Water into wine: natural or supernatural?

[Pogo]

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.

How philosophical of you.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

like this @WonderingWorrier with his word games and not focusing on the topic of this thread.

I was focusing on the topic. How the water is as wine.

There seems to be purpose in the nonsense. There is a truth in the foolishness.

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe". Corinthians


A truth but some can't hear the words spoken. The speech of the gates.


"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Proverbs.

"Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate". Proverbs


The Bible contains a language of twelve gates/positions. Like I showed you earlier how Wine is of an Easterly gate according to the kingdom description. Being Ephraims connection to wine and the east gate of Joseph (I also showed the sheep connection to this gate).


That is not a coincidence as I could also show how Oil is of a Westerly gate:

"At the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali". Ezekiel.

"And of Asher he said, Let Asher be blessed with children; let him be acceptable to his brethren, and let him dip his foot in oil".



And I could also show how Corn is of a Northly gate:

And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi. Ezekiel

Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle; Numbers

For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Corinthians.


It seems people cant hear the words Corn, Oil, and Wine:

And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. Hosea.

As they are words of the kingdom North, West, and East.

North - West - East
Corn - Oilive - Grape
Bread - Oil - Wine
Cattle - Goats - Sheep


That is why the Bible says the cattle are in the corn, and the wine is in the presence of the lamb.


I can also show the Oil is in the presence of the Goat:


That is why the Bible says the Goats are in the Wilderness, and the Wilderness is where the Oil tree is planted.

"And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness". Leviticus.

"I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the ****tah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together". Isaiah



So there are the goats and oil of the wilderness, just as there is the wine and sheep of the mountain.


Look at this attempt at a visual explanation of what is being said:

North - West - East
Corn - Olive - Grape
Bread - Oil - Wine
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Desert - Wilderness - Mountain.

It is difficult to try to explain unheard words.
Each word is of a specific gate, and other words from the same gate are woven together into sentences.

 

[John D. Brey]

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.

The point I'm making is that one of the commonly accepted interpretations of the fact that entangled pairs appear to transgress the limitations of the speed of light (since a change to one of the pairs affects the other instantaneously even if light years away) is that there's not really a distance between the two, such that the instantaneous link between the entangled pairs keys us into an aspect (so to say) of or our reality that metaphysical naturalists, that is carnal minds, find impossible to swallow.

This truism is being used to point out that the world of our experience isn't the real world. As Karl Popper states it, there's another world, far different than ours, lurking behind our world, such that what the great scientists do is uncover aspects (so to say) of that deeper reality that can be gleaned from deconstructing the illusion foisted on us by our empirical observations.

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.​

In this light, I'm pointing out that Jesus operated to some degree, and for some reason, outside the limitations of our empirical understanding of the world, but not outside the reality that's hidden by the bells and whistles of a profane world that are like a dog whistle for the fearful and unbelieving to cling to their aboriginal hopes, desires, and dreams, of carnal pleasure, and temporal happiness.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. . . And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.​

​

Revelation 21:8; 1 Corinthians 6:11.​

​

I gave up the life of the conventional world, recognizing it to be no life, but a parody on life, which its superfluities simply keep us from comprehending.​

​

Tolstoy.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

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.

Have you read them as an aid to evaluating their uselessness? Or does your belief that they're useless possess some kind of quantum means to entangle them in your evaluation therein rendering them useless? . . . Are you able to turn valuable philosophical thought into useless whining in a manner similar to Jesus turning water into a lot of whining about how useless and unnecessary it is to read the Gospels?



John

 

[Yerda]

The point I'm making is that one of the commonly accepted interpretations of the fact that entangled pairs appear to transgress the limitations of the speed of light (since a change to one of the pairs affects the other instantaneously even if light years away) is that there's not really a distance between the two, such that the instantaneous link between the entangled pairs keys us into an aspect (so to say) of or our reality that metaphysical naturalists, that is carnal minds, find impossible to swallow.

It's really interesting and seems to violate our ideas of locality, which is exciting in itself - even to this carnal-minded naturalist. Just doesn't allow for anything to travel faster than light. No transgressions and no reason to suspect it has anything to do with water becoming wine.

If you believe the story is true, this is fine. But why try to explain it with a weird property of quantum physics rather than the property of being the all-powerful creator of the world?

 

[John D. Brey]

It's really interesting and seems to violate our ideas of locality, which is exciting in itself - even to this carnal-minded naturalist. Just doesn't allow for anything to travel faster than light. No transgressions and no reason to suspect it has anything to do with water becoming wine.

Your second statement seems out of kilter with your first? If you accept the possibility that spacial locality could be illusory, that space and time are, as Einstein said, " . . . modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live," then the speed of light is an illusion related to how we're designed to encounter the world, rather than something that exists even if we're not experiencing it.

As in Berkeley's theory that a chair doesn't exist when no one is looking at it, so too, light traveling through space doesn't occur, or exist, if no sentient entity is measuring it through observation. The concept of light traveling through space is a concept in a mind and not an event that exists without minds.

Naturally that's all a difficult pill to swallow for metaphysical naturalists who believe we evolve and adapt to a real and solid world outside of us rather than believing, as Christian idealists like Kant, Berkeley, and yours truly believe, that space and time are constructs of the mind and not elements of a mindless reality.

What we have meant to say is that all our experience is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things which we experience are not in themselves what we experience them as being, nor their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us, and that if the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, be removed, the whole constitution and all the relations of objects in space and time, nay space and time themselves, would vanish. As appearances, they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What objects may be in themselves, and apart from all this receptivity of our sensibility, remains completely unknown to us. We know nothing but our mode of perceiving them - a mode which is peculiar to us, and not necessarily shared in by every being, though, certainly, by every human being. With this alone have we any concern.​

​

Immanuel Kant.​

If you believe the story is true, this is fine. But why try to explain it with a weird property of quantum physics rather than the property of being the all-powerful creator of the world?

Quantum physics is the most recent example of the poverty of our empirical and logical relationship to reality. I'm not so much trying to use quantum physics to prove that Jesus could walk on water or turn water into wine as I'm pointing out that to even someone as intelligent and savvy as Albert Einstein, quantum physics proves that the world, reality, is far different than what we experience on a daily basis.

Men like Einstein initially considered many of the proposition proven as true by quantum physics to be far more unlikely than a man walking on water, or water being transformed instantaneously into wine. Nonetheless, Einstein and all the opponents of quantum physics were forced to swallow incredibly unlikely truths just as everyone reading this thread will one day see that those who swallow the blood Christ transformed into wine will rule in the kingdom of God forever and ever amen.



John

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Not my mythos, so I'm pretty indifferent to the entire tale. That said, in general terms mythos is best interpreted with a broad and open mind set free from binary "either or" and "this or that" thinking. If you limit yourself to such polarities you will usually miss out on the full depth and breadth of lessons that mythos has to offer. Part of the staying power of mythos is that there are many valid interpretations on it that continue to provide perennial wisdom for living in the present.

I'm trying to figure out what myths have to do with wine-making abilities.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

But this is a “Science and Religion“ forums & threads, so if you are going to compare “natural phenomena” or “natural events”, like in the real world, against the “supernatural phenomena” or “supernatural events”, like those used in scriptures, myths & fairytale, then there will always between those who understand the sciences of nature, and those who believe in miracles of some religious stories.

It would help tremendously to have a knowledgeable anthropologist comment on it, if we are genuinely serious about looking at this from a scientific viewpoint.

That would be especially useful for non-anthropologists like me.

 

[Pogo]

It would help tremendously to have a knowledgeable anthropologist comment on it, if we are genuinely serious about looking at this from a scientific viewpoint.

That would be especially useful for non-anthropologists like me.

Why do we need an anthropologist to tell us that societies generated myths to explain the unknown and provide social cohesiveness?
They would be useful and appreciated in explaining the changes in various cultures, but the basics are known I would think to pretty much everybody.
In general, as human knowledge of ways to understand and control our physical interaction with nature has advanced mythological explanations at the basic physical level have declined and been redefined to mesh with our greater knowledge. Emotional elements have morphed in other ways to maintain the social aspects of ancient mythologies and some have disappeared. Some new ones have also appeared.

That said, I would certainly be interested in an anthropologists take on MAGA and the belief that Trump won in spite of all the evidence and those who hold various mythology to be factual history that we don't yet have the know-how to achieve.

And it would be great to have more voices here as well.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Why do we need an anthropologist to tell us that societies generated myths to explain the unknown and provide social cohesiveness?
They would be useful and appreciated in explaining the changes in various cultures, but the basics are known I would think to pretty much everybody.
In general, as human knowledge of ways to understand and control our physical interaction with nature has advanced mythological explanations at the basic physical level have declined and been redefined to mesh with our greater knowledge. Emotional elements have morphed in other ways to maintain the social aspects of ancient mythologies and some have disappeared. Some new ones have also appeared.

That said, I would certainly be interested in an anthropologists take on MAGA and the belief that Trump won in spite of all the evidence and those who hold various mythology to be factual history that we don't yet have the know-how to achieve.

And it would be great to have more voices here as well.

I'm just saying that it would be useful to me.

It might not be useful to others.

I don't know much about anthropology.

I'm sure that anthropologists would go a little beyond what you said.

At least in my experience.

They make their careers studying this stuff.

And it's complicated if you're just a mathematician.

 

[Pogo]

I'm trying to figure out what myths have to do with wine-making abilities.

As I understand it, there is a legend that centers around a wedding and a guy doing a solid by making sure the booze didn't run out which would have ruined the wedding, anyhow the legend has it that he never had to go to the liquor store. Sort of like Paul Bunyan and his blue ox that could clear land like no-one had ever seen.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

As I understand it, there is a legend that centers around a wedding and a guy doing a solid by making sure the booze didn't run out which would have ruined the wedding, anyhow the legend has it that he never had to go to the liquor store. Sort of like Paul Bunyan and his blue ox that could clear land like no-one had ever seen.

Sure, but what abilities did Paul Bunyan (or the Blue Ox!) not have?

Maybe there's something more to the wedding story?

It's the specific loss of abilities that has me puzzled.

 

[Pogo]

I'm just saying that it would be useful to me.

It might not be useful to others.

I don't know much about anthropology.

I'm sure that anthropologists would go a little beyond what you said.

At least in my experience.

They make their careers studying this stuff.

And it's complicated if you're just a mathematician.

Reminds me of my last math professor who said there are two kinds of knowledge, Revealed knowledge and Rational knowledge. He said, I can show you how to solve a whole bunch of differential equations, or we can learn to solve differential equations.
His point was that just having an expert tell us what he knew was no where as useful as us working out the logic for ourselves.
You sell yourself short waiting for revealed knowledge when the real understanding comes from working from the knowledge you have to understanding logic that has been revealed. I suspect you will find that if you put some effort into thinking about the logic of it, it will begin to make sense as a logical endeavour rather than a mystery understood only by masters.

 

[Pogo]

I'm just saying that it would be useful to me.

It might not be useful to others.

I don't know much about anthropology.

I'm sure that anthropologists would go a little beyond what you said.

At least in my experience.

They make their careers studying this stuff.

And it's complicated if you're just a mathematician.

Reminds me of my last math professor who said there are two kinds of knowledge, Revealed knowledge and Rational knowledge. He said, I can show you how to solve a whole bunch of differential equations, or we can learn to solve differential equations.
His point was that just having an expert tell us what he knew was no where as useful as us working out the logic for ourselves.
You sell yourself short waiting for revealed knowledge when the real understanding comes from working from the knowledge you have to understanding logic that has been revealed. I suspect you will find that if you put some effort into thinking about the logic of it, it will begin to
make sense as a logical endeavour rather than a mystery understood only by masters.

 

[Pogo]

Sure, but what abilities did Paul Bunyan (or the Blue Ox!) not have?

Maybe there's something more to the wedding story?

It's the specific loss of abilities that has me puzzled.

I'm confused, who lost what abilities? The stories are about super human humans.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Reminds me of my last math professor who said there are two kinds of knowledge, Revealed knowledge and Rational knowledge. He said, I can show you how to solve a whole bunch of differential equations, or we can learn to solve differential equations.
His point was that just having an expert tell us what he knew was no where as useful as us working out the logic for ourselves.
You sell yourself short waiting for revealed knowledge when the real understanding comes from working from the knowledge you have to understanding logic that has been revealed. I suspect you will find that if you put some effort into thinking about the logic of it, it will begin to make sense as a logical endeavour rather than a mystery understood only by masters.

Show this webinar to your math professor, and ask him if he could have come up with it all by himself thru pure logic alone without doing the fieldwork, first.

If he says “yes”, tell him that I want to talk to him, OK?

Conferencia Los violines negros caucanos - XII SIJI​

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I'm confused, who lost what abilities? The stories are about super human humans.

If I recall correctly, the OP postulates a binary dichotomy where one of the options involved certain abilities.

That binary dichotomy seems to be the basis for this entire thread.

 

[Pogo]

Show this webinar to your math professor, and ask him if he could have come up with it all by himself thru pure logic alone without doing the fieldwork, first.

If he says “yes”, tell him that I want to talk to him, OK?

Conferencia Los violines negros caucanos - XII SIJI​

Well if the extent of your knowledge is addition and subtraction, then no, but I don't think you are being honest with yourself assuming that.
The field work is also critical in that is what you use as the base of working out the logic.

If I could understand Spanish we could still have a reasonably intelligent conversation about these violin players and that which the narrator had to say.

But enough for now. My point is requiring expert arbiter as a prerequisite for a discussion is ultimately self-defeating.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Well if the extent of your knowledge is addition and subtraction, then no, but I don't think you are being honest with yourself assuming that.
The field work is also critical in that is what you use as the base of working out the logic.

If I could understand Spanish we could still have a reasonably intelligent conversation about these violin players and that which the narrator had to say.

But enough for now. My point is requiring expert arbiter as a prerequisite for a discussion is ultimately self-defeating.

You’re the first to mention any arbiter.

The audio-generated closed captions can be set to the language of your choice.

 

[Pogo]

Well if the extent of your knowledge is addition and subtraction, then no, but I don't think you are being honest with yourself assuming that.
The field work is also critical in that is what you use as the base of working out the logic.

If I could understand Spanish we could still have a reasonably intelligent conversation about these violin players and that which the narrator had to say.

But enough for now. My point is requiring expert arbiter as a prerequisite for a discussion is ultimately self-defeating.

I am also having fun trying to make sense of the Banach Tarski paradox on my own, not ready to ask questions yet.