I know someone who, when I mentioned this miracle; suggested that it could have been a temporary hole in the fabric of space-time or something so a whole bunch of people saw, and 'connected to', an alternative dimension: A parallel one/ parallel universe.
He found it actually more probable than everyone being mistaken.
But what I'm thinking is "how did he figure that out?" i.e: How did he come to that conclusion? Probability through mere personal intuition? Personal incredulity?"
He's a big fan of Bayesian probability/logic it seems. Dawkins talked of it in TGD as being kind of GIGO (garbage in garbage out) and that he original numbers aren't good enough, so the conclusion can't be trusted.
He seems to know a lot about Bayesian logic though and I'd like to talk to him more about it. Is there any value in it? Or is it complete bollocks? How can you have 'different kinds of probability?' or is it actually a strong part of probability theory? (I don't know).
Anyways, that's a separate question. I read of this in TGD where Dawkins says it was 70,000 people and I was amazed - here it says 100,000! That's 30% more, and it was big ENOUGH!!
I think it is the greatest example of a questionable miracle. But I still won't believe it until I understand how to come to a sensible conclusion of it being a real anomaly of laws of the universe or whatever, rather than simply a shit load of mistaken humans. And yes I did use 'simply' because comparable to the laws of the universe being different, despite its ridiculousness, it still kind of looks a lot more probable to me.
But as I said, it's not about how it looks, or how it 'feels to me' it's about if there is actually a logical rational reason, actual evidence that implies that this is anything more than a gigantic anomaly of misunderstood humans. I still need evidence to believe otherwise, otherwise I will assume it was basically just the normal laws of the universe at work - meaning it didn't 'really' happen!!
I know of no remotely convincing miracles off heart....
The closest I can get are spiritual or transcendent of some kind - they don't remotely convince me for more than a split second or two - because it's basically just me getting lost in beautiful music or images that temporarily give you the feeling superficially (although it feels a lot deeper) that there is 'something more'. But it is only a temporary thing when I get lost in thought, and feel peace and beauty in nature and the universe. This awe, I guess the religious feeling that Einstein and Dawkins speak of.
The thing is you 'feel' that there is 'something more' very temporarily, well I do when I get it, and I mean VERY temporarily, off and on for spilt seconds - basically when you're lost in a fantasy world!
What is more amazing and beautiful though is when you begin to think, realize; and feel - that all these wonderful feelings of transcendent - aren't really transcending nature and reality, it just feels that way. Nature, the universe, really can be that beautiful. It can feel totally transcendent - like it is transcending nature and reality - when, nope, what's really, and even more beautiful, amazing and wonderful is the fact that reality really can be that way without transcendent. And that feels even more transcendent to me than actually believing in 'transcending reality itself' whatever that would mean and entail!
But then on the other hand of course, as we all know - reality is also a bunch of shit too, with the crap that goes on around the world - crap being a gargantuan understatement - all the really terrible, awful stuff.
Perhaps one more reason to believe reality isn't 'really' transcendent, it just can feel that way. And it can feel that way even more - when you realize and 'believe' that it can feel that way without it having to really be 'transcending reality itself' ( whatever that would entail).
EvF
He found it actually more probable than everyone being mistaken.
But what I'm thinking is "how did he figure that out?" i.e: How did he come to that conclusion? Probability through mere personal intuition? Personal incredulity?"
He's a big fan of Bayesian probability/logic it seems. Dawkins talked of it in TGD as being kind of GIGO (garbage in garbage out) and that he original numbers aren't good enough, so the conclusion can't be trusted.
He seems to know a lot about Bayesian logic though and I'd like to talk to him more about it. Is there any value in it? Or is it complete bollocks? How can you have 'different kinds of probability?' or is it actually a strong part of probability theory? (I don't know).
Anyways, that's a separate question. I read of this in TGD where Dawkins says it was 70,000 people and I was amazed - here it says 100,000! That's 30% more, and it was big ENOUGH!!
I think it is the greatest example of a questionable miracle. But I still won't believe it until I understand how to come to a sensible conclusion of it being a real anomaly of laws of the universe or whatever, rather than simply a shit load of mistaken humans. And yes I did use 'simply' because comparable to the laws of the universe being different, despite its ridiculousness, it still kind of looks a lot more probable to me.
But as I said, it's not about how it looks, or how it 'feels to me' it's about if there is actually a logical rational reason, actual evidence that implies that this is anything more than a gigantic anomaly of misunderstood humans. I still need evidence to believe otherwise, otherwise I will assume it was basically just the normal laws of the universe at work - meaning it didn't 'really' happen!!
I know of no remotely convincing miracles off heart....
The closest I can get are spiritual or transcendent of some kind - they don't remotely convince me for more than a split second or two - because it's basically just me getting lost in beautiful music or images that temporarily give you the feeling superficially (although it feels a lot deeper) that there is 'something more'. But it is only a temporary thing when I get lost in thought, and feel peace and beauty in nature and the universe. This awe, I guess the religious feeling that Einstein and Dawkins speak of.
The thing is you 'feel' that there is 'something more' very temporarily, well I do when I get it, and I mean VERY temporarily, off and on for spilt seconds - basically when you're lost in a fantasy world!
What is more amazing and beautiful though is when you begin to think, realize; and feel - that all these wonderful feelings of transcendent - aren't really transcending nature and reality, it just feels that way. Nature, the universe, really can be that beautiful. It can feel totally transcendent - like it is transcending nature and reality - when, nope, what's really, and even more beautiful, amazing and wonderful is the fact that reality really can be that way without transcendent. And that feels even more transcendent to me than actually believing in 'transcending reality itself' whatever that would mean and entail!
But then on the other hand of course, as we all know - reality is also a bunch of shit too, with the crap that goes on around the world - crap being a gargantuan understatement - all the really terrible, awful stuff.
Perhaps one more reason to believe reality isn't 'really' transcendent, it just can feel that way. And it can feel that way even more - when you realize and 'believe' that it can feel that way without it having to really be 'transcending reality itself' ( whatever that would entail).
EvF
