Sentences with phrase «more than physics»

In fact some games are little more than physics playgrounds, like the popular Source - based Garry's Mod.

Every time I walk into these freakish, localized gales, springing up while a block away there was nary a breeze, it seems like more than physics is at work.

As it happened, I found that I generally enjoyed courses in math more than physics; consequently I focussed much more on math in my final 2 years.

A metaphysical explanation is more than giving efficient (and final) causes: it is more than physics.

Not exact matches

«We have 25 Ph.D. scientists working on the project, more than some entire physics departments at major universities,» he says.

But the inventor who had first caught Fortune's eye more than two decades earlier was someone else: a rebellious physics genius, not yet 30, who «never took the trouble to graduate from Harvard» and who had started a small company in a cellar on Boston's Dartmouth Street.

More than a decade before he started Tesla, Musk was studying physics at the University of Pennsylvania and then battery technology at Stanford, both key fields for learning how to build an electric car.

That lab complements the Institute for Quantum Computing and the more - than - decade - old Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, both founded with more than $ 250 million of Lazaridis's own money and additional funds he helped raise.

General Fusion's team of more than 50 scientists and engineers are world leaders in fusion technology, with expertise across plasma physics, computer simulation and engineering.

If you require atheists to explain something physics directly tells you we can't talk about right now, your burden of proof for atheism is oddly far more extreme than your burden of proof for «god».

By education, I mean one can not learn physics or engineering from a blog any more than an entire theology.

Paul Dirac, one of the giants of twentieth - century physics, went so far as to say that it was more important to have «beauty in one's equations» than to have them fit the experimental data.

More recent biology and physics have replaced this view with one that asserts that the physical world is composed of energy rather than passive matter.

For more than a century now economics has been advanced and practiced as a science, on the model of physics and mathematics.

Such a notion as emergence, for example, which is closely allied with the principle of indeterminacy and uncertainty and which was later to develop in physics, actually assumed more credence in physics before it took root in biology and psychology; yet it has more significant implications for the data of the organic and social sciences than for physics.

One needs the corrective of Bergson and James at times in reading Whitehead, however, lest the formative notions of the new physics implicit in his imagery render one's understanding of this creative nexus more external and rationalistic than it actually can be.

However, Whitehead was brought to his metaphysics of relations through the revolution in the new physics; this fact has given to his thought, in designating the nexus of events, more externality than he really means to convey, or should imply.

Or, as he put it with his penchant for startling comparisons: «A priest from Thebes would probably have felt more at home at the Council of Trent two thousand years after Thebes had vanished than Sir Isaac Newton at a modem undergraduate physics society.»

Not even the cosmologists have recovered from the surprise and what it means for cosmology as regards the more interesting physics (rather than once more showing magic ideas for a scam), I'm sure.

Isn't it amazing thinking, physics and mechanics work, but there is no design, just random happenstance... Takes more faith to believe in evolution than that God actually created the world we know.

Wrote more papers on theology than he did on physics.

Evolution has more holes than cheese, when you ask questions like, how did this happen in spite of the laws of physics, the answer is I do not know.

Because they have an unyielding desire to study and learn more about our world and they know there is a LOT more to physics than what we currently understand.

For at least 3,000 years, the answer has been that there is «more» to the universe than just the physics and chemistry of the universe.

Even with a BSC in physics I often feel inadequate discussing physics with anyone who has had more than two or three years of grad - level schooling on the subject.

Ahh, also Hawking knows a LOT more about physics than you do, or I do, and when YOU get to be the Lucasian Professor, then you can say he's a joke.

But on the actual subject matter of theology it has no more right to pontificate than it has about physics, and it makes no difference whether the philosophy be existentialism or naturalism or idealism or materialism.

Atheists can prove that science exists, that the earth is more than 6000 years old, that their is NO WAY to build the size ark that Noah built and do what is claimed in the bible, again when making extraordinary claims, we need evidence and we know that snakes do not talk, that the laws of physics can not be suspended and that nearly EVERY claim in the bible is false.

There is now an emerging suspicion that the universe is much more amicable toward life and consciousness than we would ever have thought before the advent of twentieth - century physics and astronomy.

In fact, physics now resembles metaphysics more than anything else, with its theories to explain how realities unobservable by us produce the visible world.

Understanding the world is even more remote from philosophy than from physics.

And sometimes it seems there is more room for wonder, mystery, grandeur, delight, beauty, and reverence in astro - physics than in religion.

More than this, he was sensitive to the fact that the writing of philosophy's history can be at once technically competent and narrow He praised the «philosophical greatness achieved in American philosophy, from Peirce to Santayana, but he complained of the cultural chauvinism in failing to recognize it.5 According to Hartshorne, «One might about as easily reach great heights in philosophy without benefit of the work done in modern America as to reach them in physics without using the work of modern Germans» (Creativity 11).

question are much more likely to be found in Einstein's equations, quantum physics, large particle accelerators and radio telescopes than in Genesis Chapters 1 through 20.

But one can hardly dispute that Whitehead has engaged more fully than any other in the engagement with recent physics.

To that extent the formula more or less fits physics and biology, though to different degrees, but more than it does philosophy and other branches of inquiry which directly concern man as a whole, in his totality.

No two men are more significant in the history of physics, or assume more prominent positions in introductory courses, than Galileo and Newton.

This idea is certainly fantastic, although no more so than many that have been made commonplace by modern physics.

Newton himself was more interested in alchemy than physics.

Birch and Cobb maintain that the ecological model is more adequate than the mechanical model for explaining DNA, the cell, other biological subject matter (as well as subatomic physics), because it holds that living things behave as they do only in interaction with other things which constitute their environment (LL 83) and because «the constituent elements of the structure at each level (of an organism) operate in patterns of interconnectedness which are not mechanical» (LL 83).

The leading edge of astronomy and theoretical particle physics has called into question the fundamental scientific premise that Everything Can Be Explained, and more than a few scientists have murmured the word «God» out of the corners of their mouths.

For example, the laws applying to living cells are less predictive than the laws of physics and chemistry The laws discoverable about multicelled life are even more distant from the (deterministic) ideal of complete predictability.

We feel the answers to such a question are much more likely to be found in Einstein's equations, quantum physics, large particle accelerators and radio telescopes than in Genesis Chapters 1 through 20.

It is arguable that, had Einstein known a metaphysics more favorable to quantum physics than the Spinozism and other similar doctrines influencing him, he might not have spent the latter decades of his life vainly attempting to recover the absolute «incarnate reason» of classical causality which had been made irrelevant by twentieth - century discoveries, including his own.

@Godpot... (God — pot... I'll have to try that... seems Dad has been holding back...) and that Moses character... I'll wager there was more than just a bush burnin» up there... (wouldn't know... me and that bird were trying to figure out the physics of stuffing «God» into a human womb right about that time... I'm thinking all these characters, not just me, were a bit «touched» as my child «Reality» likes to say...: 0)

Davies (1984) says: «The new physics and the new cosmology reveal that an ordered universe is more than a gigantic accident» (p. 9).

In this talk I shall, however, describe in general terms how the quantum theory, understood somewhat more imaginatively than is usually done, can point to a new order in physics, which I call the enfolded order, or the implicate order.

Seems like quantum physics has more than its share of theories.

We know about it more through philosophical inference and through drawing out important implications from recent physics than by way of direct experience.

Peirce's phrase «the logic of events» points forward to contemporary physics and Whitehead, as much as, if not more than, back to Aristotle or other pre-quantum thinkers.