From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 10:03:30 EDT
(JGlenn Morton wrote:(B
(J> GRM: Wayne, as I mentioned in another post tonight, there is an (B
(J> experimental test which can be done. This isn't the wild-A speculation that one might (B
(J> at first think. This could become a real issue. We will have quantum (B
(J> computers in a few years and the software is there waiting to be run which will test (B
(J> this idea. We will KNOW in a few years. One way or another. Given the track (B
(J> record Christianity has had in predicting outcomes of such observational (B
(J> tests, I suspect the MWH may win.(B
(J> (B
(JI already read through the post you mention. Suffice it to say that (B
(Jyes, it would make the MWH a significant possibility, but I am not yet(B
(Jpersuaded that it would PROVE the MWH. Traditional QM has always(B
(Jbeen non-deterministic and that is the first solution I would be inclined (B
(Jto look toward under any circumstance.(B
(JWhereas I generally agree with you about how Christians put on blinders(B
(Jand ignore data, this is a different problem as I see it. Of course if it(B
(Jis true, we will _have_ to rethink what theology is appropriate, but I think(B
(Jthose facts must be there first. Science did deliver a big surprise(B
(Jwith evolution that some (it seems many) could not/cannot accept. (B
(JIf the MWH is true, it will also deliver a surprise that some (perhaps(B
(Jmany) will not be able to accept. But we really have to sort that (B
(Jmatter out when we get there and have some real facts to work with. (B
(JA side note.... I think you are unrealistic to say that it will be (B
(Jresolved in just a "few years" under any circumstance. (B
(JMy own lust for deterministic solutions was probably the(B
(Jstupidest mistake I've made in my study and debates about QM. (B
(JFar greater minds than my own have made this mistake too. It may (B
(Jstill be true, but I've been fooled once. I think it is wiser to just (B
(Jwait and see this time.(B
(JWe just had a post not so(B
(Jlong ago about peer reviews. Passing peer review does suggest(B
(Jthat the idea is probably "reasonable", but it does not mean that(B
(Jit is true. Only that either the peer reviewer could not find anything(B
(Jseriously flawed about the idea, or they already think that way. If(B
(Jit required an out and out drag out fight with a peer reviewer of(B
(Jmore or less equal stature, then I would have more reason to think (B
(Jthe theory is on a solid foundation. Unfortunately, usually authors(B
(Jjust go somewhere else. To be fair though, ideas are sometimes (B
(Junfairly criticized as "speculative" and rudely dismissed by peer(B
(Jreviewers who demand endless streams of evidence (just like(B
(Jcreationists). It is hard to draw the fine line on far reaching issues(B
(Jlike this. Perhaps for every example of a thoroughly bungled peer (B
(Jreview job, there may be equal number of commendable contributions (B
(Jfrom peer reviewers.(B
(Jby Grace alone we proceed(B
(JWayne(B
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 10:04:12 EDT