<html><head><title>[Aspaqlaria] When a Paradox is not a Disproof</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/wp-content/themes/twentyten/style.css" type="text/css" media="screen" /></head><body>Aspaqlaria has posted a new item, '<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2011/12/open-q-science-mashal.shtml">When a Paradox is not a Disproof</a>'<br />
<br />
<font size=+1><br />
<p>The central theme of religion is whether the values, ritual, and system of thought work. The issues of genesis, the flood, or the tower of Babel are tangential, and out the outskirts of the Torah as a “theory” of meaning and purpose in life.</p>
<p>It’s like studying modern physics. We currently have two systems: quantum mechanics (QM) which was born in the head of Max Planck and developed by numerous other people. Including Einstein. There is also relativity (which has two parts: special and general), which was pretty much entirely Einstein’s.</p>
<p>QM works well in the domain of the very small, relativity works well with the very large. (In between, Newton’s old system is a good enough approximation and people don’t bother with such things.) But they are based on contradictory assumptions. For example, relativity is Background Independent. This means it isn’t about things that happen within space and time, but the nature of space and time is itself part of the theory. This is not true of QM. Figuring out quantum gravity — a theory of gravity that fits both QM and relativity, is a challenge. Filling this challenge are things like string and membrane theories, the Higgs Boson (the subject of the book “The God Particle”), and others.</p>
<p>Because each works <strong>so</strong> well <strong>so</strong> often in ways it was not designed to, that the typical physicist is sure some resolution of the two that will preserve nearly all of both theories is out there, waiting discovery. For that matter, <a title="Wikipedia: Semiconductor: Energy bands and electrical conduction" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor#Energy_bands_and_electrical_conduction" target="_blank">we have chips of semiconductors designed using QM</a> in our GPS systems carrying out computations that include <a title="Ohio State U: Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" href="http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html" target="_blank">compensating for the relativistic effects of the satellite being in motion relative to earth</a>. So, even though the two theories are built on contradictory assumptions, scientists place trust (<em>bitachon</em>) in them. They have faith (<em>emunah</em>) that each will
have to be tweaked only minorly to get them to fit, not a major overhaul.</p>
<p>For similar reasons, these science vs <em>Bereishis</em> questions don’t really bother me. Each “theory” works so well so consistently in their own domains, I presume that some resolution will someday be found. I can live until then with the open questions.</p><br />
</font><br />
<br />
You may view the latest post at<br />
<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2011/12/open-q-science-mashal.shtml">http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2011/12/open-q-science-mashal.shtml</a><br />
<br />
You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted.<br />
Best regards,<br />
micha<br />
micha@aishdas.org</body></html>