Sentences with phrase «of relativity as»

For many theologians any talk of relativity as adding something significant to their work is immediately rejected as a professional «no - no.»

Such a spatial relation is indeed objective for Whitehead (PNK 32); thus, the homogeneity of spatial relations is claimed in The Principle of Relativity as the basis for the uniformity of physical relations generally (R 8).

Not exact matches

It was a great article... the first of its kind that I have read actually.But I have one question, the trend till now always has been to tune investment rates as per market rates — relativity has always existed.

The venture, UltraV Holdings LLC, will acquire Relativity through a § 363 sale as part of a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, the film studio said today.

UPDATED 1:13 PM: EXCLUSIVE: Aspects of Relativity's first bankruptcy are still before the courts, but as expected the company today filed for Chapter 11 with a promise that «funds will be available for distribution» to its approximately 200 unsecured creditors.

unless gravity is just made up as well as the theory of relativity.

Theory is a tested, proven conclusion (i.e. a hypothesis becomes a theory once it is proven or accepted as truth, such as the theory of relativity, computational theory, etc..

It is demanded by the principle of universal relativity that just as God in his consequent nature prehends us, so also we prehend God's consequent nature.

(The dipolar understanding of God has been brilliantly and thoroughly expounded by Hartshorne in such books as Man's Vision of God, The Divine Relativity, and Philosophers Speak of God.)

An excellent example was Einstein's theory of relativity which predicted the convertibility of matter and energy and the bending of light as it crossed a heavy planetary object.

Scientists today are still following his intuition as they seek the grand unifying principle that will unify quantum theory with the theory of relativity to give one overarching explanation of the nature of the universe.

He understands the relativity of philosophies as closely analogous to the relativity of scientific theories.7

The traditional distrust of simple statement, and of language as applied to the religious vision, in the new theology ceases to be an inoperative or inconsistently employed formal concession, and becomes a systematic tracing of the relativity of concepts to each other and to experience as a whole.

For example, if one understood by the church simply the historically given communities with their multiplicity of beliefs and practices, the view of theology as the articulation of the church's faith would lead to a plurality of theologies that could hardly escape the recognition of their relativity with respect to historical factors.

Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941); Reality as Social Process (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1953); The Divine Relativity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948); Process and Divinity: Philosophical Essays Presented to Charles Hartshorne, ed.

As a Christian community we have to recognize and acknowledge the relativity of atheism.

Although Hartshorne has not articulated the inconsistencies of the idea of divine relativity as openly as we did earlier, it seems that he is willing to take recourse in something like a spectator God who remains in «mere happiness» (not fearing) just as much as Plato denied existence to forms of negative elements of the world such as mud.

in conjunction with his description of how he arrived at the philosophical realization that all actual entities exist as an interlocked community (principle of relativity).

As a result, relativity has no theory of matter in it at all.

In this essay, I will argue that a major problem with the idea of divine relativity is that it assumes both God's exact knowledge of the whole, which is thus the One as it is a unified act of knowledge, and also precise knowledge of the fragmentary, concrete Many of experience.

On this metaphysical account, reality as such includes as its primal source and final end a divine individual that is distinguished from all others by virtue of its complete relativity to all actual things as actual and all possible things as possibilities.

Divine relativity, as delineated by Hartshorne, can not overcome the problem of radical particularity.

When the thesis of divine relativity is reset in terms of divine love, a love which seems to require sympathy, the thesis, which at first seemed counter-intuitive (for many are accustomed to thinking of God as transcendent and impassible), becomes transparently benign.

In the categoreal scheme of Process and Reality, the relativity principle is listed as the fourth Category of Explanation, and reads as follows:

In spite of the fact that Hartshorne universally posits a strong sense of relativity to account for omniscience (as well as for other reasons), I will argue that even Hartshorne is forced in important specific cases to attenuate his claims for a strong interpretation of divine relativity; one that says God feels in exactitude the experience of others.

There are, as far as I can tell, two areas of possible inconsistency with the idea of divine relativity.

(3) Kraus also insists that only a «tota simul» in God is compatible with faith, arguing much as she did above that the Hartshornean alternative is by the principle of relativity irreconcilable with faith as well as freedom — with free faith, that is.

My results regarding divine relativity are tentative, but there are already ramifications for the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence as well as for the problem of theodicy.

As seen through the lens of divine relativity, the type of knowing postulated of divinity is infinitely stronger than the kind of knowing possible for human beings.

Not only would a demonstration of the inconsistency of divine relativity make Hartshorne's thesis of divine relativity and all that depends on it incoherent and also make Whitehead's famous portrait of God as the fellow sufferer who understands inadmissible, but philosophers of religion would have to accept a different picture of the world.

Tillich briefly discusses the idea of divine relativity as God's participation in human experience.

It would, therefore, be premature to characterize God as the Wholly Other just for the reason that there are metaphysical problems with the theory of divine relativity.

He, like Whitehead, will have a «dipolar» God, but in a different way.10 For Hartshorne, the dialectic is between the abstract and the concrete: «The supreme in its total concrete reality will be the supereminent case of relativity, the Surrelative, just as, in its abstract character, it will be the supereminent case of nonrelativity — not only absolute, but the absolute» (DR 76).11 These two poles are not said to be separate entities but are, rather, aspects of a unified divine essence.

As a medical professional, one would think you'd understand that biological evolution, much like general relativity, quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, plate tectonic theory, etc is a scientific theory and should be taught in science class based on the preponderance of evidence that backs it.

Thus, in regards to the four theological mistakes which Hartshorne describes as various violations of the principle of dual transcendence owing to a faulty Greek inheritance and a Western prejudice which favors absolute independence over relativity and partial dependence, the Hartshornean foil touches black theology hardly at all.

He had already called attention to the historical relativity — and relatedness — of Christianity; he now began to note its social and institutional relativity — and relatedness — as well.

If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses... As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.»

His fondness for Stcherbatsky's translation of sunyata as «universal relativity» may be the problem here.

But, as is the case with all the other (nonultimate) categories, the relativity principle not only elucidates, but also presupposes, the Category of the Ultimate.

Hartshorne's understanding of love as relation is the foundation for his conception of divine relativity.

Accordingly, the principle of relativity, as I construe it, not only saves the ontological principle from issuing in an extreme monism, but also explains how there can be «one world without and within.»

To achieve the essay's two-fold objective, I shall first argue, through a series of textual considerations, that the relativity principle must be understood as asserting that to be an entity is both to have a potentiality for being repeated and to have that potentiality realized in every actual occasion whose becoming finds that entity already existing as a fully determinate being.

Even if God is thought of as having slightly less than perfect knowledge, the idea of God being able to fully appreciate ignorance seems categorically impossible.6 There are further problems for the theory of divine relativity.

But even in the more conventional worlds of quantum mechanics and relativity, let alone cosmology and string theory, what we think of as «the simple logic of cause and effect» goes pretty much right out the window.

What, then, must we hold before us as we deal with the relativities of human existence in which some compromise seems inevitable?

Another bit of prima facie evidence that might be considered in favor of Hartshorne's «personalism» is that in Virgilius Ferm's 1945 classic Encyclopedia of Religion, a work to which Brightman contributed forty articles, 14 and in which Brightman had particular editorial input, 15 the article on «God, as personal» was written by none other than Charles Hartshorne.16 This, along with Brightman's review of me Divine Relativity (cited below), suggests that Brightman himself considered Hartshorne a personalist.

Hartshorne attributes this consistent violation of the principle of dual transcendence to the fact that classical theism has placed too much faith in Greek philosophy, and to a Western prejudice according to which absolute independence along with the power to the cause of events is regarded as a superior attribute while relativity and the capacity to be an effect is mistakenly regarded as an inferior attribute.»

And like Evolution, the Theory of Mechanics has been supplanted by more complex and more accurate theories (in the case of Mechanics, both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have arisen to deal with its flaws; in the case of Evolution, the technical theories - such as gene borrowing and virus - guided genetic drift - do not have catchy names).

The ideas of relativity and quantum physics, for example, which were so important to Bernard Meland as well as to Whitehead, could not be so described.

Again, in the preface to DR (p.ix) Hartshorne states the basic thesis of the book in such a way as to indicate clearly his assumption of the equivalence of relativity and mutability.