter, wave and particle are two conceptually distinct entities existing in form of nonspatial states of consciousness/feelings. To sum up, wave particle behaviour is an orderly governed illusion where massive quantum particles do not really travel in space but are presented at time of wave collapse.
