Quantum Theodynamics

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 12 Jun 2002, 16:34 · from urth-v0206.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: (urth) Quantum Theodynamics
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:34:00 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0206-1222 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0206/1222.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Crush again...

[Lupinity deleted]

> "Toying" is an important word here. Based on the Wolfe answer=20
> I'm quoting here, I'd say trying to make tBotNS fit with Christian=20
> theology in every way (or most ways) is like trying to create a
> perpetual motion machine or trying to rectify general relativity
> with quantum mechanics: It seems so logical and straightforward,
> but then....

Well, yes and no ... among other things, this depends on just what=20
Christian theology you're talking about. Catholic theology has, to
the best of my knowledge, always begun with with the vital assumption
that we do not _and can not_ know the mind of God (Dorothy Sayer's
excellent book _The Mind of the Maker_ all to the good). We can=20
attempt to (for example) know why God made the world, but that's=20
speculative theology* and not only are its hypotheses considered=20
uncertain, it's generally considered dangerous to think of them as=20
if they were certain.=20

-----
* A term which should ought to be familiar to those who participated
  in the great Pullman Debate of last year.
-----

I would say that Wolfe (like Tolkien before him) has generally gone
out of his way to create a hypothetical universe which, while it may
not be explicitly Christian, does not actually _violate_ Christian
theology in any irreconcilable way.

--Blattid

who (huh!) who wrote the book of the new sun?

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net