Massie wrote:
> Question:
>
> What is God's role in the natural universe?
Isn't the answer: creator and sustainer sufficient? I believe it is. Perhaps
you are asking "what does God's finger print look like?" But that is a
question of a different color; one that is without reference to answer!!
Perchance you are asking what is the "God action" - to which I answer: it is
natural phenomena.
> A physicist explains natural phenomena by appealing to some form of
> natural law.
But of course, what else would you explain natural phenomena with; the
alternatives plaguing the fellowship of humanity are frighteningly
incoherent and damaging to the pursuit of truth!
> A good example is gavity. The apple falls because of
> gravity and gravity is evoted to explain the motion of the moon about
> the earth. In fact, gravity can even be quantitied by
>
> f = G mM/R/R.
Admittedly, there is an epistemological problem inherent to physical
explanations. Yet, physics is - by definition the description, i.e. concepts
entailed in mathematical formation - of the observations made by the human
brain. Gravity IS just this: a "fundamental force" (composite concepts) that
"causes matter" (another composite of ideas to be sure!) to "interact" (the
foundation concept of all of physics!) in a manner that is best described
(so far) by mathematical relations describing Einstein's general relativity.
The set of relations Newton posited above is the least accurate and in fact
inaccurate. Yet Newton's ideas are adequate to land men on the Moon!
Einstein's equations are better in that that entail "ideas" that are NOT
countered by experience; Newton's model fails in predicting light's
interaction with gravity. The point is: physics is the successful use of
math as expression of ideas aimed at description of the physical universe.
> So there you have it but this is really not an explanation. The
> equation on this paper is not gravity but a shorthand so that we can
> make a calcualtion.
This is not completely fair to mathematics. Mathematics expresses relations
among ideas that are manipulated to produce new ideas that may or may not
result in number and may or may not have physical application.
> What is gravity actually? I cannot touch it, see it, or tell you what it
> is. Perhaps I would wish to appeal to something more fundamental, that
> is, actually gravity has to do with the actions of "gravitrons." These
> are postilated to be tiny particles which when exchanged produce the so
> called gravitational force. What then are "gravitrons." What makes them
> work?
Actually, the postulation of the existence of gravitons and how indeed they
"work", in view of the extremely successful quantum theory and in
anticipation of a theory of quantum gravity, goes a long way in "explaining"
this very "touchable" but admittedly "invisible" phenomena. In fact,
Einstein's geometric theory enhances explanation in that it tell us what
gravity actually IS: a "curvature of the space-time" we exist in (background
as it where - yet another example of .... well, you know :-) ) . Again,
predication of composite ideas encroached in the language of mathematics
which, although it defies total human comprehension, it is not void of
explanatory efficacy.
I find it interesting that you use the language of experimentation by
invoking touch and sight in your attempt to refute the explanatory claims of
physicist.
> You see that in the final analysis all that physics provides is a scheme
> to calculate phenomena but not a real explanation. Physics is really
> not an appeal to fundamental causes in spite of its posturing at the
> pyrimid of scientific explanation but really a scheme of predictions of
> natures action.
> Many believe that something has to be underneath all of these phenomena.
>
> Perhaps God is the best explanation even though a belief in Him does not
> easily dervive from this frustration of knowing the underlying mechanism
> for physical action.
>
> Bert Massie
You simply prefer a religious concept for your notion of what constitutes a
fundamental explanation in conceiving the universe; such religious belief is
not supported or denied by physical assertions. Despite your assertion
otherwise, physics is a real explanation of existence at fundamental levels
for it is in the domain of physics that the concept of reality finds itself
most "naturally" (enjoy the pun!} put forth. While I make no assertion that
we have arrived at anything approximating a full "understanding" (actually
modern physics is incomprehensible to our macroscopic minds), I do want to
defend its fundamental status.
Of course God did it: it is precisely it that he did that constitutes
physic's domain! But this former predication is a statement of faith; not
testable due to an absence of a reference point. (What would God's finger
print look like if we saw it?) Hence, the laws of science ARE explanations,
how be it inadequate and incomplete ones - they that ARE describing reality
at some level of accuracy. I believe the laws are our Lord's finger prints;
but this is my religious faith.
Langdon Gilke and I had a discussion regarding scientific models and what
they purport to explain. He coined the phrase, the referent; that is to say,
that which physics offers, e.g. electrons, gluons, etc. are simply models as
you suggest; BUT, they are modeling something and are not just ideal
imaginations of the mind and therefore posses explanatory efficacy.
In Christ's Mercy;
George A.
--------------2DC4556F9DD220402DEB6F6D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Massie wrote:
Question:Isn't the answer: creator and sustainer sufficient? I believe it is. Perhaps you are asking "what does God's finger print look like?" But that is a question of a different color; one that is without reference to answer!! Perchance you are asking what is the "God action" - to which I answer: it is natural phenomena.What is God's role in the natural universe?
A physicist explains natural phenomena by appealing to some form ofBut of course, what else would you explain natural phenomena with; the alternatives plaguing the fellowship of humanity are frighteningly incoherent and damaging to the pursuit of truth!
natural law.
A good example is gavity. The apple falls because ofAdmittedly, there is an epistemological problem inherent to physical explanations. Yet, physics is - by definition the description, i.e. concepts entailed in mathematical formation - of the observations made by the human brain. Gravity IS just this: a "fundamental force" (composite concepts) that "causes matter" (another composite of ideas to be sure!) to "interact" (the foundation concept of all of physics!) in a manner that is best described (so far) by mathematical relations describing Einstein's general relativity. The set of relations Newton posited above is the least accurate and in fact inaccurate. Yet Newton's ideas are adequate to land men on the Moon! Einstein's equations are better in that that entail "ideas" that are NOT countered by experience; Newton's model fails in predicting light's interaction with gravity. The point is: physics is the successful use of math as expression of ideas aimed at description of the physical universe.
gravity and gravity is evoted to explain the motion of the moon about
the earth. In fact, gravity can even be quantitied byf = G mM/R/R.
So there you have it but this is really not an explanation. TheThis is not completely fair to mathematics. Mathematics expresses relations among ideas that are manipulated to produce new ideas that may or may not result in number and may or may not have physical application.
equation on this paper is not gravity but a shorthand so that we can
make a calcualtion.
What is gravity actually? I cannot touch it, see it, or tell you what it is. Perhaps I would wish to appeal to something more fundamental, that is, actually gravity has to do with the actions of "gravitrons." These are postilated to be tiny particles which when exchanged produce the so called gravitational force. What then are "gravitrons." What makes them work?Actually, the postulation of the existence of gravitons and how indeed they "work", in view of the extremely successful quantum theory and in anticipation of a theory of quantum gravity, goes a long way in "explaining" this very "touchable" but admittedly "invisible" phenomena. In fact, Einstein's geometric theory enhances explanation in that it tell us what gravity actually IS: a "curvature of the space-time" we exist in (background as it where - yet another example of .... well, you know :-) ) . Again, predication of composite ideas encroached in the language of mathematics which, although it defies total human comprehension, it is not void of explanatory efficacy.
I find it interesting that you use the language of experimentation by invoking touch and sight in your attempt to refute the explanatory claims of physicist.
You see that in the final analysis all that physics provides is a scheme
to calculate phenomena but not a real explanation. Physics is really
not an appeal to fundamental causes in spite of its posturing at the
pyrimid of scientific explanation but really a scheme of predictions of
natures action.
Many believe that something has to be underneath all of these phenomena.You simply prefer a religious concept for your notion of what constitutes a fundamental explanation in conceiving the universe; such religious belief is not supported or denied by physical assertions. Despite your assertion otherwise, physics is a real explanation of existence at fundamental levels for it is in the domain of physics that the concept of reality finds itself most "naturally" (enjoy the pun!} put forth. While I make no assertion that we have arrived at anything approximating a full "understanding" (actually modern physics is incomprehensible to our macroscopic minds), I do want to defend its fundamental status.Perhaps God is the best explanation even though a belief in Him does not
easily dervive from this frustration of knowing the underlying mechanism
for physical action.Bert Massie
Of course God did it: it is precisely it that he did that constitutes physic's domain! But this former predication is a statement of faith; not testable due to an absence of a reference point. (What would God's finger print look like if we saw it?) Hence, the laws of science ARE explanations, how be it inadequate and incomplete ones - they that ARE describing reality at some level of accuracy. I believe the laws are our Lord's finger prints; but this is my religious faith.
Langdon Gilke and I had a discussion regarding scientific models and what they purport to explain. He coined the phrase, the referent; that is to say, that which physics offers, e.g. electrons, gluons, etc. are simply models as you suggest; BUT, they are modeling something and are not just ideal imaginations of the mind and therefore posses explanatory efficacy.
In Christ's Mercy;
George A.
--------------2DC4556F9DD220402DEB6F6D--