Re: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?
----- Original Message -----
From: "bestonnet_00" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?
> --- In email@example.com, "richard" <meta@...> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "bestonnet_00" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: <email@example.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:20 PM
>> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?
> For most people, yes there is usually no proof they existed.
There is good evidence from Roman records of at least two acclaimed messiahs
before Jesus' time, one of them actually another Jesus, same name different
guy. These were the kind of messiah expected by the Jews, a military one.
They were eliminated by Roman forces.
> But for someone who was influential they typically do have a lot of
> proof of existence, ancient rulers for example left plenty of evidence
> that they existed and yet what do we have for Jesus?
Probably because Jesus was not a messiah. He didn't claim to be, even we
might would be in the gospels. Messiah's were God's anointed
representatives to accomplish physical restoration for the Jews. Jesus
interpreters thought of Jesus as a different kind of Messiah. Actually
Isaiah in the Bible claimed Cyrus, King of Persia, was God's messiah ("the
anointed one") in releasing the Jews from Babylonia.
> A few third hand accounts written a couple of generations after his
> death while no one who lived when he did seemed to even mention him.
Like what? The only reference is "Chrestos" making scholars wonder why it
was misspelled with the "e" instead of "i". That from a Roman official.
> Well who else is Jesus meant to be but Jesus Christ?
What do you mean by "meant to be". Obviously there is a difference in he
gospels from the historical Jesus BEFORE the crucifixion, and Jesus Christ
AFTER the crucifixion. The before is what is known as the historical Jesus,
but even then much about him and what he is purported to have said appear to
be only how he was interpreted.
There is very good reason to conclude the man Jesus is historical as a
wandering Jew preacher to the Jews, uplifting them with "God's rule" in
their inner minds. Non-Christian biblical scholars agree with that.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
>I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
> --- In email@example.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
> > I'm mentioning it because humans tend to have large quantum
> > numbers.
> I read the basic idea of it. I always thought the same, I saw some
> of the mathematics behind it but I didn't understand that because
> I'm not at a high enough level of mathematics, I'm going into
> pre-cal (11th grade).
back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don't really know that much
more now, however many lectures later).
> I've actually always been curious about how much the macroscopicCompared to classical theory pretty much not at all.
> world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.
> If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennisIf the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
> ball bouncing around inside it at say 100 kmph and the room
> was 10 m^3 and both rooms started out absolutely identical, ~how
> long would it take a human eye to detect a difference in the
> location/velocity of the tennis balls? I don't know, but I've been
trajectory of the balls identical then I would expect classical
mechanics to hold just fine at that scale so it'll be a lot longer
than your lifetime before you notice any difference.
Doing a full quantum mechanical treatment is going to be very hard
though, even if you make a lot of approximations it wouldn't be worth
it for any practical purpose (although classical mechanics holding
well in the solar system didn't stop people using GR to calculate the
trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft).
> > I'd be more inclined to say \Delta x \Delta p >= \hbar / 2 myself.I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
> No disagreement then I take it. I do know how the uncertainty
> principle works (it makes a lot of sense also) but I haven't learned
> the mathematics yet (although I have seen them).
mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).
> > It seems to be more like rambling.The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
> I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
> maybe I could come to an understanding.
I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
can't figure out what you're saying.