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 ever-changing, 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—“Inrepparttar 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 inrepparttar 105810 20th century. Says Crouch, “…Einstein is rightly celebrated for his association with relativity, one ofrepparttar 105811 two major innovations in twentieth-century physics, it’s less well known that he vehemently opposedrepparttar 105812 other theory that rockedrepparttar 105813 twentieth-century scientific world—quantum mechanics.” Crouch continues, “And, surprisingly, in recent yearsrepparttar 105814 theory that reportedly caused Einstein to protest, ‘God does not play dice [withrepparttar 105815 universe],’ not only has turned out to be right, but may be remarkably congruent with Christian convictions. Call itrepparttar 105816 quantum leap of faith.”

QM speaks of probabilities. For example, takerepparttar 105817 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 whererepparttar 105818 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, describesrepparttar 105819 behavior ofrepparttar 105820 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 withrepparttar 105821 immutable properties of physics, has now taken a dramatic turn toward supporting a Creator who rules overrepparttar 105822 universe. Crouch explains, “Mermin’s [N. David Mermin of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York] central idea is simple:repparttar 105823 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 knowingrepparttar 105824 properties of individual objects rather thanrepparttar 105825 properties of relationships between objects, our efforts are doomed to appear paradoxical and incoherent.”

Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in Mathematics

Written by Dr Kedar Joshi PBSSI MRI

In this article I address 3 ofrepparttar 7 millennium problems in mathematics announced byrepparttar 105809 Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI), USA. I propose solutions (not all of which are meant to be conclusive) torepparttar 105810 problems usingrepparttar 105811 ideas in Superultramodern Science (SS), which is my foremost creation. (The remaining 4 problems seem to be outsiderepparttar 105812 scope of SS.) It is of utmost importance to note thatrepparttar 105813 nature ofrepparttar 105814 ideas and consequently ofrepparttar 105815 solutions is very radical and it would take painstaking efforts to fully understand and appreciaterepparttar 105816 solutions proposed. Also it has to be considered that according to Conmathematics (Conceptual Mathematics) :repparttar 105817 superultramdoern mathematical science,repparttar 105818 superultramodern scientific solutions torepparttar 105819 problems are, though apparently philosophical, in fact, mathematical. Virtually all ofrepparttar 105820 3 problems are such that they demand revolutionary changes inrepparttar 105821 current (modern/ultramodern) sciences. And SS is thought to be an appropriate change. I shall staterepparttar 105822 problems exactly as they are stated onrepparttar 105823 website ofrepparttar 105824 CMI. However,repparttar 105825 statements arerepparttar 105826 ones which are brief and notrepparttar 105827 ones that are official and descriptive. This choice is out ofrepparttar 105828 revolutionary nature ofrepparttar 105829 solutions which makes it senseless to considerrepparttar 105830 conventional or orthodox symbolic patterns which essentially makerepparttar 105831 (official) statements look complicated and descriptive.

1. Yang - Mills Theory The laws of quantum physics stand torepparttar 105832 world of elementary particles inrepparttar 105833 way that Newton's laws of classical mechanics stand torepparttar 105834 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 Yang-Mills theory is nowrepparttar 105835 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 Yang-Mills theory to describerepparttar 105836 strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property calledrepparttar 105837 "mass gap:"repparttar 105838 quantum particles have positive masses, even thoughrepparttar 105839 classical waves travel atrepparttar 105840 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 establishingrepparttar 105841 existence ofrepparttar 105842 Yang-Mills theory and a mass gap and will requirerepparttar 105843 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)repparttar 105844 speed of light. Fromrepparttar 105845 Superultramodern Scientific perspective [in particular,repparttar 105846 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 inrepparttar 105847 form of non-spatial states of consciousness/feelings. To sum up, wave -particle behaviour is an orderly governed illusion whererepparttar 105848 massive quantum particles do not really travel in space but are presented atrepparttar 105849 time of wave collapse.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use