<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Austin Matzko&#039;s Blog &#187; Physics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://austinmatzko.com/tag/physics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://austinmatzko.com</link>
	<description>A blog about philosophy, Christianity, web development and whatever else I feel like writing about.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:14:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2-RC4-18391</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Faith in Science</title>
		<link>http://austinmatzko.com/2006/02/23/faith-in-science/</link>
		<comments>http://austinmatzko.com/2006/02/23/faith-in-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:18:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>filosofo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Math]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Physics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2006/02/23/faith-in-science/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Toronto Star reporter weighs in on the relative permanence of mathematics and physics. Read his comment, then consider this: which is someone more likely to use today, the Pythagorean Theorem or Heraclitus&#8217;s theories of matter? Currently, encryption is based largely on complex numerical codes that even the most sophisticated computers would, theoretically, fail to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A <cite>Toronto Star</cite> reporter <a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&#038;c=Article&#038;cid=1140648614823&#038;call_pageid=968332188492&#038;col=968793972154&#038;t=TS_Home"> weighs in</a> on the relative permanence of mathematics and physics.   Read his comment, then consider this: which is someone more likely to use today, the Pythagorean Theorem or Heraclitus&#8217;s theories of matter?
</p>

<blockquote cite="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&#038;c=Article&#038;cid=1140648614823&#038;call_pageid=968332188492&#038;col=968793972154&#038;t=TS_Home">
<p>Currently, encryption is based largely on complex numerical codes that even the most sophisticated computers would, theoretically, fail to break.</p>

<p>But Lo says these numeric codes could be broken in the future with new mathematical theorems.</p>

<p>As a fundamental law of nature, however, quantum uncertainty will never be changed, and will never become obsolete.</p></blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://austinmatzko.com/2006/02/23/faith-in-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
