Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[carloagal]

A link would've been sufficient, and I'm already quite familiar with this website, and hundreds of others that make the same exact claims. However, at this point we're not concerned with yours or my interpretation of the samples, we're concerned with the interpretation of the first two experts consulted, who identified the samples as containing... in @Mountainmike's terminology... 'epithelial material'. Which is a pretty broad term as both plants and animals contain epithelial material.

The question then is how do we get from simply epithelial material to traumatized cardiac tissue from a still living patient. That's a pretty big gap if the interpretation is as blatantly obvious as people like you seem to think it is.

But first, what I'm trying to confirm is whether Dr. Robert Lawrence actually changed his mind after hearing what other experts had to say. Every quote that I can find which makes this claim, doesn't actually say that he changed his mind. Just that he could understand how the samples could be interpreted that way, not that he actually agreed with that interpretation.

What makes the timeline interesting is how the experts progressively get from mere epithelial material to traumatized cardiac tissue from the left ventricle of a still living patient.

At this point I'm just trying to get the facts right.

Doctor Robert Lawrence said that the tissue was plently of white blood cells, Doctor Linoli said that was heart tissue and Frederick Zugibe too that was heart tissue and was alive for the white blood cells presence there.

 

[SelfSim]

True, none-the-less, being an advocate of the Principal of Sufficient Reason, I'm a firm believer in the premise that there has to be a logical explanation for why things are the way they are.

I suggest giving up the belief and scientifically investigate the mystery .. using the evidence as it presents itself.

Now as to why they are at all, that question would have to extend to God Himself, and may indeed be unanswerable.

Noooo .. things are the way they are because we decide what 'are' means.
Science, (for eg), follows it method to aid us in making those decisions.

Is that the end of the story... or the beginning of the story?

Its a persistent mystery for as long as there's human minds around capable of investigating.

 

[Bradskii]

Can anyone categorically confirm that the sample was not tampered with?

 

[carloagal]

Qualcuno può confermare categoricamente che il campione non è stato manomesso?

Of course the sample was the same. Doctor Castanon and Ron Tesoriero did a very good job of chain of custody.

 

[partinobodycular]

Can anyone categorically confirm that the sample was not tampered with?

In my opinion we don't even have to go there, because even if we assume that the samples are legitimate, the interpretation of the samples are still problematic. The categorization of the samples as cardiac material comes from two people... Dr. Linoli and Dr. Zugibe, both of whom had extensive backgrounds in confirming miraculous events. You couldn't possibly have found two more biased 'experts' on the entire planet.

We all assume that when we see "Forensic Pathologist" that the person is a highly trained professional who wouldn't be swayed by personal biases, but both history and scientific studies tell us that that just isn't the case. Forensic Pathology is in many cases just a matter of someone's personal opinion. I.E. a personal interpretation of the morphology.

Case in point, those of us who are old enough, remember the 1980's when teeth marks were considered to be almost as good as fingerprints in identifying a perpetrator. Alas, despite the claims of the 'experts' it turns out that those teeth marks weren't as reliable as we were led to believe they were.

A bite mark, a forensic dentist, a murder: how junk science ruins innocent lives
The Impact of False or Misleading Forensic Evidence on Wrongful Convictions

So when you go from the first two experts identifying the samples as simply epithelial material, to a final expert claiming that it's traumatized cardiac material from the left ventricle of a still living patient, then we have to wonder if maybe someone isn't reading a little too much into the sample.

This is also a case where when someone as notable as Dr. Zugibe proclaims something to be true, as with those bite marks, it becomes unlikely that other experts will risk their professional reputations by contradicting them.

This is why it's important to know if Dr. Lawrence actually changed his mind, or if he maintained his interpretation in spite of the opinions of the other experts.

 

[partinobodycular]

Of course the sample was the same. Doctor Castanon and Ron Tesoriero did a very good job of chain of custody.

Part of my problem lies in getting first hand information. In other words I don't want to have to rely on what Dr. Castanon said about what Dr. Lawrence said. Or what Dr. Castanon said about what some lab said. I want to see the actual lab reports, or a document confirming things such as Dr. Lawrence's change of opinion. Without that it's all just hearsay. @Mountainmike seems reluctant to provide such documentation and I'm not about to go buy some book just to find a two or three paragraph summary of the findings.

Until then I'm just going to remain skeptical, because that would seem to be the prudent thing to do, when in doubt, ask for documentation, if none is forthcoming then there's probably a reason.

 

[stevevw]

So what? Physics doesn't care about your feelings, nor does reality.

Physics is not the only way to determine what is reality and therefore claiming its the true source of reality is beyond physics and science itself and more a metaphysical claim and there a belief. It can only determine what its designed to determine which is objective reality within the causal closure of the physical. Beyond that it has nothing to say. So claiming belief or spirituality or anything transcendent of the physical is unreal or unsubstancial is unjustified.

Metaphor is useless if it only serves to confuse things and obfuscate reality.

No its a useful description of the limits of the science method in accounting for nature of reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Physics is not the only way to determine what is reality and therefore claiming its the true source of reality is beyond physics and science itself and more a metaphysical claim and there a belief. It can only determine what its designed to determine which is objective reality within the causal closure of the physical. Beyond that it has nothing to say. So claiming belief or spirituality or anything transcendent of the physical is unreal or unsubstancial is unjustified.

No its a useful description of the limits of the science method in accounting for nature of reality.

Your talking about time. Time is a property of physical systems. This isn't some sort of weird philosophical topic.

 

[stevevw]

Substance asserted without evidence, can be excluded by the physics of substance.

Yes it can only be excluded within the causal closure of the physical, within what the science method is designed to measure, the qunatified world. It has nothing to say in any factual way about other stuff outside that parameter.

I agree with @Hans Blaster's comment on the obfuscation introduced by metaphors here.

As I said to Hans the metaphor serves as a good description of the limits of science.

 

[stevevw]

Your talking about time. Time is a property of physical systems. This isn't some sort of weird philosophical topic.

How do you know time is a product of physical systems. Thats the part you can't prove with science. You can't use science to prove science. Thats when it becomes more than science and more a metaphysical belief.

Science can describe the physical behaviour of time, but then the explanation is a human made idea quantifying time. But who says the human made idea is the right way to measure what we call time. Evenso it can only make descriptions of time within a limited methodology and scope which is not the be all and end all of how we can know what time represents as fundemental reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said to Hans the metaphor serves as a good description of the limits of science.

The limits of your understanding, perhaps, but it has no bearing on any real science.

 

[SelfSim]

Science can describe the physical behaviour of time, but then the explanation is a human made idea quantifying time.

So?
Try developing a description of time for rock, a tree, a bucket of water, etc.
Who else cares about descriptions of time other than us humans?
Are you serious?

But who says the human made idea is the right way to measure what we call time.

Humans do.

Evenso it can only make descriptions of time within a limited methodology and scope which is not the be all and end all of how we can know what time represents as fundemental reality.

The only other way to 'know what time represents as fundemental reality' is by dreaming up a fanciful fiction about what fundamental reality is. (I suppose if you keep sprouting that fiction, then some gullible person will eventually believe it, too .. but not scientific thinkers .. that's for sure).

 

[stevevw]

Excuse me for butting in here, but I see this quite differently. If reality exists as you seem to describe it, and it's somehow possible to interact with the past... then the conclusion would have to be that we can't interact with the past. I realize that that seems like a heck of a Catch-22, if it's possible to interact with the past, then that means that we can't interact with the past.

I can't see how this follows. What are you basing this on.

Richard Feynman used to describe why light always travels in a straight line by explaining that the photon takes every possible path from the source to the observer, and this includes paths that travel both forward and backward through time, and if one sums up all of these paths the only ones that survive are the ones that take the straight path from the source to the observer. All others are destroyed by interference before ever actually existing. And voila, you end up with light always traveling in a straight line, and what that means is that all the paths that traveled forward or backward through time got destroyed. Hence, at least for photons, in a world where time travel is possible... time travel isn't possible, because the only things that survive in a reality where time travel is possible, are things that don't time travel.

Except light doesn't always travel in straight lines and can also bend. Also if the observer is the one that is creating that measure and outcome then the photon was in superposition until it was observed by a conscious observer thus giving it position in time and space.

So if one wonders what would happen if we could interact with the past and the future, then all that we have to do is to take a cue from those photons, and without having to do the whole sum over histories thing, simply assume that in a reality where time travel is possible, the only versions that survive are the one's in which we don't time travel.

Not for consciousness. If consciousness is something beyond the physical realm then it is not bounded by time and space. It doesn't conform to the laws of physics. But from what I understand even QM points to reality being more relative fundementally.

Even the way light behaves and when observed depends on the relative position its being observed from and even within that light can be observed different from the same position. Which seems to show that it doesn't always travel in a straight line from its origin and that observation can influence how its positioned within the objective world. The famous Dress (gold or dark blue comes to mind). Colour inversion is another.

This also means that this particular version of 'reality' is our equivalent of a straight line. 'A' follows 'B' in a linear series of cause and effect, because any series that diverges from that path gets destroyed.

I am glad you said "this particular version of 'reality''. Because thats all it is, a particular measure based on certain assumptions.

The conclusion: the source of reality is such that it will by its very nature give rise to linear series, with no discernible need for intent. But this isn't to assume that that intent isn't there anyway. Theists may well be correct, and reality may simply be the product of God's nature, and I wouldn't disagree. Where I would question them however, is in their understanding of God. When He starts walking around in a garden, then me and many theists are gonna have a problem.

Not sure what you mean by God walking around the garden. Didn't Christ walk around the garden.

 

[stevevw]

So?
Try developing a description of time for rock, a tree, a bucket of water, etc.
Who else cares about descriptions of time other than us humans?
Are you serious?

The point was 'Time' is a human made concept, an abstract idea about time. The abstract idea itself is not an objectively real thing and therefor cannot be verified scientifically. So human ideas about what time represents, what it is are not the objective truth independent of humans.

Therefore how western science understands 'time' is no more correct as far as what the nature of 'time' ultimately is than how an indigenous peoples or Monks in the mountains may understand what 'time' is.

Humans do.

Thats the point, its circular reasoning. Its true because we say its true. But in reality humans don't agree what time is or represents. There are many ideas about what time represents in the world. Some natives have no idea of westernised concept of time. They have no clocks.

Time is more about experiences or symbols and places. There are no schedules, time restraints ect. They may bring up spirits from the past to alter their future ect. Who says they are wrong. They have sucessfully lived this way for millenia, more time than westernised science has existed.

The only other way to 'know what time represents as fundemental reality' is by dreaming up a fanciful fiction about what fundamental reality is. (I suppose if you keep sprouting that fiction, then some gullible person will eventually believe it, too .. but not scientific thinkers .. that's for sure).

The best way to understand time is through the only way we can know time which is our conscious experience of time. Now it seems strange to me that when trying to understand 'time' that we devise some 3rd party measure beyond our experience rather than actually using the experience itself for what it is warts and all.

Because there are spectulative ideas within experience doesn't mean there are no valid experiences we can draw upon which may give us a deeper insight into what time is, how it effects us, how we actually live it out rather than trying to rationalize it by some quantified assumption about what time is.

 

[stevevw]

The limits of your understanding, perhaps, but it has no bearing on any real science.

I agree but it does have a bearing on what is beyond science, how we can know what 'time' is beyond the qunatified measure of it. Surely your not claiming that so called 'real science' is the ultimate truth about what time actually is.

 

[carloagal]

Parte del mio problema sta nell'ottenere informazioni di prima mano. In altre parole, non voglio dover fare affidamento su ciò che ha detto il dottor Castanon riguardo a ciò che ha detto il dottor Lawrence. O quello che ha detto il dottor Castanon su quello che ha detto qualche laboratorio. Voglio vedere i veri rapporti di laboratorio o un documento che confermi cose come il cambio di opinione del dottor Lawrence. Senza quello sono solo dicerie. @Mountainmike sembra riluttante a fornire tale documentazione e non ho intenzione di andare a comprare qualche libro solo per trovare un riassunto di due o tre paragrafi dei risultati.

Fino ad allora rimarrò scettico, perché sembrerebbe essere la cosa più prudente da fare, in caso di dubbio, chiedere documentazione, se non ne arriva nessuna probabilmente c'è un motivo.

 

[carloagal]

This are the results. How do you explain the White Blood Cells there?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Except light doesn't always travel in straight lines and can also bend. Also if the observer is the one that is creating that measure and outcome then the photon was in superposition until it was observed by a conscious observer thus giving it position in time and space.

In a flat spacetime photons only travel in straight lines. More generally they follow geodesics of the curved spacetime. Feynman's analysis still applies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even the way light behaves and when observed depends on the relative position its being observed from and even within that light can be observed different from the same position. Which seems to show that it doesn't always travel in a straight line from its origin and that observation can influence how its positioned within the objective world. The famous Dress (gold or dark blue comes to mind). Colour inversion is another.

This is about human visual perception, not the nature of light. Brains are silly things. Don't forget that.

 

[partinobodycular]

In a flat spacetime photons only travel in straight lines. More generally they follow geodesics of the curved spacetime. Feynman's analysis still applies.

Thank you, I really didn't think that I had to point this out... but, that's what I get for assuming things.