Can we agree on truth if Science explains is?

[A Cup Of Tea]

It hasn't affected that many people during their times, though. It has been the conversions after their death which have affected humanities destiny, each has had a relatively small following during life. Not that this says much, I mean, Hitler had a pretty large following during his life, would you say he is special based on this?

For me, there is a difference between the person and the position. Every human are as special as the next one, but some positions are more special than others. Like a religious teacher or a dictator. And as to Jesus having an impact. He might have had a small following compared to Hitler, but he did have an affect on a number of people, comparing the number of people isn't as interesting to me for different reasons. Like the fact that Jesus acts rippled through his followers and were the beginning of Christianity (if the Catholic Church is spreading his message or not is beside the point), so in the end, it did affect many people.

Organizations have gone about declaring special stations for their founders and said you must go through them to approach God. This is normal, of course, for if they say you can go to God directly, what is the point of them in the first place? This is the whole problem, though, we depend on scholarly people because they sound like they know, but the very scholarly method they use ensures they are probably more distanced from God than the average person. They are on a whole ego tip, they crave power and the majesty afforded to their position. When the entire system is ran by the essentially ignorant, is it any surprise that those who depend on them remain so themselves? You might ask how a scholarly person can be called ignorant, but memorizing texts does not mean you understand their ramification - I was watching a show last night, a competition of Qu'ran reciting... many of the contestants didn't even speak Arabic, had no clue at all what they were saying, and yet they had the entire book memorized. It is not so different with the priests, they do not know the language of the Lord, they only know human words

Is organized religion inherently unskillful, isn't it but every organized religion has become unskillful or are there organized religion that is skillful? In my experience, there are people within a hierarchy that intend to do good (successfully or not) rather than furthering selfish pursuits. Even people with some form of power are restrained by others or by the systems we put in place for our own protection.

Also, we have already stated that scholarly pursuits can be the beginning down the road to experience. Can we agree that it is a matter of how much time you spend on texts that could be problematic? The greyness of this grey area becomes even greyer as people will need their own time to find what they need to move on.

Thus, I think you have a tendency to generalize to much in your texts which could be interpreted as judgemental. I know you don't want to come across as such, so keep it in mind, if you wish.

 

[Lunitik]

For me, there is a difference between the person and the position. Every human are as special as the next one, but some positions are more special than others. Like a religious teacher or a dictator. And as to Jesus having an impact. He might have had a small following compared to Hitler, but he did have an affect on a number of people, comparing the number of people isn't as interesting to me for different reasons. Like the fact that Jesus acts rippled through his followers and were the beginning of Christianity (if the Catholic Church is spreading his message or not is beside the point), so in the end, it did affect many people.

Do you know what the numbers were like for Christianity prior to Constantine accepting the faith? The faith was extremely small, so it can be said that its influence is only due to the Roman Empire - which has certainly affected the entire world. Everywhere that Christianity is popular you can trace it back to the Roman influence. Of course, few recognize this, many even dispute it, but it becomes quite difficult to reject a religion when the choices are conversion or death. Of course, today people are completely devoted and do not even consider how their ancestors have adopted it and passed it on through the generations out of fear.

Is organized religion inherently unskillful, isn't it but every organized religion has become unskillful or are there organized religion that is skillful? In my experience, there are people within a hierarchy that intend to do good (successfully or not) rather than furthering selfish pursuits. Even people with some form of power are restrained by others or by the systems we put in place for our own protection.

What good do they do? They take your money and instead of helping the poor they create castles like the Vatican. The pursuit through the hierarchy is exactly an egotistical venture, it is just that now the ego doesn't seem like one because that is not the path to the top. The systems protect no one, they only serve to hold people back.

Also, we have already stated that scholarly pursuits can be the beginning down the road to experience. Can we agree that it is a matter of how much time you spend on texts that could be problematic? The greyness of this grey area becomes even greyer as people will need their own time to find what they need to move on.

Time spent and what is found are entirely irrelevant, it is the scholarly pursuit of the text which is harmful. You are trying to decipher through logic instead of listening to intuition, you are attempting to acquire knowledge rather than grow spiritually. I think it was you that have spoken out against mysticism towards me, but this is the only approach that actually works when deciphering such texts. You are taught to focus on those verses which are actually helpful based on their usefulness to others that have walked the path already. The mystic is not interested in knowledge, they are interested in a straight path to the other shore.

Thus, I think you have a tendency to generalize to much in your texts which could be interpreted as judgemental. I know you don't want to come across as such, so keep it in mind, if you wish.

Being judged as judgmental is an interesting phenomena... you have inferred that exercising judgement is negative, yet in saying the other is judgmental you have yourself had to engage in such judgement. Language forces you to use terms that seem to be separations to show examples of what you mean - this is more helpful than that - and at the same time, I certainly am judging the hierarchies as a destructive force in the world, something they have proven to be time and again in the past.

How easily we forget that the actions of the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, we do not even consider that such a situation could easily arise again if the Church decided to make it so.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

b] We Hare Krishnas have long been known to be the haugthiest ---ever since the 1960's. I see you've caught up a wee bit.

It is funny that you see this as a good thing, very holy of you.

Krishna says to Arjuna (Gita 9:11)
"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be."

The word here is Mudha (foolish men).

Jeez, Just see what kind of things Krishna says.
Who does this Krishna think He is?

BTW, I compiled a whole listing of the use of the word FOOL as used by Krishna, Bhaktivedanta Swami & all the Gurus since time-Immemorial [sorry about the messy Http diacritical-markings]:
What Prabhupada said about Fools 1 of 4

Bhaktivedanta Swami was interested in preaching to the Intelligensia ---because the Krishna Consciousness movement is best suited and specfically aimed at the Intellgensia of Society's Brahmin Classes.

It takes a Brahmin to raise a Brahmin.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Lunitik, I think I disagree with you all accounts but I don't think further discussion will lead to anything at this point. I might come back to it later. I just want to clear some things up.

I think it was you that have spoken out against mysticism towards me

No, that wasn't me. You and I have never discussed this topic.

Being judged as judgemental is an interesting phenomena...

I never intended to express that I thought you were judgemental, I was intending to inform you that you could be perceived as judgemental though your words.
I want you to read what I write as either sincere questions or assistance in developing the way you communicate your truth more productively. As you have stated, language is an issue and I only intend to help you through my criticism.

 

[Lunitik]

Krishna says to Arjuna (Gita 9:11)
"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be."

The word here is Mudha (foolish men).

Jeez, Just see what kind of things Krishna says.
Who does this Krishna think He is?

BTW, I compiled a whole listing of the use of the word FOOL as used by Krishna, Bhaktivedanta Swami & all the Gurus since time-Immemorial [sorry about the messy Http diacritical-markings]:
What Prabhupada said about Fools 1 of 4

Bhaktivedanta Swami was interested in preaching to the Intelligensia ---because the Krishna Consciousness movement is best suited and specfically aimed at the Intellgensia of Society's Brahmin Classes.

It takes a Brahmin to raise a Brahmin.

Are you not attempting to deride me? Think about it.

Again I will say that knowledge is not useful at all, every great master has always said that knowledge must be forgotten - you must return to a child-like state - to truly know. Then knowing can arise naturally, a great wisdom can come. Amassing knowledge only fuels ego though, you identify with the knowledge, you say "I am knowledgeable" but who is the "I"?

Why does a Brahmin need to be born of a Brahmin? Is spirituality restricted to a certain family, something genetic? No, this is just another egoist endeavor - you are a saying "I am most worthy". It is simply impossible to exist without a spirit, even a rock has a spirit. Do you think that only a Brahmin family has access to truth? Truth is all around, it is impossible to hide from it. It is a situation which resembles the fish though, they are utterly ignorant to the ocean because it has never experienced something different. Matter is merely dense spirit, it is not possible for it to lack its very building blocks - that ocean which you would call Brahman.

 

[radarmark]

Did I catch that right? Quoting all those longdead masters?


Pax et amor vincunt omnia--radarmark

 

[luecy7]

Let me apologize

No reason for apology.

(or He/She has a really really quick mind well beyonf the keen of physics).

Suggesting God did not create and leave, but has remained somewhat active. Otherwise it seems you ponder passive control from the distant past, as opposed to active control in the present.

Absolute "Truth" and absolute "Fact" do (for the most part) not exist. You cannot use math or science or decutive logic to provide absolute proof in the world of experience.

From our physical perspective, I agree that truth and fact are not seen as absolute. History is lost, real time measurement is not absolute, and predicting anything of the future takes enormous calculation that is an approximation at best. However, both the noodle and experience indicate that matter/energy is not being added, nor removed, to bring harm to the absoluteness of "Truth" or "Fact", presuming there is a perspective not being constrained by being physical, with the corresponding laws of measurement. From our perspective, scientists observe that matter/energy/information is not being destroyed, but that potential energy is being destroyed, and entropy is being created from it. The future is destroyed daily, but the history is created. If a single particle were unaccounted for in the sphere of influence (speed of light), then that "Truth" or "Fact" still wouldn't be absolute. Thus far this Universe, from my perspective, does not appear that sloppy.

I do not quite understand your last point. What do you mean?

I meant what I meant. If anyone wishes to choose their words differently, including the word "Orthodox", they certainly have that power.

 

[radarmark]

I was using Orthodox as description of a form of Christian belief. I am no deist... I beleive that the Divine is at one with and in the Kosmos. My skepticism, in this instance, is with the monkey-mind. That little left hemisphere that has to impose meaning and cause and truth onto its perceptions.

I am no denier of "going beyond". Spiritualism, for me, is the attitude and beleif that there is "something more" to the Kosmos than what we process and see with our senses. Call it the esoteric core of most exoteric religions. A soul (Mahavir or Bahaullah) "sees beyond", that souls's friends and compatriots emulate that Great Soul, and somewhere along the line the monkey-mind clouds over the pure essence of the Great Soul's teaching. A generation or two later (or in the case of Christian Fundamentalism 1800 years later) the essence is polluted with exlusivity and judgement and hatred and ego (all those qualities of the monkey-mind that drag us down into the raw mud of phicality).

What the Divine really wants (I think) is atonement. To become one with it, to return to the source, to complete the Divine plan, to go beyond. And the Divine needs for us to do this, it needs our understanding of this (that is why I posted Kazantzakis' "Spiritual Essay" as a philosophy thread).

For me and my context (being the product of Western Civilization with all of its admitted flaws) it means being led beyond by Christ Jesus. Not Christ Consciousness, some feeling or thought, but by the real living essence of the Divine. I tried to understand via zazen, I learned classic Chinese to better understand the Taoists, I devoured all of Osho's works... but it came down to understanding them within my frame of reference. My Silent Worship (Quaker prayer) is zazen (as a technique), my Divine is very close to the Tao, and my inclusiveness is much like Rajneesh's (as a philosopher and theologan, not as a manifestation of the Divine).

Lastly I do not believe there is much that the zazen, the Silent Worship, the Light Within, the Living Christ Jesus cannot bring to my understanding. And that understanding must be lived--a dedication to justice, equality, peace, unity--all those oh-so-laughable classic liberal ideals. So I stand opposed to dogma, to the mediating purpose of the Church (or temple or dojo), to the ideas of sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia (by Scripture, Faith, and Grace alone). The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) was the fit for me.

By the way, thanks luecy7, I have never made such a public display of "Radar's Confession of Faith" (I go by radar).

Pax et amor vincunt omnia--radarmark

 

[Bhaktajan II]

predicting anything of the future takes enormous calculation

A wall calander dates.
An itinerary schedule.
A parking ticket court date.
Wedding invitations dates.
Football game Adverts dates.
Bank loan and agreed upon interest rates due dates.
Tax years' collections allocation dates.
Engineering Plans' Construction dates.
Musical Theatre Rehearsal dates.
A blind date's date.


All the above not only "predict the future" they mandate specific actions to be followed through on by a network of concerned parties.

What other type of future predictions are being sought?

Insurance policy types?

How is that NOT predicting; if not, mandating the future . . . after all plans are

 

[radarmark]

A wall calander dates.
An itinerary schedule.
A parking ticket court date.
Wedding invitations dates.
Football game Adverts dates.
Bank loan and agreed upon interest rates due dates.
Tax years' collections allocation dates.
Engineering Plans' Construction dates.
Musical Theatre Rehearsal dates.
A blind date's date.

Let's take these one at a time. The dates affixed by wall calendars are human artifices. That is they define how we define the term "11 September, 2011". They predict nothing about the world.

An itineary schedule is good. Ever had one blown out of the water? Get a flat on way to airport or the bus was late? There is a rather significant risk that the schedule as originally provided will be wrong in the long run. Are you more confident with an itenerary from Princess or Disney cruise lines or one from radar's really low cost tours (oh, we do not risk a guide to come along on the dingy)? If Princess or Disney, remember that they, too have had itineraries blown.

A parking ticket date. I had one 11 September, 2001 that was cancelled.
Admittedly this is rare, but it does happen.

Wedding invitation dates. Yeah, if everything goes as planned (again). But what if the bride is killed in an accident after her shower (again, has happened).

Football game dates... just ask the NFL's Vikings about that one.

Bank and loan agreed to interest rates due dates. I pay off early... they are not valid any more.

Tax year collections allocation dates (being in the USA this is April 15, when we are supposed to file returns). I have gotten extensions of 6 or 9 months and mailed in that request on April 15.

Engineering plans construction dates see Boston's Big Dig or the Chunnel. They both broke end dates by about 1000%.

Musical Theatre Rehersal dates. What happens if the rehersal hall burns down?

A blind man's date ... take that as what we yanks call a "blind date". Once had a girl get through the door, recognioze me, and exit without consummating the date.

See prediction means mapping out a whole series of events as a scenario. And each of these events have a probability that they will not occur. So what matters is not just the prediction, but the confidence in it (can be calculated statistically, by Monte Carlo theory, by "gut feel", by polling a bunch of experts, or by looking up contradictory occurrances). The latter means looking up to see how often a flight is last or an airplane crashes or a cruise ship is hi-jacked or its engine go out or how ugly my reputation is.

So prediction (in an actuarial sense) is a function of not just "most likely" (or, what the itenerary says) but the uncertainty or risk or confidence.

Pax et amor vincunt omnia--radarmark

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The dates affixed by wall calendars are human artifices.

Time is relative???????
What 'Un-relative' time scheme is there
other than the sun's rotation of the Earth Globe,
with which we concern ourselves with?
Dr Spock's?

Human Calanders not only predictthe future ---they mandate the future of all concerned parties.

They predict nothing about the world.

Every minutia of science sets out to predict the newest fad!

So prediction (in an actuarial sense) is a function of not just "most likely" (or, what the itenerary says) but the uncertainty or risk or confidence.

That is why I had asked:
What other type of future predictions are being sought? Insurance policy types?

Thus, The rule is: The Normal is forsee-able and, chaos is known to guarded against.

Allow me to paraphrase the Tao te ching:
"To build a city, one must first plan for the building of prisons."

Allow me to speculate:
"To build a city, one must first plan for the sewer system."

 

[radarmark]

1) Yep, time is relative (per Einstein)

2) Since the future happens (to a human being, a paramecium or an atomic nucleus) without a calendar or even the concept of time (see "Blackfoot Physics" by David Peat--they live quite well with no verb tenses). Human calendars predict nothing (unless you think a Blackfeet or our Cro-Magnon ancestor got all mixed up and starved because they didn't have a calendar). P.S. this is not the same as time passing or keeping track of the ebb and flow of nature vis the Zodiac, the Moon and the Sun.

3) Science predicts (especially quntum mechanics and relativity) but they can be predictions of events that may or may not happen. And scientists rarely do scientific things by the calendar (one big exception is using Solar eclipses).

4) The "normal is foreseeable" yes, to some confidence. Do we foresee our death if someone points a real loaded gun at us? Yes. Do we foresee where a pitch will pass in baseball or cricket? Yes. Did we foresee the fallout of deregulation under Clinton or the housing bubble or the explosion of worthless property investments (those sold in the market) or the impact of riding the USA debt-ceiling to the face of the cliff or what Standard and Poor's degrade would do? No. Did St Paul foresee the truth when he assured us that Christ would return in the body during our lifetimes? No. Do we foresee what will come out of a "quantum entanglement" of two photons that we can see and detect (see Bell's Theorem and the Aspect Experiment)? No. Did we foresee that a 40 foot tsunami would strike a nuclear plant? No.

The trivial is totally modelable (foreseeable). The more complex something is (and lots of "Normal" things are very complex) the more uncertainty there is in the model (or prediction). Chaos is not necessarily bad. Chaotic river or waterfall flows are real neat. Chaos in an equation is quite elegant. Chaos in our lives make them (for me) more exciting and challenging and rewarding.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia -- radarmark

 

[Bhaktajan II]

1) Yep, time is relative (per Einstein)

But 99.99% of the mass of humanity don't know Einstein.
The Trains run on time 95% and dis-regard the traffic patterns of other pedestrians

2) Since the future happens without a calendar or even the concept of time.
School children wait for milk and cookies with great ansy.

Human calendars predict nothing
Many a mafiosi was photographed because of pre-planned events
Calander not only predict the future, they also mandate the future.

P.S. this is not the same as time passing or keeping track of the ebb and flow of nature vis the Zodiac, the Moon and the Sun.

N.O.A. predicts and changes the course of many a traveling vessel.

3) Science predicts (especially quntum mechanics and relativity) but they can be predictions of events that may or may not happen.

Verry Interesting.
School closings are announced the morning of the visiting storm.

And scientists rarely do scientific things by the calendar (one big exception is using Solar eclipses).

They do it according to the weather forcast all the time.

4) The "normal is foreseeable" yes, to some confidence.

Do we foresee our death . . . Yes.
That is why we must surrender to a monestary ASAP. One and all. So as not to die like an ani . . a cured meat carcass.

Do we foresee pass[es] in baseball or cricket? Yes.
"Centrebet" offers English Premiership betting odds throughout . . .

Did we foresee the fallout of . . . property investments? No.
Only those with eyes that could see . . . offshore shelters direct telex numbers.

But that's not a determent for those caterrring to a clientele that has "one born everyday".

Did St Paul foresee the truth when he assured us that Christ would return in the body during our lifetimes? No.

In what year of our Lord would have Pauly attested to this?
BTW, was he not just quoting his Spiritual Master?

Do we foresee what will come out of a "quantum entanglement" of two photons that we can see and detect (see Bell's Theorem and the Aspect Experiment)?

What was the prime motivating factor behind pursuing the latest advancements in Quantum Mechanics? Certainly not the same as the Wright Brothers had in mind?

No. Did we foresee that a 40 foot tsunami would strike a nuclear plant? No.

But there were video taking news agents in Helicopters already in flight flying in circles waiting for the arrival of the Tsunami inorder to get the exclusive 'scoop'.

BTW, hasn't it seemed inevitable that the word 'Tsunami' would enter the world lexicon . . . ever since Krakatoa-east-of-Java blew? Or is it just me?

The trivial is totally modelable (foreseeable). The more complex something is (and lots of "Normal" things are very complex) the more uncertainty there is in the model (or prediction).

Like the weather?

Chaos is not necessarily bad. Chaotic river or waterfall flows are real neat. Chaos in an equation is quite elegant. Chaos in our lives make them (for me) more exciting and challenging and rewarding.

Yeah, tell the Chinese Goverment what to say to it's nation about the Three Gorges Dam project . . . and the ensuing drought.

Life is like a box of Cherries and sometimes it's Like the weather.
Both like the changing seasons.


Pax et amore vincunt omnia

 

[radarmark]

It does not really matter if 99.99% of humanity knows or not. This relativity of time (which is how the Theory came to be named) is (most likely) true--it is kinda like it did not matter if our Middle Ages ancestors believed the earth was flat... it most likely is not.

The fact that trains run 95% and not 100% on time is just what I am saying--the future is not set in stone, it is a combination of likely events.

School children, more proof for me... they are not using a calendar.

A couple of references: McTaggerts "The Unreality of Time" (an article available on the web), Barbour's "The End of Time" (cheap used or the library has one), Finkelstein's "Chronon" (available on web), and Savitt's article "Being and becoming in modern physics" in the Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy.

I do not expect you to believe what I say. But try to understand what I am saying. You probably think how you are explaining things are more down to earth and common-sense. Realize I just think how I am explaining things is a little more subtile and inclusive.

Pax et armore vincunt omnia--radarmark

 

[Bhaktajan II]

It does not really matter if 99.99% of humanity knows or not. This relativity of time (which is how the Theory came to be named) is (most likely) true

please understand I am asking academically.

The topic of "Relativity of Time" ---is applicable ONLY in theoretical Physics [not that there is any thing wrong with that].


The topic of "Relativity of Time" ---IM pedestrian opinion, has referred to The of "Relative Time" existing in our solar system in contra-distinction from another solar system, IOW, "Time" in one solar system differs from "Time" in an other solar system.

So, "Time" is relative to the solar system you are measuring it in.

So, Travel to another solar system ---would involve Time warps due to the Cosmic Jet Lag.

Yes such data would be incorporated in space travel statistics.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTW, when I mentioned the nature of "Electricity" ---I was hoping that you would reveal the fact that scientists DO NOT know what Electricity is.

Dittos for "Light".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I do not expect you to believe what I say.

But try to understand what I am saying.

You probably think how you are explaining things
are more down to earth and common-sense.

"EXPLAIN"? I am "explaining"?

What about the word "Theory"?

Mathemathical Theories are not written in english.
But machine shop diagrams & assemblies are comprehended by a tradesman easily.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

BTW, when I mentioned the nature of "Electricity" ---I was hoping that you would reveal the fact that scientists DO NOT know what Electricity is.

What don't they know? I thought I knew until you said that. Is it not the electrons circling the atom that are pulled towards a positively charged source, like another atom. That's how (this is getting troublesome translating into English) ions are made.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

What don't they know? I thought I knew until you said that. Is it not the electrons circling the atom that are pulled towards a positively charged source, like another atom. That's how (this is getting troublesome translating into English) ions are made.

They know How to control its flow . . .but they don't know what it is [again, aa case of Mathematical expressions].

Has any one sought to "invent" artificial Electricity?

or similarly,

Has any one sought to "invent" artificial Water?

Q: What is water?
A: Water is H2O.

That is not an answer. It is a comparitive analysis.

Yes, we don't need to believe in its "comparitive analysis" ---as long as the ingredients behave Consistently.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

It does not really matter if 99.99% of humanity knows or not.

The Conquistadors preferred that as few as possible mercenaries know too.
More booty for them selves.

The fact that trains run 95% and not 100% on time is just what I am saying--the future is not set in stone, it is a combination of likely events.

The future is indeed in stone [literally] ---your living flat is probably near a millenium old.

You are conflating Surity-Reality with "Change".

It's NOT change that allows for industry, but constantcy.

I am referring to the stone foundation upon all edifices are built.

The Sand-castle may last a day or an hour ---but the sea cost endures.

The Casino parlor lives on unchanged but the petty winnings of passing gamblers is "Ir-relevant" to the institution.

One is absolute and the other is Relative.

The oldest profession is practiced by relatively young hawkers.

Since the future happens without a calendar or even the concept of time.
. . . (as) School children ... they are not using a calendar.

The future is forseen by the children ---by law the parents must provide the kids with after school supervision . . . day after day without fail ad infinitum.

School children wait for milk and cookies [and playtime and 3pm and exams and Spring break and graduation etc] with great ansy.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

bhaktajan, you're a curious guy, you should take a course in natural sciences, you will get to experiment and question and you will walk away with a greater understanding of the fact that water is a great many molecules that consists of an Oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms and why they are draw into this constellation. This will lead to the understanding of why the H2O molecule has such an odd shape and why it forms crystals the way it does and why it's volume is greater in it's solid state than in it's liquid state, which is not the general rule when it comes to matter.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

On today's show will will be explaing the science of
making cakes and biscuits.

as Amended by Bhaktjan
yeah but yeah but yeah but . . . if it was about coffee cake:

Cup of tea, you're a beverage, you should take a course in natural cooking, you will get to experiment and question and you will walk away with a greater understanding of the fact that coffee cake is a great many molecules that consists of flour yeast etc and why they are draw into this coffee cake food stuff. This will lead to the understanding of why the coffee cake has such an odd shape and why it forms crumbs the way it does and why it's volume is greater in it's solid state than in it's liquid state, which is not the general rule when it comes to matter.

The general rule for cooking recipes, or for any popular recipe, is to
remember the recipe; patent it as proprietory information; market it as unique ---as only Grandmama made.