Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?

And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day. [/quote]

A “first cause” could not be preceded…If it were, it would be the second cause.[/quote]

Okay…reading comprehension. That was exactly my point. I am arguing against the so called “first cause”. I can nicely wrap my mind around a universe with no beginning, and no end. Once you disabuse yourself of “time” and a need for a “first cause”, a lot of irreconcilable physics problems disappear.
[/quote]

No it just creates more problems. Outside of time, there is still contingency. Name one thing that exists completely uncaused.[/quote]

you’re quite dense. you’re working solely from a timeline perspective which I reiterate, from a physics standpoint, is an artifical, man made construct, that is the fly in the ointment of many accepted physical theories. if there is no time as you understand and experience it, then there is no “beginning” or “cause”. It just “is”. If you cannot wrap your mind around this concept, what is there left to discuss?

to push and the comments about genesis…now you’re implying that the earth and the heavens are the same age? just wondering. frankly, i’m disappointed after all that suspense that you would only offer a profane reading of the text. i thought i might get something esoteric, occult or maybe even based in kabbala…but just a straight read? i’m not impressed.[/quote]

Oh brother, you are apparently having issues with constraints of time. Not me. I have been speaking independently of it it you who cannot escape the conception of it.
There is no “just is” There is not one fucking thing in the entire universe that just is and was uncaused, period. Name one thing that exists on its own with no cause…That’s it, just one.
You cannot because “it” does not exist in any realm of this universe, or any other that you can pull out of your ass.
Causation exists independent of time and space and with in it. Time and space are not required for causal relationships, apparently, you can’t seem to grasp that.

402

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
The EPR paradox is a statement about locality and hidden-variable models in quantum mechanics, I don’t see how it is relevant to a metaphysical discussion.[/quote]

It shows causal relationships over huge distances like nothing else could. Information covering huge distances instantly. [/quote]

But it’s not even a paradox in a many-worlds interpretation, which is why it’s useless in the context you’re using it.[/quote]

It is very relevant as it empirically demonstrates instantaneous causation. Causal relationships over great distances where the distance has no bearing in delaying the resultant effect. I never said it was a paradox, it’s just an effect. I did not give it it’s name.
It is very relevant to metaphysics and the understanding of causal relationships, how is it not? Or should I just take your word for it?

403

404

[quote]pat wrote:
It is very relevant as it empirically demonstrates instantaneous causation. Causal relationships over great distances where the distance has no bearing in delaying the resultant effect. I never said it was a paradox, it’s just an effect. I did not give it it’s name.
It is very relevant to metaphysics and the understanding of causal relationships, how is it not? Or should I just take your word for it?
[/quote]

The point is that in an many-worlds universe you can have locality and no hidden-variables, there is no paradox. Therefore you can’t base an argument like that on EPR, especially since we can’t know if we’re in an many-worlds universe or not.

405

17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?

Inquiring minds want to know.

406

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
Literally, no.

Metaphorically, yes, a guy built a boat and took his dog for a trip.

408

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
Literally, no.

Metaphorically, yes, a guy built a boat and took his dog for a trip.
[/quote]

Well that does it. I think a Scandinavian divinity school student/physics prodigy should have the last word on this subject.

You are a divinity school student/physics prodigy, aren’t you? With a vast treasure chest of knowledge at your disposal, no? Do you have to shave yet? Mom keeps your ISP bill paid on time?[/quote]

Dang that is funny.

I think he is a Scandinavian government employee. Maybe a theropist of something. So if Mom is a synonym of the government then yes Mom pays the ISP bill.

409

…you guys really seize any opportunity to make yourself look stupid, don’t you?

410

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
It is very relevant as it empirically demonstrates instantaneous causation. Causal relationships over great distances where the distance has no bearing in delaying the resultant effect. I never said it was a paradox, it’s just an effect. I did not give it it’s name.
It is very relevant to metaphysics and the understanding of causal relationships, how is it not? Or should I just take your word for it?
[/quote]

The point is that in an many-worlds universe you can have locality and no hidden-variables, there is no paradox. Therefore you can’t base an argument like that on EPR, especially since we can’t know if we’re in an many-worlds universe or not.[/quote]

Uh, I am arguing that it’s an empirical demonstration of instantaneous causality and you are arguing that it’s not a paradox?
Glad we’re on the same page…

411

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]

The story is about 7000 years old…Who knows really? My best guess is that there was a dude named Noah, there was a flood, he weathered the storm on the boat and he had live stock with him.
It’s possible, but I am pretty sure liberties were taken with the story telling. Especially since it started as an oral tradition. Like most stories it probably is based on something real, but like most stories, the point is what counts more so than the balls-on accuracy of the told events. The moral of the story is why it’s in the bible.

412

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Time is no more than a means for humans to measure motion. We are finite beings (at least while on earth), that created a means to measure the passage of our lives and to quantify motion. I suggest many of you do the flat land thought experiment. Just because you do not peceive something in your existence, does not mean it does not exist. A one dimensional being living on a line, cannot perceive the other dimensions that surely surround it. And likewise, just because you perceive “time”, because you do have a beginning (birth) and an end (death), does not mean that “time” exists for all of creation. Time and thus a timeline, must have a beginning. Even if there were a “big bang”, or a “first cause”, I ask you what preceeded that?

And Push, you’re too smart to retort a simple fact about time with a reference to Genesis. I know we rarely agree, but I’d expected better from you. At least do some reading on the problems with “time” that have confounded physicists forever and until this present day. [/quote]

A “first cause” could not be preceded…If it were, it would be the second cause.[/quote]

Okay…reading comprehension. That was exactly my point. I am arguing against the so called “first cause”. I can nicely wrap my mind around a universe with no beginning, and no end. Once you disabuse yourself of “time” and a need for a “first cause”, a lot of irreconcilable physics problems disappear.
[/quote]

No it just creates more problems. Outside of time, there is still contingency. Name one thing that exists completely uncaused.[/quote]

you’re quite dense. you’re working solely from a timeline perspective which I reiterate, from a physics standpoint, is an artifical, man made construct, that is the fly in the ointment of many accepted physical theories. if there is no time as you understand and experience it, then there is no “beginning” or “cause”. It just “is”. If you cannot wrap your mind around this concept, what is there left to discuss?

to push and the comments about genesis…now you’re implying that the earth and the heavens are the same age? just wondering. frankly, i’m disappointed after all that suspense that you would only offer a profane reading of the text. i thought i might get something esoteric, occult or maybe even based in kabbala…but just a straight read? i’m not impressed.[/quote]

Oh brother, you are apparently having issues with constraints of time. Not me. I have been speaking independently of it it you who cannot escape the conception of it.
There is no “just is” There is not one fucking thing in the entire universe that just is and was uncaused, period. Name one thing that exists on its own with no cause…That’s it, just one.
You cannot because “it” does not exist in any realm of this universe, or any other that you can pull out of your ass.
Causation exists independent of time and space and with in it. Time and space are not required for causal relationships, apparently, you can’t seem to grasp that.[/quote]

You sir, are a blithering idiot.

413

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
17 Pages. So what’s the final conclusion? Did Noah’s Arc really happen?

Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]

The story is about 7000 years old…Who knows really? My best guess is that there was a dude named Noah, there was a flood, he weathered the storm on the boat and he had live stock with him.
It’s possible, but I am pretty sure liberties were taken with the story telling. Especially since it started as an oral tradition. Like most stories it probably is based on something real, but like most stories, the point is what counts more so than the balls-on accuracy of the told events. The moral of the story is why it’s in the bible.[/quote]

Good to see you’ve moved from absolutely butchering physics, defaming a PT or two with the atheist label, and moved on to a more reasonable position.

414

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you guys really seize any opportunity to make yourself look stupid, don’t you?[/quote]

Creationist 1: Nothing exists without a Creator!

Creationist 2: He’s right! The universe didn’t just poof itself into existence!

Rationalist: So who created God?

Creationist 1: You idiot, God doesn’t have a creator! Haven’t you been listening?

415

It’s not an empirical demonstration of instantaneous causality at all. It’s an apparent paradox that means you either have hidden variables or non-locality. Hidden variables are ruled out by experimental results and Bell’s inequality, and by the Kochen-Specker theorem. But like I said, in a many-worlds interpretation you can have locality and no hidden variables. Therefore you cannot base an argument on non-locality.

416

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you guys really seize any opportunity to make yourself look stupid, don’t you?[/quote]

Creationist 1: Nothing exists without a Creator!

Creationist 2: He’s right! The universe didn’t just poof itself into existence!

Rationalist: So who created God?

Creationist 1: You idiot, God doesn’t have a creator! Haven’t you been listening?[/quote]

…you guys really seize any opportunity to make yourself look stupid, don’t you?

417

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you guys really seize any opportunity to make yourself look stupid, don’t you?[/quote]

Creationist 1: Nothing exists without a Creator!

Creationist 2: He’s right! The universe didn’t just poof itself into existence!

Rationalist: So who created God?

Creationist 1: You idiot, God doesn’t have a creator! Haven’t you been listening?[/quote]

Atheist 1: Everything came from nothing.

Atheist 2: Exactely, it makes sense how?

Atheist 1: Well first you have space and in it you have all these random particles and energy that vibrate randomly for no reason at all. Then for because of nothing at all they assembled themselves and started acting according to these laws that also showed up for no reason and came from nowhere, but a bunch of them started doing it randomly for no reason and then poof! Everything exists…

Atheist 2: Well isn’t all that stuff “things”

Atheist 1: No, things are nothings and quit arguing or I’ll kick you out of the club.

Atheist 2: Makes sense, thanks for enlightening me!

418

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you guys really seize any opportunity to make yourself look stupid, don’t you?[/quote]

Creationist 1: Nothing exists without a Creator!

Creationist 2: He’s right! The universe didn’t just poof itself into existence!

Rationalist: So who created God?

Creationist 1: You idiot, God doesn’t have a creator! Haven’t you been listening?[/quote]

Atheist 1: Everything came from nothing.

Atheist 2: Exactely, it makes sense how?

Atheist 1: Well first you have space and in it you have all these random particles and energy that vibrate randomly for no reason at all. Then for because of nothing at all they assembled themselves and started acting according to these laws that also showed up for no reason and came from nowhere, but a bunch of them started doing it randomly for no reason and then poof! Everything exists…

Atheist 2: Well isn’t all that stuff “things”

Atheist 1: No, things are nothings and quit arguing or I’ll kick you out of the club.

Atheist 2: Makes sense, thanks for enlightening me![/quote]

Your mind is narrower than a needle. Did I mention you’re a blithering idiot and that like a lot of people, you’re not nearly as clever or smart as you fancy yourself to be?

419

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
It’s not an empirical demonstration of instantaneous causality at all. It’s an apparent paradox that means you either have hidden variables or non-locality. Hidden variables are ruled out by experimental results and Bell’s inequality, and by the Kochen-Specker theorem. But like I said, in a many-worlds interpretation you can have locality and no hidden variables. Therefore you cannot base an argument on non-locality.[/quote]

I am certain on there are many unknowns in quantum mechanics, there are things yet undiscovered. I think the discovering “hidden variables” will turn out to be more useful than an argument for localities, but I reckon that’s just preference. But the fact still remains that it two particles of opposing polarities from the same quantum system are separated by great distances in space, when one flips polarity, the other does as well instantly; while a beam of light traveling the same distance may take hours, days, weeks, etc to cover the same distance. The phenomenon for now is more useful to me than the various explanations as to why, but if the QM community does come up with a theory that the community at large can agree on, I am all ears.

The many-worlds / locality argument is one of several possible explanation that quite frankly may be wrong, but so could every other explanation as well. Besides, locality in this realm doesn’t exatly mean that said particles are right next to each other physically, but that each “thing” exists in it’s own little world. You have a phenomenon and several theories on it. Nobody knows and I am interested to hear when some one has more conclusive results, but that that will likely cover many oddities in quantum physics.

420

Clearly, the story was put in the bible for people to discuss quantum mechanics some 1600 years later, they thought of everything back then. I wonder what other facts become morals or metaphors a few hundred years from now. Or maybe then, Scientology will be the ruler of all :stuck_out_tongue: