= Сообщение: 8784 из 12491 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 23 Jun 19 11:09:13 Кому : Gerrit Kuehn 23 Jun 19 11:09:13 Тема : Pvt node with a CM flag, but without connect info. FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+5d0f4a9a На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:240/12+5cc76114 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:240/12+5cc7611a ============================================================================== Hello Gerrit,
On Monday June 17 2019 17:41, you wrote to me: GK>>>>> "Myth" doesn't mean there couldn't be any truth in it, though.
MvdV>> It also doesn't mean it is more than just imagination.
GK> You (deliberately?) did not quote the Troy example I gave...
1) You gave no source. 2) That one myth can possibly be linked to the remnants of a city does not means that ALL myth have some reality in them. 3) That there nay have been a "Troy city" does not mean that that 1000 ships sailed to rescue Helen and that there was a trick with a wooden gift horse.
MvdV>> an ulterior being that was the creator. To that I say: "the MvdV>> assumption of the existance of an ulterior being does not help MvdV>> me to better undetstand how the universe ticks".
GK> OTOH, I'm pretty sure having a look into the Bible and similar books GK> helps to understand how humans, and sometimes even the Earth, tick.
I would say that we can learn more about human behavior from modern fiction. Learn about het earth? I don't think so.
MvdV>> It may very well be 100% myth. Ockham's Razor comes to mind. MvdV>> "if it looks like myth, sounds like myth, smells like myth, the MvdV>> explanation requiring the least presumption is that it IS MvdV>> myth".
GK> The first part is merely a re-phrasing of the so-called "duck test", GK> and has not much to do with Occham's Razor,
OK, I mixed that up.
GK> which is in itself comes with a lot of caveats. You rely on a GK> (questionable) universal and obvious definition of "simplicity" there.
Whatever. I still say the story of Noah's Arc is myth.
GK> Go and try to explain to Sir Isaac Newton that the better theory of GK> light is "simple" quantum-electrodynamics... a more complex theory GK> might very well be preferrable if it gives a better, broader GK> explanation. But even that first needs to be recognizable to the GK> humble theorist.
Now that you mention Newton... His theory of classic mechanic and gravity nicely explains why planets revolve in elliptic orbits aroud the sun.
Up to a point.. Astronomers observed some irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. Astromers tried to explain it by postulating a planet beyond Uranus. Le Verrier did the calculations and indeed a planet was found and it was named Neptune.
When peturbations were found in the orbit of Neeptune the same trick was tried and eventually Pluto was found as a result of the search. Although not as spot on as with Neptune.
Then someone found an aberation in the orbit of Mercury. The so calls 3 arc second discepancy in the perihelium shift. In the tradition of explaniong peturbations by postulating a new planet, a planet called Vulcan was postulated inside the orbit Mercury.
Problem: Vulcan was not found.
Then came Einstein. The 3 arc second discrepancy was explained by his theory of relativity.
What we see is that first thee is an observation. The planets revolve in elliptical orbits around the sun. Newton's theory explains it. Then there is an observation of a discrepancy. A new planet is postulated. It is found. Newton's theory stands. But with Mercury Newton's theory breaks down. It needs a modification. It is a sequence of observation, theory, observation, adapted theory, etc, etc.
In the case of the "theory" of Noah's Arc, where is the observation? What observation is there that needs this theory for an explanation?
GK>>> There are several other theories (volcanoes, impacts, GK>>> earthquakes, glacial runs...). A imho very interesting one is GK>>> the breaking of the dam to the black sea. Meanwhile it was GK>>> verified that the black sea was a sweet water lake up to the end GK>>> of the last ice age.
Very well, but how does the ship with the animals fit in?
MvdV>> I can see how such an event could lead to the story of the MvdV>> great flood. But the ship?
GK> Don't forget that the story of the ship is told by the survivors of GK> the flood and their descendants.
That assumes there WAS a ship and there WAS a flood and there were survivos.
I smell a circular reasoning.
GK> The least we can learn from it is how they dealt with the memories of GK> large-scale catastropic events.
If there WAS a large scale catastrophy. Where are the remnants of that other than the story?
