Simple question - which verse are you talking about? I have looked and looked and I can't find it. Fill in the blanks Surah ____ : ayat _____
Sorry, but I am unclear as to your point.
Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
- Replies 306
- Views 41K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Simple question - which verse are you talking about? I have looked and looked and I can't find it. Fill in the blanks Surah ____ : ayat _____
Sorry, but I am unclear as to your point.
Thank you for the response with specific ayat. God willing, I will look this up and read in context when I return home.
This points to human nature. It is an extremely rare event for Allah to talk to someone albeit through the Angel Jibrael. Your statement indicates that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had a human nature.
We Muslims take the whole issue of prophethood extremely seriously and don't believe every Tom, Dick and Harry who claims to have a revelation from Allah. In contrast, Christians treat Paul, John, and others as prophets who received direct revelation from Jesus or from Allah.
I understand that Surah 17: 81 is the verse that you have been referring to. God willing, I will read it in context soon.
Balthasar21
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 6
The old and new testaments have been changed so many times it would serve no purpose to do so. A recent tv series on national geo has opened my eyes :X
:thumbs_up
Balthasar21:
First, re. your post #141, I liked your “Snow White” example. But please consider the following concepts. If you will consider them, then perhaps you and I may come to closer agreement.
It would make our communications simpler if you will agree to the following definitions, which are common in philosophy and science. They were introduced in science about 150 years ago, probably in thermodynamics, and were adopted in philosophy at least 50 years ago, possibly via the writings of Karl Popper. The definitions distinguish “open systems” from “closed systems”.
A good example of a “closed system” is the one you gave about the Snow White movie: facts can be established without any doubt, and associated statements can be demonstrated to be either “true” or “false”. Other “closed systems” are other story books (from Superman comics to all “holy books”), all games (checkers, chess, card games, baseball, all sports), and pure mathematics. In all such “closed systems”, the concepts of “true” and “false” can be established. As examples for stories, then in the case of Superman, it’s “true” that he’s invulnerable to everything except kryptonite, and in the case of Christianity, it’s “true” that Jesus was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead, etc. Similarly, in the case of games, it’s “true” that in poker a flush always beats a straight, that in baseball “three strikes and you’re out”, and so on. And in pure math, 1 + 1 = 2, etc.
For “open systems”, however, we can no longer determine, with certainty, if events or claims are either “true” or “false”; instead, at best, we must “muddle by” with estimates of the probabilities that various events or claims are “true” or “false”. For example, in our legal system (an “open system”, because we must always be “open” to new evidence), we can’t be 100% certain that it’s “true” that some accused person is guilty (or innocent); therefore, the courts ask the jury to reach a decision “beyond reasonable doubt”, e.g., that there’s only (say) 1 chance in a million (= 10^6) that the accused is innocent. Similarly in science, we still can’t be sure, for example, that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is “true”, but based on the evidence to date, it appears that the chance that it’s wrong is only (say) 1 chance in 10^12.
Thus, in “open systems” (as opposed to “closed systems”) new information is permitted to enter the system (just as in “open thermodynamic systems”, in which heat is permitted to enter the system and the system is permitted to do work). For example, tomorrow someone might demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong – and almost certainly will win a Nobel Prize for the demonstration. In “closed systems”, in contrast, new information (new evidence) isn’t permitted to enter. For example, in the Snow White movie, it doesn’t matter if you watch it at the theater or on your TV; it’s always the same. Similarly in poker, a flush always beats a straight, regardless of the time of day, the size of the bet, or whatever, and so on.
An important observation is that, as far as is known, “reality” is an “open system”. That is, we can’t know what new evidence will arise “around the next bend” in either space or time (or space-time). Consequently, the best that we can do “in reality” is to estimate probabilities that events or claims are “true” or “false”.
An even more important observation (made by Popper) is to see how knowledge is obtained in the open system called “reality”, namely, not by determining what’s true (which is impossible) but by eliminating what appears to be false (which is generally much easier to do). For example, if the claim is made that diamonds always scratch wood, then I can do thousands of tests that support that claim (concluding that the statement is “true” to within at least one part in a thousand – but I can’t be certain), but if the claim is made that wood always scratches diamonds, then only after a single test I can demonstrate that the statement is false.
“Popper’s principle” is (in essence) that we gain knowledge about the reality external to our minds by formulating principles that can be falsified but have not yet been falsified. For example, the principle that diamonds always scratch wood is (in principle) falsifiable, but no one has yet shown it to be false. Therefore, we have gained some knowledge about the relative hardness of diamond and wood.
And it’s important that any proposed principle (or “hypothesis”) can be falsified. For example, if I claim that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then (as far as I know) the claim can’t be falsified – because if the elephants are invisible, how can their color be determined? Consequently, if any proposed hypothesis is, even in principle, not falsifiable, then it should be just dismissed as “idle speculation’.
As another example, if the claim is made – not just in a story but in reality – that Jesus was born of a virgin, then such a claim should be dismissed as “idle speculation”, since there’s no way to falsify the claim. On the other hand, if the claim is made that Jesus had no earthly father, then there is a chance (albeit small) that someday skeletons will be found from which DNA samples will be able to support or refute the claim.
Now, after that long introduction (and with apologies for its length), let me turn to your post #141 (and then I’ll comment on your first post).
My assessment is that your statements are too “harsh”. I would prefer something closer to: “When stating one’s belief, one should provide estimates for associated probabilities; for example, I believe that there’s a 10% chance that it’ll rain here today, I’m 99.9999% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow; I’ll give you 5:3 odds that the Red Sox will beat the Yankees in their next game; I’m essentially certain that Mary was impregnated by a man (and 10% confident that the man was the Roman soldier Pandera).”
Again I suggest that those statements are too harsh. In reality, we can’t be certain of anything – including the “truth” of that statement! It appears that the best that we are able to do is “muddle by” with falsifiable statements that have not yet been falsified, and use the results of tests to determine the probability that any claim is “true”. For example, from a series of test that I’ve performed throughout my lifetime, I have 99.9999999999999999… % confidence in the claim that I exist. I can’t prove it; all of us may be just simulations in some giant computer program, but I do “believe” (with the confidence already given) that I exist.
Well, I wish it were so, but unfortunately… An example is quantum mechanics. As Feynman said (and he obtained his Nobel prize in physics for his work in quantum mechanics): “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” That is (for reasons that I’ve describe elsewhere) quantum mechanics isn’t “logical” and doesn’t “reason out”. But its predictions are validated, and therefore, not only is it accepted but also it reveals that the most important test to determine if some “knowledge” is contained in any hypothesis is to test its predictions experimentally.
It would be helpful to distinguish different types of “knowledge”, namely, knowledge of the reality external to our minds (i.e., knowledge about what we assume is an “objective reality” and about which we assume that “objective observers” will eventually be able to reach agreement) and knowledge that each of us possesses within ourselves (e.g., about how to keep our vital organs functioning, about what stimulates our feelings, etc.). The best way to “check out” knowledge of the external reality is via the scientific method, some of whose elements you have listed. To “check out” knowledge about, e.g., our feelings, is commonly an extremely difficult task, generally not yet understood, and probably best left to the individual (possibly with help from a “good listener”).
Again I’d prefer if the statement were not so “black vs. white”. I’d prefer a statement that conveys the idea that all our claims to knowledge should be qualified by estimates of probabilities of their validities.
Now, turning to your original post (#35, p. 3) in which you answered “Yes” to Grenville’s original question (“Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?”), let me give my reasons for answering “No”.
I start from two premisses. One is that all Muslims are humans. My second premiss is that “No human should be obligated to read anything that contains a substantial number of errors.” Further, if the “errors” are deliberate (as can be demonstrated in the case of the Bible), and if I use the word “lie” to mean “deliberate error”, then the second premiss can be adjusted to: “No human should be obligated to read anything that contains a substantial number of lies.”
I can’t demonstrate the “truth” of this second premiss (that people shouldn’t be required to read material known to be erroneous); I adopt it as a moral principle; the basis of my moral judgment is that the premiss is consistent with the prime goal of all life, namely, to continue – which I take to be the “fundamental good”.
My reasoning that leads me to conclude that Muslims aren’t obligated to read the Bible is then simply as follows:
• All Muslims are humans.
• No human should be obligated to read anything that contains a substantial number of errors (even lies).
• It can be demonstrated relatively easily that the Bible contains a huge number of errors (and even lies) – although I omit that demonstration here.
• Therefore, no human (including any Muslim) should be obligated to read the Bible.
First, re. your post #141, I liked your “Snow White” example. But please consider the following concepts. If you will consider them, then perhaps you and I may come to closer agreement.
It would make our communications simpler if you will agree to the following definitions, which are common in philosophy and science. They were introduced in science about 150 years ago, probably in thermodynamics, and were adopted in philosophy at least 50 years ago, possibly via the writings of Karl Popper. The definitions distinguish “open systems” from “closed systems”.
A good example of a “closed system” is the one you gave about the Snow White movie: facts can be established without any doubt, and associated statements can be demonstrated to be either “true” or “false”. Other “closed systems” are other story books (from Superman comics to all “holy books”), all games (checkers, chess, card games, baseball, all sports), and pure mathematics. In all such “closed systems”, the concepts of “true” and “false” can be established. As examples for stories, then in the case of Superman, it’s “true” that he’s invulnerable to everything except kryptonite, and in the case of Christianity, it’s “true” that Jesus was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead, etc. Similarly, in the case of games, it’s “true” that in poker a flush always beats a straight, that in baseball “three strikes and you’re out”, and so on. And in pure math, 1 + 1 = 2, etc.
For “open systems”, however, we can no longer determine, with certainty, if events or claims are either “true” or “false”; instead, at best, we must “muddle by” with estimates of the probabilities that various events or claims are “true” or “false”. For example, in our legal system (an “open system”, because we must always be “open” to new evidence), we can’t be 100% certain that it’s “true” that some accused person is guilty (or innocent); therefore, the courts ask the jury to reach a decision “beyond reasonable doubt”, e.g., that there’s only (say) 1 chance in a million (= 10^6) that the accused is innocent. Similarly in science, we still can’t be sure, for example, that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is “true”, but based on the evidence to date, it appears that the chance that it’s wrong is only (say) 1 chance in 10^12.
Thus, in “open systems” (as opposed to “closed systems”) new information is permitted to enter the system (just as in “open thermodynamic systems”, in which heat is permitted to enter the system and the system is permitted to do work). For example, tomorrow someone might demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong – and almost certainly will win a Nobel Prize for the demonstration. In “closed systems”, in contrast, new information (new evidence) isn’t permitted to enter. For example, in the Snow White movie, it doesn’t matter if you watch it at the theater or on your TV; it’s always the same. Similarly in poker, a flush always beats a straight, regardless of the time of day, the size of the bet, or whatever, and so on.
An important observation is that, as far as is known, “reality” is an “open system”. That is, we can’t know what new evidence will arise “around the next bend” in either space or time (or space-time). Consequently, the best that we can do “in reality” is to estimate probabilities that events or claims are “true” or “false”.
An even more important observation (made by Popper) is to see how knowledge is obtained in the open system called “reality”, namely, not by determining what’s true (which is impossible) but by eliminating what appears to be false (which is generally much easier to do). For example, if the claim is made that diamonds always scratch wood, then I can do thousands of tests that support that claim (concluding that the statement is “true” to within at least one part in a thousand – but I can’t be certain), but if the claim is made that wood always scratches diamonds, then only after a single test I can demonstrate that the statement is false.
“Popper’s principle” is (in essence) that we gain knowledge about the reality external to our minds by formulating principles that can be falsified but have not yet been falsified. For example, the principle that diamonds always scratch wood is (in principle) falsifiable, but no one has yet shown it to be false. Therefore, we have gained some knowledge about the relative hardness of diamond and wood.
And it’s important that any proposed principle (or “hypothesis”) can be falsified. For example, if I claim that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then (as far as I know) the claim can’t be falsified – because if the elephants are invisible, how can their color be determined? Consequently, if any proposed hypothesis is, even in principle, not falsifiable, then it should be just dismissed as “idle speculation’.
As another example, if the claim is made – not just in a story but in reality – that Jesus was born of a virgin, then such a claim should be dismissed as “idle speculation”, since there’s no way to falsify the claim. On the other hand, if the claim is made that Jesus had no earthly father, then there is a chance (albeit small) that someday skeletons will be found from which DNA samples will be able to support or refute the claim.
Now, after that long introduction (and with apologies for its length), let me turn to your post #141 (and then I’ll comment on your first post).
My assessment is that your statements are too “harsh”. I would prefer something closer to: “When stating one’s belief, one should provide estimates for associated probabilities; for example, I believe that there’s a 10% chance that it’ll rain here today, I’m 99.9999% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow; I’ll give you 5:3 odds that the Red Sox will beat the Yankees in their next game; I’m essentially certain that Mary was impregnated by a man (and 10% confident that the man was the Roman soldier Pandera).”
Again I suggest that those statements are too harsh. In reality, we can’t be certain of anything – including the “truth” of that statement! It appears that the best that we are able to do is “muddle by” with falsifiable statements that have not yet been falsified, and use the results of tests to determine the probability that any claim is “true”. For example, from a series of test that I’ve performed throughout my lifetime, I have 99.9999999999999999… % confidence in the claim that I exist. I can’t prove it; all of us may be just simulations in some giant computer program, but I do “believe” (with the confidence already given) that I exist.
Well, I wish it were so, but unfortunately… An example is quantum mechanics. As Feynman said (and he obtained his Nobel prize in physics for his work in quantum mechanics): “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” That is (for reasons that I’ve describe elsewhere) quantum mechanics isn’t “logical” and doesn’t “reason out”. But its predictions are validated, and therefore, not only is it accepted but also it reveals that the most important test to determine if some “knowledge” is contained in any hypothesis is to test its predictions experimentally.
It would be helpful to distinguish different types of “knowledge”, namely, knowledge of the reality external to our minds (i.e., knowledge about what we assume is an “objective reality” and about which we assume that “objective observers” will eventually be able to reach agreement) and knowledge that each of us possesses within ourselves (e.g., about how to keep our vital organs functioning, about what stimulates our feelings, etc.). The best way to “check out” knowledge of the external reality is via the scientific method, some of whose elements you have listed. To “check out” knowledge about, e.g., our feelings, is commonly an extremely difficult task, generally not yet understood, and probably best left to the individual (possibly with help from a “good listener”).
Again I’d prefer if the statement were not so “black vs. white”. I’d prefer a statement that conveys the idea that all our claims to knowledge should be qualified by estimates of probabilities of their validities.
Now, turning to your original post (#35, p. 3) in which you answered “Yes” to Grenville’s original question (“Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?”), let me give my reasons for answering “No”.
I start from two premisses. One is that all Muslims are humans. My second premiss is that “No human should be obligated to read anything that contains a substantial number of errors.” Further, if the “errors” are deliberate (as can be demonstrated in the case of the Bible), and if I use the word “lie” to mean “deliberate error”, then the second premiss can be adjusted to: “No human should be obligated to read anything that contains a substantial number of lies.”
I can’t demonstrate the “truth” of this second premiss (that people shouldn’t be required to read material known to be erroneous); I adopt it as a moral principle; the basis of my moral judgment is that the premiss is consistent with the prime goal of all life, namely, to continue – which I take to be the “fundamental good”.
My reasoning that leads me to conclude that Muslims aren’t obligated to read the Bible is then simply as follows:
• All Muslims are humans.
• No human should be obligated to read anything that contains a substantial number of errors (even lies).
• It can be demonstrated relatively easily that the Bible contains a huge number of errors (and even lies) – although I omit that demonstration here.
• Therefore, no human (including any Muslim) should be obligated to read the Bible.
Balthasar21
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 6
So the bottom line here you want me to tell you want to Hear , Meaning what to say and how to say it . Did you Suggest the above to your teacher .
Erm mod this is going to be off topic
fftopic: First of all I have a Bsc in Physics & quantum mechanics and a MSc in Quantum mechanical dynamics.
In quantum mechanics we measure probability that is given by the wavefunction (psi). To say it is not logical implies that mathematics is not logical as the wavefunction is a measure of probability. It does reason out when you collapse the corresponding wavefunction however when the result is in a state of flux (i.e. the wavefunction is still intact) then we can measure this property by probability.
Infact the most intruiging hypothesis of QM is the many worlds theory. In this theory before the wavefunction is collapsed their is a choice to the observer. This choice then collapses (by the observer) and creatures 2 identical universes. One with the choice being made and one with the alternate choice. Both realities are played out. However the most intruiging is the normal theory that the observer has a choice. Once he selects the choice the wavefunction collapses and the other choice goes to infinity. This my dear boy fits perfectly into Islam. Allah has given us all a choice. A choice to be good, a choice to be bad, a choice to follow Islam and a choice not to, a choice to read the bible etc.
Its all your choice. :thumbs_up
Last edited:
Salaam,
the word Allah means ONE GOD..
Can you tell me is it possible to have thousands of ONE GOD?
The language itself highlight the attribute.
ONE GOD= ALLAH.
Walter
Elite Member
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Hi Zoro:
Perhaps we can continue this topic under a thread “Where is the evidence that God exists”. However, for tidiness, I will respond to your concern here. When processing evidence, we should not reject unfamiliar types of data and the way that such data can be quantified. You do not appear to appreciate the educational value of analogies, but they are useful, especially in this context.
A more appropriate analogy in this regard would be for a man who refuses to open his eyes to claim that the only data that he is willing to evaluate is what he can touch, smell, taste and hear. Even though he has the ability to evaluate colour, he stubbornly refuses to consider it because he will not open his eyes.
The above is analogous to spiritual things. People will inexplicably choose to live in darkness rather than to do something as simple as the equivalent of opening their eyes. To believers, the decision to live in darkness is befuddling. To the unbeliever, the experiences of believers are meaningless. How can we resolve this?
I cannot force you to believe, even though I wish that I could pull you into the light for just a glimpse of “colour”. I love you Zoro. God also loves you. The scriptures say that God draws people unto Himself. Please Zoro, if you ever feel Him drawing you, please do not reject Him.
Sincerely,
Grenville
Perhaps we can continue this topic under a thread “Where is the evidence that God exists”. However, for tidiness, I will respond to your concern here. When processing evidence, we should not reject unfamiliar types of data and the way that such data can be quantified. You do not appear to appreciate the educational value of analogies, but they are useful, especially in this context.
A more appropriate analogy in this regard would be for a man who refuses to open his eyes to claim that the only data that he is willing to evaluate is what he can touch, smell, taste and hear. Even though he has the ability to evaluate colour, he stubbornly refuses to consider it because he will not open his eyes.
The above is analogous to spiritual things. People will inexplicably choose to live in darkness rather than to do something as simple as the equivalent of opening their eyes. To believers, the decision to live in darkness is befuddling. To the unbeliever, the experiences of believers are meaningless. How can we resolve this?
I cannot force you to believe, even though I wish that I could pull you into the light for just a glimpse of “colour”. I love you Zoro. God also loves you. The scriptures say that God draws people unto Himself. Please Zoro, if you ever feel Him drawing you, please do not reject Him.
Sincerely,
Grenville
Walter
Elite Member
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Hi Al Habeshi:
1. The Scriptures
You noted: “Again, believing in a book, I thought went hand in hand with obviously the content of the book. So yes, Muslims are obliged to believe in the Book, not just the cover if that's what you thought I meant, but the whole book.”
However, the Koran does not say to believe in a Book, but rather “the scripture which He sent to those before” (4:136) i.e. the content of the book. This strongly indicates that the book was both available for reading, and that the content was acceptable.
2. The Torah
You noted: “Nowhere does it says follow the Torah or Injeel of Moses or Jesus.”
But I think that it does. Let us start from verse 154.
6:154 - Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favour) to those who would do right, and explaining all things in detail,- and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.
This book was obviously the Torah. Then it continues.
6:155 - And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy:
So which Book is this - the previous Book or the Koran? Well it is clarified in the following verse.
6:156 - Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:"
Well it seems that the answer is the previous Book.
3. Various Matters
I quoted the following:
10:94 - If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
You claimed that this was specific to Mohammed. I agree; however, I believe that it is also a general principal for all.
I agree that we should discuss these matters without prejudice and with mutual respect. Please be assured that my motives are good, and I appreciate your perspective.
Best regards,
Grenville
1. The Scriptures
You noted: “Again, believing in a book, I thought went hand in hand with obviously the content of the book. So yes, Muslims are obliged to believe in the Book, not just the cover if that's what you thought I meant, but the whole book.”
However, the Koran does not say to believe in a Book, but rather “the scripture which He sent to those before” (4:136) i.e. the content of the book. This strongly indicates that the book was both available for reading, and that the content was acceptable.
2. The Torah
You noted: “Nowhere does it says follow the Torah or Injeel of Moses or Jesus.”
But I think that it does. Let us start from verse 154.
6:154 - Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favour) to those who would do right, and explaining all things in detail,- and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.
This book was obviously the Torah. Then it continues.
6:155 - And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy:
So which Book is this - the previous Book or the Koran? Well it is clarified in the following verse.
6:156 - Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:"
Well it seems that the answer is the previous Book.
3. Various Matters
I quoted the following:
10:94 - If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
You claimed that this was specific to Mohammed. I agree; however, I believe that it is also a general principal for all.
I agree that we should discuss these matters without prejudice and with mutual respect. Please be assured that my motives are good, and I appreciate your perspective.
Best regards,
Grenville
If God told you to believe that he sent a book to people before you and to believe what was in the book i.e. its contents would you or would you have to see what is in it?
As for the other part, then read the whole verse, who is Allah speaking to when he says 'lest..' Anyone can 'prove' anything if they cut and paste parts out, a person could even prove the trinity.
Last edited:
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Erm mod this is going to be off topic
First of all I have a Bsc in Physics & quantum mechanics and a MSc in Quantum mechanical dynamics.
In quantum mechanics we measure probability that is given by the wavefunction (psi). To say it is not logical implies that mathematics is not logical as the wavefunction is a measure of probability. It does reason out when you collapse the corresponding wavefunction however when the result is in a state of flux (i.e. the wavefunction is still intact) then we can measure this property by probability.
Infact the most intruiging hypothesis of QM is the many worlds theory. In this theory before the wavefunction is collapsed their is a choice to the observer. This choice then collapses (by the observer) and creatures 2 identical universes. One with the choice being made and one with the alternate choice. Both realities are played out. However the most intruiging is the normal theory that the observer has a choice. Once he selects the choice the wavefunction collapses and the other choice goes to infinity. This my dear boy fits perfectly into Islam. Allah has given us all a choice. A choice to be good, a choice to be bad, a choice to follow Islam and a choice not to, a choice to read the bible etc.
Its all your choice. :thumbs_up
Go ahead and read his pamphlet on PDF file, you'll have a really good laugh... intriguing piece of imagined science, the fulcrum of the world a zero splitting. Go ahead and put that on a math or physics test and see how your professor grades it.
You are welcome
Balthasar 21:
Good heavens! What a silly response. I’ll not waste my time with you again.
Hbot 5000:
Good! Then I won’t need to work so hard trying to explain QM to you as to others! [I have my bachelors in Engineering Physics, masters in Nuclear Physics, and a Ph.D. (which I started in astrophysics but switched to aerospace engineering for financial reasons, with minors in plasma physics and applied math), plus at least 10-years university teaching (in Physics, Engineering, and Applied Math) and 25 years of research experience.]
Your statement, “To say it [QM] is not logical implies that mathematics is not logical as the wavefunction is a measure of probability” is not necessarily so. I expect that the math is okay, but Einstein’s complaint was that the math suggests that a signal (the wave function) can travel faster than the speed of light – in the limit, across the universe, instantaneously, when the wave function collapses (via a realization, e.g., in the slit experiment, which was Feynman’s example, as you probably know, that led him to conclude “if you think you understand QM, then you don’t”).
An alternative that intrigues me is John Cramer’s approach (e.g., see his "Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 647-688, 1986, available at http://www.npl.washington.edu/TI/TI_toc.html and especially see his 2004 "slide show" available at www.faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt ). As I understand what he’s doing (and that’s only poorly!), he’s proposing that time goes in the opposite direction in space (or “the vacuum”), which, of course, is “brim full” of negative energy; thereby, its past is our future.
In his view, the slit experiment, for example, is explained by a “handshake” of the advanced and retarded wave functions, across the “divide” between our “positive-side of reality” and the “negative-side of reality” (which we call “the vacuum”). As you can see from his “Power Point” presentation, he’s been able not only to resolve several long-standing QM paradoxes (of the type that Einstein addressed and that confused Feynman) but also to provide predictions for new experiments. Thus, it may be that Cramer is the one who thinks he understands QM – and he does! But I haven’t followed his work closely enough to be able to judge.
In contrast to “the many worlds theory” that you mention, I find Cramer’s ideas more appealing. I can see how the many worlds theory is appealing to religious people, but my major complaint with it is that it (as opposed to Cramer’s model) seems untestable – and therefore, essentially meaningless. Meanwhile, if you’ll have a look at an advanced physics thread that I started (at http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6992) or look at the first chapter of my online book (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/Awareness.pdf ), you’ll probably quickly see why I find Cramer’s model more appealing – especially if someone could show that the total entropy of the universe is zero (when account is taken for the entropy of the vacuum – and if it’s correct that, there, time goes in the opposite direction). Maybe you could do it! It would be a great Ph.D. thesis topic (if only but only funding could be found for it).
Grenville:
Thank you again for you kind comments. And yes, I agree that another thread would be appropriate dealing with the evidence (or lack thereof). I certainly agree that we shouldn’t “reject unfamiliar types of data…” But let me correct your “you do not appear to appreciate the educational value of analogies…” Certainly I do; I have frequently used them in my lectures (and in life); my point, however, was that they are essentially useless in attempts to prove anything – save for trying to help students understand what it is you’re trying to prove!
But re. your “analogous to spiritual things”, the concept leaves me cold! You are positing something “supernatural”, but I have never found any data supporting the existence of anything “supernatural”; therefore, all such analogies seem to me to be a waste of good intellect.
An excellent question! That would be a tremendous thread. More significantly, given that the terrorists may soon acquire weapons of mass destruction (out to an including destruction of all life on Earth), it’s a question that may turn out to be the most critical question that humanity has ever faced – or will ever face! And although I appreciate the kindness of your attempt to tug me in your direction, for the benefit of humanity, I implore you to consider my perspective: as certain as I can be of anything, I’m certain that it’s foolish (even, as Socrates would define, “evil”) to hold beliefs more strongly than relevant evidence justifies. If that simple idea would take hold, if people would develop just that basic skill in critical thinking, then just maybe we might be able to save humanity form a mystically-induced destruction.
To get there from here, I’m sure that a first step is to establish honest and respectful dialogue between members of the groups holding the disparate positions. In that regard, I want to add how encouraged I am by communications I’ve had with some members at this forum, such as yourself and Hbot 5000 (and, I’d like to add, Grace Seeker), while communications with others (whose names I’ll omit, but there posting are clear) has been extremely disappointing. I look forward to communicating with you again – who knows, I might even be able to convince you to “open your eyes” to “see the light” – provided by the scientific method.
Good heavens! What a silly response. I’ll not waste my time with you again.
Hbot 5000:
Good! Then I won’t need to work so hard trying to explain QM to you as to others! [I have my bachelors in Engineering Physics, masters in Nuclear Physics, and a Ph.D. (which I started in astrophysics but switched to aerospace engineering for financial reasons, with minors in plasma physics and applied math), plus at least 10-years university teaching (in Physics, Engineering, and Applied Math) and 25 years of research experience.]
Your statement, “To say it [QM] is not logical implies that mathematics is not logical as the wavefunction is a measure of probability” is not necessarily so. I expect that the math is okay, but Einstein’s complaint was that the math suggests that a signal (the wave function) can travel faster than the speed of light – in the limit, across the universe, instantaneously, when the wave function collapses (via a realization, e.g., in the slit experiment, which was Feynman’s example, as you probably know, that led him to conclude “if you think you understand QM, then you don’t”).
An alternative that intrigues me is John Cramer’s approach (e.g., see his "Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 647-688, 1986, available at http://www.npl.washington.edu/TI/TI_toc.html and especially see his 2004 "slide show" available at www.faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt ). As I understand what he’s doing (and that’s only poorly!), he’s proposing that time goes in the opposite direction in space (or “the vacuum”), which, of course, is “brim full” of negative energy; thereby, its past is our future.
In his view, the slit experiment, for example, is explained by a “handshake” of the advanced and retarded wave functions, across the “divide” between our “positive-side of reality” and the “negative-side of reality” (which we call “the vacuum”). As you can see from his “Power Point” presentation, he’s been able not only to resolve several long-standing QM paradoxes (of the type that Einstein addressed and that confused Feynman) but also to provide predictions for new experiments. Thus, it may be that Cramer is the one who thinks he understands QM – and he does! But I haven’t followed his work closely enough to be able to judge.
In contrast to “the many worlds theory” that you mention, I find Cramer’s ideas more appealing. I can see how the many worlds theory is appealing to religious people, but my major complaint with it is that it (as opposed to Cramer’s model) seems untestable – and therefore, essentially meaningless. Meanwhile, if you’ll have a look at an advanced physics thread that I started (at http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6992) or look at the first chapter of my online book (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/Awareness.pdf ), you’ll probably quickly see why I find Cramer’s model more appealing – especially if someone could show that the total entropy of the universe is zero (when account is taken for the entropy of the vacuum – and if it’s correct that, there, time goes in the opposite direction). Maybe you could do it! It would be a great Ph.D. thesis topic (if only but only funding could be found for it).
Grenville:
Thank you again for you kind comments. And yes, I agree that another thread would be appropriate dealing with the evidence (or lack thereof). I certainly agree that we shouldn’t “reject unfamiliar types of data…” But let me correct your “you do not appear to appreciate the educational value of analogies…” Certainly I do; I have frequently used them in my lectures (and in life); my point, however, was that they are essentially useless in attempts to prove anything – save for trying to help students understand what it is you’re trying to prove!
But re. your “analogous to spiritual things”, the concept leaves me cold! You are positing something “supernatural”, but I have never found any data supporting the existence of anything “supernatural”; therefore, all such analogies seem to me to be a waste of good intellect.
An excellent question! That would be a tremendous thread. More significantly, given that the terrorists may soon acquire weapons of mass destruction (out to an including destruction of all life on Earth), it’s a question that may turn out to be the most critical question that humanity has ever faced – or will ever face! And although I appreciate the kindness of your attempt to tug me in your direction, for the benefit of humanity, I implore you to consider my perspective: as certain as I can be of anything, I’m certain that it’s foolish (even, as Socrates would define, “evil”) to hold beliefs more strongly than relevant evidence justifies. If that simple idea would take hold, if people would develop just that basic skill in critical thinking, then just maybe we might be able to save humanity form a mystically-induced destruction.
To get there from here, I’m sure that a first step is to establish honest and respectful dialogue between members of the groups holding the disparate positions. In that regard, I want to add how encouraged I am by communications I’ve had with some members at this forum, such as yourself and Hbot 5000 (and, I’d like to add, Grace Seeker), while communications with others (whose names I’ll omit, but there posting are clear) has been extremely disappointing. I look forward to communicating with you again – who knows, I might even be able to convince you to “open your eyes” to “see the light” – provided by the scientific method.
Walter
Elite Member
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Hi Al Habeshi:
For me to believe what is written in a book it would be absoloutely necessary for me to know (by reading or listening to) what was written in the book.
Earlier you quoted Jesus' comment to Thomas to support your argument: "blessed are those who have not seen yet believe". This is true. I have not seen the risen Messiah, but I believe.
What do I believe? I believe the information that was provided to me which I read.
What is this information? That God raised Jesus from the Dead.
Therefore I am not blindly believing something hidden but something that I can access (by reading or hearing) and then choose to believe.
Al Habeshi, I quoted the the entire verse in question (6:156) and the context (6:154-155). After re-reading the wider context it would appear that the "lest ye" was referring to Mohammed and his folowers. Who do you think the "lest ye" was referring to?
Regards,
Grenville
For me to believe what is written in a book it would be absoloutely necessary for me to know (by reading or listening to) what was written in the book.
Earlier you quoted Jesus' comment to Thomas to support your argument: "blessed are those who have not seen yet believe". This is true. I have not seen the risen Messiah, but I believe.
What do I believe? I believe the information that was provided to me which I read.
What is this information? That God raised Jesus from the Dead.
Therefore I am not blindly believing something hidden but something that I can access (by reading or hearing) and then choose to believe.
Al Habeshi, I quoted the the entire verse in question (6:156) and the context (6:154-155). After re-reading the wider context it would appear that the "lest ye" was referring to Mohammed and his folowers. Who do you think the "lest ye" was referring to?
Regards,
Grenville
Walter
Elite Member
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Hi Everyone:
Let me apologize for the two spelling errors: “absolutely” and “followers”, and the repeated “the” in my last post.
Zoro:
I read your writing on your web site on “evaluating proofs of God” and a debate is certainly in order. However, it is Friday night and I must go home to my family. I am also travelling and will be away until Wednesday 30 May 2007, so it will not be polite for me to start a new thread now and then leave.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Regards,
Grenville.
Let me apologize for the two spelling errors: “absolutely” and “followers”, and the repeated “the” in my last post.
Zoro:
I read your writing on your web site on “evaluating proofs of God” and a debate is certainly in order. However, it is Friday night and I must go home to my family. I am also travelling and will be away until Wednesday 30 May 2007, so it will not be polite for me to start a new thread now and then leave.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Regards,
Grenville.
Sister, you make a good point. The Bible should be treated respectfully, because I believe that there are some remnants of Allah's Message retained in it.
Muslim Woman
Super Moderator
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- 1,449
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected
With the name of ALLAH (swt) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)
&&&
which verse u r talking about ? I don't think Quran is suggesting that we SHOULD read Torah , Psalm or Injeel .
But personally i think Muslims must read OT & other holy books for comparison.