| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Leo, Sandy wrote:
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:27:14 -0700
> From: "Leo, Sandy" <atleo@sandia.gov>
> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: paleonet cautions on biblical interpretation,
> from faith and skepticism
>
> Folks -- If our local paper (Stockton Record) had not recently printed
> the two sides of the story in a so-called balanced view of evolution vs.
> intelligent design, I would have been willing to move on. However, the
> paper did print a couple of articles, so I suspect that the battle
> between science & religion will be moving into our local schools here in
> central California.
Dear Sandy,
and here part 2 of the reply comes. Again: Written friendly and
constructive. Further such replies are not planned.
I hope that, when forwarded, these two e-mails contribute to
progress by joining two different groups that sometimes appear
to fight against each other (maybe they see rising topics that are
much more interesting than changing school curricula).
The evolution discussion has a long lifetime. Thus also a piece from me.
(Part 2)
Sometimes in the discussion one side wins a point, then the other.
Sometimes a gap between the different groups appears to widen, in the
worst case first to a gorge and then to an ocean.
This does not lead to progress.
If in the worst case Earth History is wrongly identified as
bad, simply by not-thorough bible reading,
it is not only bad for all of us but also bad for progress
(see Italy).
Assuming most are good-willing, including bible-research institutes,
things can be sorted and in some cases in the light of the knowledge
of the 21st century also Religion can be moved forward.
All who are not interested in it: Please delete.
I was hesitating quite a long time contributing to this thread as
it might appear off-topic.
I wrote it such that in the US it can in case of a similar discussion
in a schoolboard etc. be simply forwarded. It can also be forwarded
to US churches. They might feel encouraged to do religion right and
thus sort out the various components.
(including nomenclature, DD1 to DD7, the liberality of the ten
rules and Jesus statements compared to misinterpretations such as
"flirtations without marriage" (not forbidden) versus "braking a marriage"
(forbidden).
By doing so, I hope, they can get open minded towards geology and
particularly by clearly sorting out in a table:
"What, according to the bible, is said by God, Jesus, the Angels"
versus "what are additions by near-east goat-ranchers" (Leviticus?)
The alternative, see the recent posting by Sandy Leo on Californian
issues, would be to regard progress of the 21st century as abandoned
and to concentrate on never-depleting oilfields (in the sense of the
technology).
The resaons for this posting (incl. the previous) are quite pragmatical:
(a) Silvio Berlusconi (Italian Prime Minister) is reported to have
attempted changing the Italian school-curriculum such that evolution
is not taught in the first about nine classes. School-customers
should first learn the biblical version, later, if they are still
at school, the scientific.
Whether this attempt was successful I don t know.
(b) the reported concerns on this list young students sometimes have
when being exposed to earth history. A voluntarily two hour extra
unit, outlining Holocene environmemnts, the biblical environment,
even the DD1 to DD7 scheme might address such concerns.
Thus the preceding and this posting are also intended to be
forwarded, where it appears useful, to such boards/bodies in the US
so for example bible-belt based schoolboards etc. can bridge
nomenclatorical and other gaps.
Of course, as Bill Chaisson pointed out, I wrote the e-mail
good willing and in a positive mood (Thankyou).
The parts on earth history, flood, paleontology bible and sociology
aim at this (previous).
(c) Some readers to which this and the preceding e-mail might be
forwarded, might be hesitant to apply scientific principles,
e.g. testing hypotheses. Again, thankyou Bill for contributing the
excerpts from Sir Karl Popper.
For them I suggested to read the bible thoroughly and sorting
in the form of a data-table out: What, according to the bible,
is said by god/the angels (such as the ten rules) and Jesus
and what is added by near east goat-ranchers of 800 BC (thankyou Phil
for correcting me).
Also on this list it was said that people like lawyers, medical doctors
etc. support the biblical version of earth history. Thus apparently
such concerns need to be addressed.
If some are hesitant to be open-minded for reasons of the (compact)
"score for the time after death" they are invited to the Paleontology
and Sociology section (below) and "how are humans able to
say that by xyz ascetics, abc behaviour a voucher for a good life
on the other side" is achieved. This includes "where bishops/mullahs,
paleontology based, sometimes misuse good-willingness
of church-attendents.
I would in the form of an Ansatz (in the sense of equations) assume
that 90% of bible-reading persons might be open-minded if evidences
are explained calmly and well such as on a University website in the US,
a church website in the US (with additional input regarding data
from a university) and so forth.
The remaining 10% can come to the same conclusions by sorting
bible-statements in above sense.
The next questions are:
Progress is pulling the future into the present.
Changing curricula to the knowledge of near-east goat-ranchers, 800 BC,
is one sometimes found desire of near-church bodies in the US.
Not only for Geology but also for the public in general I regard it
as much more exciting for Churches to put the abilities, determination
and also, from millions of their members, the assembled skills together
to address unsolved questions of religion and science -
with the knowledge and the methods of the 21st century.
The following lines sketch briefly a to do list for the next decades.
The important thing is the term "science" in "Religion Science" e.g.:
Testing hypotheses open-minded.
In the light of growing knowledge some items might not be followed
in the future (such as the Australian Serpent). Some items might be
identified as communicative misunderstanding (if I understood it
correctly at school the historical Santa Claus was a bishop in Turkey
in the early church; he did considerable charitable deeds (not miracles)
including working successful against starvation in a respective city; that
is celebrated on Dec 6).
Point 4 (below) addresses:
Where are the open questions?
How might they be addressed?
Can miracles be turned into procedures?
Todays wireless internet for example might be labeled as
"desire from the realm of miracles" when addressed 400 years ago.
What must be postponed until better data are available?
If, with funding from US churches, in a scientific institute
an informal group on Religion Science forms, a respective agenda
might be established (e.g. the next 20+ years).
To avoid any misunderstanding I repeat what Bill Chaisson wrote:
"As I understanding (...) Smolka's reasoning, he feels that if Christian
fundamentalists would simply embrace the philosophical perspective of the
late Sir Karl Popper, then we could all live quite happily together.
Well, we always have hope, I guess.
Last night I happened to read a Richard Bradford Trust lecture (delivered
Mar 4, 1977) by Peter Medawar. I quote:
In Popper's view the generative act in scientific discovery
or in the solution of a problem is the formulation of an
hypothesis, i.e., an imaginative conjecture about what the
truth of the matter might be. An hypothesis is a sort of
draft law or guess about what the world-or some particularly
interesting part of it-may be like ....
In outcome science is not a collection of facts or of
unquestionable generalisations, but a logically connected
network of hypotheses which represent our current opinion
about what the real world is like.
Most of the day-to-day business of science consists not of
hunting for facts as an inductivist might suppose, but of
testing hypotheses, that is, seeing if they stand up to the
test of real life .... Acts undertaken to test a hypothesis
are referred to as 'experiments'.
What is being tested in an experiment is the logical
implications of the hypothesis, i.e. the logical consequences
of accepting a hypothesis. A well designed and technically
( ... )
... No matter how often the hypothesis is confirmed-no matter
how many apples fall downwards instead of upwards-the
hypothesis embodying the Newtonian gravitational scheme
cannot be said to have been proven to be true. Any
hypothesis is still sub judice and may conceivably be
supplanted by a different hypothesis later on.* "
****************************
Some might find some thoughts of part 4 below unusual.
One of the most unsual sciences is however Geology:
In parts of paleoclimatology for example (fauna/flora based paleotemperatures)
analyses start with 21 dimensions (Imbrie and Kipp, 1971) and end up
with five. Others start with 41 dimensions (Cline and Hays, 1976)
and end up with six for simplicity.
These are well-established methods (see the impact of CLIMAP for 18K
and see IGCP341 for Neogene time-intervals).
Addressing people from bible-research institutes: Free thinking
regarding geometry is one standard approach in Geology (explicite
hints to computational details: Davis, ca. 1971: Statistics and
Data Analysis in Geology).
"I found (...) Smolka's missive to be filled with a great deal of good
will in sense that he seemed to be saying that Biblical statements are so
open-ended from a logical standpoint that if they were subjected to
Popperian-type tests in an easy-going manner, they would most assuredly
pass most of the time. "
Thankyou Bill.
Continuing the e-mail:
3b) Paleontology and Sociology (for a website, university/US church)
How, under the influence of paleontology, did religious leaders
in contrast to the bible sometimes say the opposite following the logic:
Everything nice is forbidden. Ascetics implements this. By doing
this a high score is achieved. At the end of life the aquired high score
is cashed in into an upgrade for eternal life-quality afterwards.
To outline where bishops/mullahs misused their open-mindedness and
loyality for concepts beyond religion (such as bishops/mullahs sake)
might also be a subthread of a respective website. As a bible research
institute might easily say "also bishops are humans and can thus commit
sins" they might be open minded to sort bishops/mullahs additions
(in church nomenclature: sin laden deviations)
from original advice by God/Jesus/the angels.
I do not remember any sentence of the bible saying: "God/Jesus/the angel
said that by xyz ascetics nmk amounts of benefit abc is earned." Thus
parts
of bishops/mullahs extrabiblical additions are part of paleontology/
sociology and not of religion (= on the to do list).
Why behave bishops/mullahs sometimes so harsh, often independent
of what Jesus / the bible said / says?
The answer is in paleontology:
Once a new species evoloved it, comparable to a liquid, tends to
fill the available space. To support this: The genes tend to
spread worldwide and eliminate "the others".
As more than one species exists competition can be observed.
To ensure a maximum spread of the own genes not only maximum
reproducability is one of the means but also the tendency to
inhibit others to reproduce, even by eliminating (such as the male lion
who bites the "kittens" of his predessor lion to death).
A territorial behaviour of some animals, e.g. pushing others out
of the own area, appears also as supporting method in above sense.
The brain evolved by evolution. Thus human habits, also
in interactions, can be regarded as subject to evolution (e.g. caused
by evolution and evolving further).
In the past wide shoulders at men assured safety for flirtating women
(e.g. mammoth-burgers, now replaced by the VISA Gold Card).
To attract data to check the female fashion is accordingly.
The genes with above pattern survived (e.g. are now a well-known model).
Others reduced. So this is normal.
It needs to be studied (Sociology, Paleontology, Anthropology):
Are rules that impose on women to cover
to a maximum extent evolutive mechanisms to ensure the spread
of "own" (the husbands / own groups) genes (= to keep other genes
out)?
E.g. is, what some bishopps/mullahs
label as "good" or "sin" simply an evolutive mechanism
to ensure spread of own genes or the own ethnicity?
Is the imposition of ascetic rules a form of dominance behavior
in the sense of above territorial behavior?
Just: The bible appears to prescribe only very little and that
very liberal (e.g. that part labeled as "By God/Jesus/the Angels").
Did, not having studied geology, bisphops/mullahs
possibly not study the bible/koran/jewish text but simply
impose own (male) territorial behavior on listeners?
The patterns in the large religions appear quite comparable:
In any religion the "orthodox" has a high value, in the sense
"They do it right".
In any of these (for orthodox in Israel referring to a report
in a general journal on settlers in the westbank area)
for example many children are desired, the woman is regarded
subordinate to the man, even covering the hair of the women is
not an islamic peculiarity but can be observed as habit to
aim at in orthdox jewish and christian subcommunities
(written as neutral observation, everybody can dress as he/she likes).
The clothing of catholic nuns for example (optically not too far
from the islamic) does not appear to be driven by protection against
sunburn or cold.
In case a muslim gets angry: Allah sees anyway all
details; hiding something makes thus no sense under aspects of religion.
Saying that Allah cannot see everything contradicts religion.
The only source for such clothing can be the men of that society.
That can be studied.
Assessing this paleontology-driven behaviour (territorial behaviour,
spreading of the own genes, inhibiting others to spread the genes),
respective patterns in different religions (e.g. rules that are claimed
to be religion-based morality but in fact are male wishes) can be
systematized, also as aspect of how evolution works in the Late
Holocene and put on a website.
The spreading/inhibitions of thoughts might follow comparable patterns.
The benefit for humanity: If religion (e.g. the God/Jesus/Angel based
component) and male territorial behaviour are sorted out, peace and
progress is supported.
Particularly people don t need to suffer (sunday school, koran school)
erraneosuly thinking that it is good for reasons of religion where
in fact it is vertebrate paleontology (male territorial behaviour,
600 million years evolution)
Assessing such patterns in different societies / religions
(what is regarded as "sin" although in the bible not indicated
as "rule by God/Jesus/the Angels") and putting it on an evolutionary
website (how evolution spreads both genes and concepts) is a
task of Paleontology/Sociology/Ethnology (and potentially an area for
new theses).
4) Religion Science
Part 1:Pragmatical Aspects
Part 2: Geometrical Aspects (computationally)
ad 4a) Pragmatical Aspects (stepwise aquiring Jesus skills by everybody
and data communication)
4-1) With some likelyhood parts of he following thoughts exist already. In
this case they need to be systematized in a scientific context that is:
Not fighting for or against a hypothesis but calmly developing methods
further, including small steps if intermediate hypotheses are optimized.
It is accepted that Jesus had a long-lasting worldwide impact. This
impact would not have existed if he wouldn t have reached people:
Both 2000 years ago, in the time between and now.
Now the unsolved questions, e.g. parts of a to do list for the future
(instead of changing school curricula) starts.
One of these subparts contains a safety hint stressing the importance
to test hypotheses _calmly_ in above sense.
Regarding Jesus (task list):
In medicine: Various successful treatments of really severe cases,
e.g. blind persons, persons unable to move.
And the task for us: Are there similar very seldom cases (e.g. blind
getting able to see, wheelchair users getting able to move)
also today? What, with current
knowledge, might be entrances to this ability? (possible entrances
to testing below). E.g. which research might Religion Science,
together with others, do? Including (metanoie): Reassssing / rethinking
existing observations under new aspects.
To avoid being critisized by conservative catholic people:
Are there also other overlooked aspects? Example for research (to do):
In the bible it is said: "To him a man was brought who was born
blind. He was asked by his followers: Who did the sins? He or his
parents?" Apparently the catholic/buddhistic concept of souls,
living in different times in different bodies was at that time
a commonplace as otherwise his fellower would not have asked:
"He or his parents" (e.g. if he was born blind as punishment for sins
he could otherwise (before his birth) not have done sins.
In the todays section of the baptization prayer of the catholic
church (in Germany) it is also said (by the priest):
"We thank for sacrament ...."
and in a longer list of sacraments to be thanked for
"We thank also for the sacrament of rebirth".
(observed in a church in North Germany in summer 2004, I asked the
priest afterwards whether I heard it correctly; technically it is
the only way to realize the catholic "reviving in the flesh" as the
bodies decay to CO2 and H2O and spread in aquifers and atmosphere).
Some hints on this, mainly under computational aspects, are in part 4b.
E.g. in which area might, if it works, solutions be found.
ad 4a) Are there possible ways to make what was a miracle 2000 years ago
to normal skills now? Where might be entrances to this to test by
Religion Science? (Analogon: Technical Simulation of natural
abilities; the shark skin for example as coating of the American
Yacht (Skipper O Conner) in the Americas Cup).
Observations to be systematized are:
Jesus interacted with the people directly. He achived considerable effects.
Are, unintended, similar observations common today? If such effects
exist (even if they are unwanted): Can they be utilized?
First observation:
It is fairly common that after an accident, even if not physically
impacted by anything, people get a very fast heartbeat, a pale
white skin, cold sweat. In some rare cases they faint. In very rare
case they even die. This is common: Known as shock, nothing special.
The point is: No physical impact (factually "software", optical and
acoustical input, bad processing by the brain) but a pronounced
physical output: Here uncontrolled (deaths) but: Measurable.
Second observation (blind vs. non-blind):
There had, after the US/Cambodia war also been emigrants from Cambodia
in the US. Here: San Francisco/ Los Angeles. Some of them have seen
details of the genozide under Pol Pot. It was reported in a newspaper
as singular remarkable event that a woman from Cambodia saw a crime
scene in the US (in the sense of a really ongoing incident, no cinema)
and got blind on the spot. If this is not exaggerated (not everything
in the press is data): Without any physical impact the "software"
switched to blind, e.g. she "subconsciously did not want to see
such a crime" and adjusted the processing of the signals accordingly.
As even basics such as whether the world is "upward" is permanently
recalculated in the brain, above, changing some processing details,
appears not impossible:
The experiment for recalculation: If persons wear a prism, reversing
the optical input (e.g. upside down) permanently they first see
the world, as expected, upside down; after about two weeks they
see it normal. If the prisms are removed, the reverse effect occurres
(first upside down, than normal).
Thus, in principle, both for Jesus and today, interacting with the
physical software appears to occurr. For him: Controlled. For us
(until now): Often uncontrolled (a possible effect) but to
be systamtized and transferred into first usable (see SQL) and later
standard (see Google) procedures.
It appears reasonable that the low-level "software" compared to
BIOS routines, is very robust as otherwise humanity would not have
reached the present.
Forth observation:
In very rare but apparently firmly documented cases so-called
"spontaneous healing of cancer" exists. That is: The cancer disappears
and nobody knows why.
As reported on West German Radio 2 some years ago there was also a
classical medical conference on this (e.g. science) in Germany.
If, task of Religion Science, the people (e.g. "being at the right
place at the right time with the right thought" but not having
the touch of an idea about the time-table behind) did the right thing,
it needs to be systematized (on a website), analyzed (as it is
at the beginning of research at single cases, not statistically (see
below) and experimentally tested with volunteers (e.g. if one cannot
do anything wrong any more testing is permitted): Of course
within the framework of Science inside a university
(= not believing anything blindly but testing open-minded).
At present singular positive events are sometimes characterized as
"coincidence". Even if they are coincidence (a playing child
hit the right keyboard-key of an assembler-program that
repairs disk-tracks bitwise and, nobody knew why, the disk is restored):
The next step is to find out why that particular bit made the
difference. That is: Singular successful cases are to be studied
open minded.
My impression is that more such "singular events" exist than the
public is aware of. Collecting them on a university website,
explaining them (where possible), reproducing them in
apparently related cases (and also reporting why the one was
successful, the other not successful a third partially successful)
might, together with people from science and medicine, a fruitful
task of Religion Science (e.g. turning former miracles into
procedures).
California (or Berkeley?) might be an open-minded place that is thus suitable to do
this.
This includes of course observations from all Religions. The housing
in a university in the faculty of science ensures that
"science-scepticism" that sometimes can be found in religious
environments, does not exist.
Why under Religion Science?
Very simple:
Here, at the beginnings, many observations might been made.
Many of them might be unexplainable with current knowledge but
be explainable some decades later after continued work.
If observations from other Religions are pulled also,
unfamiliar nomenclatures might appear. The task to decode
the meanings in current nomenclature also appears.
Popular example: Some say that, beyond pragmatical rules for daily
life (and a high score for the next) the Buddhistic religion aims
at the Nirwana. It is sometimes translated as "nothing". In fact
it might be a translation error. It could be "perfection" (the
non-perfect is characterized by the absence of some properties,
if an item includes all properties
the characteristsics to distinguish it from other perfect items
don t exist, that is: The perfect cannot be described by any
words).
In an institute of Religion Science unexplained observations
can from the mentality around religion be more easily stored on disk
for later explanation than in an institute of Cell Microbiology
(there the unexplained might be regarded as "data noise").
In technology:
The first motorflight was one single successful experiment with one
particular experimental device.
If around 1901 all attempts to fly "heavier than air" would have been
tested statistically, motorflight would have been not accepted.
In addition (addressing people from bible-research institutes): In
statistics the outcome (what is random, what is statistically proven)
depends on the conditions before the test. Trivial: The same data-points
can lead to the result 100% random, no correlation (rho=0.0) or
100% correlation, no noise (rho=1.0).
As students from medicine often learn testing linear correlations
(simplified) the standard suits in Geology (considering also sine
relations, circular data-distributions, exponential data-distributions)
is often not applied. Thus doing the first steps in an informal group
of religion-science, comparable to motorflight, without statistics
is OK. Later, to ensure correct testing, genetic differences of
test persons (see trends on entnicity optimized medicine, accumulation
of substances in dark hair compared to less accumulation in blond for
example), shall be included.
The first step of Religion Science, studying Jesus deeds and aiming
to redo some of them, is, if done open-minded, quite pragmatical
(and useful).
Safety warning:
The brain is said to have about 4 billion nerve cells (even if it
would be 20 billion: Doesn t matter). These are distributed to
specialized regions.
In addition a large amount of connections between nerve cells
exists (more storage possibilities).
A picture (the normal 180 degree angle of they eyes of for
example the office in the institute) at 300 dpi, only 24 Bit color
depth (the eye distinguishes more than 300 dpi) requires more than
4 Gigabyte.
Moving the head: Much more.
Adding texture information: Much much more.
Thus: Some of the storage principles in the brain can be expected to
be comparable to Bezier Curves: Some corner points plus the law
of formation of the whole picture (see fractal geometry).
Experiment: One can sit in the bus with closed eyes. The prestep
of the "optical" input (discussed with a respectove scientist)
is generated by the brain itsself, e.g. the "picture" that corresponds
to the bus movements.
Thus: The data "around us" (the reality) are steadily reprocessed,
for example also for reasons of storage capacity.
Thus, technologically, the brain is able to regard any overall
consistent data input as reality, simply by steady reprocessing.
Religious fundamentalism (e.g. by enthusiastic church goers) can
be generated this way; incorrect views (such as more children are
needed to secure pensions, in Germany a view some groups propose,
the opposite, can be calculated, is correct) can also result from this.
If thus experiments in this field are made with students the need to
apply scientific principles, testing, must always be emphasized.
The brain, as said, is able to accept many things as reality.
Without testing problems might occurr.
Keeping above in mind: More tasks for Religion Science exist:
4-2) Properties of Prayer
In many religions the concept of prayer exists. From what is
presented it appears like communication to others "on the other side".
An informal working group on Religion Science might sort this out
(put the results on a website) addressing the following open questions:
4-2a) The spread of words as sound occurres
only over very short distances. Thus verbal reading (such as in churches)
might have a limited effect. GSM communication works by electromagnetic
waves; e.g. the content (the thought) is the thing: Put via an
acoustical interface (the mouth of the speaker) into the mobile phone;
digitized and transmitted by electromagnetic waves. The answer the
opposite way.
4-2b) Bible-based readers might outline the specifications of religious
terms. In the catholic churche for example during the service
it is read by the priest: "And now we pray to all angels and archangels,
cherubs and seraphs .... ". If, according to preliminary
religion-knowledge, cherubs might be for example program-directors
for certain areas specialists on religion science might outline it.
(written politely, no provocation: They might put their knowledge on a website,
explaining things clearly).
Addressing a program director
for microbiology with a question (prayer) from engineering might not be good
(formulated compact, I hope I did not offend anybody).
Above should for religion-based people be much more exciting than
moving evolution out of school-curricula.
And if it works: Good for progress.
To avoid a misunderstanding: If a person from religion sits at
a computer and asks for inspiration on the right keywords for
a literature-search to type, so the book with the desired formula
appears (why not, if religion is taken seriously).
If priests are shocked by this: They might permit questions about
their tasks. In extreme cases otherwise some parts of the respective
religion might in the future become partially folkore, comparable to the
Australian Serpent.
Open-minded Religion-Science might thus for the priests be the better
alternative.
4-3) Data-flow (experimental and theoretical)
Many of us made the experience that data-based several alternatives
have the same justification (such as how to write a program; the
testing can only be made after the program runs). People from
religion-science might be asked to put methods on their website
how, according to their work, "people from the other side" might
be asked (by optimized thought-formulation, sending, receiving
the answer and decoding it, e.g. in which book to look,
which algorithm to chose first, on wich url to click). In case
of geology potential answers can be tested e.g.: Does a program
run correctly y/n.
4-4) Might there be a modem to the "other side"?
Recently the Time-Magazine asked (nearly with this words): "Is there
a god gene?" It was also reported in a general journal that
tomographically it was shown that while praying/meditating the same
regions of the brain are active. Such images of course don t prove
anything. They only show activity in a certain part of the brain
comparable to activity in a certain memory-bench of a computer.
Whether in this memory bench a climate model runs or Word is not
shown by electromagnetic activity indicators.
The question to ask about a modem, its potential properties, the type of
the encoded/decoded information (electromagnetic waves?) is
however justified.
Religion-based people might also address this question.
This rather technical formulation is not meant to offend religion-based
people. I only think: If what they suspect, expressed in terms of the
21st century, is fully or partially correct, where might the solution
be found/found partially? That is: Which research might be
done if priests are taken seriously?
To avoid any misunderstanding: This includes of course measurements
and technologically applications: Sharks for example are said
to sense the electrical field around other animals (when hunting).
The capacitive switches for the doors of some buses (no touch needed)
operate according to a comparable principle.
MBB (now part of Airbus/EADS) had years ago on their inhouse journal
a photo of a cut-off leaf made with Kirlian photography.
Airbus/EADS I regard as high-tech company (e.g. the plane-manufacturer /
defense and airspace company).
Food ("dead" (in the sense of suitable/unsuitable post-harvest
treatment) vs. "not-dead") appears also descernible with related methods.
Side-Line:
Given the suite of methods that is employed in Geology,
Religion Science might turn out to be a high-tech subject
Wether it might
be extended into "medical remote sensing" (invasion-free analytics)
I am not aware of either (tentatively I think it might).
A group of Religion Science, within the context of a University,
might gather all such methods, sort them, try them out and hope
for progress in uncovered fields.
4-5) To be studied: "The other side": Where might it exist?
This paragraph is rather technical, e.g.: Any new interpretation must
be such that the existing knowledge is included as subset. The examples
I chose are meant friendly and constructive, not as offence to religion-based people.
I ask just friendly, open-minded, and good-willing: In case
religion-based principles work fully or partially: Where might
solutions possibly be found? Where can they be definitely excluded?
(such as seeking a heaven in terms of kilometers)? and so forth.
Principles that might be used (if a working group of
Religion
Science tries to gather equations to solve and questions to ask):
Any "other side" does surely not exist in terms of an altitude, such as
"200 km, 40 000 km or billions of lightyears" above.
Expressed in religion-nomenclature: The
bidirectional travel-time in prayer
or, as it sometimes appears, in emergency, appears to be very short.
A satellite-based telephone-call has gaps of about a second
before the answer comes (experienced several times Muenster-Argentina).
Open question 1:
Computationally links between electromagnetic waves, energy etc. are
given. One central element is the Planck constant.
If an "other side" is not "high above" it might be a world around us
with a different Planck constant or other properties.
The equations, testable, need to be found.
(= in case of a really testable solution that includes known
physics as subset, a group of Religion Science surely would earn
merits; known physics as subset: The experiments in Almogordo,
Hiroshima, Fangataufa and other atolls are hard evidence to be
included).
Open question two:
Planes and bodies (in the sense of geometry), also lines can be described by rules/equations
by rules/equations
that have the property of self-affinity (equations in: B. Mandelbrot,
the Fractal Geometry of Nature, I mean the thick, larger than A4, blue book).
As computer graphics they became popular.
As above: It can be done in a two dimensional plane, in a three
dimensional and, using the same equations, for example in a six
dimensional (thinking more than three dimensional is normal
in paleoclimatology, see above).
Didactical Link:
In the early eighties in Muenster a colloquium on aspects of computer
graphics was held. One aspect:
A cube, put on its corners, intersected, yields at its top a point,
moving the intersection down, a plane (a triangle), in the middle
a square, then again a triangle and at the lowest point a point
(visible, also at that time, e.g. well before the VGA graphics card
as computer graphics).
A four dimensional cube yielded as intersection a threedimensional,
to be shown as moving intersection through above computer graphics.
Testing in the sense of above colloquium various geometries, including
known equations, e.g. time as one of several axes might also lead
to progress.
Coindicidence vs. Causalities uses 3+1 dimensions in "classical"
coordinates.
If, in the sense of above colloqium, time is only a coordinate,
presence the intersection plane, I would preliminarily suspect
that (a) differences between religions disappear (guilt requires
causality, karma requires time; in case of fractal geometry (with
computationally four or more dimensions, see paleotemperatures)
only equilibria would exist computationally and (b) finding favored/unfavored
equilibria at different coordinates is an unsolved but interesting
task.
To avoid any misunderstanding: Which concept is computationally
applied is a question of appropriateness, comparable to cartesian
or polar coordinates (no need for any fight).
Religion Science might also get an applied line:
Which future is to be expected (e.g. accross time) religion science also
as co-tool for quite economical applications.
The most interesting question, according to my view, would be to set
up equations that include both, to be tested, "the other side" and
known physics.
I would propose such a task list (also with the previous e-mail)
can be forwarded to US churches (which I don t know) and
capable universities.
If thus observations from all religions including, also from all
religions, collections of "up to now unexplained" assigned for
being explained by future progress, sometimes considerable
animosities between religions might reduce.
Why I put above on this list:
(a) as said: For forwarding
(b) to overcome the apparent deadlock situation on the evolution y/n
discussion: If in the US enthusiastic religious people focus
on the really open questions (see also apoptosis, which is an
unsolved scientific question), such as by extending religion to
religion-science (with open-minded testing) it helps all:
Science, the US, people.
If US churches, also with their financial abilities, link up
with science, progress will result.
Best regards
Peter
**********************************************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
University Muenster
Geological Institute
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster
Tel.: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
Fax: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
**********************************************************************
Partial index: