Scholem's "Primal Flaw."

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem with that is that it (the Torah text) was delivered to Moses as a cipher-text. Which means ...

<ignore-list>

<yawn>

( not worth the bandwidth )​

</yawn>​

</ignore-list>

 

[John D. Brey]

No it doesn't. It begins with an hypothesis not myths and parable.

. . . Right. And Sir Karl Popper said the first scientific hypotheses came from myth. For instance, the ancients worshiped the sun as god such that the centrality of the sun, heliocentrism, was already a part of myth.

Copernicus leaned on the ancient worship of the sun as one impetus for his examination of the centrality of that divine, life-giving, body.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

<ignore-list>

<yawn>

( not worth the bandwidth )​

</yawn>​

</ignore-list>

John

 

[John D. Brey]

This is a gross missunderstanding and over-application of quantum entenglement.

. . . I'll let you argue that with John Wheeler:

How does quantum mechanics today differ from what Bishop George Berkeley told us two centuries ago, "Esse est percipi", to be is to be perceived.

John Wheeler.​

John

 

[exchemist]

. . . As Karl Popper implied, myth is pre-authenticated science. Modern science began, begins, by testing mythological predicates.

For instance, Popper, John Wheeler, and even more-so Eddington, concede that quantum physics is part-wise a result of logicians, philosophers, and scientists, all trying to refute, or authenticate, Bishop Berkeley's claim that when it ain't being viewed, a chair, simply ain't there. . . The claim seemed utterly preposterous in Berkeley's day. And yet he backed his myth up with the Bible, logic, and philosophy.

Today we know that Berkeley's myth was correct. Today it's plain science.

What I'm doing is a reverse of what Berkeley did. I'm using modern science to correct the Masoretic interpretation of the holy Hebrew script and scripture. I can show, using science, that ha-adam (regardless of whether he's pure myth, or a literal person) had a female body.

That's earth-shattering if true since it portends the approaching end of the civilization, Western, based on a severe crack in the original interpretation of the Torah.



John

This about quantum theory is not correct. It does not say that when something is not viewed it is not there. It says that the properties of a QM entity only become determined when it interacts with something. That's not the same at all.

Your last sentence seems - how shall I put this - an eccentric conclusion to draw.

 

[exchemist]

. . . I'll let you argue that with John Wheeler:

How does quantum mechanics today differ from what Bishop George Berkeley told us two centuries ago, "Esse est percipi", to be is to be perceived.

John Wheeler.​

John

See post 25. It's quite different.

 

[John D. Brey]

But a large and central part of the traditional Jewish interpretation of the text is the allowance of multiple interpretations...

. . . One would think then that traditional Judaism would have a more open mind to the multiple interpretations found throughout the Zohar or even the New Testament?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I don't see how this could have any effect unless one's consider those myths to be true.

. . . Every word I write is based on knowledge that they are true.



John

 

[epronovost]

. . . Right. And Sir Karl Popper said the first scientific hypotheses came from myth.

No, he said the first hypotheses on the nature of reality were transmitted through myths and allegory. An explanation, isn't by default scientific in nature. Myths aren't scientific hypothesis since, according to Dr Popper himself, they aren't investigative inquiries neither are they falsifiable.

For instance, the ancients worshiped the sun as god such that the centrality of the sun, heliocentrism, was already a part of myth.

You are equivocating terms here. Thee centrality of sun worship or of the sun in mythology doesn't equate or even relate to the alledge positin of the sun. A good example would be Eyptian mythology that has strong accent of sun worship and the sun is central to their belief yet it doesn't occupy a central position in their traditionnal astronomical models which is what Copernicus developped.

 

[epronovost]

. . . Every word I write is based on knowledge that they are true.



John

You have failed to demonstrate it so far. You make a lot of claims, but offer precious little evidence and reasonning to support them and when you do, they are rather spurious like your claims about the origins of quantum physics, your understanding of quantum entenglement, your claims abot myth being scientific hypothesis, etc.

 

[John D. Brey]

This about quantum theory is not correct. It does not say that when something is not viewed it is not there. It says that the properties of a QM entity only become determined when it interacts with something. That's not the same at all.

. . . I'll let you argue that with John Wheeler:

What philosophy suggested in times past, the central feature of quantum mechanics tells us today with impressive force: In some strange sense this is a participatory universe

John Wheeler.​

John

 

[exchemist]

. . . I'll let you argue that with John Wheeler:

What philosophy suggested in times past, the central feature of quantum mechanics tells us today with impressive force: In some strange sense this is a participatory universe

John Wheeler.​

John

Wheeler is known for his Strong Anthropic Principle metaphysical view. This is not shared by most scientists today. The notion that a conscious observer affects QM states is not taken seriously by most people now. It is interaction that "collapses the wave function", not observation by a conscious mind.

 

[epronovost]

. . . I'll let you argue that with John Wheeler:

What philosophy suggested in times past, the central feature of quantum mechanics tells us today with impressive force: In some strange sense this is a participatory universe

John Wheeler.​

John

You are actually misquoting him and ignored the context of this explanation. You are also assuming that the Participatory Anthropic Principle has been proven or is even widel accepted in the field. Even then, the PAP is more of explanation on the interelation between consciousness and matter perception than on the profound nature of matter itself. It's simply a more pointed version of the anthropic principle that dictates that the nature of univers cannot be hostile to that which is within it.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, he said the first hypotheses on the nature of reality were transmitted through myths and allegory. An explanation, isn't by default scientific in nature. Myths aren't scientific hypothesis since, according to Dr Popper himself, they aren't investigative inquiries neither are they falsifiable.

. . . Worshiping the sun as god gives the sun the central place in the solar system. If earth is the center of the solar system the mythological worship of the sun as central is falsified.

Popper is clear that science is an evolutionary adaptation of myth. Which is why Jews and Christians are the inventors and fathers of modern science. Ninety-nine percent of Nobel Prizes are won by Jews and Christians.



John

 

[epronovost]

. . . Worshiping the sun as god gives the sun the central place in the solar system. If earth is the center of the solar system the mythological worship of the sun as central is falsified.

That's not what falsification is at all. You are, again, equivocating terms.

Popper is clear that science is an evolutionary adaptation of myth.

You seem to strongly mischaracterise terms and "evolutionary adaptation" is the wrong term to use here. Myths aren't scientific hypothesis or theory.

Which is why Jews and Christians are the inventors and fathers of modern science. Ninety-nine percent of Nobel Prizes are won by Jews and Christians.

No, the very first founders of modern sciences were Greek philosophers and they were not Christians. I would also like to point out that Nobel Prizes aren't the "end all be all" of science. Some sciences also draw their origin from muslim scholar and in fact, the first widely accepted attempt to codified the methodology of scientific inquiries was made by a muslim scholar. No singgle group of human or culture is the father of science.

 

[Harel13]

. . . One would think then that traditional Judaism would have a more open mind to the multiple interpretations found throughout the Zohar or even the New Testament?



John

It does for the Zohar (being a famous Jewish text) but not for the NT. You wouldn't demand that the Christians accept the Quran as "truth", would you? So too I don't see how you can demand that Jews accept the NT.

 

[rational experiences]

. . . The mushroom cloud, or swirl, above your head as you write, is as devastating to rational dialogue as the mushroom cloud over Nagasaki was devastating to dandelions, peacocks, and parakeets.

John

Science was never rational.....which means proportional to the states in which self exists. We already owned our radiation portion as a bio life in an atmospheric loss....gases owning the presence of light burning.

When you in science, male self tried to enlarge that form of self reasoning as living light owner, you eradicated your own living presence.

Today looking back at dinosaurs a long time dead in the atmospheric gas body that evolved because ICE cooled it....that relative human teaching life continuance, newly born human baby life returned in ICE reformation was relative.

Intelligence as an organization today claims it is the CIA as if it supersedes natural conditions.

Dead dinosaur bodies and bones are studied in the natural atmospheric life ICE cooled that we live in....dinosaurs however never lived in modern GENETIC human and animal Nature born in the December ICED returned stable state.

Why it was a teaching of scientific relativity which is a use of correct and rational self advice.

Science owns and expresses a language just for a cult group coercive membership, where humans are told that they are superior to any other human thinker or life just because the group says so.

As an everyday natural and spiritual caring human I find the CULT comments to be as irrational today as they ever were...for every human living today is due to human sex and sperm and an ovary existing...and not for any other storytelling lie.

 

[blü 2]

We know from science, philosophy, theosophy, and history, that that's impossible. Ha-adam had a female body.

How do we know that?

In the genetic history of humans, there was no single "first H sapiens", no single first "H sapiens sapiens"; there were merely generations with genetic variations. "Y-chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve" are concepts, not identified persons placed in time or space. We don't think they existed within thousands of years of each other.

Since Western Civilization is based part-wise on the Masoretic mangling of the Bible, well, Houston, we have a serious problem.

What, specifically, do you identify as the problem? The fact that human females tend on average to be slightly smaller than human males? Tend on average to have lower levels of testosterone? What, exactly?

 

[rational experiences]

As a human biological science became aligned to occult scientific use of lying about DNA conditions.

Why it is the spiritual Healer and natural human who is the correct thinker against self being destroyed as a human and lying.

Bones, which are a living structure as part of the human life body exist in decay for how long in the Earth atmosphere as your bio genetic fake reasoning?


In humid conditions, bones might be broken down in a matter of a decade or so, but in a dry climate, it could take thousands of years! Bones do decay, just at a slower rate than other types of organic material and tissue
https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/skeleton-mystery-dont-bones-decay-decompose.html

Science owns the study of skeletons in biological atmospheric themes also.

A rational bio review of life......I live today because 2 human being adult parents had sex. I was factually as a SELF HISTORY to live and own existence born from sperm and an ovary.

My 2 parents if healthy can live for about 100 years, which is all that we own from small bodied information sperm and an ovary, without being the 2 parents...we inherit them in a future...which might actually cause a falsification of self expression in reality.

100 years of a biological self expression should not rationally for any reason own reasoning about any other form of age......for all bodies that own the age variations exist, are natural and allow your 100 years of age to be supported living.

If you knowingly want by self inferred human being human conscious inferences to own irrational behaviour, which is science......then you form a formula to remove mass that involves by x mass of energy gained and x mass of energy to FIRST force change...then FIRST force change x energy is what destroys us.....for it takes a huge amount of mass of energy to change energy by human want of that change.

 

[John D. Brey]

It does for the Zohar (being a famous Jewish text) but not for the NT. You wouldn't demand that the Christians accept the Quran as "truth", would you? So too I don't see how you can demand that Jews accept the NT.

. . . Most of my orthodox Jewish friends consider the Zohar dangerous. Though I know many of its brilliant insights have been adopted by orthodox causes.

Personally, I consider the Quran to be just as authentically faithful to God as the Torah, Tanakh, or Gospels and Apostolic writings.

There must (imo) be a universal, objective, criteria for truth, that weighs the Quran, Tanakh, and New Testament, against universal criteria not subject to ethnicity publicizing pablum, or clique generated veneration of texts.


John