{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4562", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4562, "subject": "Christian relativity", "messages": 25, "voices": 10, "first": "2006-04-07T13:33:28+00:00", "last": "2006-05-01T06:30:09+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20060407133328.70091.qmail@web54208.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "nastler", "address": "nastler at yahoo.dk" }, "date": "2006-04-07T13:33:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it.\n\nThus in SS we would just have to accept that\nrelativity is patchy in order to understand the story;\njust as we have to accept a form of Lamarkian\nevolution.\n\n\"Suppose that, at the moment of Christ's death, the\nnews of it had started traveling at the maximum\npossible speed around the universe outwards from the\nearth. How far would the terrible tidings have\ntraveled by now? Following the theory of special\nrelativity, the answer is that the news could not,\nunder any circumstances whatever, have reached more\nthat one-fiftieth of the way across one galaxy — not\none- thousandth of the way to our nearest neighboring\ngalaxy in the 100-million-galaxy-strong universe. The\nuniverse at large couldn't possibly be anything other\nthan indifferent to Christ, his birth, his passion,\nand his death. Even such momentous news as the origin\nof life on Earth could have traveled only across our\nlittle local cluster of galaxies. Yet so ancient was\nthat event on our earthly time-scale that, if you span\nits age with your open arms, the whole of human\nhistory, the whole of human culture, would fall in the\ndust from your fingertip at a single stroke of a nail\nfile.\"\nDawkins" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-07T13:49:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<20060407133328.70091.qmail@web54208.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course, assuming physics 'as we know it' to be true is a bit of a risk; \nrelativity being patchy is probably at least as likely as not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: nastler \nReply-To: The Urth Mailing List \nTo: URTH \nSubject: (urth) Christian relativity\nDate: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 15:33:28 +0200 (CEST)\n\nQuote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it.\n\nThus in SS we would just have to accept that\nrelativity is patchy in order to understand the story;\njust as we have to accept a form of Lamarkian\nevolution.\n\n\"Suppose that, at the moment of Christ's death, the\nnews of it had started traveling at the maximum\npossible speed around the universe outwards from the\nearth. How far would the terrible tidings have\ntraveled by now? Following the theory of special\nrelativity, the answer is that the news could not,\nunder any circumstances whatever, have reached more\nthat one-fiftieth of the way across one galaxy — not\none- thousandth of the way to our nearest neighboring\ngalaxy in the 100-million-galaxy-strong universe. The\nuniverse at large couldn't possibly be anything other\nthan indifferent to Christ, his birth, his passion,\nand his death. Even such momentous news as the origin\nof life on Earth could have traveled only across our\nlittle local cluster of galaxies. Yet so ancient was\nthat event on our earthly time-scale that, if you span\nits age with your open arms, the whole of human\nhistory, the whole of human culture, would fall in the\ndust from your fingertip at a single stroke of a nail\nfile.\"\nDawkins\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1617328038.20060407193252@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2006-04-07T17:32:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<20060407133328.70091.qmail@web54208.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello nastler," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Friday, April 7, 2006, 3:33:28 PM, you wrote:\nQuote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Check Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theory and experiments. It has been\nconclusively proven that news can spread instanteously, perhaps even\nbackward in time - but only for the internal purposes of the universe.\nYou cannot transmit information faster than light. Universe can." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Best regards,\n Stanislaus mailto:sbocian at poczta.fm\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nPoznaj Stefana! Zmien komunikator! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1924" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060407124906.ji0mxs0x14w8wc0g@webmail.webhero.com>", "from": { "name": "tom at bitterman.net", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2006-04-07T17:49:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<1617328038.20060407193252@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quoting Stanislaus :" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hello nastler,\n\nFriday, April 7, 2006, 3:33:28 PM, you wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Quote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Check Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theory and experiments. It has been\nconclusively proven that news can spread instanteously, perhaps even\nbackward in time - but only for the internal purposes of the universe.\nYou cannot transmit information faster than light. Universe can." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "a) Details. Cites.\nb) This is God we're talking about here. You know - omniscient,\nomnipotent, omnipresent, creation-ex-nihilo, rising-from-the-dead\nGod. Is anybody really worried that he couldn't get information\nout faster than light if He wanted to?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--\nBest regards,\nStanislaus mailto:sbocian at poczta.fm\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nPoznaj Stefana! Zmien komunikator! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1924" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "enamel" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604071121m2293c43chda92434a9a45ca44@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-07T18:21:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<20060407133328.70091.qmail@web54208.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/7/06, nastler wrote:\n\"Suppose that, at the moment of Christ's death, the\nnews of it had started traveling at the maximum\npossible speed around the universe outwards from the\nearth. How far would the terrible tidings have\ntraveled by now? Following the theory of special\nrelativity, the answer is that the news could not,\nunder any circumstances whatever, have reached more\nthat one-fiftieth of the way across one galaxy — not\none- thousandth of the way to our nearest neighboring\ngalaxy in the 100-million-galaxy-strong universe. The\nuniverse at large couldn't possibly be anything other\nthan indifferent to Christ, his birth, his passion,\nand his death. Even such momentous news as the origin\nof life on Earth could have traveled only across our\nlittle local cluster of galaxies. Yet so ancient was\nthat event on our earthly time-scale that, if you span\nits age with your open arms, the whole of human\nhistory, the whole of human culture, would fall in the\ndust from your fingertip at a single stroke of a nail\nfile.\"\nDawkins" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Richard Dawkins is a brilliant, brilliant biologist and\nwriter about biology, but when it comes to religion\nhis head is so far up his ass it's sticking out his mouth.\nHe simply does not understand what he criticizes, any\nmore than seven-day creationists understand the\noverwhelming evidence for the \"neo-Darwinian synthesis\"\n(but feel free to analyze and criticize it). As \"brights\"\ngo, he's pretty dim.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2BD2A546-B349-4642-BA80-14930B5CEBFA@cogsci.ucsd.edu>", "from": { "name": "Adrian Robert", "address": "arobert at cogsci.ucsd.edu" }, "date": "2006-04-07T18:23:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<20060407124906.ji0mxs0x14w8wc0g@webmail.webhero.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Apr 7, 2006, at 1:49 PM, tom at bitterman.net wrote:\nQuoting Stanislaus :" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Hello nastler,\n\nFriday, April 7, 2006, 3:33:28 PM, you wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Quote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Check Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theory and experiments. It has been\nconclusively proven that news can spread instanteously, perhaps even\nbackward in time - but only for the internal purposes of the \nuniverse.\nYou cannot transmit information faster than light. Universe can." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "a) Details. Cites." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A good book I read explaining this and related areas is _Quantum \nReality_, by Nick Herbert. It's a few years old, maybe there's \nsomething better now, but it will get the job done.. The ideas of \nthe EPR experiment and Bell's Theorem are nonetheless a bit too fuzzy \nin my mind at the moment to try providing details here.\n\n(BTW, I hadn't thought of Bell's in connection with Christian or \nother religious ideas, but that's pretty cool..)\n\nAdrian" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2006-04-07T19:39:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<1617328038.20060407193252@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "S" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Quote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nThe Ship (in UOTNS) does travel FTL and does go back and forth in time (the \ntwo things being the same). News including divine messages and divine \nmessengers do take this route. Whatever the real universe ordains, in the \nuniverse of the Sun books FTL is a routine \"galactic\" technology" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44375A60.5030407@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-08T06:38:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andy Robertson wrote:\nS" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Quote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nThe Ship (in UOTNS) does travel FTL and does go back and forth in time (the \ntwo things being the same). News including divine messages and divine \nmessengers do take this route. Whatever the real universe ordains, in the \nuniverse of the Sun books FTL is a routine \"galactic\" technology" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You have just begged the question." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44375BF0.7010200@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-08T06:45:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nOf course, assuming physics 'as we know it' to be true is a bit of a \nrisk; relativity being patchy is probably at least as likely as not." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is just not supportred by the vast bodies of reproduced results. \nRelativity's predictions are spot on accounting for observed effects \nabove the quantum level. It could use some reconciliation with quantum \ndynamics, but at the scales above that only the ability of average \npeople to comprehend relativity is patchy." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44375E68.5020702@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-08T06:55:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<1617328038.20060407193252@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Stanislaus wrote:\nHello nastler,\n\nFriday, April 7, 2006, 3:33:28 PM, you wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Quote suggesting one reason a Christian author might\nwish to write a universe without relativity. The time\nscales in the Sun series are extended, but the\nprinciple holds. The \"news\" cannot have spread through\nthe universe without bypassing physics as we know it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Check Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theory and experiments. It has been\nconclusively proven that news can spread instanteously, perhaps even\nbackward in time - but only for the internal purposes of the universe.\nYou cannot transmit information faster than light. Universe can." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's no meaningful distinction between \"you\" and a subset of \n\"universe\" in current physical thought.\n\nThere's also no need to restrict news of the Christian Gospel to \npost-crucifixion time in religious thought; Christ not only shares in \nthe eternal quality of Gd, but was personally present at the Creation \nand it was only His mortal incarnation for the benefit of the earth that \n began in Bethlehem. The Scriptures is silent on whether there are any \nextraterrestrial sinners in need of salvation; if their existence can be \nreconciled, so can other appearances of Christ, and they would no more \nviolate relativity than the Hubble expansion does." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-11T19:46:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<20060407124906.ji0mxs0x14w8wc0g@webmail.webhero.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Check Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theory and experiments. It has been\nconclusively proven that news can spread instanteously, perhaps even\nbackward in time - but only for the internal purposes of the universe.\nYou cannot transmit information faster than light. Universe can." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "a) Details. Cites." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As much as I appreciate an eye for detail, this isn't a physics lists. In \nany event I believe he was not referring to any one particular paper on the \nsubject - there is a great deal of talk about EPR and its implications out \nthere. You can start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality\n\nThe gist I think of what he was talking about in the paragraph above is that \nthere are things that seem to be instantaneous interactions at a distance, \nbut that these do not transfer information in any formal sense and thus can \nbe considered not to violate relativity. Maybe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "b) This is God we're talking about here. You know - omniscient,\nomnipotent, omnipresent, creation-ex-nihilo, rising-from-the-dead\nGod. Is anybody really worried that he couldn't get information\nout faster than light if He wanted to?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Deists, I would suppose." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060411202233.64618.qmail@web32401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "don doggett", "address": "kingwukong at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-04-11T20:22:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Chris wrote:\n\nAs much as I appreciate an eye for detail, this\nisn't a physics lists. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hear, hear. I'm all for the fun \"not\" being sucked out\nof the room. :) " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604111332vec7b388n90a7c784aae974c6@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-11T20:32:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<20060411202233.64618.qmail@web32401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On the other hand, I appreciate the physics neepery. Perhaps\nit can be marked with a different Subject: so people who don't\nwant to read it can skip it without missing the rest of the\ndiscussion?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/11/06, don doggett wrote:\n\n\n--- Chris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As much as I appreciate an eye for detail, this\nisn't a physics lists." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hear, hear. I'm all for the fun \"not\" being sucked out\nof the room. :)\n\n\n__________________________________________________\nDo You Yahoo!?\nTired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around\nhttp://mail.yahoo.com\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060411222027.62485.qmail@web32405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "don doggett", "address": "kingwukong at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-04-11T22:20:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604111332vec7b388n90a7c784aae974c6@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOn the other hand, I appreciate the physics neepery.\nPerhaps\nit can be marked with a different Subject: so people\nwho don't\nwant to read it can skip it without missing the rest\nof the\ndiscussion?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I doubt that's necessary. Information like that just\nlooks like big blocks of code to me anyway and my\nbrain just glides across it until something sticks.\nSometimes that something happens to be the delete\nbutton. Other times I actually learn something. (dear\ngod no). I just think physics citations are hardly a\nrequirement for a valid literary argument. They're\nmore like cookies. Made of tofu. And Carob. A treat." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-14T20:33:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophy of\n\tscience", "in_reply_to": "<44375BF0.7010200@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is just not supportred by the vast bodies of reproduced results.\nRelativity's predictions are spot on accounting for observed effects\nabove the quantum level. It could use some reconciliation with quantum\ndynamics, but at the scales above that only the ability of average\npeople to comprehend relativity is patchy.\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, I know :). I specialise in quantum field theory. I think that I didn't \nquite say what I wanted to say there. This might be more close to the \nintent (or perhaps not).\n\nThe metaphysic that's generally taken to be implied by relativity at present \nisn't necessarily the one that should be taken to apply in the future \n(though one can't actually say what that would be), since metaphysics is \ngenerally empirically underdetermined. For example, based on the Stanford \nEncyclopaedia of Philosopy entry on the subject (don't have time to dig up \nthe link at the moment; sorry) there's a form of Presentism (the idea that \nNow exists, to butcher the idea slightly) that's compatible with it despite \nit being usually taken that Eternalism (Now doesn't exist) is 'proved' by \nSR.\n\nI _could_ also mutter 'underdetermination of _theory_ by experimental data', \nbut there might be a general outcry of 'anti-science reletavist' and I'd \nhave my liscence to practise physics revoked! :D" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There's also no need to restrict news of the Christian Gospel to \npost-crucifixion time in religious thought; Christ not only shares in the \neternal quality of Gd, but was personally present at the Creation and it \nwas only His mortal incarnation for the benefit of the earth that began in \nBethlehem. The Scriptures is silent on whether there are any \nextraterrestrial sinners in need of salvation; if their existence can be \nreconciled, so can other appearances of Christ, and they would no more \nviolate relativity than the Hubble expansion does." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quite. I'm also intrigued by the idea that Dawkins is not only an \nauthority on biology and theology (he isn't on the latter, though himself \nand many who read him seem to think so) but on theoretical physics. Not \nthat he says anything obviously incorrect in the quoted passage..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-14T21:11:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophy\n\tofscience", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To say that metaphysics is \"generally empirically underdetermined\" bothers \nme a little bit, although it may - I am not sure - be perfectly true. It \nseems to imply that one arrives at metaphysical conclusions by means of \nempirical investigation, but the metaphysical premises are always there, as \nit were, ahead of time. I may be grossly mistaken but when I see modern \nattempts to work out a metaphysics compatible with modern science, it seems \nto me that mostly what is going on is that they're showing a given set of \nmetaphysical premises aren't mutually compatible and then making some \nsuggestions as to which ones should be thrown out. But the empirical \ninvestigation itself gets started on the basis of some metaphysical \nstandpoint or other." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Oh, I know :). I specialise in quantum field theory. I think that I \ndidn't\nquite say what I wanted to say there. This might be more close to the\nintent (or perhaps not).\n\nThe metaphysic that's generally taken to be implied by relativity at \npresent\nisn't necessarily the one that should be taken to apply in the future\n(though one can't actually say what that would be), since metaphysics is\ngenerally empirically underdetermined. For example, based on the Stanford\nEncyclopaedia of Philosopy entry on the subject (don't have time to dig up\nthe link at the moment; sorry) there's a form of Presentism (the idea that\nNow exists, to butcher the idea slightly) that's compatible with it despite\nit being usually taken that Eternalism (Now doesn't exist) is 'proved' by\nSR.\n\nI _could_ also mutter 'underdetermination of _theory_ by experimental \ndata',\nbut there might be a general outcry of 'anti-science reletavist' and I'd\nhave my liscence to practise physics revoked! :D" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There's also no need to restrict news of the Christian Gospel to\npost-crucifixion time in religious thought; Christ not only shares in the\neternal quality of Gd, but was personally present at the Creation and it\nwas only His mortal incarnation for the benefit of the earth that began \nin\nBethlehem. The Scriptures is silent on whether there are any\nextraterrestrial sinners in need of salvation; if their existence can be\nreconciled, so can other appearances of Christ, and they would no more\nviolate relativity than the Hubble expansion does." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Quite. I'm also intrigued by the idea that Dawkins is not only an\nauthority on biology and theology (he isn't on the latter, though himself\nand many who read him seem to think so) but on theoretical physics. Not\nthat he says anything obviously incorrect in the quoted passage...\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604141507r7e68eaf1udd381e58d452eeb6@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-14T22:07:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophy\n\tofscience", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/14/06, Chris wrote:\nTo say that metaphysics is \"generally empirically underdetermined\" bothers\nme a little bit, although it may - I am not sure - be perfectly true. It\nseems to imply that one arrives at metaphysical conclusions by means of\nempirical investigation, but the metaphysical premises are always there, as\nit were, ahead of time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I don't want to be speaking for anyone else but how _I_ read\n\"empirically underdetermined\" is \"there is not sufficient empirical\ndata available to determine the correctness of one set of metaphysics\nas over against another;\" or, more broadly, \"many different metaphysical\nsystems can be said to fit the empirical evidence we have to date.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...[T]he empirical\ninvestigation itself gets started on the basis of some metaphysical\nstandpoint or other." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, to the extent that epistemology is a branch of metaphysics,\ncertainly; empiricism is after all fundamentally an epistemological\napproach to things.\n\nAt any rate: the whole sentence --" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The metaphysic that's generally taken to be implied by relativity\nat present isn't necessarily the one that should be taken to apply\nin the future (though one can't actually say what that would be),\nsince metaphysics is generally empirically underdetermined." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "unpacks in my brain (note again: Not speaking for Iorwerth, just\nriffing out my own interpretation) something like:\n\nMetaphysics has been significantly influenced by the advent of\nmodern physics, and especially relativity. (Most philosophers\ndon't seem to have really gotten their brains wrapped around\nquantum theory yet; sadly, some philosophers seem to have\na vague idea that Heisenberg's principle boils down to \"the\nexperimenter influences the outcome of the experiment,\" or\nsomesuch.) But because we haven't yet fully worked out the\nempirical implications of relativity (and especially because we\nhaven't yet reconciled relativity with quantum theory), any\nmetaphysics based on relativity is _necessarily_ premature --\nwhich isn't to say that it may not turn out to be correct for a\nrelativistic Universe; but if it is, we can't say yet that it is.\n\nSomething like that, anyway.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-25T09:10:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophy\n\tof science", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604141507r7e68eaf1udd381e58d452eeb6@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "More or less what I intended to say; thanks! I'm largely riffing off \nPierre Duheim, who seemed to have some fairly sensible things to say on the \nsubject.\n\nI'll also note (in order to muddy the waters a little) that in some \nformulations of QFT (that of Peskin and Schroder's 'Introduction to Quantum \nField Theory', for example), the causality of special relativity is \ntechnically violated, as particles can exhibit space-like propagation, but \noperationally preserved, as observables are defined as commutators between \ndifferent field operators which vanish for spacelike propagators (i.e. \nparticles propagate faster than light, but you can't measure them, so it \ndoesn't matter). There probably exist other formalisms that don't exhibit \nthis slightly unsatisfactory way of dealing with the problem.\n\nAlso, I think that in GR, the universe has a preffered frame of reference, \nbut I could be wrong." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nOn 4/14/06, Chris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To say that metaphysics is \"generally empirically underdetermined\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "bothers\nme a little bit, although it may - I am not sure - be perfectly true. It\nseems to imply that one arrives at metaphysical conclusions by means of\nempirical investigation, but the metaphysical premises are always there, \nas\nit were, ahead of time.\n\nWell, I don't want to be speaking for anyone else but how _I_ read\n\"empirically underdetermined\" is \"there is not sufficient empirical\ndata available to determine the correctness of one set of metaphysics\nas over against another;\" or, more broadly, \"many different metaphysical\nsystems can be said to fit the empirical evidence we have to date.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "...[T]he empirical\ninvestigation itself gets started on the basis of some metaphysical\nstandpoint or other." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, to the extent that epistemology is a branch of metaphysics,\ncertainly; empiricism is after all fundamentally an epistemological\napproach to things.\n\nAt any rate: the whole sentence --" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The metaphysic that's generally taken to be implied by relativity\nat present isn't necessarily the one that should be taken to apply\nin the future (though one can't actually say what that would be),\nsince metaphysics is generally empirically underdetermined." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "unpacks in my brain (note again: Not speaking for Iorwerth, just\nriffing out my own interpretation) something like:\n\nMetaphysics has been significantly influenced by the advent of\nmodern physics, and especially relativity. (Most philosophers\ndon't seem to have really gotten their brains wrapped around\nquantum theory yet; sadly, some philosophers seem to have\na vague idea that Heisenberg's principle boils down to \"the\nexperimenter influences the outcome of the experiment,\" or\nsomesuch.) But because we haven't yet fully worked out the\nempirical implications of relativity (and especially because we\nhaven't yet reconciled relativity with quantum theory), any\nmetaphysics based on relativity is _necessarily_ premature --\nwhich isn't to say that it may not turn out to be correct for a\nrelativistic Universe; but if it is, we can't say yet that it is.\n\nSomething like that, anyway.\n\n--Dan'l\n--\nI do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604250841o36708b85na75cc2081ca8ee74@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-25T15:41:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophy\n\tof science", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/25/06, Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nMore or less what I intended to say; thanks!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thank _you_! I'm not a scientist, or a philosopher, but an autodidact\nwho reads and writes on both subjects and keeps hoping to get\npaid for it. So it's good to find out that when I set out to translate\na scientist's philosophical statement I got it (more or less) right.\n\nH'mmm. Is there a formulation of QFT in which relativistic causality\nis _not_ violated -- or at least rendered irrelevant? I somehow had\nthe impression this was one of the big barriers to making quantum\ngravity theories work. --at any rate, it seems the the experiments\nwhich (seem to) confirm the Bell hypothesis throw relativistic\ncausality into a very cocked hat.\n\nI'm pretty sure that the whole point of relativity is _not_ to have\na preferred frame of reference. But, ZPF theory may mess that\nup pretty good (if it ever amounts to anything).\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-26T10:51:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle\n\tphilosophyof science", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604250841o36708b85na75cc2081ca8ee74@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nH'mmm. Is there a formulation of QFT in which relativistic causality\nis _not_ violated -- or at least rendered irrelevant? I somehow had\nthe impression this was one of the big barriers to making quantum\ngravity theories work. --at any rate, it seems the the experiments\nwhich (seem to) confirm the Bell hypothesis throw relativistic\ncausality into a very cocked hat." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Bell's inequality is a property (as far as I know; I'm a computational \nfield theorist turned condensed matter theorist who needs to bone up on his \nfoundations) of non-relativistic QM as opposed to full QFT, which is \ncompatible with _special_ relativity, at least at an operational level. \n_General_ relativity is the hard case, partly because the maths is quite \nhorrid, but mostly because of the conceptual problems (to do with time - \ncanonical quantum gravity has none - and how the wavefunction of the \nuniverse is defined, measured or if it even exists). The degree to which \nBell's inequalities affect relativistic causality is somewhat up in the air, \nbecause you can't transmit information faster than light, which makes it \ncomparable to the apparant violation of relativity in QFT (at least, to me; \nagain, others who know more may disagree)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm pretty sure that the whole point of relativity is _not_ to have\na preferred frame of reference. But, ZPF theory may mess that\nup pretty good (if it ever amounts to anything)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, yes... But in the case of the universe you get a Machian 'background \nof fixed stars' effect (I think); I'm not sure Lee Smolin is happy with that \nbut he's a bit of a purist in this regard.\n\nZPF theory?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604261059g612c8b0fs6fdf781911f6bef1@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-26T17:59:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle\n\tphilosophyof science", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/26/06, Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nWell, Bell's inequality is a property (as far as I know; I'm a\ncomputational field theorist turned condensed matter theorist who\nneeds to bone up on his foundations)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh. Back in my days at Berkeley, one of their Nobel winners in\nPhysics insisted on sitting on all doctoral defenses. He would\ninevitably ask \"What is the definition of force?\" and similar\nquestions -- if you couldn't come up with F=MA, you were hosed.\nSome of the candidates, who hadn't touched \"that stuff\" in ten\nyears or more, had to cram before their oral" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_General_ relativity is the hard case, partly because the maths is\nquite horrid, but mostly because of the conceptual problems (to do\nwith time - canonical quantum gravity has none" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay I didn't know that there was a canonical version of quantum\ngravity yet... I clearly need to catch up on my science mags. (There's\na huge pile by the bed...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The degree to which Bell's inequalities affect relativistic causality is\nsomewhat up in the air, because you can't transmit information\nfaster than light," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm ... I have this idea that you can, by exploiting exclusion.\n\nConsider three points, A, B, and C. B is between A and C,\nbut one light-microsecond closer to A. B emits photon-pairs\ntowards both A and C, at regular intervals.\n\nAt C, you set up a device to detect photons coming from B as\nwaves.\n\nAt A, I measure every other (odd-numbered) photon as a particle. If\nI'm understanding exclusion and the inequality correctly, this means\nthat you can't measure these photons as waves, so your wave-\nmeasuring doodad misses every odd-numbered photon, which gives\nus a kind of synchronization. Then I measure the even-numbered\nphotons as waves for 1 and as particles for 0. You will only be able\nto detect the ones paired to the ones I measure as waves. So no\nmatter how far A and C are from each other, the information I\nencode in this way will reach you in one microsecond.\n\nTrue? False? I'm not sure -- I don't have the maths to understand\nwhy I'm wrong, if I am." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm pretty sure that the whole point of relativity is _not_ to have\na preferred frame of reference. But, ZPF theory may mess that\nup pretty good (if it ever amounts to anything)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, yes... But in the case of the universe you get a\nMachian 'background of fixed stars' effect (I think); I'm not sure\nLee Smolin is happy with that but he's a bit of a purist in this regard." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Mmmm. I see the point while not conceding it -- if I move an\ninch, my position relative to the farthest actual star _has_\nchanged, even if the change is below any conceivable threshold\nof measurement. I don't think this creates an actual preferred\nframe of reference, but a difference of scales in which certain\neffects become smaller than quanta and effectively disappear." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "ZPF theory?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Zero point field theory, which (aside from offering a nifty source\nof hypothetical free energy, at least in science fiction) seems\nto propose an actual reason why inertial mass is related to\ngravitational mass.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4450337E.3050309@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-27T02:59:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I\n mangle\tphilosophyof science", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604261059g612c8b0fs6fdf781911f6bef1@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nThe degree to which Bell's inequalities affect relativistic causality is\nsomewhat up in the air, because you can't transmit information\nfaster than light," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ummm ... I have this idea that you can, by exploiting exclusion.\n\nConsider three points, A, B, and C. B is between A and C,\nbut one light-microsecond closer to A. B emits photon-pairs\ntowards both A and C, at regular intervals.\n\nAt C, you set up a device to detect photons coming from B as\nwaves.\n\nAt A, I measure every other (odd-numbered) photon as a particle. If\nI'm understanding exclusion and the inequality correctly, this means\nthat you can't measure these photons as waves, so your wave-\nmeasuring doodad misses every odd-numbered photon, which gives\nus a kind of synchronization. Then I measure the even-numbered\nphotons as waves for 1 and as particles for 0. You will only be able\nto detect the ones paired to the ones I measure as waves. So no\nmatter how far A and C are from each other, the information I\nencode in this way will reach you in one microsecond.\n\nTrue? False? I'm not sure -- I don't have the maths to understand\nwhy I'm wrong, if I am." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think this will work, as you're essentially doing a \nslightly-rearranged double-slit experiment. Empirically, one slit has to \nbe slightly closer to the source on the same scale as your A, B, and C \nabove, if for no other reason than measurment error in construction of \nthe apparatus. Yet the outcome still depends on the presence of that \nsecond slit. Likewise, the ultimate resolution of state will depend on \nwhat happens at A and C, not solely A as you have it above." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-27T09:12:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I manglephilosophyof\n\tscience", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604261059g612c8b0fs6fdf781911f6bef1@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nHeh. Back in my days at Berkeley, one of their Nobel winners in\nPhysics insisted on sitting on all doctoral defenses. He would\ninevitably ask \"What is the definition of force?\" and similar\nquestions -- if you couldn't come up with F=MA, you were hosed.\nSome of the candidates, who hadn't touched \"that stuff\" in ten\nyears or more, had to cram before their oral" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ouch..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Okay I didn't know that there was a canonical version of quantum\ngravity yet... I clearly need to catch up on my science mags. (There's\na huge pile by the bed...)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Canonical quantum gravity is just the term for what Stephen Hawking does \n(i.e. take GR and second quantise it); it isn't hugely successful..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The degree to which Bell's inequalities affect relativistic causality is\nsomewhat up in the air, because you can't transmit information\nfaster than light," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ummm ... I have this idea that you can, by exploiting exclusion.\n\nConsider three points, A, B, and C. B is between A and C,\nbut one light-microsecond closer to A. B emits photon-pairs\ntowards both A and C, at regular intervals.\n\nAt C, you set up a device to detect photons coming from B as\nwaves.\n\nAt A, I measure every other (odd-numbered) photon as a particle. If\nI'm understanding exclusion and the inequality correctly, this means\nthat you can't measure these photons as waves, so your wave-\nmeasuring doodad misses every odd-numbered photon, which gives\nus a kind of synchronization. Then I measure the even-numbered\nphotons as waves for 1 and as particles for 0. You will only be able\nto detect the ones paired to the ones I measure as waves. So no\nmatter how far A and C are from each other, the information I\nencode in this way will reach you in one microsecond.\n\nTrue? False? I'm not sure -- I don't have the maths to understand\nwhy I'm wrong, if I am." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll have to think about that... I suspect that it may be an ill posed \nproblem :) (that is, there's a catch, but I'm buggered if I know what it \nis)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I'm pretty sure that the whole point of relativity is _not_ to have\na preferred frame of reference. But, ZPF theory may mess that\nup pretty good (if it ever amounts to anything)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, yes... But in the case of the universe you get a\nMachian 'background of fixed stars' effect (I think); I'm not sure\nLee Smolin is happy with that but he's a bit of a purist in this regard." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mmmm. I see the point while not conceding it -- if I move an\ninch, my position relative to the farthest actual star _has_\nchanged, even if the change is below any conceivable threshold\nof measurement. I don't think this creates an actual preferred\nframe of reference, but a difference of scales in which certain\neffects become smaller than quanta and effectively disappear." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it's a little more fundamental than that (and my refernce to Mach \nmay be slightly misleading). Maybe it's a property of the particular \nspace-time metric cosmologists use?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "ZPF theory?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Zero point field theory, which (aside from offering a nifty source\nof hypothetical free energy, at least in science fiction) seems\nto propose an actual reason why inertial mass is related to\ngravitational mass." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah yes, I think I've heard of that (vaguely), though I don't know much about \nit; most of my particle physicist watching at the moment constists of \nobserving the general kerfuffle as string theory dies a messy death for the \n_third_ time..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<142283657.20060501041622@poczta.fm>", "from": { "name": "Stanislaus", "address": "sbocian at poczta.fm" }, "date": "2006-05-01T02:16:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle\n\tphilosophyof science", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604261059g612c8b0fs6fdf781911f6bef1@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hello Dan'l," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wednesday, April 26, 2006, 7:59:59 PM, you wrote:\nOn 4/26/06, Iorwerth Thomas wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Well, Bell's inequality is a property (as far as I know; I'm a\ncomputational field theorist turned condensed matter theorist who\nneeds to bone up on his foundations)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm a lawyer, so my explanation can be a bit flawed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The degree to which Bell's inequalities affect relativistic causality is\nsomewhat up in the air, because you can't transmit information\nfaster than light," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ummm ... I have this idea that you can, by exploiting exclusion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Consider three points, A, B, and C. B is between A and C,\nbut one light-microsecond closer to A. B emits photon-pairs\ntowards both A and C, at regular intervals." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At C, you set up a device to detect photons coming from B as\nwaves." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At A, I measure every other (odd-numbered) photon as a particle. If\nI'm understanding exclusion and the inequality correctly, this means\nthat you can't measure these photons as waves, so your wave-\nmeasuring doodad misses every odd-numbered photon, which gives\nus a kind of synchronization. Then I measure the even-numbered\nphotons as waves for 1 and as particles for 0. You will only be able\nto detect the ones paired to the ones I measure as waves. So no\nmatter how far A and C are from each other, the information I\nencode in this way will reach you in one microsecond." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "True? False? I'm not sure -- I don't have the maths to understand\nwhy I'm wrong, if I am." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Some variation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen conception? You can measure\nany photon as wave. The problem is, if an entangled photon has been\nmeasured before, it will change - statistically - the results of the\nmeasuring of the second photon. But the problem is that you will know\nwhat the results should be when you get the results of the first\nmeasurement.\n\nSo you can transmit information quicker than light - but you cannot\ndecode it." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Best regards,\n Stanislaus mailto:sbocian at poczta.fm\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\nPoznaj Stefana! Zmien komunikator! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1924" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604302330g2284d4e0ie7851ed99f51235b@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-05-01T06:30:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: Christian relativity - in which I mangle\n\tphilosophyof science", "in_reply_to": "<142283657.20060501041622@poczta.fm>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Stanislaus,\n\nThank you. I _knew_ there had to be a problem with this\nsomewhere. This is a good clear explanation.\n\nNot bad for an attorney whose first language isn't English.\nI wish I had Polish half as good as your English! 8*)\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] } ] }