{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4567", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4567, "subject": "Information, etc.", "messages": 18, "voices": 8, "first": "2006-04-11T20:45:04+00:00", "last": "2006-04-19T19:36:46+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<705c5fe0dae91a2ae07cac881836f29d@ou.edu>", "from": { "name": "Kieran Mullen", "address": "kieran at ou.edu" }, "date": "2006-04-11T20:45:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Message: 1\nDate: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:46:24 +0000\nFrom: \"Chris\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Christian relativity\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Check Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theory and experiments. It has been\nconclusively proven that news can spread instanteously, perhaps even\nbackward in time - but only for the internal purposes of the \nuniverse.\nYou cannot transmit information faster than light. Universe can." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "a) Details. Cites." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As much as I appreciate an eye for detail, this isn't a physics lists. \nIn\nany event I believe he was not referring to any one particular paper \non the\nsubject - there is a great deal of talk about EPR and its implications \nout\nthere. You can start with \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The original is:\n\nA. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical \nDescription of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete”, Phys. Rev. 47 \n(1935) 777-780.\n\nThere are hundreds of papers on this topic, if not thousands. There \nare books too. I particularly like:\n\nSpeakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics : Collected Papers on \nQuantum Philosophy by J. S. Bell\n\nBut then, I am a theoretical physicist. Perusing Amazon.com yielded \nthe following book that look a bit more accessible:\n\nThe Ghost in the Atom : A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum \nPhysics (Canto) by P. C. W. Davies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The gist I think of what he was talking about in the paragraph above \nis that\nthere are things that seem to be instantaneous interactions at a \ndistance,\nbut that these do not transfer information in any formal sense and \nthus can\nbe considered not to violate relativity. Maybe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yep, QM says that when you measure one set of a pair of entangled \nstates, you determine the outcome on the other member of the pair, no \nmatter how far they are from you. OTOH, you can't force a \nparticular outcome of your choosing on the pair far away.\n\nYou have two pens - a blue and a yellow one. You randomly separate the \npens putting each into one of two boxes. Your friend takes one box to \nAlpha Centauri. When you look inside your box and see \"blue\" you \ninstantaneously know that any measurement on Alpha Centauri will \nobserve a \"yellow\" pen. All is fine and doesn't seem to violate any \nsensibility.\n\nThe difficulty is that you can set it up so that you have \"green\" (in \na handwavy sense) in your box - a superposition of \"yellow\" and \"blue\" \nthat exists until you actually look and see which one it truly is. \nBut whatever you measure, your friend will have the other pen." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "b) This is God we're talking about here. You know - omniscient,\nomnipotent, omnipresent, creation-ex-nihilo, rising-from-the-dead\nGod. Is anybody really worried that he couldn't get information\nout faster than light if He wanted to?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Deists, I would suppose." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Umm.... I suppose it depends upon your form of Deism. Some would say \nGod is bound by the laws of physics. Others would say that she wrote \nthe laws and do whatever she damn well pleases. Especially since God \nexists outside of time.\n\nKieran Mullen" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2006-04-11T21:54:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Master Ash v Silkhorn (astral time travel)", "in_reply_to": "<705c5fe0dae91a2ae07cac881836f29d@ou.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think relativity holds in the NS-SS-LS universe. Wolfe posits the\npresence of FTL and time travel, and makes the breakdown of causality from\nour point of view a feature: allowing the miraculous and free will (though\nperhaps more for those walking the corridors of time) and determinism, as\nwell as the mysteries that exceed human understanding.\n\nSo, I think for Silkhorn to astral travel \"instantaneously\" requires time\ntravel, just not requiring the apparatus many of the others used. Then\nit's interesting to compare the fate of Master Ash's attempt to travel\nwith Severian with that of Silkhorn: viz Ash fades away because \"I can\nexist [in your world] only if the probability of my existence is high\".\n\nDavid Duffy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-11T22:09:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<705c5fe0dae91a2ae07cac881836f29d@ou.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Kieran said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "b) This is God we're talking about here. You know - omniscient,\nomnipotent, omnipresent, creation-ex-nihilo, rising-from-the-dead\nGod. Is anybody really worried that he couldn't get information\nout faster than light if He wanted to?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Deists, I would suppose." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Umm.... I suppose it depends upon your form of Deism. Some would say God \nis bound by the laws of physics. Others would say that she wrote the laws \nand do whatever she damn well pleases. Especially since God exists \noutside of time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's a little more/less complicated than that, and the philosophical problem \n(religion taken for granted) is actually human knowledge/experience. To \ngrossly oversimplify, we demand consistency from nature. The religiously \ndangerous course to take is to say that God *can't* violate the laws of \nnature, and some have taken it. The course that has seemed safer to others \nis to say that God can, but *won't*, violate the laws of nature for whatever \nreason - usually because of his benevolence towards us, sometimes because of \nhis rationality, etc. Of course to say that God won't violate the laws of \nnature presumes that we can know something - a significant amount, really - \nabout God, which is itself kind of a thorny issue.\n\nI have to admit I was just being glib, though." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604111516k2335ba48jb4df6bdaf33993eb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-11T22:16:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/11/06, Chris wrote:\nThe religiously dangerous course to take is to say that God\n*can't* violate the laws of nature, and some have taken it. The\ncourse that has seemed safer to others is to say that God can,\nbut *won't*, violate the laws of nature for whatever reason - usually\nbecause of his benevolence towards us, sometimes because of\nhis rationality, etc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, this is (from the Catholic perspective) quite a dangerous\ncourse also, in that it denies miracles, and the Christian (and so\nCatholic, and, I presume, Wolfe's) faith is _based_ on miracles,\nfrom the Virgin Birth to the Resurrection, not to exclude (at least\nfor Catholics) ongoing miracles such as the limited infallibility of\nPopes and the transubstantiation of the Host in the Eucharist.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<443C6A3A.1010304@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-12T02:47:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604111516k2335ba48jb4df6bdaf33993eb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOn 4/11/06, Chris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The religiously dangerous course to take is to say that God\n*can't* violate the laws of nature, and some have taken it. The\ncourse that has seemed safer to others is to say that God can,\nbut *won't*, violate the laws of nature for whatever reason - usually\nbecause of his benevolence towards us, sometimes because of\nhis rationality, etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, this is (from the Catholic perspective) quite a dangerous\ncourse also, in that it denies miracles, and the Christian (and so\nCatholic, and, I presume, Wolfe's) faith is _based_ on miracles,\nfrom the Virgin Birth to the Resurrection, not to exclude (at least\nfor Catholics) ongoing miracles such as the limited infallibility of\nPopes and the transubstantiation of the Host in the Eucharist." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Chris is probably thinking more along the lines of Aquinas, \nwhose limits to God's power to do the impossible were more about the \nability of humans to construct paradoxes, prefiguring Godel's Theorem.\n\nAs for miracle-based faith, IIRC the only overt miracle formally \nrequired for Christian belief is Christ's Resurrection. Papal \ninfallibility and the incidental qualities of the Host are not \nobservable or falsifiable." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604112029h19acdffcufb70c66cf0f2faa2@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-12T03:29:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<443C6A3A.1010304@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think Chris is probably thinking more along the lines of Aquinas,\nwhose limits to God's power to do the impossible were more about the\nability of humans to construct paradoxes, prefiguring Godel's Theorem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I see what you mean -- but I read the discussion as being about\nphysical, as opposed to logical, impossibilities. (Chris? Comment?)\nI suppose that you could argue that there's a logical impossibility\nin God's violating the physical laws He established, but only if\nyou assume that He meant for Himself to be bound by them in\nthe first place." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As for miracle-based faith, IIRC the only overt miracle formally\nrequired for Christian belief is Christ's Resurrection. Papal\ninfallibility and the incidental qualities of the Host are not\nobservable or falsifiable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmm. Well, they are required by _Catholic_ (i.e., Wolfe's)\nfaith, as are the Virgin birth and the Assumption of Mary, plus\nmiscellaneous miracles Jesus performed along the way. (I'm not\nsure what the Church's official position on the various OT miracles\nis, or on the miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.) Not to mention\nthe inspiration of the Bible itself and the Magesterial authority\nof, well, the Church (of which Papal infallibility is only a special\ncase).\n\nNow, if you're talking about \"Christian belief,\" more generally,\nthen you can find someone who believes or doesn't believe almost\nanything and calls himself/herself a Christian. But I think the\nvast majority of Christians, even those who like to explain a lot\nof the various miracles away by geographical and astronomical\ntrivia, would agree, at least, on the Virgin birth, miscellaneous\nmiracles of Christ's ministry, the Resurrection, and at least the\nPentecost miracle (if not some of the healings and freeings and\nsuch) from the Acts.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<443C82AA.2080204@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-12T04:31:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Master Ash v Silkhorn (astral time travel)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Duffy wrote:\nI think relativity holds in the NS-SS-LS universe. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not in any meaningful way, given that the entire premise, that the speed \nof light remains constant relative to all observers, is violated by \nFather Inire's mirrors. '\"'Since nothing can exceed the speed of light \nin our universe, the accelerated light leaves it and enters another. \nWhen it slows again, it reenters ours--naturally at another place.'\"'" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-12T19:42:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<443C6A3A.1010304@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Actually, this is (from the Catholic perspective) quite a dangerous\ncourse also, in that it denies miracles, and the Christian (and so\nCatholic, and, I presume, Wolfe's) faith is _based_ on miracles,\nfrom the Virgin Birth to the Resurrection, not to exclude (at least\nfor Catholics) ongoing miracles such as the limited infallibility of\nPopes and the transubstantiation of the Host in the Eucharist." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think Chris is probably thinking more along the lines of Aquinas,\nwhose limits to God's power to do the impossible were more about the\nability of humans to construct paradoxes, prefiguring Godel's Theorem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Descartes, IIRC, vacillates between indirectly assuming that God can't \nviolate natural law or produce true contradictions and that he simply won't. \nIf you look for it you'll find some confusion in the Cartesian tradition on \nprecisely this point. I'm thinking of Descartes because he had a somewhat \nmore direct influence on the modern scientific worldview. In any event Dan'l \nis correct that either way you cut it you find yourself in some trouble, and \nsome thinkers spent an awful lot of time trying to work around that, to \nvarying degrees of success." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As for miracle-based faith, IIRC the only overt miracle formally\nrequired for Christian belief is Christ's Resurrection. Papal\ninfallibility and the incidental qualities of the Host are not\nobservable or falsifiable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is a general problem with saying that the Christian *faith* is \"based \non\" miracles. Basically if you know, by whatever means, that the event is \npossible, then it doesn't require faith at all. In its ideal form, faith \nwould admit that the event was rationally impossible, and believe in it \nanyway.\n\nNow Hume assumed just what you and Dan'l have said - that the Christian \nfaith is based on miracles - and then gave a tricky little proof that \nmiracles were impossible. I say tricky because the main body of the proof is \nmostly handwaving, and the meat of his position is hidden in the definitions \nhe uses. A miracle, he says, is something which contradicts the laws of \nnature. Now for Hume a \"law of nature\" is a customary connection that is \nmade when a certain effect is *always*, uniformly, conjoined with a certain \ncause. Thus if we ever *did* have an experience that didn't conform, Hume \nwould oblige us to say, not that we had witnessed a miracle, but that we \nwere mistaken about the law of nature (since, obviously, the \"miraculous\" \nevent is an experience that breaks the uniformity of the connection). This \nisn't all that different from what we do today with scientific theories, \nexcept we don't call those \"laws of nature\" generally. If an experiment \ncontradicts theory, we don't say it's a miracle, we say our theory isn't \ncomplete.\n\nIn any event Wittgenstein later said something astute about miracles - which \nI don't think were a matter of general concern to him - that went something \nlike: it makes no sense to talk about whether a miracle does or doesn't \nbreak a law of nature, because to look at an event with an eye to its causes \nis a completely different way of looking at it than the way of looking at it \nas a miracle... when you give an explanation, what you explain is only the \n*event*, and the miracle is nowhere to be found in it.\n\nIn any event the same might be said to apply to Wolfe. We can (and are \ndriven to) come up with causal explanations for some of the wondrous and \nconfusing events in his stories. When we do it seems like we're assuming \nthat there was nothing wondrous about the event in the first place; but the \nwonder we experience when first reading the story is nowhere to be found in \nthe events we try to explain.\n\n[Please accept that last paragraph as my belated excuse for wandering so far \nafield with this convo. See, it has something to do with Wolfe after all!]" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-12T19:54:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604112029h19acdffcufb70c66cf0f2faa2@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I see what you mean -- but I read the discussion as being about\nphysical, as opposed to logical, impossibilities. (Chris? Comment?)\nI suppose that you could argue that there's a logical impossibility\nin God's violating the physical laws He established, but only if\nyou assume that He meant for Himself to be bound by them in\nthe first place." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Generally yes, although keep in mind that logical and physical \nimpossibilities were not clearly separated from each other with a lot of \nthese thinkers. What the rationalists really wanted was a way to derive all \nthe physical laws from logic, and even some non-rationalists have this \nhidden assumption that there is such a connection... that deep down, if you \nknew enough, you would see that physical impossibilities were also logical \nimpossibilities. At the same time they *did* distinguish between physical \nscience and logic, and the statements/truths thereof, but on actual \nexamination I think most of these boil down to the simple fact that we don't \nknow enough about physical science. You'll probably catch me lumping the two \ntogether in that last post as well - IIRC Descartes sometimes blurs the line \nbetween logical/physical impossibilities in just that way, in the space of a \nsingle sentence, and that was what I was echoing.\n\nThere are some modern philosophers who blur this line in a different way, \nand with a somewhat more limited scope, but to be honest I don't fully \nunderstand them and, at first glance I'm not particularly enamored with \ntheir arguments." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604121518n1712fa59m2aed313a56c99fdb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-12T22:18:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Chris & I are in violent agreement here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/12/06, Chris wrote:\nThere is a general problem with saying that the Christian *faith* is \"based\non\" miracles. Basically if you know, by whatever means, that the event is\npossible, then it doesn't require faith at all. In its ideal form, faith\nwould admit that the event was rationally impossible, and believe in it\nanyway." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this is more-or-less true; the loophole in it is, \"with God all\nthings are possible.\" In other words: Event X is a miracle if it is\noutside the scope of physical-logical possibility, _and happens\nanyway_. (Some scientistic zealots have discussed the idea of\na \"thermodynamic miracle,\" in which something not quite impossible\nbut wildly improbable occurs; I regard this as a non-miracle, since,\nif I'm not mistaken, the odds against any given state of the universe\noccurring dwarf the term \"astronomical\" -- yet the universe continues\nhaving states. Of course, the universe itself is a miracle, but that's\nanother topic.)\n\nThe point being that, if the idea of God is accepted as a premiss,\nthen miracles are rationally possible. Whether God _does_ pass\nmiracles or not is (again) another matter, and has more to do with\nthe purported character of God than with logic. (\"You say Jehovah,\nI say YHWH -- let's call the whole thing God.\") But the rational or\nirrational character of God is precisely beyond our ability to determine\n-- God is _by definition_ beyond our ability to get at by experiment,\nand, while we can reason about God, we cannot prove that the\nbasis of our reasoning is valid. Ergo, back to the irrational...\n\nBut when I say that the Christian faith is predicated on belief in\nmiracles, I mean something like what CS Lewis said fifty years\nand change ago: if one does not believe that Christ was resurrected\nfrom the dead, then one should not refer to oneself as a \"Christian,\"\nno matter how good you think his moral teachings were. It dilutes\nthe term, which has a fairly clear meaning." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now Hume assumed just what you and Dan'l have said - that the\nChristian faith is based on miracles - and then gave a tricky little proof\nthat miracles were impossible. I say tricky because the main body of\nthe proof is mostly handwaving," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yep. Agreed completely. I think Hume was by-and-large a very fine\nthinker, but not here. (I love the bit where he observes that, having\nreached a certain conclusion, there's really nothing for the thinker\nto do but go play a game of billiards or have a drink with some friends.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A miracle, he says, is something which contradicts the laws of\nnature. Now for Hume a \"law of nature\" is a customary connection that is\nmade when a certain effect is *always*, uniformly, conjoined with a\ncertain cause." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is worth noting in passing here that one of the things Hume was\nafter was proving that we do not in fact \"know\" any laws of nature,\nbecause we can't prove that _any_ effect is _always_ consequent\nupon a purported cause: he clearly dismissed the idea of\ninductive reasoning..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In any event Wittgenstein later said something astute about miracles -\nwhich I don't think were a matter of general concern to him - that went\nsomething like: it makes no sense to talk about whether a miracle does\nor doesn't break a law of nature, because to look at an event with an eye\nto its causes is a completely different way of looking at it than the way of\nlooking at it as a miracle..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do love Wittgenstein. I don't always agree with him but I do here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In any event the same might be said to apply to Wolfe. We can (and are\ndriven to) come up with causal explanations for some of the wondrous and\nconfusing events in his stories. When we do it seems like we're assuming\nthat there was nothing wondrous about the event in the first place; but the\nwonder we experience when first reading the story is nowhere to be found\nin the events we try to explain." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thus, the cathedral of the Pelerines rising into the air...\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20060413034716.61846.qmail@web32414.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "don doggett", "address": "kingwukong at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-04-13T03:47:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604121518n1712fa59m2aed313a56c99fdb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nBut when I say that the Christian faith is\npredicated on belief in\nmiracles, I mean something like what CS Lewis said\nfifty years\nand change ago: if one does not believe that Christ\nwas resurrected\nfrom the dead, then one should not refer to oneself\nas a \"Christian,\"\nno matter how good you think his moral teachings\nwere. It dilutes\nthe term, which has a fairly clear meaning." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At least since the time of Constantine. It's funny how\nthe point of a sword will clarify things. . . around\n200 a.d. the meaning was a little fuzzier. That said,\nI agree the term Christian in the modern age belongs\nto those who accept the resurrection, though I think\nit's unfortunate and leaves the religion poorer as a\nwhole. Not trying to pick a fight, just throwing one\nin for the fringe.\n\nDon" } ] }, { "message_id": "<443DCBF1.3020006@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-13T03:56:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604112029h19acdffcufb70c66cf0f2faa2@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI think Chris is probably thinking more along the lines of Aquinas,\nwhose limits to God's power to do the impossible were more about the\nability of humans to construct paradoxes, prefiguring Godel's Theorem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I see what you mean -- but I read the discussion as being about\nphysical, as opposed to logical, impossibilities. (Chris? Comment?)\nI suppose that you could argue that there's a logical impossibility\nin God's violating the physical laws He established, but only if\nyou assume that He meant for Himself to be bound by them in\nthe first place." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I mean things like disproving God's omnipotence by asking can God make a \nrock so big He can't lift it. This shortcoming is only valid in a \nsuperficial, rhetorical sense. Mathematically, this is a comparison of \ntwo infinite quantities, and their lack of finite magnitude is more \napparent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for miracle-based faith, IIRC the only overt miracle formally\nrequired for Christian belief is Christ's Resurrection. Papal\ninfallibility and the incidental qualities of the Host are not\nobservable or falsifiable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "H'mmm. Well, they are required by _Catholic_ (i.e., Wolfe's)\nfaith, as are the Virgin birth and the Assumption of Mary, plus\nmiscellaneous miracles Jesus performed along the way. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this leads to another rhetorical paradox; how can the church be \ntruly catholic and universal if they exclude followers of Jesus who \ndon't have the same \"miracles believed in\" boxes checked off?\n\nI am going by the Nicean Creed when I say the miracle of Christ's \nResurrection is the only overt miracle required for belief. The divine \nand virginal origin of Jesus is not something that would require obvious \nmirqaculous goings on, but an obviously dead first century man gettinng \nup and talking, then floating into the sky, in front of multiple \nwitnesses, that would have to be miraculous." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<443DCE66.2050701@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-04-13T04:07:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604121518n1712fa59m2aed313a56c99fdb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI think Chris & I are in violent agreement here.\n\nOn 4/12/06, Chris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is a general problem with saying that the Christian *faith* is \"based\non\" miracles. Basically if you know, by whatever means, that the event is\npossible, then it doesn't require faith at all. In its ideal form, faith\nwould admit that the event was rationally impossible, and believe in it\nanyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think this is more-or-less true; the loophole in it is, \"with God all\nthings are possible.\" In other words: Event X is a miracle if it is\noutside the scope of physical-logical possibility, _and happens\nanyway_. (Some scientistic zealots have discussed the idea of\na \"thermodynamic miracle,\" in which something not quite impossible\nbut wildly improbable occurs; I regard this as a non-miracle, since,\nif I'm not mistaken, the odds against any given state of the universe\noccurring dwarf the term \"astronomical\" -- yet the universe continues\nhaving states. Of course, the universe itself is a miracle, but that's\nanother topic.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Resurrection would be a non-miracle in this sense, becasue there is \nnothing to prevent the atoms in a body from rearranging themselves into \na pattern allowing that body to resume living. However, the *proportion* \nof living states to nonliving states is miniscule indeed." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604122223y4422f3fft91485908be30aae9@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-13T05:23:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<443DCBF1.3020006@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/12/06, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nI mean things like disproving God's omnipotence by asking can God make a\nrock so big He can't lift it. This shortcoming is only valid in a\nsuperficial, rhetorical sense." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, ayuh. In fact, the paradox is based on a kind of dimbulb definition\nof \"omnipotence.\" (Oddly, you can defuse it by using a very folksy\ndefinition: \"the ability to do anything one wants.\" Then, if God wants\nto make a stone so heavy He can't lift it, He can make it. To say \"He\ncan't lift it\" is irrelevant because, since He wants it to be so heavy\nHe can't lift it, lifting it is not covered by this definition...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mathematically, this is a comparison of\ntwo infinite quantities, and their lack of finite magnitude is more\napparent." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "yep." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think this leads to another rhetorical paradox; how can the church be\ntruly catholic and universal if they exclude followers of Jesus who\ndon't have the same \"miracles believed in\" boxes checked off?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, the position of the Roman Catholic Church -- which understandably\noffends some Protestants -- is that all Christians (including \"anonymous\nChristians,\" those saved by the grace of Christ though they never in this\nlife accepted, or even heard, the Gospel) _are_ members of the Catholic\nChurch. They are sometimes referred to in Catholic documents as\n\"separated brethren.\" -- Most Protestants also believe in a single\nChurch, the supernatural Body of Christ and all that, also; this is what\nCredal Protestants refer to in the \"one Catholic church\" bit of the\nApostle's creed. It's the Roman church's insistence that the Roman\nchurch _is_ that one Catholic Church that offends many Protestants..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am going by the Nicean Creed when I say the miracle of Christ's\nResurrection is the only overt miracle required for belief." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmm.\n\nThis is, I believe, the Lutheran Book of Worship translation:\n\nWe believe in one God,\nthe Father, the Almighty,\nmaker of heaven and earth,\nof all that is, seen and unseen.\n\nWe believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,\nthe only Son of God,\neternally begotten of the Father,\nGod from God, Light from Light,\ntrue God from true God,\nbegotten, not made,\nof one Being with the Father.\nThrough him all things were made.\nFor us and for our salvation\nhe came down from heaven:\nby the power of the Holy Spirit\nhe became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,\nand was made man.\nFor our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;\nhe suffered death and was buried.\nOn the third day he rose again\nin accordance with the Scriptures;\nhe ascended into heaven\nand is seated at the right hand of the Father.\nHe will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,\nand his kingdom will have no end.\n\nWe believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,\nwho proceeds from the Father and the Son.\nWith the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.\nHe has spoken through the Prophets.\nWe believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.\nWe acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.\nWe look for the resurrection of the dead,\nand the life of the world to come. Amen.\n\nIn this I see (at least!) the following miracules specifically\nmentioned or referenced:\n\n- Creation\n- Incarnation of the eternal Son\n- Virgin birth\n- Christ's Resurrection\n- Christ's ascension\n- Prophecy (fulfilled)\n- General resurrection (expected, not already happened,\n but belief in it is still part of this definitional Creed)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The divine and virginal origin of Jesus is not something that would\nrequire obvious mirqaculous goings on," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Um ... _how's_ that again? On what planet are these things ordinary\noccurrences? _Not_ the one I grew up on." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but an obviously dead first century man gettinng\nup and talking, then floating into the sky, in front of multiple\nwitnesses, that would have to be miraculous." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, yes...\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-14T20:44:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370604111516k2335ba48jb4df6bdaf33993eb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nOn 4/11/06, Chris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The religiously dangerous course to take is to say that God\n*can't* violate the laws of nature, and some have taken it. The\ncourse that has seemed safer to others is to say that God can,\nbut *won't*, violate the laws of nature for whatever reason - usually\nbecause of his benevolence towards us, sometimes because of\nhis rationality, etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, this is (from the Catholic perspective) quite a dangerous\ncourse also, in that it denies miracles, and the Christian (and so\nCatholic, and, I presume, Wolfe's) faith is _based_ on miracles,\nfrom the Virgin Birth to the Resurrection, not to exclude (at least\nfor Catholics) ongoing miracles such as the limited infallibility of\nPopes and the transubstantiation of the Host in the Eucharist." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Depends on what value one assigns 'miracle', I guess. (But as a wicked \nAnglican, and hence neither truely Catholic nor Protestant, I _would_ say \nthat. :) )\n\nSiding with Wittgenstein here also. Does this count as a form of argumentum \nad populum?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-14T21:00:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quick addendum: A lot depends on the value assigned to 'law of nature', as \nwell. I suspect Whiteheadean Process Theists of having a view that's \nsimilar to a 'contigent regularity subject to gradual evolution + God' \nconcept of the laws of nature, as opposed to the 'stable laws layed down in \nstone' concept that seems to be the norm, so even within broadly defined \ntheistic contexts there are quite few options [1]. I'll admit to not being \nentirely sure enough of the relationship between the 'laws of nature in our \nheads' and the ones 'out there' to be able to construct a clear account of \nthe term 'miracle' in terms of the violation of either. Which may just be \nme.\n\n[1] The former of those two requires that you read Whitehead though, who is \nnot what I'd call a great prose stylist..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370604141453l64e54192r13b02f555d7a79ad@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-04-14T21:53:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Information, etc.", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 4/14/06, Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nDepends on what value one assigns 'miracle', I guess. (But as a wicked\nAnglican, and hence neither truely Catholic nor Protestant, I _would_ say\nthat. :) )" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh.\n\nI grew up Episcopal(ian), meaning \"Anglican without Queen and\nCanterbury.\" Neither truly Catholic, truly Protestant, or even truly\nAnglican -- kind of a Trinitarian version of the Unitarian church. 8*)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Siding with Wittgenstein here also. Does this count as a form of\nargumentum ad populum?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Argument from Authority, I think... depending on whether you\nthink of Wittgenstein as an \"authority.\" I think of him as \"very\ncool.\" I still love Prop 7.0\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.\n -- St Teresa of Avila\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<23119734.1145475406366.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2006-04-19T19:36:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Master Ash v Silkhorn (astral time travel)", "in_reply_to": "<443C82AA.2080204@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David Duffy said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So, I think for Silkhorn to astral travel \"instantaneously\" requires time\ntravel, just not requiring the apparatus many of the others used." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. As I've argued repeatedly in the past, the Rajan's astral travel\ndefinitely permits and includes time-travel. The first evidence of it\nwas when Silk saw an astral-traveling Oreb fly out of his window and\nfade away at a time in the story when the Oreb had a broken wing.\nI don't know of another explanation for that event.\n\nThat Silk should eventually gain power over Time was prefigured\nin the subtle associations of him with Zervan \n(http://www.well.com/~davidu/leontosphere_jp70.jpg):\nan association that confused me until I read The Short Sun.\nPerhaps there is another such association with Horn somewhere.\n\nJ" } ] } ] }