Can we be "certain" whether or not supernatural realities exist or do not exist?

[dafydd]

….google it!




…what is the sound of a pin dropping?

Drop a pin and find out.

 

[Malerin]

No it shouldn't.

Yeah. Sure. Right. What do you propose in replacement ? A "don't know" followed by acting as if they did not exists ?

A "don't know" followed by a "I wonder if it does". See SETI. Actually, see all scientific discoveries.

Sure you can. You're mixing up proof with evidence. There's a lot of evidence unicorns don't exist (on Earth, at least)

No. there is no evidence of non existence. What there is , is evidence that some story had other origin than a live unicorn.

And I am not confusing proof and evidence. You will not be able to disprove unicorn existence. That is the WHOLE POINT.

You're confusing proof with evidence.

Not quite infinite. We don't know how many non-terrestrial life forms (entities) exist, but it could be a lot. Probably not infinite though. And of course, like you say, we have no evidence of any of their existence.

Infinite. For every entity you make up, I can make 1 more by adding a property. For each of those I newly created and those you had originaly, i can add 1 more property. Again. And Again. And again.

IF the universe is infinite (and contains an infinite amount of worlds creatures could live on).

What? We should assume extraterrestrial life forms don't exist until we find evidence for them? Everyone else OK with that?

For extraterrestrial form we have evidence that life can start with a sample of 1. So it isn't a question whether it CAN or CANNOT exists, but with which probability.

Actually, it is a question of whether non-terrestrial life can or cannot exist. If Earth is the only planet in the universe with just the right conditions for life to form, extra-terrestrial life cannot exist. That is unknown at the moment (see Drake Equation). For extraterrestrial life, we have a sample size of zero (not counting some ambiguous patterns in meteorites).

The question whether supernatural (or even outside the universe) entity exists is a FULLY DIFFERENT ONE as we have sample of : ZERO.

So you assume. If reality is idealistic (a projection of god's mind), then the sample size is not zero.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Isn't this just the old agnostic v atheist question rehashed again?

On a generous day I might be convinced to allow the argument that we can't say with 100% certainty than no supernatural beings exist (though normally I would argue the point) however what I can say with certainty is that even if I allow for the existence of something on a probabilistic, philosophical nitpick that doesn't mean that any natural being knows anything about it. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Aepervius]

A "don't know" followed by a "I wonder if it does". See SETI. Actually, see all scientific discoveries.

You are confusing what the discussion is about "supernatural" claim, with "natural" claim aka claim which don't contradict the basic science. We are speaking of claim for which the possibility has NOT been established.

And by the way whether you say "I don't know" or "not existing" in BOTH case you will handle YOUR LIFE as if there was NO existence. Semantically in absence of evidence this is the same.

You are the one which brought unicorn. Show us YOUR evidence of them non existing, and i have already showed you why this won't work that way.

You're confusing proof with evidence.

Proof is for math or a jury of peer in a lawsuit. Evidence is for the rest of science.

IF the universe is infinite (and contains an infinite amount of worlds creatures could live on).

Infinite does not mean everything is possible.

Actually, it is a question of whether non-terrestrial life can or cannot exist. If Earth is the only planet in the universe with just the right conditions for life to form, extra-terrestrial life cannot exist. That is unknown at the moment (see Drake Equation). For extraterrestrial life, we have a sample size of zero (not counting some ambiguous patterns in meteorites).

This is a question of probability. Life *DO* exists. Whether there is other place where it grew up is not anymore a question of possibility (possibility=1) but of probability. In this discussion we are speaking of stuff for which the possibility is not yet established.

You do not seem to understand the difference.

So you assume. If reality is idealistic (a projection of god's mind), then the sample size is not zero.

Right. Non sense made up on the spot. Evidence ? Zero.

 

[qayak]

That's not what Horse is claiming.

And the burden of proof is on you as well.



Easy: A supernatual entity might interact with the universe only when no one's looking.

So what? Lots of things happened when no one was looking and there is still evidence.

 

[qayak]

Nope. Don't know where you got that idea--

From your post. You are claiming that a supernatural being can interact with our universe without our knowing it. The only way that can happen is if you think they exist because if they don't exist, they can't interact.

Now, it is on your shoulders to explain by what mechanism a supernatural being could interact without us detecting it. I'll make it easier for you, explain a mechanism by which the image of the virgin Mary appears on windows. Make it a supernatural one that doesn't involve sprinklers and that we can't replicate with a sprinkler.

Or is that the secret? The groundsman is god and he set the sprinklers up to do that?

 

[qayak]

What? We should assume extraterrestrial life forms don't exist until we find evidence for them? Everyone else OK with that?

Absolutely! Until we found evidence that we were on a sphere in the middle of a vast universe, we should have assumed that we were alone.

Once we realized what our position actually is, how galaxies, stars, and solar systems are created, the evidence was there to support the possibility of life on other planets. Seems to me, that's when the idea became fairly popular.

The mistake you make is in the words "evidence" and "proof."

 

[dlorde]

I don't know about supernatural as there are various ways of defining supernatural. They are certainly non-physical and do fit some definitions of supernatural.

OK, but if concepts and ideas can be supernatural, I'd like to hear the full definition of supernatural that encompasses them - it's not something I'd even considered.

If we can always arrive at a rational explanation for every seemingly supernatural event can we conclude that nothing supernatural exists? Or would it be like concluding that irrational numbers don't exist?

OIC... I guess it's just the old problem of proving a negative. I think it's reasonable to draw the line somewhere - although where you draw it is an individual decision - but not just because of the number of debunkings, but because of the other issues, like lack of mechanism/hypothesis, contradiction of known physical principles, etc. Also, I'm not sure the maths of irrationals is a valid comparison.

 

[Quad4_72]

Hi.

I saw this post:



But do you live with "uncertainty" about whether or not there exist supernatural realities, that is, realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality, non-physical modes of existence? Note that these realities need not be anything mentioned in any religions. That last bit is important.

To me, it seems that there is no way to prove or refute the possibility, because we would have no idea as to how to even begin to detect it, or if that would even be possible. We can't even say it is unlikely, or likely, through observation. We just don't know... In this case, absence of evidence is truly neither evidence of absence nor evidence of presence. How would we, when we would have no idea what we were even looking for? How would we know it could even be detected or tested?

I can make up all sorts of stuff that you can't prove wrong if you go by the mentality that you have presented. For example, I believe that there are two realities. One is the world that we live in, and the other is an alternate reality, governed by Charlie Sheen, in which we are all his slaves and forced to dump piles of cocaine into a pipeline filled with heroin that eventually turns into a catheter that is linked directly into his bloodstream. The Goddesses are the slave drivers, and Charlie Sheen is 30,000 feet tall. Prove me wrong. Since you can't prove me wrong, we must only assume that it is possible for this reality to exist.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I can make up all sorts of stuff that you can't prove wrong if you go by the mentality that you have presented. For example, I believe that there are two realities. One is the world that we live in, and the other is an alternate reality, governed by Charlie Sheen, in which we are all his slaves and forced to dump piles of cocaine into a pipeline filled with heroin that eventually turns into a catheter that is linked directly into his bloodstream. The Goddesses are the slave drivers, and Charlie Sheen is 30,000 feet tall. Prove me wrong. Since you can't prove me wrong, we must only assume that it is possible for this reality to exist.

Sounds more fun than my job. Where do I sign up for this reality?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The virtual universe the Matrix characters live in is simply data stored in computers. The "programmer" and the characters are part of the same universe. The Matrix "virtual reality" isn't a reality, it is an illusion.

When I said 'programmer' I meant the entity(s) who created the simulation. In The Matrix that was the machines, not Neo (being a computer programmer was just his daytime 'job') nor The Architect (who was himself a simulation, analogous to a compiler which converts source code to object code).

The Matrix was a stupid film and I just used it as a familiar reference to 'computer simulated reality'. However I think it might actually contain some relevant concepts.

Non-living characters in the Matrix were 100% simulated, and therefore not able to perceive or interact with the real world (Smith was an exception). However, humans hooked up into the Matrix had separate consciousnesses ('ghosts in the machine') and a physical existence outside of it, even though their senses and actions were locked into the Matrix.

By realizing that his world was actually a simulation, Neo was able to hack the Matrix and gain 'superpowers'. To an unenlightened (or simulated) person living in the Matrix, these powers would appear to be supernatural, because they violate the Matrix's internal 'laws of physics' in ways that are arbitrary and unexplainable.

The Matrix contains several religious and mystical concepts, including:-

1. We have a mind or 'soul', which exists separately from this world. Some of us can perceive and affect things via pure 'mind-power'.

2. The world we see is an illusion. There is a higher plane of existence that most people don't know about.

3. Beings with supernatural powers exist in a higher plane/other world. They are capable of interacting with this world (when they want to).

People who believe in these things really do think that they are living in a 'Matrix style' universe, though one that is mystical rather than computer generated. For these people 'supernatural' is a useful word. For those of us who only believe in physical reality, not so much.

 

[Quad4_72]

Sounds more fun than my job. Where do I sign up for this reality?

Ask mikew. He knows more about these realities then we do apparently.

 

[Beth]

OK, but if concepts and ideas can be supernatural, I'd like to hear the full definition of supernatural that encompasses them - it's not something I'd even considered.

Def. Supernatural: Anything not composed of various quantum particles in a particular pattern.

OIC... I guess it's just the old problem of proving a negative. I think it's reasonable to draw the line somewhere - although where you draw it is an individual decision - but not just because of the number of debunkings, but because of the other issues, like lack of mechanism/hypothesis, contradiction of known physical principles, etc.

We are in agreement here.

Also, I'm not sure the maths of irrationals is a valid comparison.

I'm not sure it is either. I merely find it an interesting correspondence. There is a myth that the first Greek man to discover irrational numbers was killed for it. I don't know if that is true, the those early mathematicians were apparently quite loathe to accept the existence of irrational numbers as it did considerable damage to their ideas about mathematics and how numbers should behave.

 

[gentlehorse]

From your post. You are claiming that a supernatural being can interact with our universe without our knowing it. The only way that can happen is if you think they exist because if they don't exist, they can't interact.

I don't know where you get that out of:

To me, it seems that there is no way to prove or refute the possibility [that supernatural entities exist], because we would have no idea as to how to even begin to detect it, or if that would even be possible.

If we can detect it, it's not supernatural.

In any event, let me state categorically that, despite any misunderstanding that may have arisen as a result of my poor command of the language, I do not claim that supernatural entities interact with our universe without our knowing it, or that they exist at all. As there is no compelling evidence of their existence, I see no reason to conclude that they exist.

Clear enough?

 

[dlorde]

Def. Supernatural: Anything not composed of various quantum particles in a particular pattern.

Interesting... I'll have to think about it, but it doesn't feel quite right (sometimes 'intuition' can be helpful - as a guide to further thought).

I'm not sure it is either. I merely find it an interesting correspondence. There is a myth that the first Greek man to discover irrational numbers was killed for it. I don't know if that is true, the those early mathematicians were apparently quite loathe to accept the existence of irrational numbers as it did considerable damage to their ideas about mathematics and how numbers should behave.

Also interesting... there may be sociocultural correspondences between early maths discoveries and the religious/supernatural

 

[Beth]

Interesting... I'll have to think about it, but it doesn't feel quite right (sometimes 'intuition' can be helpful - as a guide to further thought).

Yes, it definitely seems not what most people have in mind, but it also provides some interesting comparison to what people do have in mind.

Also interesting... there may be sociocultural correspondences between early maths discoveries and the religious/supernatural

Perhaps. I never thought about it that way before. That's what I love about forum! Getting interaction that leads me to a new synthesis of thought. I've only thought of it as an analogy and like many analogies, it's hard to tell exactly what aspects are and are not reasonably analogous.

 

[dropzone]

Can we be "certain" whether or not supernatural realities exist or do not exist?

I was trained, to an extent, as an engineer. I am not willing to say I am "certain" about anything, because that begets lawsuits. Given the evidence, the Earth's rotation and revolution of the Sun and the traditional existence of both, I am confident, but not certain, the Sun will appear to "rise" in the morning.

But I will need to run that past Legal before I can commit to it. I may have studied engineering, but I come from a family of lawyers.

 

[PixyMisa]

Def. Supernatural: Anything not composed of various quantum particles in a particular pattern.

Space and time are supernatural by that definition. So is anything relating to space or time, like motion.

I don't think it's a very good definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

….google it!

Fail.

 

[randman]

Start with what we know and understand: a natural world, governed by natural laws. That much we know.

Now, as long as we don't come across "realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality", we have absolutely no reason to believe such things exist. Why should the default position be "we don't know", instead of "no, they don't exist"?

I can lift a fully grown elephant with one hand, but that only works when nobody is looking. Would your default position be "I don't know if it's true since I can't gather evidence about that particular feat", or would it be "You're full of it according to everything we know about human physiology, so put up or shut up"?

ETA: I'm heading to bed right now, and re-reading the OP, I think I may be slightly off-topic, or maybe not... I apologize if I am.

Consider this comment:

Now, as long as we don't come across "realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality"

How do you know what are the laws of physical reality? Quantum mechanics throws the laws of physical reality out the door conclusively. MWI is an attempt to preserve those laws by invoking trillions of alternate universes, none of them observed or testable.

Is saying the Multiverse did it more logical and reasonable than saying God did it?