 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
>>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
>>> of christianity.
>
>> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should
>> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?
>
> The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.
But we're not talking about the allegorical "sun rising" kind of thing (vs
Earth orbiting the Sun). We're talking about whether some supernatural being
intentionally created humans as they are, told them lies, then punished them
and all their descendants for believing some other third party that pointed
out the lies were lies. Then killed all but a handful because they disobeyed
him some more.
I don't see how you can turn that into an allegory that makes "sin" still be
a reasonable concept. What might have *really* happened that would make it
possible for the death of a rabbi a couple thousand years ago capable of
affecting what happens to you after you're dead? I just can't imagine what
would give YHVH any moral authority to dictate what humans do and to punish
them for failing to do so, if YHVH didn't actually create humans.
I'm honestly open to being educated here. It's fun to consider this sort of
thing. I don't think you'll convince me, but I'm honestly and sincerely
listening.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
> >>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
> >>> of christianity.
> >
> >> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should
> >> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?
> >
> > The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.
> But we're not talking about the allegorical "sun rising" kind of thing (vs
> Earth orbiting the Sun). We're talking about whether some supernatural being
> intentionally created humans as they are, told them lies, then punished them
> and all their descendants for believing some other third party that pointed
> out the lies were lies. Then killed all but a handful because they disobeyed
> him some more.
> I don't see how you can turn that into an allegory that makes "sin" still be
> a reasonable concept. What might have *really* happened that would make it
> possible for the death of a rabbi a couple thousand years ago capable of
> affecting what happens to you after you're dead? I just can't imagine what
> would give YHVH any moral authority to dictate what humans do and to punish
> them for failing to do so, if YHVH didn't actually create humans.
You are making many category mistakes here. The most prominent one is
"either the story of genesis is literal and God created the universe and
the principles we must obey, or the story is only an allegory and God did
not create the universe nor the principles we must obey". It think this
is called a false dichotomy.
Just because the story might be told with allegories doesn't necessarily
mean that the gist of the story is not true. Just because something is
expressed as a metaphor doesn't make what the metaphor is referring to
false.
Another mistake you are doing is straw man argumentation: You are taking
the (well, *a*) literal interpretation of the scripture and then mocking it,
arguing that since it makes no sense, nothing of it can be true (not even
the idea that is being expressed in allegorical form).
Note that I'm not saying anything about the story is true. I'm just
saying that your argumentation is fallacious.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2011 18:35, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> This is a rather fair assumption
>>>> to make because it's the result of a measurement
>>
>>> Actually, I believe einstein hypothesized that because Maxwell's
>>> equations (amongst others) had it down as a constant.
>>
>> What I meant is that if you were to deduce the Lorentz transformations
>> now (eg. for an article on relativity), you can refer to experiments such
>> as the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (which predates special
>> relativity
>> by almost 20 years). Even if Einstein had never even heard of such an
>> experiment (which I really find hard to believe, but whatever), it
>> doesn't
>> really matter. It's still a fair assumption to make because of that and
>> many other experiments.
>>
>
> I wasn't really disagreeing. Just pointing out where the hypothesis came
> from that the evidence turned into a theory.
A modern way would be to assume that there are 3 space dimensions and
one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
(though I am not sure if that was a necessary assumption, it has been a
long time).
Investigate what happens if in this universe laws have to be invariant
for translation and rotation.
That will give you Lorentz contraction and Maxwell's equations, and
light that propagates with lightspeed. But that is just maths and not
science. ;)
OTOH if this is not observed in our universe, we either have more than 4
space/time dimensions or laws are not invariant, both do not seem
compatible with reality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2011 2:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> I think, unfortunately, for something this fundamental to the structure
>> of everything, and poorly understood enough that we don't even 100% know
>> what we *should* be looking for, its a pure toss up as to if it produces
>> something that isn't coincidental. But, I don't know anything close to
>> enough about it to know if there is a reason to assume otherwise, or not.
>
> I have been thinking that perhaps trying to find a unifying model is
> futile because gravity and quantum mechanics are *not* related to each
> other. They are two completely independent and distinct features which
> just happen to co-exist in the same universe. They can *affect* each
> other, but the laws that govern each one are distinct and independent.
>
> If there are multiple universes, perhaps there are universes where
> there is no gravity at all, and others where there is no QM at all.
>
Possible, but, even if that is the case, you can still come up with
formula that say *how* they do interact, which, given that its those
interactions we will use to produce results, ends up being the same
thing, for all intent and purposes.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2011 11:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> I have been thinking that perhaps trying to find a unifying model is
>> futile because gravity and quantum mechanics are *not* related to each
>> other.
>
> I sometimes argue that perhaps the universe is not logically consistent,
> in exactly this sense, and I usually get shouted down. Maybe there isn't
> any mathematical way to describe everything in the universe, and
> depending on what you measure, you will *always* have errors due to the
> fundamental nature of the universe.
>
> Granted, I often raise this in the context of "scientists have faith
> that this isn't the case", in the sense that it would be very unlikely a
> smart scientist would give up looking, ever, for that elusive theory
> that applies everywhere.
>
The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically
consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no evidence
this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that *no* one,
neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this argument as an "in"
for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what is going on.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> A modern way would be to assume that there are 3 space dimensions and
> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
> (though I am not sure if that was a necessary assumption, it has been a
> long time).
> Investigate what happens if in this universe laws have to be invariant
> for translation and rotation.
> That will give you Lorentz contraction and Maxwell's equations, and
> light that propagates with lightspeed. But that is just maths and not
> science. ;)
AFAIK you have to assume c to be constant to all (inertial) observers
in order to deduce the Lorentz transformations, not the other way around.
(The deduction isn't actually all that complicated.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/8/2011 11:24 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> like reversable instructions (the idea being that its less costly to
>> "undo" some things, in terms of heat and power use, than to completely
>> replicate an entire set of processes, when only one step in the whole
>> process differs),
>
> FWIW, that's not at all what reversible computing is about. Reversible
> computing is a necessary prelude to quantum computing.
>
Actually, no, its not, really. The article I read on the subject was
*purely* as a means to reduce the amount of switching needed, to reduce
power usage and heat. It was an "alternate" design to existing ones,
which would allow more speed, but at less cost. What, if anything, it
had to do with quantum computing, from that article, would be rather
unclear, since it quite literally never mentioned it at all.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2011 23:09, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> A modern way would be to assume that there are 3 space dimensions and
>> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
>> (though I am not sure if that was a necessary assumption, it has been a
>> long time).
>> Investigate what happens if in this universe laws have to be invariant
>> for translation and rotation.
>> That will give you Lorentz contraction and Maxwell's equations, and
>> light that propagates with lightspeed. But that is just maths and not
>> science. ;)
>
> AFAIK you have to assume c to be constant to all (inertial) observers
> in order to deduce the Lorentz transformations, not the other way around.
> (The deduction isn't actually all that complicated.)
There are more ways to get the same result. You give the traditional
method. The one I described here works the other way around. You assume
a 4 dimensional universe and the rest follows from that. E.g. Maxwell's
equations and a constant light speed are a property of that space, as
strange as it sounds.
Note that it is all maths until the moment that you postulate (or
observe) that our universe actually has 3 space and 1 time dimension.
When my teacher did exactly this on the blackboard it was almost a
divine revelation for me. For days I was like 'wow' and Genesis 1:3 has
never had the same feeling again. I know people use Maxwell's equations
and add 'and there was light'; you can get t-shirts with that text. In
reality it is even much deeper, you only need space and time. Genesis
1:3 is a direct consequence of Genesis 1:1, it is totally superfluous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/01/2011 3:19 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> It's hard to imagine how life could form without water.
>
I'm familiar with the view that water is important and perhaps essential
for life to develop and survive. It may well be correct or at least the
most likely environment for life by far.
But it is interesting to think about what truly different environments
might mean to life.
Rather than define liquid water as the essential requirement for life, I
think the criteria might be more like:
a) A medium that provides both persistence and variability with enough
complexity to support non-trivial patterns of organisation
b) An energy gradient that is neither too small nor too great for
whatever the medium is - at least in some local regime for some period
of time
c) Time
Given those factors it is possible to imagine life in all sorts of
situations where liquid water is not an important factor.
There isn't anything in the meta-mechanism of evolution that requires H2O.
Then there could be forms of life that started in a water rich
environment but evolved beyond that requirement.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
> OTOH if this is not observed in our universe, we either have more than 4
> space/time dimensions or laws are not invariant, both do not seem
> compatible with reality.
Except you just included "c" as a constant in that formula, which was the
point. If "c" varies depending on how fast you're going, that whole formula
falls apart.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
