Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LLCF who wrote (23659)	5/25/2006 1:53:46 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 28931

"Yes, I objected to Solon's use of lens was describing a way to separate 2 theories embedded in each other... ie. that aren't separate, but really simply the same thing in different stages of evolution, so to speak" Your present allusion to Newton's and Einstein's theories as being "embedded" honors what I had been saying from square one--over your previous objections. I said from the beginning that both theories of gravity were valid and simply observed the universe through different lenses. In particular, I was making it clear that Einstein's theory of gravity, while more precise and reliable in extreme instances of theory, was no more precise or reliable in ordinary terms of existence. There is a FACT of gravity regardless of theory and regardless of definition. This FACT is the camera. Newton and Einstein are simply different lenses of observation and interpretation. I am delighted that you finally appear to accept this analogy and to accept that there is a congruence (or "embedding" as you call it) rather than a change of camera. The Einsteinian lens is able to observe an extra leg on the millipede. That has to be a good thing...

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next