Strange

How did they breed animals and keep them alive without knowledge of biology.

I can't believe I just read that.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here or intended but there is nothing from before 2000 BC other than what we understand to be "religious writings" and incantations but which make no sense. There is no science and no records from before this date according to modern understanding.

I have already given other examples from earlier: mainly accounting and administration. I'm not surprised there is little "science" (although how you define that word at this period is debatable).

 

 

It appears that the ancient books were unintelligible and discarded after the change in language.

You have provided no evidence for any such "ancient books" (I am assuming you are referring to some imaginary books that precede the known invention of writing, but it is hard to tell with your vague statements) or a change in language.

 

I'm confident you know of none of this from before 2000 BC.

Examples already provided from 3000BC.

 

 

This is the nature of nature. People act on their beliefs and if there are beliefs are unnatural there will be no benefit to them collectively. Even if some unnatural belief were able to protect them through mere happenstance, eventually conditions would change. Reason and logic are puny tools but superstition and foolishness are very powerful tools against survival.

People have been religious for all of recorded history and, despite your unsupported claims, almost certainly longer. This hasn't stopped the survival of the species. It could be argued it place an important practical role.

 

They were not superstitious at all. They were not religious and didn't believe in magic. This is a misunderstanding caused by a misinterpretation of ancient writing.

More unsupported claims.

 

No ancient pre-literate societies left enough evidence to understand their beliefs and knowledge.

We have their oral histories documented at many stages after the invention of writing, by many different peoples. But I suppose you are going to make another unsubstantiated claim that this were all invented after writing was developed.

 

Even literate societies before 2000 BC are assumed to be superstitious because all the writing they left appears to be gobblety gook.

The word is "gobbledygook". And no. The earliest proto-writings are nothing to do with superstition but trade.

 

There are no known cultures before 2000 BC.

That claim is not even worth responding to.

 

This is just the way it is.

Another unsubstantiated claim.

 

It doesn't prove I'm right

Nothing proves you are right. All I have seen is unsupported claims and factually incorrect statements.

 

You have not even said what culture, writing system or languages you are talking about. And yet, apparently, you have read all of them.

 

You haven't yet presented any evidence that this "ancient language" existed.

It would be considered OT here. I’ll start another thread at some point.

 

As it forms the entire basis of your argument, I fail to see how it could be (more) off topic.

 

Wiki is an immensely valuable tool but it’s always wrong.

How can it be immensely valuable if it is always wrong. And, obviously, it isn't always wrong. On many subjects it is a good resource and usually provides good references. I usually only use it as a simple reference for information I know to be correct.

 

When the language changed the vocabulary did not change.

Unsubstantiated claim.

 

I believe things like dam building in beavers and fungus farming in termites is far too complicated behaviors to be the result of natural selection.

Oh god. Are we getting into evolution denial now? What next, ancient aliens?

 

There's no logic to our beliefs about ancient times

There's no logic to YOUR beliefs about ancient times. And no evidence to support it either, apparently.

First of all, is it possible for light to manifest a physical form? We can see light, but is it possible to touch it, and warp it to a shape or any other physical form?

Not unless you have a novel definition for "physical form". Light is just electromagnetic radiation not something material or solid.

 

Last of all, as atoms have an infinite amount of space between one another, and things such as pillars are made up of atoms, if you put your hands on both sides of a pillar, you're technically touching your other hand, as the space between atoms technically lets your hands through.

There is not an "infinite" amount of space between atoms, but there is some. There are bound together in molecules and solids by the bonds between their electrons. The electric fields of these electrons is what makes something feel solid. When you touch something, it is the electric fields in your hand interacting with the electric field in the object that make it feel solid. So when you put your hands either side of a pillar they are each interacting with (touching) the pillar (not the other hand).

I certainly agree strongly with one of the conclusions; that change in language should be continuous throughout human history. Of course the veracity of this conclusion is contingent upon those things which apply to our language also applying to the ancient language.

 

You haven't yet presented any evidence that this "ancient language" existed.

 

 

The fact is almost no writing survives from before 2000 BC and none of it is comprehensible.

The oldest written records are about 1,000 years older than that. And entirely comprehensible.

From wikipedia:

 

The tablets from Jemdet Nasr are primarily administrative accounts; long lists of various objects, foodstuffs and animals that were probably distributed among the population from a centralized authority. Thus, these texts document, among other things, with the cultivation, processing and redistribution of grain, the counting of herds of cattle, the distribution of secondary products like beer, fish, fruit and textiles and various objects of undefinable nature. Six tablets deal with the calculation of agricultural field areas from surface measurements, which is the earliest attested occurrence of such calculations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemdet_Nasr#Proto-cuneiform_texts

 

 

Since we believe almost every word they left was about magic, incantation, and paganism we tend to assume everything they did and thought was magic.

Citation needed. My understanding is that most of the oldest texts are about business, war, genealogy, trade, astronomy, hunting, astrology, agriculture, fishing, story-telling, gossip, administration and some religious matters.

Especially in the US, where many folks have an aversion to anyone enjoying sex, I find it perverse that we should use genitalia and sexual references as derogatory insults.

I don't think it is an aversion to enjoying sex as a dislike of public displays/discussion. This makes the words taboo and that is why they are used as swearwords.

 

In the past (and in some other cultures) most swearwords were religious in nature (because it was taboo to defame god). That is why they are called curses or swear words.

 

Once taboo words become swearwords then they lose both their original meaning (no one who says "fuck me!" as an exclamation is expecting it to be treated as an invitation) and, to some extent, their original grammatical function. Hence they come to be used as insults rather than straightforward nouns or verbs.

 

If we didn't have any taboo words, we would soon invent some. It appears to be an essential psychological and linguistic need.

Given this thread is (I think) about communication of information, it is remarkable how difficult it is to work out what you are trying to say.

No matter how I attack these points it's always going to come down to the fundamental problem which is the lack of evidence and the lack of written records after the invention of writing. This lack is due to the facts that not only does so little exist but it's all incomprehensible gobblety gook that can shed no light on how the ancients thought and believed.

We only have written records after the invention of writing. Rather obviously.

We do, however, have written records of things prior to the invention of writing. Little of that is "incomprehensible gobblety gook".

I haven't really made any assumptions in my work with one possible exception and that is ancient people were intelligent and sophisticated.

I guess most people assume that humans have always been intelligent. And societies have varied in sophistication (I don't know how you define or quantify that). They are generally assumed to have been the same as us.

So now I've gotten to the point that I believe I understand the ancient writing and that it reflects a highly scientific perspective which comes as little surprise.

Which ancient writing are you referring to? Indus? Rongo-rongo? Linear A? Other? If you have managed to decode a currently indecipherable script that would be big news that you shouldn't have trouble getting published in an reputable journal.

Truth to tell it's largely just my opinion that suggests the language was resistant to change but this opinion is based on the fact that if my understanding of the meaning is correct then language was the metaphysics of ancient science founded upon observation and logic. As such language would be very much sacrosanct and the users actually called the language (especially in its written form) "the words of the gods".

There is no case in which language does not change over time. And people over all of recorded history have though of their version of the language (or, more frequently, a version from the recent past) to be the perfect form and "young people today are ruining it". This is one of the earliest recorded reasons for writing a grammar text!

Writing wasn't invented until farmers stumbled on the concept of symbols representing assets and this was extrapolated to representing sounds.

It is almost certain that the invention of writing was not led by farmers. In most cultures, the earliest written symbols seems to be associated with trade, accounting and administration.

The explosion of knowledge made possible by writing simply overburdened a language with so few words and that was already stressed in expressing new concepts.

What makes you think that language then had fewer words than now?

Agriculture drove the invention of cities which drove the invention of writing which drove the collapse of the ancient language leaving the massive void before 2000 BC.

From historical linguistics, we have good evidence of the evolution of languages prior to the invention of writing. Although writing had a small effect (on, for example, standardisation of certain forms) it didn't cause the sort of massive change you seem to be suggesting.

They had simply set the computer code to English!!!

I have no idea what that sentence means. And it doesn't seem to address the question.

I've read and studied all the ancient literature (one massive corpus in particular) hundreds of times and it makes perfect sense.

All ancient literature? Really? There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of texts and fragments in dozens of scripts in hundreds of languages. And you have read them all? That is pretty impressive. (If true. For some reason, I remain slightly sceptical.) And, yes, most of them make sense. Why shouldn't they?

 

The ancients must have had the ability and means to pass theory and knowledge between generations and it's nowhere else in evidence.

Yes it is. We have written records of oral histories going back thousands of years. Much of it is supported by, for example, archaeological and other evidence. You seem to have little in the way of evidence other than your own beliefs.

It is most highly illogical to presume that our ancestors were very highly superstitious yet still managed progress from one generation to the next. Superstition is a very destructive force yet they survived and prospered.

Evidence they were "highly superstitious"? Evidence that this is a destructive force?

The problem with your idea of the next generation "spell-checking" oral records is that although the words may be preserved, meanings change. An example: to me, "sick" means either ill, or perverse. But people in my area who are as little as 10 years my junior now use it to mean awesome, inspiring, or 'cool'. That's just one example. What would the generation that follows them make of a present day document littered with terms they've hijacked? Because that generation will no doubt do some hijacking of its own too.

Although, oral traditions do use various techniques to ensure that stories are transmitted accurately. The use of verse and song, is an obvious one. They also use repetition and different versions of the same story as a sort of "error checking" mechanism (if we are going to stick with the rather silly computer analogies).

Because words retain their old meanings (for some time) after new meanings appear (sick does still mean "sick" to most of us) that is not too big a problem. And the transfer of information between generations (whether written or oral) tends to preserve the older meanings. But the stories also get updated and translated as language changes and populations move, so they are kept contemporary in that way.

But of course, errors, misunderstandings can occur in the translation process.

Note that we have many societies that still use oral traditions that tell us a lot about how these processes work.

Which also seems to argue against cladking's beliefs: many pre-literate, oral societies have been studied. They are just like us.

I can't help. But perhaps you need to say what part of the world you are in?

We are missing something fundamental. We are missing all the knowldege that existed before 2000 BC.

 

Then how do you know that "ancient language was wholly distinct. Words didn't vary in definition and meaning was in context like computer code or prairie dog language" and all the other mumbo-jumbo?

Wait a minute here………. Why am I being told to keep it to myself when this is a forum (and particular thread) to talk about such stuff?

 

It is only the blatant preaching that is irrelevant. This is a science site, after all. Would you expect me to tell you about my favourite movie instead of providing scientific evidence?

 

 

but no matter how hard you try the evidence is still there for all to see!

You need something more compelling than some pretty pictures when there is a mountain of historical evidence that contradicts you.

 

 

This language has the power to alter our environment in terms of altering the weather and even the general health of all living things on the planet and the planet itself. The great pyramid puts out a frequency that is thought to be beneficial to the earth.

Utter nonsense. And then it goes downhill from there.

Here’s the thing……… Everyone claims to be an expert on linguistics.

 

Anyone can claim to be an expert. However, some people study the subject, do research, write and refer to peer reviewed journals, etc. In other words, practice science. Other people just make shit up. Guess which category your idea falls into? (There is a clue in the number of references to published research on the web page.)

 

 

However despite all the squabbling there still remains to be similarities which cannot be denied both in different languages and different writings both ancient and modern.

 

And I don't think anyone is denying that. However, not all languages are related. And it takes more than spotting a few similarities in sound and claimed meaning to determine the relationship. This is why I would refer you to serious linguistics research rather than fabricated nonsense.

 

Hebrew was not the original script nor the original language. The vast majority of languages in the world are not related to Hebrew.

 

There are also a number of writing systems that are completely independent of the Egyptian/Semitic scripts (which are not even the oldest forms of writing). Again, some people have studied the history of writing systems and done serious research. Other people make up nonsense about magic spirals.

 

And so on and so on. It is ignorant nonsense peppered with lies. If I were making claims about religion and, by implication, morality then I would not rely on such dishonest material for support. It doesn't look good.

 

The rest of your post is just irrelevant preaching. Keep it to yourself.

The base sequence consists of groups of three bases. Each group is a "codon" which specifies a particular amino acid to be used in the protein specified by the gene. So your sequence should be a sequence of these triplets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_codon_table

 

If you want to model a specific gene, then you will have to find the sequence for that gene. I don't know where you would find that.

 

 

Have you ever heard of Edenics?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there is the same level of ignorance and dishonesty employed by pseudo-linguists as by pseudo-scientists. I am impressed that they managed to get at least one factual error/lie into pretty much every paragraph as far as I read (which wasn't far; the abuse started making me feel rather unwell after a while.

There is a field called "historical linguistics" which looks at language change and relationships between languages. There are, of course, similar words in related languages. These are known as cognates. However, it is not enough to just look for words that sound (or, worse, look) similar. It is necessary to understand the history of the words, the types of sound changes that can occur, whether it could be borrowing, and many other factors.

So, for example, we know "leaf" and "folio" are not related as they claim.

We also know the history of Semitic languages and that, therefore, Hebrew is not the first. We also know that English, for example is in a totally different language family (Indo-European). There are attempts to show how the major families might have been related in the very distant past (a common ancestor for both proto-Semitic and proto-IndoEurpoean, for example) and one of their few references is to Ruhlen's work on this. But (a) this would be millennia before anyone spoke Hebrew and (b) it is not widely accepted by serious linguists (as opposed to people who, say, make stuff up).

You can of course, invent fantasy relationships between words in different languages if you are prepared to stretch what you consider similar, and be sufficiently flexible with the meanings (both these fallacies are on display in that page).

 

From that page: "a person who knows Hebrew well can fully understand English, Basque or Swahili."

 

This is such shameless dishonesty, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Here is a letter chart that shows similarities

 

A quick glance suggests that is basically accurate (if incomplete). I suppose the Big Lie in this case is labelling all the early Semitic scripts as "Hebrew". It would be just as accurate to label them Greek, Latin or even Thai.

 

Another highly relevant video for you:

 

I will admit I’m not the expert when it comes to writing and languages, but what I do know is that I can personally see clear evidence that shows me similarity in the letters.

 

Hmmm... Actually, I thought there was something else wrong. Although the first Semitic language (Sumerian) was written using cuneiform, this was not the origin of the Hebrew alphabet, all the other Semitic scripts and the vast majority of writing systems in the world (including this one). So I see even less reason for picking out Hebrew as "the chosen one".

 

Your god apparently designed a writing system based on pictures of birds and animals for use by a polytheistic culture, thousands of years before anyone had heard of "yahweh", which would evolve into hundreds and hundreds of different alphabets, syllabaries and abdads including one tiny dead-end branch called Hebrew that somehow involves magic spirals.

 

Right.

 

And yet you, with little knowledge of the subject, find this guff utterly convincing. While, on the other hand, dismissing a theory supported by literally mountains of evidence based on a "gut feeling".

 

Excuse me if I find your arguments utterly worthless.

 

p.s.

 

This one is a dead giveaway! The Hebrew letter Shin matches perfectly with cuneiform letter S:

 

That was the first one I thought to check before looking at your images. My immediate reaction was that the best match to shin was the Ugaritic U. This is certainly a better match than the S. <shrug>

 

But note that this cuneiform script is unrelated to the Sumerian and Akkadian scripts. It may be another branch in the same extend family from which Hebrew hangs like a tiny leaf, which could account for some of the similarities. But that is not certain and the apparent similarities could be down to chance. It is certainly not what Hebrew is derived from. At best they are very distant cousins.

erm , it seems that there are no current hypotheses as to this .

 

If by "this" you mean "singularity" then you are wrong. It is a well defined, mathematical concept.

 

A singularity to me is a position in space with no size and indeterminate properties .

And that isn't it.

 

 

Current mainstream physics suggest that space consists of matter being created/destroyed in a maelstrom via positive/negative units.

Citation required.

 

The terminology doesnt seem to exist in english

I suspect that is because we don't have words to describe things that don't make any sense.

 

The rest is meaningless. You don't have a theory. You don't even have a coherent idea. Sometimes I feel able to congratulate people for their imagination but in this case it seems like just a jumble of words.

Good grief.

 

My thoughts are that when positive/negative are created [ there must be a better phrase for the maelstrom of creation/destruction of matter? ]

 

There may be a better phrase but I don't know what it might be as it isn't clear what you are trying to describe.

 

What are the "positive/negative" you refer to? When and where are they created? What does this have to do with the creation and/or destruction of matter?

 

 

at some point these fail totally to destruct and fly off to create 2 new particles.

Why do they fail to destruct (sic)? And how do they create 2 new particles? And what are these particles?

 

 

These units have 4 dimensions , x,y,z,t which are larger than the particulate itself

How can their dimensions (size?) be larger than the particles themselves are?

 

 

and the positives enlarge the universe . the negatives decrease the size

Why? Or, even, how?

 

 

, thus maintaining the Universe size that was at the 'big bang' , hence it remains to an outside observer still a singularity .

1. The universe is observed to be of non-zero size and therefore not a singularity.

2. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe so, again, it cannot be of zero size.

3. The big bang theory does not say the universe was ever zero size.

 

But apart from all that ... it really makes no sense.

This is what I initially thought about writing and languages, but come to find out that the oldest writing is Sumerian cuneiform and in the book the author shows that this writing (cuneiform) are the same exact letters of the Hebrew letters

 

They are very obviously NOT "the same exact letters". Also, the gradual evolution from early scripts to all branches of semitic writing are well documented and do not involve the sort of nonsense you are describing. Again: why pick on Hebrew as it is just one of a large number of scripts that developed from the same origins. Oh, I know, because it was used to write a book you are fond of.

 

But other scripts were used to write other books that are equally important to other people. So why weren't they created by magic spirals?

 

Also note that the Sumerian language is not a semitic language and that the writing system pre-dates the writing of your fave book.

 

Writing has been invented a few times around the world. Why pick on this one as being "special"? (Oh, yes, I remember; your favourite fairy tales, etc...)

To put it another way, what is a singularity?

Remotely controlled roaches could search for survivors

What, briefly, did the universe look like a fraction of a second after the start?

 

Hot and dense. (A bit like Jessica Simpson.)

There are so many things wrong with this idea, it is hard to know where to start. But a couple of the more obvious points:

 

1. Why the Hebrew alphabet? After all, the original texts were not written in Hebrew nor using the Hebrew alphabet. This is almost as intelligent as arguments that God speaks English or Latin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKy4RHf5tQ

 

2. The history of the various Semitic writing systems is extremely well documented from almost 3,000BC. We know that no magic spirals were involved in producing the Hebrew abjad.

 

First, belief is not required. If you want to believe in something go talk to god.

 

I certainly don't believe your unsupported claims.

 

 

Second, you have yet to come up with an experiment demonstrating time exists.

 

Again, I am not making a claim: you are. I am not claiming time does exist; I am just pointing out the complete lack of any support for your claim and the rather obvious flaws in such a claim.

 

 

I have however come up with an experiment demonstrating motion exists.

 

Of course motion exists. I fail to see the relevance (apart from the fact that motion is a change in position over time).

 

 

Thirdly, each captured frame in that video is a record of the world was it was. This is Past State information.

 

The existence of the past means time exists, no?

 

 

it will take time for you to see something, and react to it.

 

But how can that be if time doesn't exist?

 

 

You can not prove something doesn't exist you can only prove it does.

 

OK, so there is absolutely no reason to accept your claim.

 

 

So the burden is on you to produce an experiment (which you can't do) that demonstrates that time is real.

 

I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM.

 

 

Don't sit there saying "A sequence of images is time"

 

I didn't say that.

 

 

because it's not, it's a record of the universe as it was.

 

"Was"? Doesn't that require time?

 

 

Until you can produce an experiment that demonstrates otherwise you have absolutely no right to sit there demanding evidence from anyone else.

 

I am not making a claim so I do not need to prove anything.

 

 

I have now done so, the burden of proof is on you.

 

You haven't provided any evidence that time doesn't exist (you have conceded that such a thing cannot be done). And no, because I am not making a claim, so the burden still rests with you.

 

 

When you use a formula to predict something, then you use time to mark a future event. This doesn't prove time exists, only that the measuring tool is used to express a possible, as yet unproven future event. When you use time to reference a past event, then you are using it as an index to mark at what point in the past it happened. This is used for reference, Alternatively you also use formula to state what happened in the past based on events that have happened more recently. But this is a prediction and not fact, and worse it's one that can never be proven unless records appear marked at that time or close enough to that time to prove it.

 

Maybe the problem is the meaning of the word "exist". You seem quite happy to refer to time, use time, and measure time.

 

 

Do you beleive the index on your filing system is a real element in the universe?

 

Well, when I shake the box, it rattles. So yes. But I have no idea how that is relevant.

Now when someone invents an experiment that allows us to merge the three states together, past, present and future so you can experience being in your mothers whom, on your death bed and at the prime of your existence along with everything in between. Then that is a valid demonstration of time. However, as we all know this isn't possible.

 

If those things all co-existed that would be evidence that time didn't exist. However, as we all know, this isn't possible. Ergo, it appears to me that time exists as the thing that keeps those events apart.

Odd that you're notably not coming up with any experiments that demonstrate time.

 

A video that is a sequence of images over time? Your post 4 minutes after mine?

 

But again, you are the one making a claim. The burden is on you to provide evidence or even a rational argument. So far, all I have seen is: "time doesn't exist". What if, strange as it may seem, I don't believe you?

Hehe, I detected those movements with my eyes (I didn't touch them, heard them, or smell them, but my eyes detected their motion), for me it's enough evidence

 

As time doesn't exist, I assume you mean, "I am detecting those movements with my eyes .. I am not touching them ... my eyes are detecting them..."

 

Odd, that a sequential medium is used to disprove the existence of the very thing that allows a sequence of images...

 

First of all you try to defeat the idea by demanding evidence, then you turn around and say "well like, time don't need evidence to exist." to paraphrase you. "It just does".

 

I am not the one making unsupported claims. The burden of proof is on you. My "it just does" is just an example of an obvious counter-argument using exactly the same level of logic and evidence as you and myuncle (i.e. none, in case you miss the point).

 

I find your opinion mildly puzzling but the certainty with which you state it, with no apparent reason, extremely odd. It seems to be purely a matter of faith.

 

I'm afraid I can't (easily) watch videos. However, as I have seen movies featuring zombies and aliens, I am slightly surprised the medium would be considered a scientific resource.

 

But I am curious: how long is the video (you know, in minutes and seconds)? After all, I don't know if I have time to watch it.

it seems it is conscious observation that gives rise to the difference between diffraction pattern or not.

Wrong. Any detection of the location of the particle, conscious or otherwise, will change the result.