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.

 

Does hydrogen turn into people?

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   


Everything is in the mind, and not so very constructed in a physical reality. When you can place your hand on something, and know you're not touching it, it makes you wonder if it's really there. One dream in another dream in another. My point being what if you woke up from this existence tomorrow.


I don't get how you can really believe this ... Does your mom not really exist because you have trouble with the concept of atomic matter?
Physical matter exist's despite you observing it or not. Your mom still exist's even if she were half way across the world. If she called you WITHOUT you thinking about her calling you or WITHOUT you giving any thought about her period, then there was no observation made that would give rise to her being, that alone should give you enough reason to logically conclude that despite your observation or lack thereof, she still exist's as a very real physical construct.If everything is in the mind, then by all respect's, if you fail to think about her, there should be no chance of her calling you without you percieving her existance. Your lack of observing her in your mind would effectivley mean she doesn't exist as a physical construct, if we use your view's. And yet, she does indeed call you without you giving any thought of her existance in your mind. Something just doesn't add up here.




Aside from that, of course the rest is personal belief. Nothing so scientific about it. Most of the reason I believe this philosophy is because of the parallels Hinduism has with modern science. Further than that, the concept is fairly solid (as leaps of faith go). I don't necessarily ascribe to Hinduism as my religion, but the texts are fascinating, and makes sense to me.


What parallels are there? Without having to dump modern knowledge through interpretation onto an ancient culture that was wholly uneducated of modern knowledge ... I agree that the myth's of hinduism are rather interesting, but without imparting modern knowledge through our modern discoveries, there are no real parallels seen in these belief's. Your looking at an ancient view with modern eye's. Step into their shoe's and take another look at what the text's say.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
It's extremely hard for me to understand how anyone could believe in evolution.

Evolution is in everything, in a flower , in us, in the universe, the universe keeps evolving.
The planer made it this way.
Everithing has a blue print.
I belive in god, god is one good engenier, the thing with adam and eve may be fiction but that does not change my concept on god.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Bah ... can't edit last post for some reason. Edit power's should be allowed for the entire length of your membership, not less then a day or so.





Your looking at an ancient view with modern eye's. Step into their shoe's and take another look at what the text's say.


We're gunna play a hypothetical game with this part of my reply. Let's pretend your today's greatest theoretical physicist. You've written volume's of information that's been held with such esteem by your fellow peer's and the scientific discoveries for our time have led to amazing new piece's of technology or new theories etc. etc etc.

Jump forward 50 year's, 3 month's before you know your going to die from cancer. Your giving the option of being cryogenicly frozen. All in hope's that at some future date you'll be reanimated. This facility is top notch. Able to function as a seperate entity from modern society. It's own power generation, advanced computer's, the whole package. All the modern bell's and whistle's.

Time for another magical journey in time. This time we're going to visit the year 3500AD. A terrible war inflicts humanity. This is worse then world war III. Nearly wipe's our kind out to near extinction. Those who survive turn out to be religous zeolot's. top leaders of the time and the most important scientist's all hiding in underground bunker's. Little do they know, your long forgotten cryochamber still exist's, lost in history, along with a library with all your teaching's.

Time for another jump in time in our hypothetical world line. this time, we're 6,000 years in the future from our perspective of time. Our species was able to come out of the war and rise up again rather well. So well in fact that technological advance's were made that seem like magic to us today. Just as a lighter would seem like magic to those 6,000 years in our past. Archeologist's of the future find your library, but unfortunatly your cryochamber was destroyed in a cave in from humanities last great war. They finally decipher your text's, but they do something rather strange with them ... they start interpreting your text's and applying the modern knowledge of their time to those text's. They start seeing parallels with your discoveries saying ... well, if you look at it thise way, you can see how he really meant this or that. Had you survived and were able to see this happening, I'm sure you'd be abit PO'ed at having your amazing knowledge for your time being defiled and rewritten by modern scholar's of the future.


One of the many danger's of imparting modern knowledge on ancient culture's. You make them appear as if they were as modern as us. Yet if you leap back in time, something as simple as a lighter would appear as if it were magic despite all the so called modern knowledge you just gave them through your interpretations of their text's. Just as they were unable to concieve of a piece of technology so simple 6,000 years in our past. We too are unable to concieve of technology that will appear as magic to us 6,000 years in our future. Hopefully by then, those modern scholar's will have learned not to look at ancient text's with modern eye's.


[edit on 7-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I posted the parallels earlier in this thread when I spoke of Manu's Dharmashastra. What I'm going to do is let you read these texts that I mentioned, in context, and tell me what you think. www.sacred-texts.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I've read them before. What I'd like you to do is read my post prior to your's one more time, or please read it now if you haven't already. I'd like to see what you have to say about that hypothetical situation.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I read your post, but I think you're missing my point. Some parallels are so accurate that there is little else they can be related to. In this case, dealing with the creation of the universe. If I take a step into their shoes, what could possibly be meant by
[ex19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.

20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess. This is a very accurate description of our own understanding of atomic structure and elemental properties.

I'd get into the relationship betwen other Hindu concepts and modern string theory, but I'm late for work.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I'm not missing your point at all. In fact, your just refusing to believe that ancient culture's did not have modern knowledge.


You've appearently missed the point of my hypothetical situation. Scholar's in our future could find parallels with our own theories through interpretation's if they looked hard enough to find them, but our theories don't say what the theories of the future say. We don't possess that future modern knowledge, just as those in ancient time's DID NOT possess the modern knowledge of today. Else, we today would be thousand's of more years advanced then we currently are.


You need to stop looking at ancient text's with modern eye's. I know it's hard as you weren't part of the culture's back in those time period's and the only experience you have is in today's modern world.


www.fordham.edu...
Link from a .edu ... a few minor difference's in this translation.

hinduism.about.com...
Some info on the text and where it come's from.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
So, lets look at the text word for word

Because those six (kinds of) minute particles, which form the (creator's) frame, enter (a-sri) these (creatures), therefore the wise call his frame sarira, (the body.)


Okay, this looks harmless enough on it's own. There could be any number of explainations for what these six minute particles are and how they form a creator. (keeping in mind that six minute particles could only produce a very small creator) I find it interesting that they just happened upon the same information that we now know to be true.


But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.


The concept of the world being made of minute particles is nothing new. These ideas are pretty old even in western culture. Again, how is it possible that their minute particles, which create the world, have the same properties as our minute particles that create the world.


Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
When talking about minute particles that hold qualities similar to the preceeding qualities in sequence, and the structure of these minute particles, and the way in which these particles are the basic structure of the world.

I'm not saying that they had all of our most advanced technologies (I think they had some good stuff, but that can't be proven) but I am saying that their basic understanding of atomic structure had to be more than a lucky guess.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Your still looking at the text with your modern eyes and knowledge. Step back from that and take another look. Obviously this is going to be a nearly impossible task for you as you've repeatedly shown.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Okay, Then I challenge you to do the same, without stretching the concept from the original context, to mean something other than what I described.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I can't necessarily do that. I never lived in that time period, nor do I know a whole lot about what the religous teaching's meant to those back then. Any view you or I hold in regard's to the text are still going to be biased based upon our modern knowledge. We tend to see these so called parallels only due to our own recent discoveries. What about the interpretation's from the 1800's, if there were any? I'm sure they would have seen parallels based upon their discoveries at that time as well. Just as scholar's 6,000 years from now may see parallels with what they see in out text's of today based upon their discoveries for that time period. People see parallels with the description of babylon in the bible and new york of today, but the babylon of yesterday in the bible is perfectly described as the babylon of yesterday. You can find parallels in almost any text if you interpret them certain way's based upon your current knowledge. You can't justify however giving modern knowledge to ancient culture's who just simply did not have that knowledge. We came to discover string theory through a succesion of differing theories and discoveries, we didn't just come to a realization one day and decided to write it down because we thought it sounded cool. There are no parallels of discoveries and theories in comparison to ancient culture's of this same magnitude. You can't exercise logic and give someone knowledge they didn't have. Your doing nothing more then mocking thiery belief's and saying to them, no you guy's REALLY meant it this way. That's just abit rude.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Let me ask you. What iff we sealed a science book in a big ziplock bag so it could survive 6000 years. Then we blew the crap out of ourselves so that none but a few survived. In 6000 years, when that textbook was unearthed, would your predecessor make the same arguement? Would he be correct? All I ask is that you admit the possability, not that you personally believe it, but that it could have happened.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Let me ask you. What iff we sealed a science book in a big ziplock bag so it could survive 6000 years. Then we blew the crap out of ourselves so that none but a few survived. In 6000 years, when that textbook was unearthed, would your predecessor make the same arguement? Would he be correct? All I ask is that you admit the possability, not that you personally believe it, but that it could have happened.


Thing is, the laws of manu isn't an advanced theoretical physics text book. I don't see how you can draw parallels from the given text with advanced theoretical physics and not have your interpretations be biased by modern knowledge. If the laws of manu were indeed an advanced theoretical physics text book, and written as such, we wouldn't be having this discussion over the improper way to interpret a given text and it's meaning's.



Structure & Content
The first chapter deals with the creation of the world by the deities, the divine origin of the book itself, and the objective of studying it. Chapters two to six recounts the proper conduct of the members of the upper castes, their initiation into the Brahmin religion by sacred thread or sin-removing ceremony, the period of disciplined studentship devoted to the study of the Vedas under a Brahmin teacher, the chief duties of the householder - choice of a wife, marriage, protection of the sacred hearth-fire, hospitality, sacrifices to the gods, feasts to his departed relatives, along with the numerous restrictions — and finally, the duties of old age. The seventh chapter talks of manifold duties and responsibilities of kings. The eighth chapter deals with the modus operandi in civil and criminal proceedings and of the proper punishments to be meted out to different caste. The ninth and the tenth chapters relate the customs and laws regarding inheritance and property, divorce and the lawful occupations for each caste. Chapter eleven expresses the various kinds of penance for the misdeeds. The final chapter expounds the doctrine of karma, rebirths and salvation



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Thing is, the laws of manu isn't an advanced theoretical physics text book. I don't see how you can draw parallels from the given text with advanced theoretical physics and not have your interpretations be biased by modern knowledge. If the laws of manu were indeed an advanced theoretical physics text book, and written as such, we wouldn't be having this discussion over the improper way to interpret a given text and it's meaning's.

Why would a civilization write an advanced theoretical physics text book in modern day english, in the standard form that we are accustomed to? They wouldn't, they would write it in whichever way works for them. They would write the creation story as they would know it, not how it would read best for us. Who's to say that our textbook would read like a textbook would in 6000 years?

The key things are the terms used.
Minute particles- how should I interpret that?
Minute particles with measureless power- How should that be interpreted?
Each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies- What else could that possibly represent when dealing with minute particles that create the world?

I know, I know, You don't know, and it's impossible for anyone from the present day to interpret them because we have too much knowledge to put ourselves in their simple shoes.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm not saying their not talking about particle's. They most certainly are, but not in the advanced theoretical physic's aspect you interpret it to really mean. Even the ancient greek's started thinking matter was made up of indivisble minute particle's. Despite that, their view's weren't the same exact modern view's we have today with our new discoveries and understanding's of physic's. The people back then weren't entirely stupid and ignorant as most like to believe, but they niether had our advanced concept's, let alone the technology we needed to develope in order to come to these more advanced view's of our universe and life within it. Before all that, if I'm not mistaken, people thought everything was made up of the four or five element's. Earth Air Water Fire (Light). Semi advanced concept in the way they applied it back then, and for them, it was provable to be truth. Now in our modern day, those view's are no longer valid althought they do appear to parallel our modern concept's, they essentially were not viewed in the same light we view advanced theoretical physics of today.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
And I suppose it's a coincidence that their minute particles consist of 6 types of one particle and one type of another, just like ours?

Maybe, but to brush it off as myth is counterproductive to our own concept of science.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
If you follow the text in full, you can clearly see it is nothing more then a creation myth. You can also easily see on line 27

27. But with the minute perishable particles of the five (elements)

Those element's being :

earth
water
fire
air
ether

Our sixth element or minute particle being the atman, or spirit. Of these six element's, all thing's are made. It's no more advanced then anything else thought of durring that time period. Not even close to quantum physic's, let alone string theory. Nor does the creation myth discuss the 6 quark's and it's anti-quark's. Which is where I'm assuming your getting the 6 particles from? But, what about gluon's as well? Where can we interpret gluon's in this text? Or the electron etc etc etc. The atomic theory for that time, while a great accomplishment and step up for our primitive descendant's, there's still nothing modern that can be seen in the ancient text's.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

It's no more advanced then anything else thought of durring that time period. Not even close to quantum physic's, let alone string theory. Nor does the creation myth discuss the 6 quark's and it's anti-quark's. Which is where I'm assuming your getting the 6 particles from? But, what about gluon's as well? Where can we interpret gluon's in this text? Or the electron etc etc etc. The atomic theory for that time, while a great accomplishment and step up for our primitive descendant's, there's still nothing modern that can be seen in the ancient text's.


Well, personally I believe that this info was given to them by a race from another planet. They viewed them as Gods and were taught advanced sciences and spirituality. They had conflicts with another ancient advanced race and were blown up in a nuclear war.

Most of this can't be proven, but whatever. If I only believe in that which can be proven definitively, then what would I hope is proven. It'd be kindof dull



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
So somewhere out in the vast cosmo's there's an alien race teaching primitive people that everything is made up of essentially earth, air, fire, water and in some case's also wood, ether, and spirit? lol

There's one myth, that of the dragon's in ancient chinese mythology. Basicly, long story short, the guy was very succesful, conquered many tribe's and added their emblems to his own. Eventually his emblem became that of a dragon, year's after his death myths were written about him being a dragon and over time mystical attribute's were added to his birth. etc etc etc.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the ancient egyptian pharoahs, upon death recieved the throne of osiris and became king of the dead.

The ancient culture's of yesterday thrived on symbology and myth's and great epics.

If some alien civilization had visited our planet and educated ancient man, we'd be far more advanced then we currently are. Ancient man was no more different then us today. They just lacked all the modern discoveries we've made and technological advance's. We'd also see a more wide spread belief in being's from other worlds, not supernatural god's that exist in some spiritual realm or afterlife. While it could be possible that our planet may have been visited, there's no actual evidence of any visitation. No alien relics, no carvings of advanced spacecraft landing's. Heck, the chance's of another species looking like us is pretty slim. That there is asking for another solar system to have all the same physical properties as our own, including a near exact duplicate of our third planet from the sun that under went nearly the same exact interactions to lead to a species like our's. God never created man in his image. Man created god in his own image.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   


Physical matter exist's despite you observing it or not.

Let me introduce you to my two good imaginary friends, Schrodinger and Heisenberg.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Enkidu]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join