Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[twinc]

My favourite part of all this is that it cannot be turned into “good” wine.

Maybe bad wine, but definately not good wine! :tsktsk:

…gonna join you…

what about instantly and the missing grapes etc - twinc

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well the proper answer to the music question is not an obvious spade or…one is more likely

the answer is that the music written to date is just another form of language or experience communicated in sound…so IOW the number idea is a itemized survival deal and the arrangement of notes for song is an inspired expression no different then uGa ugA rest uga
years ago when hungry for whatever…

BTW dudes this is a public forum suggesting that one effort in post refuse’s to take responcibility for another is leading and indicitive of known insulting bully tatics…idea’s of spades included…hey I just follow the lead. and BTW could not and did not care and couldn’t care less about the concept deal…I just don’t like bullys…never have …never will it …erks me some of these threads demonstrate sheer bully nonsense.
.

 

[benedictus2]

Drat! Another 75 cent royalty payment lost.

I’ve never heard of the GBV Theorem, so googled it and found what appear to be several references to different things entirely. Can you be more specific, and explain what it says? If it is strictly mathematical I’ll make no sense of it, since my theoretical math skills suck, so I’ll need a verbal abstract at least.

Thank you.

This weekend another loyal fan sent me a reference to an excellent article in American Scientist (May-June 2011) which discusses the confabulation of physics and math, by a well read and published Princeton prof, Tony Rothman. You might find it engaging. I found it easily on the Am.Sci website, but if you cannot and want to read it, I’ll locate the URL.

GBV - Guth, Borde and Vilenkin. They concluded that the physical world - matter and energy are finite.

 

[greylorn]

GBV - Guth, Borde and Vilenkin. They concluded that the physical world - matter and energy are finite.

Well there, good for them. I guess since they said so and I probably cannot pronounce their names properly, it must be true. And this means what, exactly?

 

[ManOnFire]

Reply to Post 17-251

You misunderstood me. I would not believe in one supernatural event, period. My position on miracles is quite simple:

• The existence of anything whatsoever is a Miracle. Given that Miracle, the events commonly regarded by us ignorant humans as “miracles” all have explanations, and therefore are not true miracles.
• One Miracle is insufficient. At least two are required.
• Although these Miracles cannot be explained (which is what defines them as Miracles), they are perfectly natural.

Does this clarify my statement for you? Incidentally, I am not a deist. Those who understand my entire concept-set refer to it as theistic when they are being nice. I regard the notion that anything whatsoever could have come from genuine nothingness as absurd.

Summarizing this subsection of my ideas— We live in a cause-effect universe, with the sole exception of the initial Miracles, which have no cause and are not effects. I also regard disembodied “minds” as the essential causes of some effects.

You can’t know for sure that your statement in red is true. You assume it is.

The fact that the universe exists means there had to be at least one supernatural event if there was no creator: the illogical unscientific supernatural “natural” evolution from absolute nothing into the very first something. The big bangers would call it infinite gravity. What makes you believe that the initial Miracle(s) have no cause? Or no effects? And what’s with disemodied minds: it makes sense once people have already lived but it does not make sense before human life existed. Please explain.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You can’t know for sure that your statement in red is true. You assume it is.

**The fact that the universe exists means there had to be at least one supernatural event **if there was no creator: the illogical unscientific supernatural “natural” evolution from absolute nothing into the very first something. The big bangers would call it infinite gravity. What makes you believe that the initial Miracle(s) have no cause? Or no effects? And what’s with disemodied minds: it makes sense once people have already lived but it does not make sense before human life existed. Please explain.

Calling you out.

The universe existing does not require a supernatural event.

It requires faith that it does.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Calling you out.

The universe existing does not require a supernatural event.

It requires faith that it does.

An evolving universe that is essentially a sum total of its potential parts does require a supernatural cause.

 

[greylorn]

You can’t know for sure that your statement in red is true. You assume it is.

The fact that the universe exists means there had to be at least one supernatural event if there was no creator: the illogical unscientific supernatural “natural” evolution from absolute nothing into the very first something. The big bangers would call it infinite gravity. What makes you believe that the initial Miracle(s) have no cause? Or no effects? And what’s with disemodied minds: it makes sense once people have already lived but it does not make sense before human life existed. Please explain.

Extend your attention span past the usual 5 seconds, please.

If I can’t know that a statement of mine is true, you cannot know, or assume that it is not true. Either way, you can only relate to my statement by way of opinion, which like all human opinions, has a relationship to sphincters, and are derived from dogma rather than serious information. I derived my statement from evidence and logical considerations (which I did not reproduce here— I’ve tried, in ancient threads). You cannot reinvent the logic which I used to derive that statement.

After your opening arrogant complaint (and BTW, arrogance is okay with me) the rest of your comments/questions are excellent.

The easiest question you ask is this: “*What makes you believe that the initial Miracle(s) have no cause? Or no effects? *”

In 1986 Hollywood produced an entertaining movie titled, “Miracles.” It was about a couple of ordinary people, ex-husband and wife, being reunited by an unlikely sequence of highly improbable events. However improbable, each event had a cause. Therefore none were miracles.

An honest mathematician might estimate the extreme improbability that all these accidental events could occur with the precise timing necessary to further the movie plot and rightfully conclude that their net improbability is even less than that for the random evolution of a single small human gene. Nonetheless, improbable events are not miracles, not even the few dozen necessary for the movie plot, because there is an explanation for each of them.

Let us separate true miracles from Zippo lighters used to impress primitive jungle dwellers.

A true miracle (I like the term, Absolute Miracle) is that which has NO EXPLANATION.

For example, in the context of Catholicism, the existence of God is an Absolute Miracle.

In the context of the nonsense that passes for modern cosmology, the existence of a cosmic micro-pea, physical singularity, or “nothing” from which the Big Bang came, is an Absolute Miracle.

Each of the above is an example of a complex Miracle, the existence of that which is passed off as one thing, but which, because of its inherent (and mysterious) complexity, is really a “one thing” which contains all the physics and biochemical structure in the universe.

My mind is too small to grasp the existence of such a complex miracle. To deal with my limitations I’ve constructed a simple, even primitive initial scheme in which two, perhaps three, absolutely primitive things joined to produce, eventually, the phenomena of consciousness and creation.

The last part of your comment, “Or no effects?” is some b.s. that you made up. I did not say that. Very tacky of you to invent words and attribute them to someone else. You must be a Democrat.

I just finished my book, so if you remain curious about disembodied minds (the very best kind) you can read it in a month. Before understanding anything I write about human consciousness, however, you must first come to grips with the core nature of Absolute Miracles. I’m happy to help, unless you put your words under my fingers again.

 

[benedictus2]

Calling you out.

The universe existing does not require a supernatural event.

It requires faith that it does.

Calling YOU out. It requires a much greater faith that it does not.

More than that, it requires an abandonment of reason.

 

[benedictus2]

Well there, good for them. I guess since they said so and I probably cannot pronounce their names properly, it must be true. And this means what, exactly?

Greylorn, this should be elementary for you so I find your response ill-thought to say the least.

You said that energy and mater is eternal. The theorem says they are finite. Something cannot both be finite and eternal.

 

[tonyrey]

Calling YOU out. It requires a much greater faith that it does not.

It requires faith in the magical power of the universe to create itself!

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, this should be elementary for you so I find your response ill-thought to say the least.

You said that energy and mater is eternal. The theorem says they are finite. Something cannot both be finite and eternal.

Nonsense! The theorem simply says that they exist in a finite space. It does not imply that the space in which they exist is finite with respect to time. Nor does it even define time, best as I can tell, which makes it relevant to space, and only space.

Does it even define space? If not, it is absolutely irrelevant in any case.

Either way, so far as my theories are concerned, the only requirement for energy is that it follows the laws of thermodynamics. It cannot be created or destroyed, and will tend to reach the temperature of 0-degrees Kelvin, but will never quite get there.

I don’t care if all the energy in the universe is corked up in a Djinn’s oil lamp, buried beneath the desert sands or in your grandmother’s attic-- so long as the Djinn did not create it from nothing.

 

[benedictus2]

It requires faith in the magical power of the universe to create itself!

And that takes a lot more faith than believing that God created the universe.

That would be like believing that a monkey typed up Hamlet than believing that an unseen Shakespeare did.

Very much Stephen Hawking. As I have said before, how can a mind as brilliant as his come up with something as stupid as that.

The only think I can come up with is the love of God is the beginning of wisdom.

 

[benedictus2]

Nonsense! The theorem simply says that they exist in a finite space. It does not imply that the space in which they exist is finite with respect to time. Nor does it even define time, best as I can tell, which makes it relevant to space, and only space.

Does it even define space? If not, it is absolutely irrelevant in any case.

Either way, so far as my theories are concerned, the only requirement for energy is that it follows the laws of thermodynamics. It cannot be created or destroyed, and will tend to reach the temperature of 0-degrees Kelvin, but will never quite get there.

I don’t care if all the energy in the universe is corked up in a Djinn’s oil lamp, buried beneath the desert sands or in your grandmother’s attic-- so long as the Djinn did not create it from nothing.

Greylorn, time, matter, energy, space - they all began at the Big Bang. At any rate, whether multiverse or universe, energy and matter began in time. Prior to the universe there was no time.

And yes, God created the universe out of Nothing because prior to the time, matter, space, energy, there was nothing.

 

[yppop]

I just finished my book, so if you remain curious about disembodied minds (the very best kind) you can read it in a month. Before understanding anything I write about human consciousness, however, you must first come to grips with the core nature of Absolute Miracles. I’m happy to help, unless you put your words under my fingers again.

GL
Congratulation! I can’t wait to read it. There are a number of propositions in your thesis that I am anxious to see how you deal with in a book that goes into more depth than you do on your web site.

Question: Are you publishing anonymously or will you use your real name. You have been very assiduous about not revealing the title of your published book and the only reason I can ascertain is that you wanted to keep your name secret. Time to let the cat out of the bag??

Yppop

 

[tonyrey]

And that takes a lot more faith than believing that God created the universe.

That would be like believing that a monkey typed up Hamlet than believing that an unseen Shakespeare did.

Very much Stephen Hawking. As I have said before, how can a mind as brilliant as his come up with something as stupid as that.

The only think I can come up with is the love of God is the beginning of wisdom.

The occupational hazard of being a scientist is the temptation to believe science can explain everything - including itself!

 

[ManOnFire]

Extend your attention span past the usual 5 seconds, please.

If I can’t know that a statement of mine is true, you cannot know, or assume that it is not true. Either way, you can only relate to my statement by way of opinion, which like all human opinions, has a relationship to sphincters, and are derived from dogma rather than serious information. I derived my statement from evidence and logical considerations (which I did not reproduce here— I’ve tried, in ancient threads). You cannot reinvent the logic which I used to derive that statement.

After your opening arrogant complaint (and BTW, arrogance is okay with me) the rest of your comments/questions are excellent.

The easiest question you ask is this: “*What makes you believe that the initial Miracle(s) have no cause? Or no effects? *”

In 1986 Hollywood produced an entertaining movie titled, “Miracles.” It was about a couple of ordinary people, ex-husband and wife, being reunited by an unlikely sequence of highly improbable events. However improbable, each event had a cause. Therefore none were miracles.

An honest mathematician might estimate the extreme improbability that all these accidental events could occur with the precise timing necessary to further the movie plot and rightfully conclude that their net improbability is even less than that for the random evolution of a single small human gene. Nonetheless, improbable events are not miracles, not even the few dozen necessary for the movie plot, because there is an explanation for each of them.

Let us separate true miracles from Zippo lighters used to impress primitive jungle dwellers.

A true miracle (I like the term, Absolute Miracle) is that which has NO EXPLANATION.

For example, in the context of Catholicism, the existence of God is an Absolute Miracle.

In the context of the nonsense that passes for modern cosmology, the existence of a cosmic micro-pea, physical singularity, or “nothing” from which the Big Bang came, is an Absolute Miracle.

Each of the above is an example of a complex Miracle, the existence of that which is passed off as one thing, but which, because of its inherent (and mysterious) complexity, is really a “one thing” which contains all the physics and biochemical structure in the universe.

My mind is too small to grasp the existence of such a complex miracle. To deal with my limitations I’ve constructed a simple, even primitive initial scheme in which two, perhaps three, absolutely primitive things joined to produce, eventually, the phenomena of consciousness and creation.

The last part of your comment, “Or no effects?” is some b.s. that you made up. I did not say that. Very tacky of you to invent words and attribute them to someone else. You must be a Democrat.

I just finished my book, so if you remain curious about disembodied minds (the very best kind) you can read it in a month. Before understanding anything I write about human consciousness, however, you must first come to grips with the core nature of Absolute Miracles. I’m happy to help, unless you put your words under my fingers again.

Absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event as a first mover. The belief that the very first something could naturally evolve from absolute nothing is neither logical nor scientifically possible, since nothing else exists. Are you claiming that the formation of the universe is an Absolute Miracle without a God?

 

[benedictus2]

Absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event as a first mover. The belief that the very first something could naturally evolve from absolute nothing is neither logical nor scientifically possible, since nothing else exists. Are you claiming that the formation of the universe is an Absolute Miracle without a God?

That is much too sensible. I wonder if Greylorn can comprehend that. According to him, it seems that God’s existence is a miracle!

 

[ManOnFire]

That is much too sensible. I wonder if Greylorn can comprehend that. According to him, it seems that God’s existence is a miracle!

And this guy is writing a book??? I suppose the book can be a form of entertainment for those who are willing to send their minds on a fun fantasy for a while, so there’s no harm in expanding the mind, but his arguments are intermediate level distractions to true consideration of the cause for the existence of the universe.

I think maybe he’s upset. I think maybe he’s upset that he spent all this time learning and wracking his brain, trying to find the ultimate answer, and that, because he put forth all this extreme effort, he believes he is OWED an answer. If no answer can be found, then he “wasted” his time. Since no one wants to waste their time, they invent less logical answers. That’s the fear. Like the guy who brags about spending $10 for untested pills to cure an ailment, when someone asks if the pills work, “of course” the pills work, otherwise he’d be the fool who wasted $10 on untested pills that don’t work. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it, despite it’s lack of logic and science.

Earlier in the thread, he criticizes the “blind faithful” for being ignorant. The funny part is that after the most pedigreed education is used for doubting and discerning, they still can’t reconcile the existence of a universe without a supernatural event to create it. The existence of a Creator is still the only logical possibility. The difference is that the blind faithful don’t believe they are “owed” a different answer since they didn’t “waste” as much of their time. Cosmologists must feel cheated. Sorry, but you are not owed an answer just because you believe you are too high and mighty to have possibly wasted your time. Time to change your false expectations. There are lots of other mysteries we could be spending our time solving. He who humbles himself is exalted and he who exalts himself is humbled.

 

[greylorn]

Absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event as a first mover. The belief that the very first something could naturally evolve from absolute nothing is neither logical nor scientifically possible, since nothing else exists. Are you claiming that the formation of the universe is an Absolute Miracle without a God?

Don’t be absurd.

You need to learn to comprehend what you read instead of filtering incoming thoughts with the doctrinal sieve you seem to have by way of mind.

You’ve obviously failed to understand a word that I wrote.