Jesus and Comparative Mythology

[yankee_doodle]

You seem to have some difficulties staying on task. Of course the Sumerian account reflects polytheism. Did you expect them to suddenly make Enki and Innana and others into one? The point is that the Sumerians wrote it first because they had writing first. They did not yet know the truth of God so they explained the FACT of the flood in accordance with their cosmovision. It also adds to the veracity of the Bible. Just because lesser lights are unable to fully understand something does not mean that the event didn’t happen.

I’ll start by noting that’s not how secular historians commonly interpret the significance of earlier mythological parallels to the bible.

Nevertheless, I’m willing to flesh this out a little more:

The bulk of Sumerian parallels can, however be found much earlier, in the book of Genesis. As in Genesis, the Sumerians’ world is formed out of the watery abyss and the heavens and earth are divinely separated from one another by a solid dome. The second chapter of Genesis introduces the paradise Eden, a place which is similar to the Sumerian Dilmun, described in the myth of “Enki and Ninhursag”. Dilmun is a pure, bright, and holy land - now often identified with Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. It is blessed by Enki to have overflowing, sweet water. Enki fills it with lagoons and palm trees. He impregnates Ninhursag and causes eight new plants to grow from the earth. Eden, “in the East” (Gen. 2:8) has a river which also “rises” or overflows, to form four rivers including the Tigris and Euphrates. It too is lush and has fruit bearing trees. (Gen. 2:9-10) In the second version of the creation of man “The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” Enki and Ninmah (Ninhursag) use a similar method in creating man. Nammu, queen of the abyss and Enki’s mother, bids Enki to "Kneed the ‘heart’ of the clay that is over the Abzu " and “give it form” (Kramer & Maier p. 33) From there the similarities cease as the two create several malformed humans and then the two deities get into an argument.

home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6

So it’s not only the flood account, but there are also many parallels between the biblical creation narrative and Sumerian mythology.

This is important, because here we can decisively refute the idea that both of these stories are transmitting the same truth, since we know the literal creation account isn’t true (from scientific evidence).

The Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago is also a great source (but you have to search the site).

oi.uchicago.edu/research/library/

Again, I’m not advocating any sort of copy-cat theory, but the link between Sumerian mythology and Hebrew mythology is too striking to ignore (and in all likelihood Hebrew mythology – the old testament or Tanakh – began as a hybrid of Sumerian mythology).

 

[DavidMark]

The fact that in the Gospels, the first witnesses to the Resurrected Christ are women, which given all we know of the contemporary time in Judea suggests the testimony of women was much denigrated as opposed to men’s testimony, is important. Again another argument for authenticity given that if one was making a false story with the intent of it spreading why base such a remarkable event’s witness on women?

This is an imortant point that Bahá’í Scripture emphasizes:
**Consider! The station and the confirmation of the apostles in the time of Christ was not known, and no one looked on them with the feeling of importance – nay, rather, they persecuted and ridiculed them. Later on it became evident what crowns studded with the brilliant jewels of guidance were placed on the heads of the apostles, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of John. **(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 39)

And from recognized speeches:
Look at His disciples! They were poor and uncultured men. Out of the rough fisherman He made the great Peter, and out of the poor village girl of Magdala He made one who is a power in all the world today. Many queens have reigned who are remembered by their dates in history, and nothing more is known of them. But Mary the Magdalene is greater than them all. It was she whose love strengthened the disciples when their faith was failing. What she did for the world cannot be measured. See what a divine power was enkindled in her by the power of God! (‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, p. 88)

 

[yankee_doodle]

The fact that in the Gospels, the first witnesses to the Resurrected Christ are women, which given all we know of the contemporary time in Judea suggests the testimony of women was much denigrated as opposed to men’s testimony, is important. Again another argument for authenticity given that if one was making a false story with the intent of it spreading why base such a remarkable event’s witness on women?

I see your point, but you’re still looking inside the bible to confirm its own authenticity, when we don’t have anything approaching real corroborating evidence. What we do have is plenty of evidence suggesting mythological interpolations into the Jesus narrative.

Is there any significance to the fact that the Gospels list women as the first witnesses of the resurrected Christ? Given the apostles (all men) were also alleged to have witnessed the risen Christ, I don’t see any significance. The story isn’t grounded on the eye witness accounts of women, but rather the apostles (and fantastic claims of apostolic verification that include Thomas allegedly touching the wounds of the risen Christ).

Moreover, you have to keep in mind the culture this story grew up in. It wasn’t only Roman Palestine (in fact virtually nothing is know about first century Palestinian Christians), it was also (and primarily) the Hellenic world (where women were viewed differently, even worshiped i.e. the goddesses Artemis was one of the most venerated deities in antiquity).

 

[abucs]

Yankee,

it’s study break here at the moment before examinations.
I’ve taken your links on the USB and will read them in the next few days.

Before i read them i’ll just clarify one thing, what i am saying (proposing) is that conscious knowledge and interaction collapses the abstract wavelength, which is a little more than observation.

The lack of observing also gives a measurement which also allows for knowledge.

Such as an example above about the particle going through the hole. If we don’t see it (observe it) in the chamber, this still ‘collapses the wave’ because (i mainatain) we know that the particle must have gone through the hole - but we have not formally observed it do so.

Will be back at uni in a few days.

 

[abucs]

Yankee, first of all thank you for the articles.

Regarding the link - The death of Schrodinger’s cat ………

I draw you to the sentence - “It is not enough, however, for there to be a general change of consensus away from a theory of conscious based wave-function collapse; what is needed is an argument, or experiment, that makes it impossible rationally to believe it …………”

The authors admit that either now or recently the scientific consensus was a conscious based theory and that there is no strong argument or evidence against this. They then go on to try and construct one based on the idea that ‘measuring‘ causes collapse.

I don’t know if I would go so far as saying ‘there is a consensus for consciousness involved at the heart of physics’ but at the very least I think you will now admit that this idea is not ’way out there’ and ‘laughed at by any reputable scientist’ etc. It is a serious discussion.

I would disagree with a few things the authors present. They start off by assuming that all scientists who favour some sort of ‘consciousness’ approach would support the Schrodinger’s cat being half dead and half alive until observed. I wouldn’t support that but I still think consciousness is involved in physics.

The authors start off in the first sentence by defining those they are arguing against as believing ‘observation of a measurement by a conscious observer is required to collapse quantum wave functions‘. Again, I would not be one of the one‘s they are arguing against here. I think consciousness is involved at the very heart of physics but I think it is clear that what collapses the wave function is not direct conscious observation alone it is the ‘taking into account of consciousness’ written into the laws of physics.

And we have to remember what collapsing the wave function means. It is based on the fact that science has said that matter will act in one of two ways, either a particle (which is what we always see) or in a probability wave distribution when our knowledge of some things are incomplete. What is not argued is that ALL matter behaves in two very different ways and the big question is why does ALL matter act in two very different ways and what makes it change from one to the other.

Science knows that it is something to do with measurement and/or conscious knowledge including observation.

This is a remarkable fact and since matter is at the heart of everything that science studies the answer is fundamental to reality.

We should also stop to consider what measurement is. When we look under the microscope at anything this is a measurement. The light bounces off the thing being observed and into the eye and we always see particles. But how does the thing being observed know if the light bouncing of it will go into an eye or not ? How does it know whether to act as a particle or as a an abstract probability wave ? In the experiment given in the link, how does the radio-active wave substance know that it has entered a Geiger counter (that works and is turned on) and so it should now start being a particle ?

Next I would draw your attention to the complexity of the experiment being done in order to try and remove ‘direct conscious observation’ from the equation. This is serious business with people in different rooms and telling each other different things and each holding a part of an experimental result to see if it affects the outcome. As mentioned above and in previous posts, what I believe makes matter what we see (i.e. collapses the wave function) is that whatever laws run physics, takes into account whether we know, can know or retrospectively know or can know certain characteristics of matter. And as also stated, I don’t believe it is consciousness itself but that the laws of physics somehow take into account conscious knowledge whether it is observed directly or can be derived.

The experiment that Carpenter and Anderson report deals with direct observation and knowledge but does not address retrospective derived knowledge. That is, A and B can always get together at any time and work out what the measurements were. So when the authors conclude with the sentence - “Conscious perception of the outcome of a quantum measurement is not a prerequisite for the collapse of a quantum wave-function” I would agree wholeheartedly with them. It is much more mysterious than that. In fact, in some of my experiments that I posted earlier this can also be seen to be the case. Let me revisit the Delayed Choice Double Split experiment in my following link………………………

 

[abucs]

Delayed Choice Double Split experiment

Firing a photon through a wall with two slits to a further wall behind. When we fire the photon it is a particle, no doubt about that. After it leaves the laser gun, science says it acts in a wave probability. Because the particle encounters 2 slits and is ‘acting as a wave probability‘, then it will radiate out from these two slits something like the ocean through a dam with two run-offs. The two resultant waves from the slits will overlap and form crests and troughs and this will affect its final destination at the back wall. When it hits the back wall, it is a particle again but where it will hit on the back wall is a distribution that matches exactly the distribution of two waves radiating from the slits.

Now we can put 2 detectors at the slits with 2 lights that go on when a particle is detected at the slits. We could have these two lights come on in the room nextdoor where a lab scientist is monitoring the process. We find though when we do this that only one detector light will go on at a time and the distribution at the back wall now is always a straight line from the laser, through the slit where the detector gave a signal to the back wall.

Now if we take the light bulbs out of the lights in the next room so that no light comes on and keep everything the same so that what happens in the actual experiment room is exactly the same (the detectors are still working and sending a signal - its just that there is no bulb at the end stage) we find the distribution goes back to being a wave phenomena at the back wall. It is important to realise here that nothing has changed accept the light bulbs in the next room have been removed so we can’t know which slit the particle went through.

Any measuring at the slits in the experiment room is just the same though.

We could put one light back in and keep the other one out and yet now the distribution at the back wall will always be a straight line (particle). This is an example of where something other than direct observation collapses the wave. We know the particle went through one slit when the light goes on, but importantly, when it doesn’t go on we can derive it must have gone through the other slit since that bulb is missing. So the lack of observation here still makes the wave probability become a particle. There is only indirect measuring going on here and the measuring is the logic that the scientist is using in ’knowing’ which slit the particle went through. In affect - by observing a non measurement.

Now as mentioned previously. Instead of having lights and a scientist we could connect the detector information to a computer and record the data. Likewise we could hook up the sensors at the back wall to a computer and store the results of where the particles landed. After doing millions of tests we can first look at the back wall results and it will act as a particle straight line distribution. It will do this because in theory, we could still look at the computer results of the detector slits and ascertain which slit the particle went through. This is like the experiment by Carpenter and Anderson. The photon has acted like a particle because it is possible to derive information, not that it was derived.

Alternatively, we could have first destroyed all of the computer information recorded at the 2 slits before looking at the computer results at the back wall. Whenever we do this option, the results at the back wall will always be in the distribution of a wave. The big question is how does reality decide on the way the matter will behave in the experiment before we have decided to look at, or destroy the first set of computer information ?

These are really important questions and I urge you again to look at the results of the experiments I listed earlier. To me, the conscious knowledge, or whether it is possible to have conscious knowledge seems to directly affect the way physics works.

 

[abucs]

With the Auletta and Tarozzi’s report you linked to regarding the possible physical reality of quantum waves I point out that you mentioned that I have the approach similar to Wigner and I point you to the line from the article that says

‘Born’s point of view was combined with Heisenberg’s original position and perhaps most coherently developed by Wigner and is meanwhile almost become the official doctrine of quantum mechanics’.

Eugene Wigner was given the Nobel prize for Physics in 1963 and a often referred quote of his is “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

This I would whole-heartedly agree with. Again, I would remind you that my initial posting was basing my thoughts on accepted science and a fair consensus of the scientific interpretations.

The article also splits the thinking on quantum waves into two camps, the first camp who believe that the wave probability is just a mathematical tool and not real and then all the rest who have varying thoughts on the matter. As with the Wikipedia article you posted, it is quite clear that most scientists in the field regard the quantum wave in the first category. The previous link to Carpenter and Anderson appear to regard the wave ‘function’ as a mere abstract mathematical probability tool as well. Again, my interpretation for my posting is pretty standard science.

The authors of your article, Auletta and Tarozzi wish to examine a third alternative to the above and I find much merit in it.

I have seen the Mach-Zender interferometer experiment posted in your linked article before and think it is one of those great quantum physics experiments that questions the primary reality of matter. ( from memory teleportation research is based on the variant of this experiment where the path is blocked so that we can ‘detect an object without interfering with it’)

I think the experiments by Tarozzi and Mandel are very clever in trying to ascertain whether there are ’empty waves’ and thus in some sense ’real waves’ or more correctly waves that have an effect on reality other than belonging to a designated particle. I draw your attention to the articles quotation of Selleri who pointed out any such wave, if it was real would not have any momentum or energy associated with it. And I also point out the authors claim that whatever the quantum wave is, if it is real, they have no idea what ’form’ of reality it takes and end up appealing to the reader at the very end of their article that if they are correct, the rational thing to do would be to change our thinking of what physical reality is and they mention that in principle we are barred from ever experiencing directly what that reality is. The article ended with the quote from the Realist who simply asks us to reflect of what reality is and how it can be interpreted. I would agree with most of this.

That being said, i accept the experiment by Mandel showing that there does not seem to be an empty wave traversing the circuit to D1 when D3 clicks and that this thus suggests that the quantum wave function is simply a probability amplitude not any type of physical wave. I think the experiment by Tarozzi is flawed in the following way - the empty wave that is assumed to traverse the circuit could also be thought of as an abstract probability wave from the other particle (2nd Tarozzi experiment) . I suspect this was similar to the experiment they quoted by Hardy that could be interpreted in different ways. Tarozzi also accepts that the idea of empty waves has been disproved.

 

[abucs]

The authors mention an experiment by Mittelstaedt and co-workers which seemed to suggest a smooth transition between particle and wave like action but they did not go into any detail which is strange because this seems to form the basis of their position. The Mittelstaedt paper would be an interesting one to assess and I might do so after the exams.

I also point out that after discussing all of these experiments the authors say ‘Any attempt at proving a reality of quantum waves seem to fail‘. But they do highlight the smooth transition result (although again they don’t explain these results in their paper). Because there is a claimed smooth transition, their logic is that if the particles are real then it makes sense to say the wave is real as well, since they claim they are interacting. They do admit though that ‘one could also reject the reality of the particle’. This is close to my position in that I think all matter (particles) are secondary in reality although of course they are real relative to us.

I also point you to the statement from the authors that they accept physics does not have a ’classically causal relationship between the initial state and the detection event‘.

The authors then ask the question that they say is ’a vital question’ and that is ’does matter disappear and then re-appear from nothingness‘. They answer in the negative only because they believe that if the answer is yes then ’the scientific enterprise would become a nonsense’. I would argue that perhaps certain ideas some people have about science would become a nonsense, but not the scientific enterprise. And believing as I do in a reality beyond our time and space I would not agree that matter that disappears from our ’time and space’ disappears into nothingness. That is a philosophical position.

The authors then go on to admit at least that ‘there must be a form of reality that is not of the type of events and that is not connected through classically causal chains with other realities‘. Now the authors have already admitted this reality has a non deterministic probability nature with no energy or momentum and they then go on to say it cannot in principle be directly experienced. Just before the conclusion the authors then say that if they are right then 'the reality of the waves cannot be at the same level as the reality of the particles or the detection events‘. Putting this all together this sounds pretty close to saying a non material and non detectable reality is at the base of our reality and controls, through non deterministic probability, every facet of our existence. I would also point out that the ‘non deterministic probability’ is relative to us but in fact can have levels of determinism once realities outside our time and space are admitted.

In the conclusion section the authors purport the question - ‘what is this reality we can have no direct experience of, not because of physical limitations but in principle’ ?

Their second last sentence reads ‘Therefore, at the actual state of facts, we cannot proceed very much on the path of determining what is this quantum-mechanical entity we call ‘wave’.

Personally, I think that these experiments, regarding measurement/conscious knowledge and ultimate reality are very important and we cannot truly begin to understand our reality until we have a philosophical framework to interpret the results of these experiments.

I think my philosophical framework matches up well with those results, but of course I am always open to suggestions.

all that being said,

there was an experiment that I posted previously which MIGHT be interpreted to show some wave-like action of a particle.

This was the Einstein thought experiment (to disprove Bohr) that said if we cool matter to a few millionths of a degree Kelvin then in principle we should know the momentum of the atoms are about zero. When this happens the position should be undefined. This is based on the idea (from Bohr) that physics works based on what a conscious person knows about the state of matter. When the cooling happened then we did see the definition of the atoms overlap and seem to be in more than one place at one time which could be argued to show some aspects of a ‘physical’ wave motion. BUT this very experiment seems to point to the particle also being of a reality we are not familar with and not the fundamental reality. This is important because it shows that it is not the eye, or our brains or measurements that collapses the wave function or makes it appear as a particle. The only time we might see any sort of evidence for a ‘physical’ wave is when we conflict with the uncertainty principle that will not let an observer know both the position and momentum of an object. Again this is consistent with a view of physics that puts consciousness at the heart of how physics works. It might be unexpected, but it seems to me to be the only credible explanation for what we see, taking into account all of the results.

OK, I’m busy studying for a science exam now so will only answer briefly (if at all).
These experiments Yankee need time to digest and to be able to hear all the claims and counter claims. Some groups will claim one thing without mentioning that they have been strongly disproved in other experiments. It’s takes time to sift through them all and come up with your own coherent philosophy. The links you posted are quite good though, but many others on the net are not.

In the end I do agree with the 1963 winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, Eugene Wigner, whom your link says has the view that is “almost the official doctrine of quantum mechanics”, when he said

“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

 

[yankee_doodle]

for goodness sake … can’t you squeeze a simple point into like three or four paragraphs?

 

[djeter]

Francis Cardinal George speaks to pagan mythologies and the philosophy of the incarnation here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/01/12/the-philosophy-of-incarnation-and-communio/

regards,

dj

 

[fms]

I know I’ve said this before but one of the great triumphs of Christianity was to invent an illness (eternal damnation) and announce itself as the only cure - giving adherents the opportunity, in the face of any doubters, to say: ‘join us or you’ll burn for eternity’.

The problem, for Christians, was that they then split into different groups who all say to each other, never mind those of us who don’t believe a word of the whole business, ‘if you don’t believe exactly in the particular way we do, you’ll burn for eternity’.

My thinking, after reading many of your posts, is that your understanding of Christianity/Catholicism is slightly mistaken.

There is always the twin goad of reward/punishment. Clearly seen as from the Hebrew Scriptures.

My observation even from my own children is that fear goes only so far. Focusing on the reward seems to work much better.

Our reward, as we believe it, far exceeds what our natural aspirations would have ever wanted. It is a free gift offered by God, which some Jews would term as beholding the Shekinah. For us it is beholding God face to Face (remember Moses?) and being one with God without losing our individual identity.

God hard-wires this in us so that those, who of their own free will reject this gift, lose the very thing they were made for (think of star-crossed lovers). This is the principal suffering in hell (what for Jews would be ‘cut off from the people’).

This is what we also term as eternal life.

That the reward is so great and entirely ‘unmerited’ from our end makes us consider everything else as utter rubbish (one day with God is better than…).

That does not mean that we do not think that this life is important because it is how we live this life that we get to the next.

This eternal life starts here. There is saying, the ‘path to hell is already hell’. A person who commits sins and atrocities, what peace does this person really have really? In contrast to a priest who contracts leprosy caring for lepers, doing so for God = saint. And a family man fulfilling all his obligations to God, family, state, etc.

 

[Kaninchen]

My thinking, after reading many of your posts, is that your understanding of Christianity/Catholicism is slightly mistaken.

Oh, I’m quite aware of the ‘stick and carrot’ and ‘ecstatic vision’ nature of the enterprise (I’m half Italian, I’ve seen the art). However, being a spectator of inter-Christian ‘discussion’ for a decade and a half of religious message boards tends to suggest that the ‘burning in Hell’ (‘salvation only comes from believing exactly as we do’) part is what excites participants rather more.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding all these myths detailed above.

When the rubber hits the road, it’s common sense to choose the Catholic Religion.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life with God.

 

[fms]

Oh, I’m quite aware of the ‘stick and carrot’ and ‘ecstatic vision’ nature of the enterprise (I’m half Italian, I’ve seen the art). However, being a spectator of inter-Christian ‘discussion’ for a decade and a half of religious message boards tends to suggest that the ‘burning in Hell’ (‘salvation only comes from believing exactly as we do’) part is what excites participants rather more.

I truly wish you were right regarding the invention of a sickness/illness…If you were, then us the descendants of Adam would still be in Gan Eden or at least be given our own chance to take and eat the forbidden fruit or not…

PS I think you know these Christians and I suspect you rather enjoy pushing their buttons…

 

[abucs]

Interesting links on past Templeton Prize winners for the reconciliation of Religion and Science.

Specifically on consciousness, physical reality and non-locality.

templetonprize.org/downloads.html