Sentences with phrase «for by physics»
Everything after that time is accounted for by physics, if only in a general way.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/ Not exact matches
Descomplica — Portuguese for «uncomplicated» — is an online learning platform founded in 2011 by Marco Fisbhen, a high school physics teacher.
This year's Physics Nobel Prize goes to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne, and Barry Barish for their efforts that helped lead to the first measurement of gravitational waves in 2015 by the LIGO team.
Mark is the creator of Factory Boy, a popular testing framework for Python, and has been published by the American Institute of Physics.
Atheists: I know many there are many people that practice religion just by fanaticism, I've seen many people in my opinion stupid (excuse the word) praying to saints hopping to solve their problems by repeating pre-made sentences over and over, but there are others different, I don't think Religion and Science need to be opposites, I believe in God, I'm Catholic and I have many reasons to believe in him, I don't think however that we should pray instead of looking for the cause and applying a solution, Atheists think they are smart because they focus on Science and technology instead of putting their faith in a God, I don't think God will solve our problems, i think he gave us the means to solve them by ourselves that's were God is, also I think that God created everything but not as a Magical thing but stablishing certain rules like Physics and Quimics etc. he's not an idiot and he knew how to make it so everything was on balance, he's the Scientist of Scientist the Mathematic of Mathematics, the Physician of Physicians, from the tiny little fact that a mosquito, an insect species needs to feed from blood from a completely different species, who created the mosquitos that way?
For a deeper understanding of evolution, physics and the universe, I recommend «A Universe from Nothing» by Lawrence Krauss as well as «The Blind Watchmaker» by Richard Dawkins.
No one has power over truth absolute, constant GOD, but always under truth absolute, Ellah, Ellohim, Allah, constant GOD, proven by quantum physics, hindu ignorant posters spew their hinduism, absurdities in following of their hindu filthy desire's with changing winds to run their business of hinduism, denial of truth absolute GOD to attract humanity to hinduism, illegality without any truth, religion's are nothing but a business for hindu, criminal pastors seeking numbers and dollars by use of holy name of GOD like a hindu Pundit, criminal crook with his Pandora box, deserving not to have an audience, but to be in jail's for hinduism, criminality under cover of hinduism, corruption of truth absolute religions.
Richard Dawkins merely states in unvarnished form doctrines that other scientific metaphysicians take for granted: In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics; life evolved by a mindless, non-teleological process in which God played no part; and human beings are just another animal species.
Recent speculations in physics resulting in theories of a finite world of space - time have however been taken by some philosophers as warrant for belief in some infinite reality «beyond» the finite world, upon which that world is dependent.
It is important to clarify: I am not suggesting a new approach to concordism, the hapless temptation to defend a literal interpretation of Scripture, for example, by distorting the latest hot topics in relativistic physics or geology.
I don't assume automatically that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything, only the things that can't be explained by the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
In a recent book, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, Max Tegmark, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that the idea of equivalence means that the universe is a mathematical structure rather than a reality merely describable by mathematics.
For example, following Thomas Aquinas, whom he studied carefully at the Louvain Université in 1919, he insisted many times on the fact that creation (in the theological sense) can not be confused with natural beginning (as it is described by physics).
The discoveries and scientific creations of recent years in the field of nuclear energy, transforming our period into a new power age, are directly traceable to the discoveries of radioactive elements by Becquerel and the Curies, inaugurating the new physics.9 A new depth of relations and energy revealed in both earlier and more recent experiments has routed the world - view of mechanism which Newton and his followers through the nineteenth century had come to take for granted.
After earning his degree, he studied Spanish, mathematics, physics and the real estate business through mail - order texts paid for by family members.
He obtained such concepts by generalizing «particular factors discerned in particular topics of human interest; for example, in physics, or in physiology, or in psychology» (5).
For example, he said, look at the Buddhist theory of impermanence, the idea that the physical world is changing by the second, which was later proved by quantum physics in the movement of atoms.
6Popper writes, for instance, that «the rejection of our theories by reality — is, in my view, the only information we can obtain from reality: all else is our own making» (Karl R. Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics [Totawa, New Jersey: 1982] 3).
Moreover if it did (assuming this to be possible in the framework of an overall Whiteheadian scheme), then it would itself be forcefully repudiated — and not simply by physicists, for the material world of common sense as well as of physics would be drastically impugned.
Science has for a few hundred years been shaped by the notion that everything can be measured or defined by clear rules but quantum physics is not like that.
A general review of the endnotes from Gunter's paper reveals a fair number of sources who will corroborate the claim that Bergson's scientific views are nor only not outdated, but go very» much to the heart of current scientific methods and insights, but particularly, see A. C. Papanicolaou and Pete A. N. Gunter, eds., Bergson in Modern Thought Towards a Unified Science (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987), and for important background on how Bergson came to be seen as dated when he was not, see also, Milic Capek, Bergson and Modern Physics, (cited above) and The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961), and the volume edited by Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics (cited above).
When it comes to the evidence for a 4.5 - billion - year - old universe offered by astronomy and physics, they fall silent, because few of the have the mental equipment necessary to deal with that evidence.
There is, of course, an intrinsic indefiniteness in nature, described in physics by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but this is no arbitrary uncertainty; it is a precise limit concerning the relationship between momentum and position for each particle.
For an early work exploring the new physics and influenced by process thought, see Capek, Milic, The Philosophical Impact of the Contemporary Physics (New York: Van Nostrand Press,physics and influenced by process thought, see Capek, Milic, The Philosophical Impact of the Contemporary Physics (New York: Van Nostrand Press,Physics (New York: Van Nostrand Press, 1961).
Given the tremendous insights offered by the use of Aristotle's Metaphysics (which he called first philosophy) for speculative philosophy itself as well as theology, other writings of his were accepted as equally as insightful, including his book, the Physics.
The growth of astronomy was influenced by astrology and navigation; work on the properties of gases was stimulated by the need for better pumps; and more recently electronics and atomic physics have been developed in large measure for military purposes.
In physics, for example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or principle of indeterminacy has been interpreted in three ways: 1) that the «laws of nature» are deterministic, and that any uncertainty is due to human ignorance, which in due time will be resolved by science (Einstein), 2) uncertainty can be always explained by present experimental limitations (Neils Bohr), and 3) indeterminacy is an objective characteristic of reality Werner Heisenberg).
St. John Paul II was fascinated by the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy) throughout his life; for decades, he hosted at Castel Gandolfo a bi-annual seminar of leading figures in those fields, so that he could keep abreast of developments in their disciplines.
Polanyi, as we have seen, assumes that all molecules work according to natural laws, but concludes that, since no one has accounted for hierarchical organization by these laws, there must be principles of organization which will in due course be found not to be reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Of course, as far as Hartshorne is concerned, he is completely unwilling to allow physics or any other empirical science to fasten a positivistic strait jacket upon metaphysics, although he is perplexed by the special problem of a cosmic present that is necessary for metaphysics and unallowable in physics.
Abner Shimony has said that this element of Whitehead's philosophy is contradicted by quantum theory, which says that elementary particles have no definite position apart from being observed («Quantum Physics and the Philosophy of Whitehead,» now Chapter 19 of Shimony's Search for a Naturalistic World View [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993]; Vol.
This prediction is fulfilled, for example, by the laws of quantum physics, which predictively describe the behavior of groups of particles, not that of any individual particle.
The question, however, is the acceptability of the picture presented by materialist physicalism, according to which physics is supposed to be able, in principle, to give a complete causal account of every physical occurrence, even when such occurrences occur in human bodies, For example, Kim says, in a parallel passage, that rejecting the closure of physical theory
2 The issue was raised anew by John T. Wilcox's «A Question from Physics for Certain Theists,» The Journal of Religion, 41 (October, 1961), 293 - 300.
In that revolutionary address he unified geometry and physics into a single set of axioms by symbolic logic.2 While the memoir does not comment theologically, it does propose a theory of intersection points, or interpoints, which in its mathematical abstraction suggests a lucid and stimulating model for projecting Whitehead's understanding of God's relation to space.
Aristotle's argument for a First Mover in Physics VI appealed to efficient causality: a stone is moved by a stick, moved by a hand, moved by the man.
The paper itself is by Christopher Fuchs, of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.
Consider the differences between the abilities and capacities called for respectively by the game of football and by farming, by creating and maintaining human communities and by painting, by physics and by the worship of God.
However, I do not believe that the view represented by the neurosciences has absorbed the implications of the revolutionary developments of the twentieth century in physics, in particular the physical theory of quantum mechanics, developed originally to account for atomic phenomena, where the Newtonian theory breaks down.
1.300 - 318) called monads, firsts, or «feeling qualities,» are omitted from the account of things found in physics and chemistry, except for the methodological point that we detect the presence of the various magnitudes and spatio - temporal structures by our qualitative human sense perceptions, visual or tactual.
32 The specific task of physics for Whitehead is the analysis of the relationships of events with the goal»... to contrast the sphere of contingency by discovering adjectives of events such that the history of the apparent world in the future shall be the outcome of the apparent world in the past» (B 29, cf. PR 150).
This is the way followed by some thinkers, for example, A. N. Whitehead in a series of books, The Principles of Natural Knowledge, The Concept of Nature, and Science and the Modern World; by Milic Capek in his The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics; and by C. F. von Weizsäicker in his recent Die Einheit der Natur, as well as other books of his — this list is intended as illustrative, not exhaustive.
You've been getting away with murder for eons, but I'm afraid that now you have to start abiding by the laws of physics.
For a century and a half the science of physics, preoccupied with analytical researches, was dominated by the idea of the dissipation of energy and the disintegration of matter.
So the biological terms to do with growth and differentiation, for example, would eventually be replaced by terms from classical physics.
As physics students will know well, the slight differences in path length for waves superposing cause interference patterns, rather like the rainbow effect on a patch of oil on the road or the colours formed by the surface of a DVD.
Since physics and chemistry have demonstrated how limited in penetration our mere sense perceptions are, how radically they fail to disclose what is really there in nature, it follows that the entire traditional foundation for both materialism and dualism has been destroyed by the advance of knowledge.
DNA coding is affected by the environment via adaptation; DNA specific structure is unpredictable from biochemistry / physics alone but is environmentally determined over generations (via natural selection)-- resulting in the white fur of the polar bear, for example.
If physicists assume the constancy of the laws of nature since the big bang, then these laws, if we get them right, will have been true for as long as physics seems to feel a need to talk about, say 15 billion years, and will remain true (by hypothesis) for as long as physics wants to talk about them.
He did not merely copy Democritus» physics, as was commonly thought, but introduced the idea of spontaneity into the movement of the atoms, and to the Democritus world of inanimate nature ruled by mechanical laws he added a world of animate nature in which the human will operated.9 Marx thus favours the views of Epicurus for two reasons: firstly, his emphasis on absolute autonomy of the human spirit has freed human beings from all superstitions of transcendent objects; secondly, the emphasis on «free individual self - consciousness» shows one way of going beyond the system of a «total philosophy».