Water into wine: natural or supernatural?

[Kathryn]

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.

I don't think that it's supposed to be science book or a history book (Or rather., collection of books by various authors ranging hundreds and hundreds of years). I think it is supposed to be about morality and religion.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think that it's supposed to be science book or a history book (Or rather., collection of books by various authors ranging hundreds and hundreds of years). I think it is supposed to be about morality and religion.

Which is why believing that water was changed to wine is a reality that we are just to stupid to see is the wrong way to approach the stories and leads to absurd conclusions about the world we live in.

 

[John D. Brey]

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

https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/~maltoni/PHY1222/mermin_moon.pdf

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.

Because we experience our bodies as real space time entities, and because our natural means of perception takes space and time as a given, the truth of the matter shown in the Aspect experiment (there is no actual space between entangled pairs) can't be authenticated according to our carnal, natural, logic, and epistemology.

The fact that we posses a means of thought that transcends the illusion of space and time is the whole point of the Bible. And people like Berkeley and Kant used that part of the mind that transcends the illusion foisted on us by our carnal frame in order to make the philosophical hypotheses that eventually led to the Aspect experiment in the first place. It was Berkeley and Kant, making arguments like those found coming from this source, who led stiff-necked science types to work night and day to disprove Berkeley and Kant's biblical, philosophical, idealism. It didn't happen. What did happen is that in trying to put Berkeley and Kant in the dustbin of intellectual history, they instead brought about the very quantum revolution that proves the veracity of Berkeley, Kant, and the New Testament, beyond anything Berkeley and Kant could have ever imagined or hoped for.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
What is natural, please?

Fermentation is a natural process, where the yeasts turn sugar into alcohol - that's chemical reaction, and it is natural chemical reaction too.

Grape naturally have sugar in its fruit. And yeasts are single-celled fungi that often grown on skins of fruits, like grape.

That's the only way they can make wine back then.

But introducing yeasts to wheat would cause fermentation, chemically turning into beer, and fermentation of honey into mead.

These are natural processes.

Water don't naturally have sugar, nor do yeasts grown in water. So for water to into wine, it would need magic, but you can call it miracle if you want.

Magic or miracle, it defy nature, it is both supernatural and unnatural.


Supernatural only exist in imagination of people...it can be entertaining (eg storytelling), but they are not real.

For people who actually believe in these so-called miracles, in this day and age, where we have understanding of how natural processes work, it is simply ignorant & crazy!

I don't perceive it explains the natural word "Natural" correctly, right?

Regards
_______________

 

[Kathryn]

Which is why believing that water was changed to wine is a reality that we are just to stupid to see is the wrong way to approach the stories and leads to absurd conclusions about the world we live in.

Whatever you say, dear.

 

[Yerda]

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.

I suspect that this is incorrect, but I'm happy to defer to someone who knows more than either of us on this. @Polymath257

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.

I have a lot of time for both Kant and Berkeley but quantum mechanics came from the work of Planck, Einstein etc. The Aspect experiment was the fruit of arguments based on work by John Bell.

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...

It is fun to speculate, but to put any stock in this kind of rationalising would be silly, imo.

 

[Audie]

I don't think that it's supposed to be science book or a history book (Or rather., collection of books by various authors ranging hundreds and hundreds of years). I think it is supposed to be about morality and religion.

When they just make things up,
total falsehood it isn't good for credibility.

Anyway the ethics/morality are far from
consistent or consistently positive.

Plus nothing unique, ite mostly universal
values.

 

[Audie]

I suspect that this is incorrect, but I'm happy to defer to someone who knows more than either of us on this. @Polymath257


I have a lot of time for both Kant and Berkeley but quantum mechanics came from the work of Planck, Einstein etc. The Aspect experiment was the fruit of arguments based on work by John Bell.


It is fun to speculate, but to put any stock in this kind of rationalising would be silly, imo.

Rationalizing is a nice word for making things up

 

[John D. Brey]

IOW you believe in magic and assert its real

I assert that something like turning water instantly to wine is a miracle or magic if we have no idea how its done. Aborigines think an I-phone is miraculous or magical because they don't have any context for how it could be made or how it functions. Similarly, we could be considered intellectual aborigines to far-future persons who have technology as far from the ken of our understanding as ours is to some deep woods aborigine proud of his most advanced weapon system: a wooden spear.


John

 

[gnostic]

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.

Sorry, but that’s not how Quantum Entanglement works.

QE isn’t about transferring wine from another place & from another time, to Jesus’ present at the wedding.

You are just making things up that are unrelated to Entanglement. QE only state that if a particle vibrate or spin certain way, it would cause or have effect that another particle to vibrate or spin that way, regardless of distance.

QE is not about transporting any matter from one location to another. Nor does QE say anything about transforming matter from one kind to another.

Let says (hypothetically), you have carbon atom, as you would know has 6 protons in its nucleus, in one location, and another carbon in another, Entanglement won’t change either composition of carbon atom. Neither one of them would turn into another type of atom, like oxygen that have 8 protons.

And let’s us say that there is atom oxygen in one location and carbon in another. They won’t transport to each other’s locations, like swapping, which is basically what you are claiming.

I did not find anything in QE to what you have been describing or claiming. What you are claiming is totally different to quantum entanglement.

You are making things up.

 

[gnostic]

I assert that something like turning water instantly to wine is a miracle or magic if we have no idea how its done. Aborigines think an I-phone is miraculous or magical because they don't have any context for how it could be made or how it functions. Similarly, we could be considered intellectual aborigines to far-future persons who have technology as far from the ken of our understanding as ours is to some deep woods aborigine proud of his most advanced weapon system: a wooden spear.


John

Aborigines not know what iPhone is, or knowing how the device is made, doesn’t make it magic or miracle.

This is totally different from John 2’s miracle. Whoever wrote this gospel is just inventing a miraculous transformation, when we know that all the civilisations in the early Roman Empire, were pretty much know how wine were made (without the miracles). People of Galilee were ignorant, Brey, even if the gospel author was either stupid or a liar.

 

[gnostic]

paarsurrey said:
What is natural, please?

I don't perceive it explains the natural word "Natural" correctly, right?

Regards
_______________

Do you understand that that plant cells (the part of the cells called chlorophyll) in the leave, would chemically convert water and carbon dioxide into sugar and oxygen, by using the sunlight is the energy required to cause this chain reaction of H2O & CO2?

sugar is the nutrients that plants to live and grow, sugar is their energy source, while the oxygen is byproduct that plants expel.

The whole process of the plants, is called photosynthesis.

Animals, including humans, do the similar things, we eat other organisms as food, our digestive system break down these food into various nutrients that we required, including glucose (sugar), and at the other end, we popped out the waste byproducts, the excrements.

Fungi, like mushrooms and yeasts, are not capable of photosynthesis like plants or green algae.

With the sugar available in the fruit itself, yeasts will take these sugar, and with own enzymes or proteins, chemically covert the sugar into carbon dioxide and alcohol; these alcohols are the byproducts of what happened to the sugar. The alcohol permeated the grape juice, and over a period of time, they become wine.

That is the natural process of what yeasts do to sugar.

 

[John D. Brey]

Sorry, but that’s not how Quantum Entanglement works. . . QE isn’t about transferring wine from another place & from another time, to Jesus’ present at the wedding.

One interpretation of the quantum entanglement problem is that the instantaneous nature of the relationship between entangled pairs (no matter their distance) is based on the fact that in truth there is no actual distance between the entangled pair; that space and time are ways we experience our existence and not actual qualities or elements of reality. That particular interpretation is part and parcel of the philosophical idealism used by Berkeley and Kant to explain that space and time are not real.

Because of who and what he is, Jesus is able to engage the reality Berkeley and Kant hypothesized, and which quantum physics proves. Which is to say that in too many ways to count, quantum physics proves the validity of so many of the so-called miracles found in the Gospels. Jesus was able to walk on water and do many other things that seem impossible because of his unique relationship to aspects of the world that are only now beginning to become better understood through modern science.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Aborigines not know what iPhone is, or knowing how the device is made, doesn’t make it magic or miracle.

This is totally different from John 2’s miracle. Whoever wrote this gospel is just inventing a miraculous transformation, when we know that all the civilisations in the early Roman Empire, were pretty much know how wine were made (without the miracles). People of Galilee were ignorant, Brey, even if the gospel author was either stupid or a liar.

The Gospel writer may have been stupid or a liar. But at least he proof read what he wrote before he hit the post reply button.



John

 

[gnostic]

One interpretation of the quantum entanglement problem is that the instantaneous nature of the relationship between entangled pairs (no matter their distance) is based on the fact that in truth there is no actual distance between the entangled pair; that space and time are ways we experience our existence and not actual qualities or elements of reality. That particular interpretation is part and parcel of the philosophical idealism used by Berkeley and Kant to explain that space and time are not real.

It is not about there being various interpretations of Quantum Entanglement.

There are no bringing wine from another place & time to Jesus, as you have claim. That's not entangled pair in Quantum Physics. Your version has nothing to do with Quantum Physics; your version is simply a very distorted comicbook or fairytale version.

And btw, you keep bringing up Berkeley and Kant, apparently they are your heroes...but if you know me, then you would know that I hate philosophies that are useless.

 

[Pogo]

It is not about there being various interpretations of Quantum Entanglement.

There are no bringing wine from another place & time to Jesus, as you have claim. That's not entangled pair in Quantum Physics. Your version has nothing to do with Quantum Physics; your version is simply a very distorted comicbook or fairytale version.

And btw, you keep bringing up Berkeley and Kant, apparently they are your heroes...but if you know me, then you would know that I hate philosophies that are useless.

Which leads me to the question of what is a useful philosophy?

 

[Pogo]

It is not about there being various interpretations of Quantum Entanglement.

There are no bringing wine from another place & time to Jesus, as you have claim. That's not entangled pair in Quantum Physics. Your version has nothing to do with Quantum Physics; your version is simply a very distorted comicbook or fairytale version.

And btw, you keep bringing up Berkeley and Kant, apparently they are your heroes...but if you know me, then you would know that I hate philosophies that are useless.

Which leads me to the question of what is a useful philosophy?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which leads me to the question of what is a useful philosophy?

Well, since as far as I can tell useful that no objective referent or evidence or even strong rational method, it would seem it is subjective.
And in a sense that there are no useful philsophy, is philosophy.

 

[Audie]

Which leads me to the question of what is a useful philosophy?

One that employs professors.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

One that employs professors.

Historians and anthropologists have made careers out of studying various cultures and religions.

Here’s an anthropologist doing field work for her PhD dissertation.

If you support full employment for professors, you have to support science!

Just look at the enthusiasm that ordinary people have for science!

I don’t really understand why our secular western culture often seems so reluctant to embrace science.

TUNO Patia VIOLINES