It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: chr0naut
And the story it contains is nothing but a compilation of ancient summerians stories among others ...
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo
True enough, but those tricks are consistent enough to quantify them. Spirituality, not so much. Here's a great article I like to post about confirmation biases and your brain lying to you.
Your brain lies to you
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: chr0naut
The original text was the Torah, which was already ancient before Christ and was written in Biblical Hebrew.
and how old is the oldest copy we have?
Torah's were written on high quality treated leather with indelible high chromium ink. It was forbidden to touch the scrolls with your hands so special metal tools were used to read and follow lines of text. In use, master scrolls had an average life of 800 years. So from the time of Moses, to the time of Jesus, there were only four or five master copies required.
The oldest original scrolls we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls which are approximately 2,215 years old.
Impressive, but aren't they "partial copies" and "fragments" (the only complete extant copy is circa 1000) ? Would be interesting to see how it compares to the Vulgate in translation. Afaik the old testament was copied into Latin from Hebrew. Apparently, St. Jerome had specialists in Hebrew to help him with it.
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo
True enough, but those tricks are consistent enough to quantify them. Spirituality, not so much. Here's a great article I like to post about confirmation biases and your brain lying to you.
Your brain lies to you
personally, i'm a fan of the idea that senses generate 3d reality. if nothing is present to sense 3d reality, it doesn't materialize and remains a bunch of potentialities in a super position soup - like crossing over from one zone to another in a video game, causes the gaming unit to generate the content for that zone, which otherwise, just remains as stored codes in memory storage, until called for by a sensing device. natural sensing devices range from antenna on bugs to eyes to appendages on bacteria, etc. it's nearly impossible to render an area of the planet where there are no sensing devices, and to prove the point would be like a live schroedinger's cat experiment. the minute you tried to sense it, you collapse the wave function and 3d reality is generated.
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo
True enough, but those tricks are consistent enough to quantify them. Spirituality, not so much. Here's a great article I like to post about confirmation biases and your brain lying to you.
Your brain lies to you
personally, i'm a fan of the idea that senses generate 3d reality. if nothing is present to sense 3d reality, it doesn't materialize and remains a bunch of potentialities in a super position soup - like crossing over from one zone to another in a video game, causes the gaming unit to generate the content for that zone, which otherwise, just remains as stored codes in memory storage, until called for by a sensing device. natural sensing devices range from antenna on bugs to eyes to appendages on bacteria, etc. it's nearly impossible to render an area of the planet where there are no sensing devices, and to prove the point would be like a live schroedinger's cat experiment. the minute you tried to sense it, you collapse the wave function and 3d reality is generated.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo
True enough, but those tricks are consistent enough to quantify them. Spirituality, not so much. Here's a great article I like to post about confirmation biases and your brain lying to you.
Your brain lies to you
personally, i'm a fan of the idea that senses generate 3d reality. if nothing is present to sense 3d reality, it doesn't materialize and remains a bunch of potentialities in a super position soup - like crossing over from one zone to another in a video game, causes the gaming unit to generate the content for that zone, which otherwise, just remains as stored codes in memory storage, until called for by a sensing device. natural sensing devices range from antenna on bugs to eyes to appendages on bacteria, etc. it's nearly impossible to render an area of the planet where there are no sensing devices, and to prove the point would be like a live schroedinger's cat experiment. the minute you tried to sense it, you collapse the wave function and 3d reality is generated.
so if the whole other half of the universe was devoid of life, it simply wouldnt exist?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: chr0naut
Your assumption that this is the case for Tipplers Omega Point is that you are assuming that the 'arrow of time' cannot be overcome.
The crux of the Omega Point argument is that God is atemporal. God can 'reach back' in time and ensure that the conditions necessary for His existence are all in place. He is not stuck at the end of time, or bound by it.
No, THIS god must work under the confines of the universe's physical laws since it was invented within this universe. Therefore if time travel is impossible, then no this god would be unable to do that. YOU are making the assumption that time travel is possible. I am just using Occam's Razor and saying that since we can't prove that it exists, then it doesn't.
Time in Physics is a tangible. It can be ascribed a value and manipulated (one second is equivalent to a distance of 299,792,458 meters in Special Relativity).
This means that no new universe is created at the Omega Point, instead, this universe has being/is been created.
But I was really only saying that there is sane math for proving the existence of God.
Well, you showed that a god could be created, not that the universe had a creator.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut
I'm sure I can find a few that would think that time travel isn't possible. We certainly haven't invented anything that can travel through time. We could potentially speed UP time (by traveling increasingly closer to the speed of light), but as far as traveling BACK in time, all real scientists believe that you can only go as far as when the time machine was first invented. This would be useless for a god existing at the point of the Big Crunch. It wouldn't ever be able to travel back in time to invent the universe like you claimed.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo
Well the article was written in 2009, but it's not like there has been a radical paradigm shift in how we think our brain stores information in the meantime.
As far as I go, if it can't be quantified, then it isn't worth worrying about until it can be. If you want to believe these things, fine, but I don't feel like they describe things well enough. Descriptions have to be exact and spirituality invites too much vagueness.
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views
Travelling into the past is “difficult,” Stuart admits, and there is one, crucial, limitation - you cannot travel back beyond the point when the first time machine is invented.
“In fact, the inventor of the first time machine will find it impossible to use,” says Stuart, “Lots of people will think, “Oh, I’ll go back and meet the inventor!’ So he’ll probably spend most of his time shaking their hands.”
Travel far enough, and you could return thousands of years into the future. Travelling backwards, though, is much, much harder - but still, Stuart, says “possible”.
Stuart notes that we have, as yet, never seen a time-traveller - which argues that limitless travel through time is not possible.
Stuart’s method of travelling through time for a surprise Christmas gift is not easy, though - it requires travel to another star, a spacecraft that can travel at near light speed, and a gigantic amount of energy.
“What you would do is create a wormhole - you can use them to go backwards,” says Stuart. “What you would need is something really heavy - which bends space - or a huge amount of energy, to create a wormhole. There’s a rule in physics that you can borrow a huge amount of energy - as long as you pay it back quickly - it’s called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.”
“You see it in particles in the Large Hadron Collider which pop in and out of existence. If you can somehow pay off that “debt”, you end up with a permanent wormhole in space - which would take you instantly to, say, another star.”
“To travel “back in time”, you simply have to attach one end of the wormhole to a spaceship, fly around at near the speed of light for a while (so time slows down for the spaceship), then jump through the wormhole.”
If the spaceship flew for five years, only six months would have passed within the wormhole - so if you jump through it to the alien star, then fly back to Earth (on yet another spaceship), you arrive three months before you left.
Because you rely on the wormhole, you can’t go further back than when the machine is invented - hence, perhaps, the reason we have never seen any time travellers. Either that, or the sheer amount of effort involved.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut
Travelling back in time IS possible, argues new science book
Stuart’s method of travelling through time for a surprise Christmas gift is not easy, though - it requires travel to another star, a spacecraft that can travel at near light speed, and a gigantic amount of energy.
“What you would do is create a wormhole - you can use them to go backwards,” says Stuart. “What you would need is something really heavy - which bends space - or a huge amount of energy, to create a wormhole. There’s a rule in physics that you can borrow a huge amount of energy - as long as you pay it back quickly - it’s called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.”
“You see it in particles in the Large Hadron Collider which pop in and out of existence. If you can somehow pay off that “debt”, you end up with a permanent wormhole in space - which would take you instantly to, say, another star.”
“To travel “back in time”, you simply have to attach one end of the wormhole to a spaceship, fly around at near the speed of light for a while (so time slows down for the spaceship), then jump through the wormhole.”
If the spaceship flew for five years, only six months would have passed within the wormhole - so if you jump through it to the alien star, then fly back to Earth (on yet another spaceship), you arrive three months before you left.
Because you rely on the wormhole, you can’t go further back than when the machine is invented - hence, perhaps, the reason we have never seen any time travellers. Either that, or the sheer amount of effort involved.
Further reading (just about time travel in general; just did some research and thought I'd share)
Time Travel: Theories, Paradoxes & Possibilities
The Physics of Time Travel
originally posted by: Develo
You don't get it, I'm not talking about your article. I'm talking about the interest of science into the mystical and spiritual science.howstuffworks.com...
In short: it can be quantified, and it is.
Others are more concerned with the implications of the study. If religion is just an activation of certain parts of the brain, does that mean God or any higher power is just in our heads?
Confirmation bias doesn't apply in this case and I already explained why.
I understand you refuse to interest yourself in these topics because of your stance, but many scientists are not so afraid to think outside of the box and to put their preconceptions on the examination table.