[extropy-chat] intelligent design homework

[Dirk Bruere]

justin corwin wrote:

>On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Leibniz covered this centuries ago.  In every conceptual system there
>>are the fundamental units - the "force" or "matter" whose role in the
>>formalism of the system is well defined but the existence and nature of
>>which are left forever undefined - we can not use a fundamental system
>>to explain what its fundamental postulates -mean-.  Everything must be
>>explained in terms of them.  One accuses the generations of the past of
>>talking about "occult forces" - but how have we really improved over
>>"occult forces" by invoking "quantum fields"?  We still can't predict
>>what will happen, exactly, -and- the word "field" is no more
>>explanatory than the word "force" occult or otherwise.
>>    
>>
>
>This is a terribly foolish misunderstanding. Maybe you saw some
>scientists on tv talking about how mysterious and wierd quantum
>effects are, or perhaps you read eminent scientific philosophers
>talking about ontological uncertainty, but "quantum fields" by which I
>assume you indicate Quantum Electro Dynamics or similar, is one of the
>most ACCURATE, descriptive, confirmed physical theories in the history
>of science. Quantum theory predicts very specific physical phenomena
>which previous theories did not, quantum tunneling, semiconductance,
>superconductance, photoelectric reactions, the mechanism of
>chloroplastic energy capture, etc etc. quantum uncertainty is a
>fundamental physical constraint, it's not equivalent to vague human
>social uncertainty.
>
>occult forces explain nothing, and have nothing to do with scientific
>theory. This comparison makes no sense.
>
>  
>
So, what are the strings of String Theory made of?

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005