Please, George, respond to what I say. I specified measurement with a
protractor. Even the parallax measurements by astronomers are not made
with setting circles but against the most distant stars on the plates. A
similar technique was used by Eddington in his early evidence for the
General Theory. There is abundant evidence that Einstein is right, so
that the universe is Riemannian rather than Euclidean, but none of the
evidence comes from the measurement of angles by using protractors.
Also, my statement about a non-theistic view, apparently proposed to
avoid a unique creation event, is not incompatible with a Creator
producing alternate universes. Indeed, one may so construe the creation
of angels, though their "world" apparently is not totally independent
from our physical universe. But this is an area where solid data on our
affecting them is arguably slim to none. However, the note about the ASA
statement of faith involves something I had not noticed.
Dave
On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 08:16:31 -0400 george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
>
> > ..........................................................
> > > If we assume for the sake of argument that God is indeed
> > > immutable &
> > > is never surprised then the God who was aware of the work of
> Bolyai
> > > and
> > > Lobachevsky ~1820 is identical in all respects with the God who
> > > spoke with
> > > Moses ~1000 years before Euclid. & while speaking with Moses,
> God
> > > knew
> > > non-Euclidean geometry. & I don't think that he got that
> knowledge
> > > simply by
> > > foreknowing what B & L would do.
> > > My question was, you will realize, posed in a somewhat
> > > whimsical
> > > way. What I would say more substantively is that math pattern
> is a
> > > fundamental aspect of the world that science discovers, and if
> we
> > > believe
> > > that the world is God's creation, that pattern is God's
> creation. &
> > > since
> > > God created the world freely, God could have (& maybe did)
> create
> > > worlds with
> > > other math patterns.
> >
> > I think two distinct matters are here conflated. First, every
> > mathematical calculus is true in all possible worlds. This, of
> course,
> > requires that it be understood within its given axioms, postulates
> and
> > definitions. These may be changed to produce different calculi.
> Thus the
> > Riemannian plane geometry that can be mapped onto the surface of a
> sphere
> > requires that there be no parallel lines. Taking this provision
> out of
> > its context, and the Euclidean proof (original) or postulate
> (current)
> > out of its context, no parallel lines and one parallel line
> contradict
> > each other. In empirical practice, none of our vernier protractors
> can
> > measure accurately enough to establish which multidimensional
> geometry
> > holds in our universe. Second, which mathematical system "fits"
> the
> > universe does not have to be the same if there are more than one.
> I
> > understand that a non-theistic view argues that ours is only one
> of an
> > infinite number of "bubbles" that produced alternate universes.
> But they
> > are inaccessible to us, as I presume an alternate created universe
> would
> > be, at least apart from divine intervention, and so do not affect
> our
> > science. If I understand the situation correctly, even wormholes
> won't
> > connect us.
> >
>
> First, our measurements _can_ show that the geometry of the
> world is
> not that of Euclid: The observations that are involved are those
> that show
> the superiority of general relativity to Newtonian theory.
> 2d, belief in multiple universes is not _necessarily_
> non-theistic:
> There are, e.g., rabbinic speculations that God had created other
> universes
> before this one. I wasn't referring to such ideas or modern notions
> about
> bubble universes &c but to the theological view that God's creation
> of the
> world is contingent, that God could have created other universes or
> that he
> could have created one universe with a kind of order different from
> the one
> we observe. (The latter belief, BTW, is expressed in the ASA
> Statement of
> Faith. The story of how it got there is a little odd, but that's
> another
> matter.)
>
> Shalom
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 06 2001 - 13:46:09 EDT