You under estimate yourself Puff. You are way smarter than you can possibly imagine. These all sound like lofty concepts until you really take a look at them and you’ll find they aren’t that complicated, they aren’t too hard and they are not the property of only people with a bunch of letters behind their names. It’s intellectual property that belongs to everyone, especially ones in a free society.
I just read and research at my leisure. While no means an expert, I learned a hell of a lot just as a matter of will, just because I want to.
This is no where near out of your wheel house.
I will look it up for you, but I will get it from the same source I discussed, the Cathecism. So feel free to look it up too. It’s not only a Catholic doctrine. There is a doctrine of the un-evangelized in Protestantism too.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Pat. I don’t know. The math of it is just Greek to me. I know Sagan and Hawking have written some books geared more to lay people. I could try. Maybe. I do think we get mental blocks about things. This year I wanted to better understand fiscal policy and economics. Predicting inflation, or understanding how a strong dollar effects other things, that kind of thing. I get completely confused, and this is really practical in comparison.
It’s not math, it’s concepts you should familiarize yourself with. Sure if you get really deep in, or want a degree you will need the math, but understanding the concepts doesnt require a bunch is f symbols and Greek letters.
1 Like
This reminds me of students who start their PhD’s, and already are convinced they know so much about a subject because they aced their undergraduate college courses. But, as the saying goes, the more you learn about something the more you realize how little your understanding truly is. I teach a graduate-level chemical physics class (molecular orbital theory, which is a consequence of quantum mechanics). And I couldn’t disagree with you more. There is nothing intuitive about quantum mechanics, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Einstein couldn’t accept it as a true descriptor of reality, and yet, almost a century later, it remains the pillar of our scientific theories.
Even particle/wave duality is impossible to envision. People will read a popular science article, and say “yeah, I get it. I can picture the wave and particle wrapped up describing an electron or photon”, but what they are picturing are particles moving along in a wave. Not the same thing at all.
4 Likes
That’s not what I am saying or meaning. I don’t imply to mean you can understand wave\partical duality just by readin a few articles when it’s one of the most contested and controversial subjects in QM. I don’t mean it’s intuitive as understanding the dual slit experiment is one of the pinicles of basic QM. I simply mean one can understand concepts with study. That doesn’t mean they can solve long held mysteries of science. It doesn’t mean it’s intuitive. Simply, you can gain understanding through study and I don’t mean more than that.
I hope you get what I mean. I am not proposing you can out science the scientists. But you can understand something about the propositions they make.
I apologize if I came off the wrong way, it wasn’t my intention. I was simply proposing that people can know more about things than they think they can.
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying. I get you. Yes, the “big picture” of these concepts can be understood and appreciated by nearly anyone. Cheers!
1 Like
Thank you. I get coworkers asking me what I think about the latest “controversial” statement by the Pope all the time. Usually goes something like this.
“Hey, did you hear the Pope said it’s okay to be gay?”
“I heard him say that the faithful should not judge gays and should love them as their neighbors.”
“Well, yeah, that’s what he said. Does it make you angry that he is changing so much in Catholicism?”
“No. That’s not new at all and is what we believe.”
“I thought Christians hated gays?”
From there it becomes an attempt to explain the difference between loving a sinner and loving a sin, falling on somewhat deaf ears.
As far as atheists getting into heaven (if we are focusing on Christianity) I like the parable of the two sons.
3 Likes
Speaking of particle\ wave duality there is an ‘encapsulation’ theory I wanted to ask somebody about. Could I bother you about it?
@treco
Here is your reply from the Catechism:
"818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272 "
1 Like
Yep, such conversations are so tiring and laborious in their repetition and ignorance, without even the slightest effort to see if what they think is actually a doctrine in a Christian Church. Especially frustrating that most Christian Churches are completely transparent in their theology and a google can actually find them a correct answer. BUT, I used to avoid these type discussions like the plague, not anymore. I realize its part of my job as a Christian to try and patiently answer these questions. For you never know when a seed gets sown and it may be the simple answering of an annoying question that brings a person home to Christ.
Right now the world is taught to hate us and think we are crazy freaks who burn goats and do calisthenics and meaningless gestures. Christ told us the world would hate us because of Him. That we are nuts, or stupid, or to lazy to think for ourselves, etc. But we win a little victory for Christ when we stand up for the truth, no matter how big or small. So, now I do not avoid, I do not get annoyed or arrogant. I just answer the f-ing question… 
3 Likes
Unfortunately I know little to nothing about it, and much closer to “nothing” than “little”. Let me know if your search turns up something interesting.
Agreed. Very well said.
What difference is it going to make if I am wrong or not?
I will try to find the related video, but it’s very interesting. The proposition is that rather than the particle ‘riding’ a wave, the particle is encapsulated, or rather wrapped in a 3 dimensional wave ‘packet’.
If true it brings a whole new, fairly intuitive view of particle\ wave duality and why it’s unpredictable at a particle level but why it always makes a refraction patern in the dual slit experiment, given enough particles are delivered.
It’s a theory, but it looks interesting.
Intent is everything.
This is what caught my attention. Just curious what you think about it. Nobody is claiming proof, but interesting. If true, it would make sense if photons were in fact to work similarly to this… After all, would it be so unusual for matter to emulate the behavior of that of which it’s made?
I would say that the Pope has a different interpretation of the Bible than every Pope that has preceded him. But he is the Pope and we are most likely living in or near the end times. So, I would expect to read something like this. Not much phases me anymore…
Have you watched the “Catholicism” series with Fr Robert Barron?
The magic formulae for getting into heaven is Romans 10:9
2 Likes