Re: Defense of Theism pt 1

From: Don Winterstein <>
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 03:12:19 EDT

George Murphy wrote:

"Perhaps the math is at least part of things in themselves."

Maybe to the degree that the "things" are idealized or abstracted. Laws of gravitation apply to Earth's mass distributions, not to Earth itself. Earth is a distribution of mass, but it is much besides; and the stuff besides is irrelevant to gravitation.

And if the math is part of the thing itself, which math is it, and what does the math tell about the thing? Newton's gravitation caused people to think masses attracted one another at a distance. If that were true, it would be saying a lot about the thing itself. But Einstein's gravitation tells us instead that masses curve 4-space. That's also saying a lot. But is this the final answer, or do we look for another? Lacking a TOE, we keep looking ( ? ).

And what about QM? Does the math have deep significance or has it merely been cobbled up to get agreement with experiments?


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George L.<>
  To:<> ;<> ;<> ;<>
  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:22 PM
  Subject: RE: Defense of Theism pt 1

  [Glenn Morton] You are right, but, I placeemphasis on the math because
  that is what we humans understand. We really don't understand things in
  themselves. Kant showed us that. We simply do not know the noumena; all
  we can get are phenomena [end grm]

  Perhaps the math is at least part of things in themselves.

Received on Mon Jun 27 03:16:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 03:16:27 EDT