On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:20:45 -0400 george murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > but that does not mean that he has come to grips with the
> > that Whitehead sloughed over. I contend that process theology is
> > the same shape as Whitehead's anti-Einsteinian theory of
> Dave -
> Could you expand on this comment a bit? I don't know if by "is
> the same shape as" you mean
> a) ANW's process theology has the same type of logical
> structure as his relativity theory, or
> b) they're both in bad condition in terms of testing of
> implications &c.
I meant the latter. As I recall, Eddington showed that Einstein's and
Whitehead's theories gave the same predictions on the four matters
considered relevant at the time. So Whitehead was then pla.lusible. But
more mature considerations showed his theory faulty.
Whitehead's theory was an interpreted Euclidean geometry, but I recall no
math in his theology/philosophy. .IMO he should have stuck to
mathematics, where he did incredible work.
> (Note on terminology: I think it would be more accurate to speak
> ANW's process _philosophy_, a philosophy which of course has
> implications which he worked out to some extent. Others - e.g.,
> Cobb -
> have then worked out process _theologies_ using his philosophy. &
> think it's an overstatement to speak about ANW's "anti-Einsteinian
> theory of relativity." Where he parted company with Einstein wasn't
> special relativity or even the use of non-Euclidean geometry, though
> wouldn't accept Einstein's idea of _variable_ space-time curvature.
> would be better to speak simply of "Whitehead's theory of
> [Which is, _en passant_, one of the better competitors of general
> relativity in terms of agreement with observations.])
> George L. Murphy
> "The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 07 2001 - 23:54:46 EDT