A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theory https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/t10 Runboard| A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theory en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:21:10 +0000 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:21:10 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p121,from=rss#post121https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p121,from=rss#post121I don't have anything to add to this particular topic at the moment. However, I would like to point out that when it is in this section--the "Alternate World Views" section--no one can even SUGGEST that it does not belong here. No one has yet thought of a topic ragged enough to belong in the "Netherworld" section. We are good to go. It would be amusing, though not altogether surprising, if the Alternate World Views section turned out to be the most utilized. I would like to remind moderators that they have the ability to move topics to different forums. One of the moderator functions is "move". nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:37:47 +0000 The Genesis Enigmahttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p120,from=rss#post120https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p120,from=rss#post120I wrote about it at length at olden (Golden) MindX. Genesis (root word: GENE) works astonishingly well, thank you very much. This thread discusses the book "The Genesis Enigma": Genesis: Pretty Good! (see the op and following post) http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/show_thread.php?rootID=173677 Incidentally, this and the linked thread are the sort of long discussions I think many here miss the most. I have a solution that includes Steemit that I'll get around to proposing in the next few days.nondisclosed_email@example.com (RedQ)Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:16:56 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p102,from=rss#post102https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p102,from=rss#post102Everett solved the problem of what a collapse of the wave function meant by not having a collapse, no collapse, no problem or need for an Copenhagenian explanation. Is space expanding or fluctuating? An expansion must either expand forever, reach a stasis or begin a contraction. And 'observation' reveals both expansions and contractions.nondisclosed_email@example.com (gawell)Sun, 03 Dec 2017 14:13:11 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p100,from=rss#post100https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p100,from=rss#post100quote:the Good Book claims plants existed before the Sun, which is plainly incompatible with modern evolutionary, modern chemistry, and modern astrophysics. Then again I may be underestimating the power of weird quantum effects in explaining aparrent contradictions. That is the beauty of my theory. In my theory, things came into existence, so to speak, not when they make sense as part of natural history, but when they were observed. A man on the ground would observe plants before he observed the sun. Honestly, I do not give much credence to Jaynes' ideas, which undermines much of the theory. However, quantum mechanics, as you note, may make some version of my theory possible. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:39:40 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p98,from=rss#post98https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p98,from=rss#post98Hi Spiko:) I do not think it is all that difficult to reconcile the amount of time Creation took according to the Bible, with modern scientific understandings of how old the universe is. All you have to do is suppose 'days' refers to a length of time much longer than 24 hours and you have all the time you need. What is much harder to reconcile, though, is the order in which things happened, according to Genesis. For example, the Good Book claims plants existed before the Sun, which is plainly incompatible with modern evolutionary, modern chemistry, and modern astrophysics. Then again I may be underestimating the power of weird quantum effects in explaining aparrent contradictions.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Extropia DaSilva)Sun, 03 Dec 2017 07:14:21 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p42,from=rss#post42https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p42,from=rss#post42Excellent. nondisclosed_email@example.com (TheInvisibleHand)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:51:48 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p41,from=rss#post41https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p41,from=rss#post41If I'm not a moderator, I will be thrown off. Seriously, I'll try to last as long as Tillerson.nondisclosed_email@example.com (RedQ)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:38:47 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p39,from=rss#post39https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p39,from=rss#post39Oh, sorry, I just remembered that you did not want to moderate. Do you want me to change it back? nondisclosed_email@example.com (TheInvisibleHand)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:31:54 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p35,from=rss#post35https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p35,from=rss#post35Red, I just made you into a moderator. Let me know if you have any troubles with the controls. nondisclosed_email@example.com (TheInvisibleHand)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:56:24 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p33,from=rss#post33https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p33,from=rss#post33quote:I posted it on on the Kurzweil forum a while back, it was blocked. I know the feeling. At old MindX, it would have generated a thousand flowers. At new MindX, blocked. I hope to hear from Guilio and his journey as a new MindX moderator. P.S. "NAMBLA" Just wait.nondisclosed_email@example.com (RedQ)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:58:38 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p25,from=rss#post25https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p25,from=rss#post25I actually could not say whether or not it is a crackpot idea. When I posted it on on the Kurzweil forum a while back, it was blocked. However, I thought it would help clarify the purpose of this particular subforum. It also shows how, with this forum's construction, any topic is possible. I actually wish someone would post a really dreadful topic--maybe justifying NAMBLA--so that we can warm up the Netherworld subforum. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:56:57 +0000 Re: A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p24,from=rss#post24https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p24,from=rss#post24Well, the idea can certainly be made consistent with the Bible, but the argument is far more general. The best thing (IMHO) set/AI ever wrote on old MindX was something like: It is easier to calculate all possible outcomes than it is to conceptualize and then compute the best (or a good) outcome. So, in some higher level, all possible universes are calculated and the only ones that come about are those that generate conscious observers. Also, the whole idea is consistent with the Simulation Hypothesis. Computationally, the only things that can be seen are things that are looked at, and then only on the level of detail of the observer. P.S. You should change the subtitle of this subforum. This is not a crack-pot idea.nondisclosed_email@example.com (RedQ)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:42:21 +0000 A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theoryhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p11,from=rss#post11https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p11,from=rss#post11A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Theory There are many different opinions on the nature of “wave-function” collapse. For a variety of reasons, I am partial to the Copenhagen interpretation. There are now good arguments that it is actually conscious observation, and not just measurement, that causes the described phenomenon. Suppose we take the position that an actual collapse occurs and that there is not merely a divergence of paths. When one physicist was asked about the notion that conscious observation causes wave function collapse, he responded, in part, as follows: quote:The posit that it is consciousness that causes this collapse is very hard to debunk, due to the very nature of this type of argument. However, if you consider the following example, it should be clear that this picture is far from complete; and that this argument for consciousness causing the…process is not sufficient. Consider the weather, the detailed weather patterns that occur on any planet, being dependent of chaotic processes, which [must] be sensitive to numerous individual quantum events. if the…process does not actually take place in the absence of consciousness, then no particular weather pattern could ever establish itself out of the morass of quantum-superposed alternatives. Can we really believe that the weather on these planets remain in complex-number superpositions of innumerable distinct possibilities - just some total hazy mess quite different from actual weather - until some conscious being becomes aware of it and then at that point, and only that point the superposed weather becomes actual weather? I don't think so - do you? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function The unstated implication is that if a contemporary observation were made, the collapse would occur in such a way that the weather pattern would take on a structure that represented a consistent history all the way back to the big bang. In a sense, though not an entirely accurate sense, the history for the weather pattern, indeed the entire planet, would be written retroactively. Suppose we take the position that the situation the author describes as seeming absurd is actually correct. Julian Jaynes in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind makes the argument that consciousness did not appear in the world until sometime around 1000 BC: quote:Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. He took an interdisciplinary approach, drawing data from many different fields. Jaynes asserted that, until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) However, Jaynes' argument does not preclude the possibility that among some peoples consciousness may have emerged earlier or later. Possibly, consciousness was first introduced to the world, and in effect the universe, as early as 4000 BC. Now, consider this passage from Genesis: quote:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. I am postulating that the story of Genesis may essentially be correct and that the formless void it describes was a universe wide state of quantum superposition that did not take the form of the known universe, with its structured history going all the way back to the big bang, until conscious beings (possibly the first conscious men) looked at the universe at approximately 4000 BC. In effect, there was not even any chronological time until the universe was observed. The Universe was literally created 6000 years ago. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:19:22 +0000