(urth) Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophy of science

[Iorwerth Thomas]

>That is just not supportred by the vast bodies of reproduced results.
>Relativity's predictions are spot on accounting for observed effects
>above the quantum level. It could use some reconciliation with quantum
>dynamics, but at the scales above that only the ability of average
>people to comprehend relativity is patchy.
>
>--
>Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com

Oh, I know :).  I specialise in quantum field theory.  I think that I didn't 
quite say what I wanted to say there.  This might be more close to the 
intent (or perhaps not).

The metaphysic that's generally taken to be implied by relativity at present 
isn't necessarily the one that should be taken to apply in the future 
(though one can't actually say what that would be), since metaphysics is 
generally empirically underdetermined.  For example, based on the Stanford 
Encyclopaedia of Philosopy entry on the subject (don't have time to dig up 
the link at the moment; sorry) there's a form of Presentism (the idea that 
Now exists, to butcher the idea slightly) that's compatible with it despite 
it being usually taken that Eternalism  (Now doesn't exist) is 'proved' by 
SR.

I _could_ also mutter 'underdetermination of _theory_ by experimental data', 
but there might be a general outcry of 'anti-science reletavist' and I'd 
have my liscence to practise physics revoked! :D

>There's also no need to restrict news of the Christian Gospel to 
>post-crucifixion time in religious thought; Christ not only shares in the 
>eternal quality of Gd, but was personally present at the Creation and it 
>was only His mortal incarnation for the benefit of the earth that began in 
>Bethlehem. The Scriptures is silent on whether there are any 
>extraterrestrial sinners in need of salvation; if their existence can be 
>reconciled, so can other appearances of Christ, and they would no more 
>violate relativity than the Hubble expansion does.

Quite.   I'm also intrigued by the idea that Dawkins is not only an 
authority on biology and theology (he isn't on the latter, though himself 
and many who read him seem to think so) but on theoretical physics.  Not 
that he says anything obviously incorrect in the quoted passage...