“OMG! ‘Faith’ and ‘Quantum Physics’ are the SAME thing!” Well Maybe…??

reply to post by tankthinker




Kinda?

More like what will your degree be in?

OT

that would be Political Science

reply to post by tankthinker



Well that's a fine field....


If i were you I'd put all energies there....don't worry bout this heavy stufff, until schools over and life is a bit more settled for you...

Before you know it you'll be 50!

Originally posted by rikk7111
Still here amigos, Just reading all the new post and looking at your links an vids.
I guess I will have my hands full for a few hours...........I'll get back to you fellas later............Cheers.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by rikk7111]

Thanks!!!


Well...here' some more....on FAITH...


Source: www.intercession.addr.com...

Excerpt...Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The creation we see around us was made from something that cannot be seen with the natural eye. If therefore the natural creation has substance, so must the unseen "things" it was created from have substance.

This unseen substance is faith which originated from the heart of God released through the words He spoke in Genesis chapter one.

The Word of God is the "frame" or "container" that shapes the substance of our faith. The word "frame" also means to "fit" something into place, which in our study implicates that the Word causes the substance of our faith (that which we believe for) to be shaped and fitted properly.

Due to the fact that faith has substance, it therefore stands to reason that faith can "move" or exert "pressure" on the natural realm in order for the natural to conform to the Word and Will of God.

Jesus taught His disciples "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" (Luke 11:2).

Jesus was saying that it is necessary for us to believe God for the manifestation of His Kingdom and Will on earth as it is in heaven.

Faith is the substance that will move that which is not in line with the Kingdom out of the way and manifest God's will.

Faith will manifest the substance and blessing of Heaven in the earth."

= = = = = =




[edit on 4-12-2008 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by nj2day
Any particular areas you are focusing on?

Access to health information -- particularly if you're chronically ill or suddenly disabled. I'm mathematically modeling information flow.

I eventually hope to get a PhD in Public History, which probably seems like a rather mundane field compared to what you're doing...

I think it's cool, actually. I don't know that much about public history... I read occasionally, but not with any real insight.

can you offer any insight as to how its possible to mathematically calculate forces (such as Gravity) across dimensional barriers? It has always befuddled me to figure out exactly how the rules of mathematics would cross these theoretical thresholds...

There's a good reason it confuses you -- mathematicians set up imaginary constructs of space and time (such as the Hilbert spaces.) In this kind of world building you have to set up all sorts of rules, such as "is the universe in motion or not". It appears that they use tensor multiscalar analysis on this kind of universe.

Here's a paper about some theoretical investigations of this kind of thing:
arxiv.org...

Apparently they usually only work these things with 2 dimensional manifolds because the math is simpler, but this one is using Einsteinian space, as you can read for yourself.

Anyway, this may not be the one you're looking for, but it will give you an idea of what to do when considering these problems and the parameters (since it's a dynamic space) and complexity of the algorithms.

Originally posted by Byrd
Access to health information -- particularly if you're chronically ill or suddenly disabled. I'm mathematically modeling information flow.

Nice!

I think it's cool, actually. I don't know that much about public history... I read occasionally, but not with any real insight.

Thats what public history is for its not so much presenting the information, but presenting it in a form so that the general public understands more of the concept of why history happened a certain way.

facts are just facts... but understanding the "why" and "how" is key in understanding what exactly went on... Its not always easy to sum up all this information in a way that everyone would understand... I find myself using metaphors quite often

Here's a paper about some theoretical investigations of this kind of thing:
arxiv.org...

Apparently they usually only work these things with 2 dimensional manifolds because the math is simpler, but this one is using Einsteinian space, as you can read for yourself.

Nice! looks like I have some homework to do I like homework

Anyway, this may not be the one you're looking for, but it will give you an idea of what to do when considering these problems and the parameters (since it's a dynamic space) and complexity of the algorithms.

Thanks for taking the time! Ya dun great! I know from experience how frustrating it can be to try and explain complex concepts to someone who doesn't understand

Returning to yesterday's posts...

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by Byrd

 

Byrd…..thank you….I’ll investigate…..Here’s some for you to review, too….

www.asa3.org...

Good science (reasonably so), bad religion.

The science explanation is fairly well done. It glosses over a lot of details... details which have some minor importance but the discussion can go forward without it. Then he gets off basic quantum mechanics.

...oh dear.

So we end up with statements like:

If, during the Big Bang, some values would only differ by 0.000000000001%, the resulting universe could never yield any biological life. Even conservative mathematical estimations show that the probability for the existence of a life-bearing universe is at least 1:10229.9

...and he knows this... how? Science believes biological life can come in all forms, and even ordinary thinking postulates alternate dimensions where life varies from life here by just a little bit. What's his proof that life couldn't exist if the universe had more or less background radiation? Given that conditions in the universe and here on earth were different when life first started, how does he intend to prove that different conditions are inimical to life?

His citation for that is a religious text. Now, I've prayed about stats tests before, but I didn't cite religious texts when doing stats.

That's a "D" on the biology bits, there.

And he pulls numbers out of his hat when talking about the chances of intelligent life arising. Again, we ask, "and you know this... how?" We should also ask "and what do you mean by 'intelligent'?" The answer may be "modern homo sapiens", meaning that he discounts the idea of any ancestors and cousin humans (like the Neanderthals) being intelligent in any manner.

That's an 'epic fail', in today's parlance.

Theological points:
* he cites Titus as proving that God cannot lie, a statement directly contradicted by Jeremiah 4:10 and 20:7 who says that God deceives him.

* His other arguments take one phrase or sentence out of a chapter and out of context. So we are presumably to believe that in the Book of Isaiah, when God stops in the middle of a vision he's sending to Isaiah about the future of Judah and Jerusalem, prattles on for one sentence about scientists some 2400 years later and then goes back to scolding Judah and Jerusalem?

Really?

Then he does the same sort of psychotic turn and leaves his theme (being written down by Isaiah for a few centuries until he finishes his thought with Timothy?

Really?

That the great divinity (who foresees which of six dozen books will be selected to form the Bible after 100 years of arguments) has a scribe write down Exodus 20:4, 5 to forbid humans from making models of the cosmos?

Now... if this is so, then the Hebrews would have been forbidden to make dolls, sculptures, paintings, drawings, decorated pottery, symbols of their religion and so forth... like this one, found in a dig at a Biblical site:
www.fas.harvard.edu...

and these:
www.fas.harvard.edu...

And many more.

The presence of these objects suggests that there is no restriction by the deity that prevents people from creating images of other things although they are forbidden to create images of God (which means that all those paintings of Jesus really are forbidden by that verse.)

He shows his bias and lack of understanding of context when he comments :

Every man is brutish in [his] knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image [is] falsehood, and [there is] no breath in them. They [are] vanity, [and] the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish" --Jer. 10:14, 15 (KJV).

One could quite provocatively say that the classical image of the universe,
constructed by the "founders" called scientists, breaks down. It seems to be a "work of error."

Actually, the original Hebrew word (tsaraph ) is translated as "metalsmith". You can check this by referencing the Vulgate Bible (it's Latin, but you can work your way through it...) where the verse reads"...stultus factus est omnis homo ab scientia confusus est omnis artifex in sculptili quonia..."

But... can't we change "artisans" to mean "scientists"?

Well, not if we're reading the bible. You see, that particular chapter is talking about how much better the things are that God makes than the things that man makes and a mere 4 sentences before the one that is cited, Jeremiah says "Silver spread into plates is brought from Tharsis, and gold from Ophaz: the work of the artificer, and of the hand of the coppersmith: violet and purple is their clothing: all these things are the work of artificers."

So Jeremiah isn't and couldn't be talking about scientists four sentences later unless he has a sudden bout of psychosis and starts babbling nonsense. Yet the chapter is one cohesive structure and the point being made is not about people making models in a search for knowledge.

Taking verses out of context and stretching them via ambiguity to mean something that's out of joint with the chapter and book where they were found is not good theology. It's like taking 2 sentences out of Moby Dick and using them to prove that whales have the ability to travel at warp factor five.

Returning to finish up some replies....

For OT, about www.khouse.org...

Well, all the "disturbing things that scientists have found" are old news to scientists and aren't really disturbing to scientists. They're fascinating. The article is also giving a really dumbed down version of things. Imagine trying to explain the original Constitutional Convention to a two year old. That's what we're seeing here. The author is taking 50 year old physics and is being shocked by it. The author cites Nahmanides (misspelling the rabbi's name) and claims he talked about multiple dimensions... and doesn't link to what he thinks is supporting proof of this. So if we look up Nahmanides, we find out that he doesn't seem to write about physics or math to any great length though he writes commentaries on the Torah and the Jewish laws: en.wikipedia.org...

Again, we have a "stretch and warp the physics (which is understood only on a very shallow level) to fit (badly) on Biblical verses taken out of context with a reference to a one sentence remark by a rabbit which also may be taken out of context and stretched to fit his remark.

The next one -- www.scribd.com... -- is a tiresome rehash of the other two (as the first commenter notes.) His "heart patients recover better with prayer" is one study... a study that was contradicted by followup studies (where the people didn't know they were being prayed about.)

They're both people who have groped for a reason for them to believe because they feel a spiritual loss without the idea of a deity ruling the universe who will drop everything to listen to their prayers. There's nothing wrong with this until you start trying to bring a deity (who doesn't respond in a consistent manner) into science (which only deals with things that behave in a patterned manner) and use as proof the "psychotic god" who starts dictating books to scribes and then suddenly stops in the middle of ranting about whatever the king was doing at the moment, inserts a sentence about a messiah in the middle of threatening that king, and then goes back to threatening the king.

Frankly, the Apologists of the 1950's and earlier (who didn't have to bring science into all this) do a much better job of defending their deity.

Originally posted by nj2day
Thats what public history is for

its not so much presenting the information, but presenting it in a form so that the general public understands more of the concept of why history happened a certain way.

facts are just facts... but understanding the "why" and "how" is key in understanding what exactly went on... Its not always easy to sum up all this information in a way that everyone would understand... I find myself using metaphors quite often

That sounds fascinating! My understanding of the history of Egypt is getting better but is still not perfect. I have an armchair reader's understanding of Roman history... but when I read good histories I realize how much I'm missing.

Nice thread, OT

I'm just dropping in to say hi though – I'm only on page 4, so I still have a lot of catching up to do

One thing I thought I would mention, though it's probably come up in the past 10 pages, is about gravity. This summer I was in an Intro Physics class taught by a grad student. On day there was a question about gravity, and he got that look grad students get when they're about to say something no one else will follow (which I used to get too when I TA'd in a totally different subject) and started going on about some sort of new particle that they might have found that might be what gravity really is?

Anyway, if it hasn't come up I'll try to look into it.

And PS to tankthinker, who is just appearing in the thread where I stopped: if you haven't stopped by Skyfloating's "How the Law of Attraction Works" thread yet, you would definitely be interested

reply to post by americandingbat


americandingbat,

hey long time no see, I'm on travel, so OT can't contribute much tonight...

Yeah there is so much to read...!

I've been impressed with the content of the responses!

OT

reply to post by Byrd


BYRD,

Thank you for the responses...

I'll get to later...

OT

MYOPIC is not always the wise-est!

reply to post by nj2day


nj2day..

hey man...need some anti-out-of-box tinkin'


got to admit, this is a mind-blowing thought?

= = =

"Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The creation we see around us was made from something that cannot be seen with the natural eye. If therefore the natural creation has substance, so must the unseen "things" it was created from have substance.

so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear


ot limited by technology...again,

more this weekend!

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by OldThinker

 

P.S. Brane is short for "membrane" lol

P.P.S So that I don't seem close minded, there are 1 or 2 apologists that I can listen to, and they make one thing... However they are both Anglican... Their names escape me right now...

One of them currently holds a chair at Oxford....

Tell me more about these membranes...

Also, did you remember those 'english' folks?

OT

Originally posted by OldThinker

"Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Check the sentence structure. Looking at the Greek, it reads something like "the worlds were made by the word of God. Therefore things that we see are not made by other material objects but by the word of God."

You might enjoy this commentary on the chapter by a Biblical scholar:
www.crivoice.org...

Originally posted by Byrd

You might enjoy this commentary on the chapter by a Biblical scholar:
www.crivoice.org...

Yes I do...thank you....especially intrigued by...

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God. This is a statement of more than the original act of creation. The word worlds in Greek is literally "the ages" or the "aeons."

The word prepared is not the normal word for creation, but one meaning to set in order or to put right. The author is declaring that faith is the way of knowing and living that is based on the confident assurance that God is the one who has ordered all of creation and history. He then describes creation and history as what is seen. But that visible world and the visible history of the world all came into being from things that are not visible. The author's point is the very opposite of the currently popular saying, "Seeing is believing." Rather, believing is confident knowing even when you cannot see because, as Hebrews 10:23 put it, "the one who promised is faithful (reliable)."

Wow...didn't realize the 'aeons' and 'the ages' slant...


Many ramifications there.....


To me, if 'history' is included, that would be TIME itself, as well....is sparked by the 'unseen' (substance) 'faith'

We'll keep searching...

Originally posted by americandingbat
...grad student. ...and started going on about some sort of new particle that they might have found that might be what gravity really is?

Anyway, if it hasn't come up I'll try to look into it.

That is something that would help this thread further...please do...

OT (submittin' to gravity! )

reply to post by nj2day



Found some more M Theory stufffffff......as in substance

For Creation Science, M-theory offers tools for modeling phenomenon and dealing with problems in unique ways. For example a very near by brane (d

Nice topic and way more in depth than I expected when clicking on the title.!

Here is what I expected to see...

Religion = Mankinds search for God
Quantom Physics = search for "Higss Boson" particle aka God particle

Large Haldren Collinder = to create/prove the existence of this particle/God

See en.wikipedia.org... for reference

Well I am one that may be old fashion..but...ahh theres that but...God loves it.haaaa. I beleive the Bible which is Gods word..when He says..; In the beginning ..God;...Well thats enough for me because it certaintly was not man..right...it is called the book of life..if you want to know anything at all about life ..IT IS THERE..isnt that awesome..He did it all Jesus on the cross...we needed someone to take our place as we were dead in sin from Adam&Eve...but..ah jesus brought back the relationship that they had lost for us now to have in the Holy Spirit...He said..Thjose that worship me MUST worship me in Spirit and in truth...thats why He left Him for us before going back to the FATHER..To taech us all things,to comfort us..to fill us with Himself in and thru us..because He knew we cannot ..will not make it on our own...flesh is as filthy rags in front of Him..we have to get rid of flesh by dieing daily of the words system and what I want...the more I give to Him the more He comes into me so I can live in His obediences to Him and be rewarded to go to Heaven by simply trusting Him in all things..self must die daily as there is no other way for truth..I cant work my way..worksd dont work..if works worked...when would I be good enough..where would be the line...amen.
Anyways I have seen to many miracles to not have proof of who He is and how faithful He is...you cannot add onto truth...it stands by its self...it doesnt need any help..amen
Thank you for letting me reply. From a fullfilled child of God.
M.Bridge