Ferocitus
Deity
And they told the Babylonians that Pluto was not technically a planet, so that's
why it is absent from their cosmology.
The Winds of God
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
why it is absent from their cosmology.
Thanks, but I would prefer that Lohrenswald clarify it, since he knows more than anyone else what the comment was intended to mean.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
So there is not enough scientific evidence to understand the posted material? Waiting for the author to explain is ok. I think it is also ok to use science to figure out what the author was trying to tell us.
Are you Lohrenswald? I'm asking him to clarify his previous post. I have no idea what else you're carrying on about.
Ferocitus
Deity
Thanks for helping out while we wait, but Science and Logic ran shrieking from
the room a long time ago.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Unfortunately it is judgment, and skepticism that chases productive conversation away. Can a single belief system hold a monopoly on science and logic?
Ferocitus
Deity
No evidence was presented therefore it can be dismissed out of hand.
No logic necessary.
There is no need for any "belief system" in logic.
No.
Maybe not a system, but there are assumptions that underlie the path of logic/reason and all the other pathways for making sense of life that are available to us. Choosing one path over another has its opportunity costs.
Ferocitus
Deity
Maybe not a system, but there are assumptions that underlie the path of logic/reason and all the other pathways for making sense of life that are available to us. Choosing one path over another has its opportunity costs.
Logic is just playing with a given set of rules and objects. Life is irrelevant
within that system.
If you now want to extend the universe of discourse to include life, "making
sense", and all that other guff, then then that is another matter completely.
By all means play that game, but first define each and every term in that new
universe.
Following a list of rules for thinking without context or application is just mental masturbation. Many enjoy it. To apply such rules to a conversation, discussion, or other situation demands assumptions and definitions for clarity. In other words, to be useful, the application of logic has to find it's way into the context. The application of of logical reasoning in the context of this thread must find some common ground with the OP.Logic is just playing with a given set of rules and objects. Life is irrelevant
within that system.
If you now want to extend the universe of discourse to include life, "making
sense", and all that other guff, then then that is another matter completely.
By all means play that game, but first define each and every term in that new
universe.
Ferocitus
Deity
Following a list of rules for thinking without context or application is just mental masturbation. Many enjoy it. To apply such rules to a conversation, discussion, or other situation demands assumptions and definitions for clarity. In other words, to be useful, the application of logic has to find it's way into the context. The application of of logical reasoning in the context of this thread must find some common ground with the OP.
No, it's just what logic and maths is. Wanky for some, but as Bertie Russell
said, it has its own severe austere beauty. Not to everyone's taste, of course.
As to that old chestnut, "useful". It's not up to logicians and mathematicians
to necessarily find something useful immediately. G.H. Hardy (a top-knotch
mathematician and the man who brought Ramanujan to Cambridge) believed that
nothing he did would be of any use to engineers or the military. He was only
interested in maths and its techniques as a creative art. Tough luck for him
that 50 years later his work found great application in cryptography and several
other fields.
EDIT: His actual quote was:
No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good
or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world.
Of course, if you want to get a grant or funding you had better find some way of
tying it to the real world. Only arty wankers get grants for truly useless
projects.
Finding techniques and patterns within logical or mathematical systems can also
be immensely "useful" to other professions, e.g. physics, engineering and other
sciences, and they can hasten their progress. The logicians and egg-heads who
work on those problems usually do not have to have any particular science, or
field of endeavour in mind while they work. So, what is useful is not always of
interest to them. Pure research doesn't always "pay off", but it can do so in
unexpected ways and enable enormous leaps in progress. Think of the improvement
of the net, its bandwith and capability over the last 20 years. Shannon and
many others made it possible with their work 50 years ago.
Just for the record, all my work is grounded in "reality" even though the actual
objects I study (infinitely thin wings, "ideal" fluids, arrangements of
impossibly thin ships, etc) are not always buildable. Engineers were put on
this planet so eggheads like me don't cripple their typing fingers with lumps of
metal or rock.
Last edited:
Berzerker
Deity
On the contrary, I am explaining it by normal science. This research says its possible or even likely the asteroids and meteorites come from a handful of parent bodies. The Enuma Elish describes a celestial battle before Heaven and Earth were born. During the battle Marduk and a handful of "winds" tore Tiamat apart sending her remains to a new location.
There's nothing supernatural about it, just a series of collisions gave rise to the Earth and left behind a hammered bracelet around the sun where it happened. The Moon was a witness, the side facing us now was the side facing Tiamat when debris from the collisions slammed into it.
People were living together ~200+kya somewhere in Africa and thats probably why we share the myth of the primordial water world before 'creation'. Scientists are finally figuring that out now too.
Where have I hidden my motive? The OP quotes the Babylonian Epic of Creation, was it not clear they had contact with their gods? As for what I believe, I believe its possible. I dont know how else to explain why so many people from around the world have information about this world and the solar system before life.
See? That was your last contribution... And here you are again repeating your dis-satisfaction with the thread and now you're accusing me of dishonesty and lying because apparently you think I haven't mentioned contact with ETs. Thats what the gods are according to our ancestors, they came from another world. If I was 'hiding' my motive I wouldn't have plastered a Babylonian myth about the gods all over the OP. You're trying to hard.
I believe that was Neil Degrasse Tyson who led the charge to demote Pluto... The Enuma Elish does account for Pluto with some very interesting information. In the myth Anshar corresponds with Saturn and he had 2 offspring, the first was the olden God Anu. Upon Marduk's arrival in the solar system Anshar then sent his emissary Gaga to the other gods to announce Marduk's supremacy etc. Saturn's rings line up with Pluto at its perihelion. Saturn literally points at Pluto when its closer to the sun. There's a couple more mathematical oddities between the two, subtracting Saturn's distance from Pluto's extremes results in a 2:1 ratio and while orbits change over time somewhat, for now they ascend the ecliptic together.
One more thing: astronomers are trying to figure out why the solar system is tilted. The planets dont orbit the sun's equator, they're actually closer to the ecliptic. Something has dragged the planets off the sun's equator.
I'm not sure why, it's a well known meme, it is certainly what was intended:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/checkmate-atheists
The evidence is so overwhelming that if Lohrenswald claims to have meant something else, I would have to assume he is lying or joking, since the probability of that is vastly higher than him actually submitting that comment in this context and not using it as a joke.
Axioms and definitions are the foundation of mathematics and rigorous philosophy. With such a foundation it can go places. Without it, different tools are needed.No, it's just what logic and maths is. Wanky for some, but as Bertie Russell
said, it has its own severe austere beauty. Not to everyone's taste, of course.
As to that old chestnut, "useful". It's not up to logicians and mathematicians
to necessarily find something useful immediately. G.H. Hardy (a top-knotch
mathematician and the man who brought Ramanujan to Cambridge) believed that
nothing he did would be of any use to engineers or the military. He was only
interested in maths and its techniques as a creative art. Tough luck for him
that 50 years later his work found great application in cryptography and several
other fields.
EDIT: His actual quote was:
No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good
or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world.
Of course, if you want to get a grant or funding you had better find some way of
tying it to the real world. Only arty wankers get grants for truly useless
projects.
Finding techniques and patterns within logical or mathematical systems can also
be immensely "useful" to other professions, e.g. physics, engineering and other
sciences, and they can hasten their progress. The logicians and egg-heads who
work on those problems usually do not have to have any particular science, or
field of endeavour in mind while they work. So, what is useful is not always of
interest to them. Pure research doesn't always "pay off", but it can do so in
unexpected ways and enable enormous leaps in progress. Think of the improvement
of the net, its bandwith and capability over the last 20 years. Shannon and
many others made it possible with their work 50 years ago.
Just for the record, all my work is grounded in "reality" even though the actual
objects I study (infinitely thin wings, "ideal" fluids, arrangements of
impossibly thin ships, etc) are not always buildable. Engineers were put on
this planet so eggheads like me don't cripple their typing fingers with lumps of
metal or rock.
The moment you bring Babylonian mysticism into it, you are not using science.
As for this "hammered bracelet" that you claim is out there, I have to wonder why not one of the probes sent out has ever found it. Presumably it's larger than a bracelet wearable by a human, so it's not like it's a small piece of space junk like we have in orbit. It must be fairly sizable, which means someone should have noticed it by now.
It's hilarious how you believe in this bracelet, but not in the Oort Cloud (there's another comet coming from out there and will be passing by soon; unfortunately it's not expected to be visible to the naked eye other than in extremely dark places and to people with exceptionally good vision).
Your version claims that ancient space aliens gave the Babylonians telescopes so they could see Neptune (or at least you've trotted out "Well, how do you know they didn't?").
Where's the proof? Some archaeologist should have run across at least one of these ancient telescopes at some point.
Since gods are made-up inventions of the human imagination, any "contact" the Babylonians had with them would have been in their own minds.
So Neil Degrasse Tyson is somehow the fulfillment of Babylonian prophecy because he stuck his nose in the air over how to classify Kuiper Belt Objects and small planets like Ceres?
The way I heard it is that some of those who supported demoting Pluto claimed that if this wasn't done, they would have to give full planetary status to Ceres, Makemake, Quaoar, Sedna, and a bunch of others, and that would put undue strain on school children having to memorize the planets of the Solar System.
Oh, won't somebody think of the children!
You do realize that not everyone is aware of all internet memes, right? I'd never heard of this one. So that's why I asked LOHRENSWALD to explain his post.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Talking about space aliens is a conflation of current science fiction and ancient facts. Are we trying to rationalize current science fiction, or understand ancient facts?
Where does the Babylonian or any text outside of the Bible claim the text were a revelation from some alien source? Another false lead is trying to rationalize the Bible borrowed from extra biblical sources. Perhaps keeping the two unrelated text separate would help resolve a few issues?
Where does the Babylonian or any text outside of the Bible claim the text were a revelation from some alien source? Another false lead is trying to rationalize the Bible borrowed from extra biblical sources. Perhaps keeping the two unrelated text separate would help resolve a few issues?
Tell this to Berzerker, not me.
Yes, of course. I'm probably unaware of most Internet memes too.
Ferocitus
Deity
No it doesn't! This is just shoe-horning facts known only recently into a tale
of gods and sky pixies. It's like those attempts to make predictions of whackos
like Nostradamus fit more recent events.
Next you'll be telling us that the tablets also explain Mercury's orbit, the
precise number of moons orbiting each planet, and the Oort cloud!
LOL They didn't even have good estimates of the size of the Earth at that time.
