I love the idea of observing an unequivocal message from The Designer, David -- such fertile ground to explore.
Guesses at what it might say would make an interesting chat thread on its own.
Was it Star Trek Next Generation that found a holographic message from an ancient progenitor species encoded in human and alien DNA?
What would be the theological effects of definitive scientific evidence of a particular "god"?

Not too far off topic, I wonder if you (or others) have an opinion on Frank Tipler's book, The Physics of Immortality . It is his attempt to reconcile scientific and theological eschatology.

You must be expecting this response, SC. So as not to dissapoint: All of this is an unequivocal message from the Designer.

I've read the standards such as "The Tao of Physics" & "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", but how good a job does Tipler's book do in accomplishing such a daunting task?

Apart from the subject of religion (which is historically more of a political and socio-economic force than it has been a sincere expression of spiritual aspirations), it would be difficult to reconcile these approaches. They each utilize different modes of cognitive function to achieve very different objectives.

Have you read the paper "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminancy vs. Discontinuity", by Peter Lynds. Here is yet another brilliant example of a self-taught outsider turning academia on it's collective heads by presenting what is a simple theoretical explanation for what has historically been the most daunting paradoxes in physics.

The implications of his theory (which are intuitively clear) have potentially profound implications for teleology as well as they do for relativity physics.

Oh great! Now I'll have to be politicallly sensitive to hypothetical citizens of the cosmos.

Happy local-time-coordinate-corresponding-to-New Year-in-my-intertial reference-frame!

You are fun to dance with, sc.

Just to be clear to everyone, my "obvious answer" statement was intended as a comment directed more towards other forum members than it was to sc (which I assume he knows). Hopefully, this invites further comments on the subject. (I defer as the point of this thread is to present and discuss different views; not to arrive at some universally accepted consensus - blah!).

So, David, certainly you aren't going to abandon ship, are you?

Speaking of different viewpoints, which does not necessarily imply different basic fundamental insights ...

Yes, Lynd's work is certainly not "de rigueur", paricularly in calculus and logical analysis (according to his critics), but it is stimulating in it's brash unconventionality and directness. Even Princeton legend, John Wheeler, states that he admires Lynd's boldness. (Of course, since Wheeler has been an active member of the Sante Fe Institute, he is more accepting of innovative theories in general.) It is also more accessible to those with just a basic understanding of relativity physics (myself included).

My own fashion statement reflects an appreciation for the "creative and independent rebel" who did not let "but you lack formal training" stop him. His wild assumptions, do "give us pause". Essentially I am admiring, perhaps excessively, the accomplishments and qualities of the man; and less the physicist, which he clearly is not.

In this sense I am up to my old tricks in this forum of "poking the ribs" by constantly advocating the essential value to men and society in preserving and promoting freedom of thought and expression, which is too often dismissed in the usual hubris [Hubris: Excessive pride or self-confidence. ORIGIN Greek, originally denoting presumption towards or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis (Nemesis: divine retribution)]. Or as neo-Freudian psychoanalysts call it, "the false self".

Your observations are quite correct, sc. His work must ultimately be evaluated in terms of it's contribution to the field of physics. Which is why I do appreciate the tip and look forward to reading the "Zeno Meets Modern Science" article this weekend.

Noooooooooo..... Since my post, I've read more about Lynd. He has an earlier version of the paper (and more)on his website. I'll read them again and report back after the dizziness subsides.
Keep poking, julied -- I don't want to disappear in the ranks of the hide-bound.