Yerda
Veteran Member
I was trying to be funny.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Water into wine: natural or supernatural?
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I got it, I got it!
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
You're making an argument that's perfectly sound within the context you're making it. It's similar to aboriginals arguing among themselves about them white fellers claiming the I-phone was made with nothing other than what's found on planet earth.
"Yit Yit. You ever in all your journeys found anything from which that tool could be made"?
"No."
"Case closed. Them white fellers messin wit us."
The point isn't that your logic and knowledge are flawed. They clearly aren't. But just as even someone as brilliant as Albert Einstein would never have believed some of the miracles of quantum physics (since they're impossible in the classical model) so too, you're merely making the assumption that the facts you state ---correctly mind you ----hold true on a scale that simply isn't the case. You're error, like the error of all of us, is assuming, like the aborigines, that our own own knowledge base circumscribes reality to a level that it doesn't. Atoms, and the laws of physics, are constructs that make sense of things as we now have the ability to perceive them. Beyond what we perceive is a multilayered reality we could never imagine.
The picture of science of which I have so far only hinted may be sketched as follows. There is a reality behind the world as it appears to us, possibly a many-layered reality, of which the appearances are the outermost layers. What the great scientist does is boldly to guess, daringly to conjecture, what these inner realities are like. This is akin to myth making.
Popper Selections, p. 122.
John
Pogo
Well-Known Member
And you are making the argument that we don't know everything so anything is possible, it is a bad variation on the argument from ignorance when the possible is a 2000 year old myth from a book that is literally wrong about just about everything in nature. As a moral story it is fine, but as science, not so much.
gnostic
The Lost One
I am not the best person to talk of advanced modern physics, as my university education was limited to the applied sciences in civil engineering & in computer science (although I did learned some basics in electromagnetic fields for network communication, such as lasers being used in fibre optics, and that of radio waves or microwave being used wireless communications like wi-fi, wireless WAN, and satellite communications), neither courses dealt with Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics, modern Physical Cosmology, and many more.
So whatever subjects that weren’t covered in my university education, I had to learn on my own - reading scientific sources, private researches, asking questions - so what I have learned are just some basics - like the general frameworks for each of these different physics fields, so I am not qualified in these fields & I am certainly not an expert in Relativity or Quantum Physics.
Perhaps better persons to address your points in your two posts, like @Polymath257 or @exchemist or @Meow Mix or other people with more knowledge than I have.
But I can tell you a few things, and the first one is that while Relativity and Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory do go beyond the classical physics, YOU REALLY DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY -
“faster-than-light communication”
I think you are confusing what we do CURRENTLY know about Special Relativity (speed of light) and Quantum Physics, with sci-fi & comic book versions of these sciences.
Neither Relativity, nor Quantum Physics, break the law of physics, in any way, both respectively just extended beyond the classical physics to new boundaries.
Second thing I would like to say, all our technology to this very moment, in the present, none of the our communication technology go “faster than light”. It matches, but not go faster than it.
Third, the only things that I know of, that go faster than the speed of light, is very much natural, not anything that can be made by man - I am talking about vacuum of Spacetime itself.
As spacetime is just vacuum, spacetime of the Universe can expand faster than the speed of light.
This neiter help, nor support that Jesus can turn water into wine.
Another thing Is in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) - the Quantum Entanglement.
From I am able to grasp so far about QFT, the most fundamental things in the universe, more fundamental than the quantum particles, lIke quarks, neutrinos, gluons, photons, Higgs boson, etc, is quantum fields. Quantum fields exist everywhere including in the vacuum, and everything are made of quantum fields, including those subatomic particles I have just mentioned.
The point is that Quantum Entanglement (which is based on the 1935 paper - the EPR Paradox, named after Einstein, Boris Podolsky & Nathan Rosen) stated that certain particles can vibrate certain way, say an electron or a quark on one location, other particles on the other side of planet will vibrate at the same time. That would be faster than speed of light. While experiments have verified that Quantum Entanglement is scientifically true, and there have been active researches to use this science in communication that are faster than speed of light, every efforts have failed.
How wine are made, occur on macro and molecular levels, through chemical reactions, and that very much can be tested, experimentally.
Now, while atoms are made of subatomic particles, eg quarks, leptons (electrons), etc, you would be overcomplicating science of winemaking, that it would be impractical.
I am not saying we should ignore Quantum Physics or Relativity. Far from it, because I think they are great advancements to our knowledge about nature and how nature works.
People have known to make wine, as early as the Late Neolithic period (eg Georgia, the earliest evidence about 6000 BCE), and in the last couple of centuries, scientific knowledge have refined the techniques of winemaking and qualities of wine. You don’t need PhD in Quantum Theory to make great wine.
You have heard of saying “You don’t need to reinvent the wheel”. That also apply to winemaking. Winemakers can certainly learn more, but Quantum Theory won’t help. What good winemakers know, is not just about grape types, like soil types, drainage, the climate in that vicinities of the vineyards, and so on.
But like Spacetime, Quantum Entanglement, don’t in any ways validate Jesus’ miracle at Cana.
You keep talking about faster-than-light communication, but none of that support Jesus’ miracle, because they are completely unrelated, so that make your argument & points irrelevant & useless, as even if faster-than-light communication were even possible, that still won’t turn water into wine.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
In experiments like the Aspect experiment, researchers can make a change to a photon that's entangled with another photon and the change they make will occur to the entangled photon instantaneously no matter how far away it is. That's faster-than-light communication since if someone light years away has access to a photon entangled with one on earth, then a change to the photon on earth can be a communicative signal to the person observing the entangled photon on a planet light years away. The scientists on earth can send a communicative signal instantaneously to someone light years away so long as the receiver of the signal has the ability to observe the photon entangled with the one on earth.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
In the same sense you're implying water can't be turned into wine, world class scientists have stated things as absolute fact, that we now know to be false because of our knowledge of quantum physics.
Jesus turned water to wine. It's possible since it's already occurred. We're just not advanced enough yet to know how it was done in a manner that defies logic and our current understanding of physics.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
I don't think anything and everything are possible. I merely believe that just as has been occurring for thousands of years, things believed to be impossible, turn out to be quite possible as knowledge and reality evolve.
The Bible isn't wrong about anything. Various interpretations of the Bible are wrong about almost everything.
John
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Yup and one of those is that turning water into wine actually happened.
Yerda
Veteran Member
QM isn't something I know an awful lot about but I think you might be making a couple of errors here. There is a correlation in the measurements we make on entangled pairs. But neither of us can know the outcomes before we measure and we can't send a message to each other faster than light to each other to say we have made a measurement so no instantaneous signal, I'm afraid.
One of the people on here who know more about QM could probably explain this better. @Polymath257 @exchemist
No, that is wrong. There is no *change*. There is correlation of results. It is impossible, looking at only one side, to see a difference of results, no matter what the other side does. That means that no communication is possible. Instead, when the results of the two sides are brought together, it is found that the results are correlated.
No, it cannot. Both sides get results that look completely random no matter what the other side does. It is only when the results are brought together that the correlation reveals itself.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this. But the physics is clear and well documented (yes, even in Aspect's experiment). Communication faster than light is impossible in quantum mechanics.
I would suggest reading a treatment of the Aspect experiment and what it says in
This isn't a simple read for many people, but it shows what underlies Bell's inequalities and thereby the impact of Aspect's experiment.
The first thing to realize is that the correlation between entangled particles is created when the entanglement is created. That correlation propagates at less than the speed of light. And that means that the results at the two extremes will be correlated as long as the entanglement is preserved.
But, the results of both sides looks *completely* random. Since neither side can predict the state of the next proton, all that either side sees is a random string of spins. If one side does something to its photon, the photon on the other side will give a correlated result. But since *neither* side can force a result, both sides just see random spins.
It is only after the results are collected and compared (at a speed slower than light, mind you), that the correlation becomes clear.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Jesus willed that water be turned to wine as he yielded to his mother's desires. To us it was a miracle, but to the celestial beings at his disposal they used natural processes, so it wasn't a miracle to them!
Natural science was used.
Audie
Veteran Member
" hold true on a scale that isn't the case"
IOW you believe in magic and assert its real
Audie
Veteran Member
It wasn't science or a miracle.
It's a lie.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Because I want to believe the stories in my book that make me feel good.
Audie
Veteran Member
Refined further its just self indulgence
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Like reading Playboy for the articles.
Audie
Veteran Member
I had to look up that cultural reference
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
A change can be made to one of the entangle pairs that will instantaneously affect the other. That's a fact. If one of the entangle pairs is light years away a change to the one will still affect the other instantaneously. That's a fact.
Using the entanglement to communicate faster than light brings up all kinds of other theoretical problems such that those problems must be resolved before it can be shown that faster than light communication can occur. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that either some kind of communication can occur between entangled pairs at faster than light speeds, or else, the concept of space and time is illusory such that there's really no space between the entangled pairs that needs to be traversed.
In irony of biblical proportions, Kant and Berkeley used statements found in the New Testament to imply that space and time are illusory; a matrix of some sort, that we're currently trapped in, but will be freed from in the future. Using these statements from the New Testament, Berkeley and Kant hypothesized the very philosophical and logical arguments that led to quantum physics and the experiments that prove that space is an illusion we're currently trapped inside. When Jesus turned water into wine, he was merely toying with the entanglement between atoms so that, since there's really no space between the water and the wine, Jesus merely had to remove that illusion, for the water to share its natural entanglement with wine thought to exist some other place. Since space and time are an illusion, Jesus used the entanglement between the water with Chateau Lafite Rothschild of a later time in order to surprise and delight his wedding guests.
One thing that has always struck me forcefully about this doctrine of Kant's is that it legitimates important components of a belief which he had held since long before he began to philosophize, namely Christian belief. It is a standard part of the traditional Christian faith that time and space and material objects are local characteristics of this human world of ours, but only of this world: they do not characterize reality as such . . . But what he did, unmistakably (and unremarked on to an extent that has never ceased to astonish me), is produce rational justification for many aspects of the religious beliefs in which he grew up [Christian belief] . . . it is as if he then said to himself: "How can these things be so? What can be the nature of time and space and material objects if they obtain only in the world of human beings? Could it be, given that they characterize only the world of experience and nothing else, that they are characteristics, or preconditions, of experience, and nothing else?" In other words, Kant's philosophy is a fully worked out analysis of what needs to be the case for what he believed already to be true [according to his pre-existing religious upbringing].
Oxford Professor of Philosophy, Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher p. 249, 250.
John
Last edited: