Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Biblical Big Bang

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Not sure what you mean by that rossum. A reification of what, non-existence?
    No, a reification of simple existence into some sort of eternal unchanging invisible stuff inside everything.

    To quote Borges:

    Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol 'dog' embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).

    -- Funes the Memorious

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      In some cases He did just that: "Let the waters bring forth..." "Let the earth bring forth..." and Adam was fashioned from pre-existing dust/clay. Genesis says God used a variety of methods.
      Yes, but Hebrews says "what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Heb. 11:3), this would mean the initial act of creation was ex nihilo.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Yes, but Hebrews says "what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Heb. 11:3), this would mean the initial act of creation was ex nihilo.
        Bacteria are invisible; they are too small for the human eye to see. This is just the Bible telling us that evolution is correct: all visible life is descended from invisible micro-organisms, such as bacteria.

        As I am sure you are aware, the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rossum View Post
          Bacteria are invisible; they are too small for the human eye to see. This is just the Bible telling us that evolution is correct: all visible life is descended from invisible micro-organisms, such as bacteria.
          But I think Hebrews 11:3 is talking about everything being made from nothing.

          "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb 11:3)

          As I am sure you are aware, the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways.
          In certain places, yes, but in other places, the meaning is clear.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rossum View Post
            Bacteria are invisible; they are too small for the human eye to see. This is just the Bible telling us that evolution is correct: all visible life is descended from invisible micro-organisms, such as bacteria.

            As I am sure you are aware, the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways.
            Sure it can. Some interpretations, such as the one you just jokingly put forward, just happen to be a lot dumber than others.

            Just because people are able to interpret the Bible in many different ways doesn't mean that there aren't interpretations that are closer to the actual intent of the author(s) than others. Or that some interpretations aren't more reasonable than others.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rossum View Post
              No, a reification of simple existence into some sort of eternal unchanging invisible stuff inside everything.

              To quote Borges:
              Still not getting it. How are you defining simple existence? Nothing?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Still not getting it. How are you defining simple existence? Nothing?
                Not "nothing" but "shunyata", usually translated "emptiness". The things we observe are not what we think they are. Like the water in a mirage, they are not what they appear to be. A mirage is not "nothing"; a true nothing would not appear to be water. However, a mirage is not what is appears to be on the surface.

                Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

                -- Jay Garfield

                Your 'substance' is just such an incorrect assumption of ontological depth.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rossum View Post
                  Not "nothing" but "shunyata", usually translated "emptiness".
                  Kind of a distinction without a difference though, no?


                  The things we observe are not what we think they are.
                  What would you say they are? How would you define them?

                  Like the water in a mirage, they are not what they appear to be. A mirage is not "nothing"; a true nothing would not appear to be water.
                  Right, it's not what it appears to be, but it is not nothing, not emptiness either, it is just an optical illusion of the existing something due to effects of light. It's not like nothingness or emptiness, or a void. So, I'm still not sure what you mean by simple existence, of shunyata.

                  However, a mirage is not what is appears to be on the surface.
                  Right. But that analogy still doesn't explain what you mean by, simple existence or shunyata.
                  [indent]
                  Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.
                  Sounds deep, but you're back to asserting nothingness again. What is it that you are suggesting is on the surface of nothingness?


                  Your 'substance' is just such an incorrect assumption of ontological depth.
                  Okay, so what is this incorrectly assumed ontological depth?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Okay, so what is this incorrectly assumed ontological depth?
                    Emptiness is not an easy concept. It starts from the fact that we cannot directly sense the world; all our senses are indirect. When we "see" a tree we are not seeing the tree. Light reflects from the tree to our eyes. Our eyes convert that light into electrical impulses in our optic nerves and those electrical impulses reach our brain. The tree never directly reaches our brain.

                    The human brain has a good pattern recognition system. When it receives a set of electrical impulses it matches the incoming impulses with the set of internal patterns it has stored: dog... building... tree -- it matches at tree. The system is not perfect, a mirage matches the pattern 'water' and a camouflaged animal may not match the pattern 'animal', but the system is reasonably good.

                    Our senses are imperfect so our internal models are also imperfect. Our eyes cannot detect ultra-violet light so our internal model of a tree does not include what a tree looks like in ultra-violet. A dog's internal model will have a lot more detail of how a tree smells then our internal model. Our models are limited by what our senses can detect.

                    My disagreement with your 'substance' is that it is a projection -- a reification -- of those internal models onto the external world. That is an error. Our internal models are not perfect and they belong inside our brains. Worse, those internal models are imperfect, so by reifying them we are projecting those imperfections out onto the real world. That causes a mismatch between what is actually out there and what we think/project is out there.

                    The idea of emptiness is the realisation that our internal models are imperfect and do not exactly match what is really out there. One of the tasks of Buddhist meditation is to distinguish between what is actually out there in the real world and what is our internal modelling being projected onto it. One of the causes of suffering is the mismatch between the real world and our imperfect internal models of that world. By carefully distinguishing the two, some suffering can be avoided. A classic example is "I will love you forever", which projects a static internal model onto a constantly changing external world. Our internal models do not always deal well with change.

                    That is what the Garfield quote was talking about. The surface is what we directly sense: what you see is what you get. The illusion of ontogenetic depth is the projection of our internal models out onto the external world. Those models do not exist in the external world: 'substance', 'essence', 'soul' and similar.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      Sure it can. Some interpretations, such as the one you just jokingly put forward, just happen to be a lot dumber than others.
                      It was a very amusing piece. That you consider it "dumber than others" is merely your interpretation predicated on your biases.

                      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      Just because people are able to interpret the Bible in many different ways doesn't mean that there aren't interpretations that are closer to the actual intent of the author(s) than others. Or that some interpretations aren't more reasonable than others.
                      We can never know "the actual intent of the author(s)".

                      I suspect that what you are suggesting is that interpretations that comply with your own preconceived beliefs are more appealing to you, and therefore more readily accepted by you, because you consider such interpretations and their postulations to be closer to the thinking of those original authors.

                      However, to use the line from Sportin' Life's classic song "It ain't necessarily so".
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        It was a very amusing piece. That you consider it "dumber than others" is merely your interpretation predicated on your biases.
                        It had some comedic value. Asserting that my assessment of it as dumber than some other interpretations is predicated on my biases and nothing else is quite the unwarranted claim. Even on the face of it his proposed interpretation is highly unlikely to have any real merit.


                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        We can never know "the actual intent of the author(s)".
                        I'm not a postmodernist, I don't take your assertion above as self-evident. You'll have to actually argue for it.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        I suspect that what you are suggesting is that interpretations that comply with your own preconceived beliefs are more appealing to you, and therefore more readily accepted by you, because you consider such interpretations and their postulations to be closer to the thinking of those original authors.
                        I'm not going to deny that there is a risk for me to fall into such thinking, but that's not what I'm suggesting, no. What I would suggest is that in order to get closer to an interpretation that is in accord with authorial intent it's more likely we get there by being cognizant of the historical and cultural milieu of the first century setting in which these books were written, as well as the way of thinking that people in that world shared.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rossum View Post
                          Emptiness is not an easy concept. It starts from the fact that we cannot directly sense the world; all our senses are indirect. When we "see" a tree we are not seeing the tree. Light reflects from the tree to our eyes. Our eyes convert that light into electrical impulses in our optic nerves and those electrical impulses reach our brain. The tree never directly reaches our brain.
                          Yes, I understand that. So, why is it that we actually see a tree? It's not as though the tree doesn't actually exist.
                          The human brain has a good pattern recognition system. When it receives a set of electrical impulses it matches the incoming impulses with the set of internal patterns it has stored: dog... building... tree -- it matches at tree. The system is not perfect, a mirage matches the pattern 'water' and a camouflaged animal may not match the pattern 'animal', but the system is reasonably good.
                          But the dog...building...tree, still exists no matter the brains process of seeing them.
                          Our senses are imperfect so our internal models are also imperfect. Our eyes cannot detect ultra-violet light so our internal model of a tree does not include what a tree looks like in ultra-violet. A dog's internal model will have a lot more detail of how a tree smells then our internal model. Our models are limited by what our senses can detect.
                          Nevertheless, the internal model is modeling an external reality.
                          My disagreement with your 'substance' is that it is a projection -- a reification -- of those internal models onto the external world. That is an error. Our internal models are not perfect and they belong inside our brains. Worse, those internal models are imperfect, so by reifying them we are projecting those imperfections out onto the real world. That causes a mismatch between what is actually out there and what we think/project is out there.
                          But the process of seeing only works because there is an external existence to be seen.
                          The idea of emptiness is the realisation that our internal models are imperfect and do not exactly match what is really out there.
                          But my point is not that the models of the external world that we mentally process are perfect, but only that it externally exists. You seem to be suggesting that the external world doesn't exist, or that it is something wholly different than what we see.

                          One of the tasks of Buddhist meditation is to distinguish between what is actually out there in the real world and what is our internal modelling being projected onto it. One of the causes of suffering is the mismatch between the real world and our imperfect internal models of that world. By carefully distinguishing the two, some suffering can be avoided. A classic example is "I will love you forever", which projects a static internal model onto a constantly changing external world. Our internal models do not always deal well with change.
                          Yeah, but that's a mental concept, not a matter of sense perception. When with our eyes we see a tree, the tree we see exists. No?
                          That is what the Garfield quote was talking about. The surface is what we directly sense: what you see is what you get. The illusion of ontogenetic depth is the projection of our internal models out onto the external world. Those models do not exist in the external world: 'substance', 'essence', 'soul' and similar.
                          Yeah, I'm a bit confused as to the point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that there is no external world, no substance, no matter, that it's all in your head, or that we just see the existing external world imperfectly?
                          Last edited by JimL; 08-07-2020, 03:24 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Yes, I understand that. So, why is it that we actually see a tree? It's not as though the tree doesn't actually exist.
                            The basic assumption is that the external world exist; we are not a brain-in-a-jar or in the Matrix. That is only an assumption, but it is a reasonable one.

                            However, we know that you senses are imperfect. What we see/smell/hear/taste/touch is not the real actually existing tree. It is a subset of the detail included in the real existing tree, mediated through our senses into a series of electrical impulses in our nerves. Those impulses omit ultrasound, infra-red light, the detail of smell that is available to a dog etc. We do not see "the tree"; we sense a partial tree, missing elements of the real external tree.

                            Nevertheless, the internal model is modeling an external reality.
                            It is modelling a part of the external reality, and hence is modelling it imperfectly. The incoming sensory feeds are lacking, so the models built on those feeds are necessarily lacking as well.

                            But my point is not that the models of the external world that we mentally process are perfect, but only that it externally exists. You seem to be suggesting that the external world doesn't exist, or that it is something wholly different than what we see.
                            The existence of the external world is a good working assumption.

                            Yeah, but that's a mental concept, not a matter of sense perception. When with our eyes we see a tree, the tree we see exists. No?
                            When we see water in a mirage, does the water in the mirage exist? No it does not. Our senses are good, but they are not perfect; see here. What we see is not always what is actually there.

                            Yeah, I'm a bit confused as to the point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that there is no external world, no substance, no matter, that it's all in your head, or that we just see the existing external world imperfectly?
                            We sense the external world imperfectly. That means our internal models are also imperfect. When we project those models out into the real world, they are not perfect matches for what is actually out there. The models are in our heads; the real world is out there. By projecting the models out into the real world -- reifying them -- we effectively have two versions of the external world. One is the actual external world. The other is built from our reified models. Because the models are imperfect there are differences between the two. To resolve those differences we need to clearly define what is present in the real world and what is a reified internal model projected onto it.

                            Your 'substance' is just such an internal model projected onto the real world. Such 'substance' cannot be detected; it does not exist in the external world, it only exists as one of our inaccurate internal mental models.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              It had some comedic value. Asserting that my assessment of it as dumber than some other interpretations is predicated on my biases and nothing else is quite the unwarranted claim.
                              Given the reactions of so many Christians to anything that they deem mocks or challenges their pietistic views of various biblical figures it was predicated on evidence.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              Even on the face of it his proposed interpretation is highly unlikely to have any real merit.
                              It was a lighthearted joke as is the cartoon that shows Jesus talking to his disciples and saying "Okay everyone, now listen carefully. I do not want to end up with four versions of this."

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              I'm not a postmodernist,
                              Nor am I but the fact remains we can never know precisely what the actual authors of those various texts that we now call "the Bible" were actually thinking because the main problem is the lack of any original MSS.

                              However, I thoroughly agree with your last comment that we assess these documents within the framework of the historical and social situation prevailing when they came to be written, and in the case of the texts in the Hebrew bible, redacted. While the majority of those texts are generally held to date from between the eighth and second centuries BCE, and while they may contain evidence of older material, insofar as extant MSS are concerned there is nothing much earlier than the first century BCE.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                                The basic assumption is that the external world exist; we are not a brain-in-a-jar or in the Matrix. That is only an assumption, but it is a reasonable one.
                                Okay, so why the problem with substance, it's just a term describing the material nature of the external world.
                                However, we know that you senses are imperfect. What we see/smell/hear/taste/touch is not the real actually existing tree.
                                Well, no, if it were, then the tree itself would be in your head, but the tree you imperfectly see does exist just the same, right?

                                It is a subset of the detail included in the real existing tree, mediated through our senses into a series of electrical impulses in our nerves. Those impulses omit ultrasound, infra-red light, the detail of smell that is available to a dog etc. We do not see "the tree"; we sense a partial tree, missing elements of the real external tree.
                                But the point is that the external world exists whether we see it imperfectly or not, correct?


                                It is modelling a part of the external reality, and hence is modelling it imperfectly. The incoming sensory feeds are lacking, so the models built on those feeds are necessarily lacking as well.
                                As above, imperfect mental modeling or not, the external world exists.


                                The existence of the external world is a good working assumption.
                                I would hope so.


                                When we see water in a mirage, does the water in the mirage exist? No it does not. Our senses are good, but they are not perfect; see here. What we see is not always what is actually there.
                                True, when it comes to a mirage due to the effects of light we can be fooled, But that doesn't mean everything you see is some kind of a mirage. If you dive into the water that you see, you'll realize whether what you see is real or not.


                                We sense the external world imperfectly. That means our internal models are also imperfect. When we project those models out into the real world, they are not perfect matches for what is actually out there.
                                Perhaps not, but close enough.

                                The models are in our heads; the real world is out there.
                                True enough.

                                By projecting the models out into the real world -- reifying them -- we effectively have two versions of the external world. One is the actual external world. The other is built from our reified models. Because the models are imperfect there are differences between the two. To resolve those differences we need to clearly define what is present in the real world and what is a reified internal model projected onto it.
                                But this discussion all began with you denying the existence of a real world, or of a substance out of which it is formed. Or am I still misunderstanding your point?
                                Your 'substance' is just such an internal model projected onto the real world. Such 'substance' cannot be detected; it does not exist in the external world, it only exists as one of our inaccurate internal mental models.
                                Substance is merely the term I use to define the stuff of the external world, but if you agree that such a stuff exists, that an external world exists, I don't see exactly what the point is that we are debating.
                                Last edited by JimL; 08-08-2020, 04:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X