The Science of the Supernatural

Posted on by

If Darwinism fails then supernatural causes are back on the table and should be included in science.

I do not think there can be a science of the supernatural.

I do not think that if Darwinism fails that supernatural causes will become acceptable.

If the hope of ID is that supernatural causes will be allowed back into science if they can only just get rid of Darwinism, ID is doomed.

The tools and methods of ID cannot differentiate a supernatural cause from a natural cause anyways.

Thoughts?

1,433 thoughts on “The Science of the Supernatural”

  3. DNA_Jock: . I am asking you to explain in your own words how Special Relativity means that there is no such thing as time on the subatomic level.
    Please.

    Which is easier to say?

    “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion…” – Albert Einstein

    Or in my own words:

    “There is no such thing on subatomic level as time…”

  5. newton,

    True. But given that he was trying to rebut your “so you have to have the design before the designer” comment, his ‘if’ statement only makes sense if he reckons…
    Oh.
    My bad.
    I may have made an unwarranted assumption about J-Mac.

  6. OMagain: The more pertinent question is who understood it of those two.

    There is also a third option… if I could say it in my own words….

  7. Mung: Sure. Sort of like before an eye can be evolved there must be an eye to evolve to.

    Only for the teeny tiny eyes. More like the Quantum world can exist before it is designed. Effect preceding cause.

    If you want to climb a mountain, you need a mountain.

    Again , it has to very, very,very small mountain.

  8. Thank you for the clarification, J-Mac.

    Are you claiming that your “There is no such thing on subatomic level as time” is equivalent to Einstein’s “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
    ?
    If so, you are going to have to unpack this for me.
    ETA: You will also need to explain how your statement arises from SR, rather than from QM…

  9. newton: Only for the teeny tiny eyes. More like the Quantum world can exist before it is designed. Effect preceding cause.

    If I could correct this statement, in my own words, this is a distortion of truth…

  11. newton: And yet,exactly how the Great Sand Dunes came to be . A combination of random and non-random.

    Which part is non-random-that wind exists? That sand exists? Other than those two facts, its random. So it seems you believe the fact that things exist is designed.

  12. DNA_Jock:
    Thank you for the clarification, J-Mac.

    Are you claiming that your “There is no such thing on subatomic level as time” is equivalent to Einstein’s “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
    ?
    If so, you are going to have to unpack this for me.

    In my own words, not exactly, but close…
    It all depends on what one believes or how one chooses to interpret Quantum Mechanics…

    If I could say it in my own words, Einstein was wrong about the entanglement…

    Initially, he had not accepted entanglement as real, therefore called it ‘a spooky action at the distance.’.. but later more and more evidence pointed to it being real…

    Nobody knows why Einstein said what he had said about time, but in my own words, he probably realized what I, IMHO, suspect to be true…in my own words, we both have had the same intuition…

  14. phoodoo: Which part is non-random-that wind exists?That sand exists?Other than those two facts, its random.So it seems you believe the fact that things exist is designed.

    In my own words, random and with a cause…

  15. Okay, J-Mac,
    So your reference to Special Relativity was merely a vain attempt to sound sciency.
    That’s what I thought.
    I haven’ t seen any indication that you understand QM either, but that (as Feynman noted) is rather commonplace.
    What you do know is that smart people view entanglement as “spooky”, so you hope that your God could be hiding there.
    Fair enough.
    If you are looking for gaps, though, there’s radioactive decay, too. Maybe that is how evolution is guided.

  16. DNA_Jock: ETA: You will also need to explain how your statement arises from SR, rather than from QM…

    It doesn’t, in my own words, it can’t…which leads to a possible conflict…
    If I could say it in my own words, if Einstein believed about time what he had stated, in my own words, SR must be wrong or, in my own words, insufficient, similarly to Newtonian mechanics being insufficient to SR…
    In my own words, SR is applicable but not sufficient to explain quantum phenomena such as quantum superposition or quantum entanglement or lack or the insignificance of time…

  17. DNA_Jock: So your reference to Special Relativity was merely a vain attempt to sound sciency

    I didn’t want to sound like I’m saying everything in my own words…
    See my comment right above…

  19. DNA_Jock: I haven’ t seen any indication that you understand QM either, but that (as Feynman noted) is rather commonplace.

    I never claimed to, even in my own words… lol

  21. DNA_Jock: Feynman noted) is rather commonplace.
    What you do know is that smart people view entanglement as “spooky”, so you hope that your God could be hiding there.

    Nuh…unless dark energy turns out to be essential, in my own words, for self-assembly and stuff like that…I’m working on it, in my own words, how to detected quantum information first…

  22. J-Mac: Both A and C are the same thing…What’s to explain even in my own words?

    This was your comment and what I took to be your offer.

    You don’t believe in Einstein’s theory of special relativity or simply don’t understand the concept of time?
    Would you like me teach you the fundamentals?

    Why make an offer you are unable to fulfil?

  24. J-Mac: In my own words:you

    That doesn’t make any sense to me. Are going to teach us the fundamentals of Special Relativity and the concept of time or not?

  25. @ J-Mac

    These were your own words, weren’t they?

    You don’t believe in Einstein’s theory of special relativity or simply don’t understand the concept of time?
    Would you like me teach you the fundamentals?

  27. DNA_Jock: If you are looking for gaps, though, there’s radioactive decay, too. Maybe that is how evolution is guided.

    In my own words, how is that related?

  28. Alan, it does appear that, sadly, no explanations will be forthcoming from J-Mac.

    If this is J-Mac in his own words,
    then J-Mac is an attractive Bengali lass with the handle LondonCityGirl.
    Not what I expected.
    😮

  29. An interesting book by Sir Arthur Eddinton, entitled, “The Nature of the Physical World” based on his Gifford lectures of 1927, is available here. I went to the site (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu) where it said the book can be paid for, but I’m still none the wiser on how to pay for it, or even if it needs to be paid for.

    He said, in the conclusion:

    Another charge launched against these lectures may be that of admitting some degree of supernaturalism, which in the eyes of many is the same thing as superstition. In so far as supernaturalism is associated with the denial of strict causality (p. 155) I can only answer that that is what the modern scientific development of the quantum theory brings us to. But probably the more provocative part of our scheme is the role allowed to mind and consciousness. Yet I suppose that our adversary admits consciousness as a fact and he is aware that but for knowledge by consciousness scientific investigation could not begin. Does he regard consciousness as supernatural? Then it is he who is admitting the supernatural. Or does he regard it as part of Nature? So do we. We treat it in what seems to be its obvious position as the avenue of approach to all scientific knowledge of the world. Or does he regard consciousness as something which unfortunately has to be admitted but which it is scarcely polite to mention? Even so we humor him. We have associated consciousness with a background untouched in the physical survey of the world and have given the physicist a domain where he can go round in cycles without ever encountering anything to bring a blush to his cheek. Here a realm of natural law is secured to him to covering all that he has ever effectively occupied. And indeed it has been quite as much the purpose of our discussion to secure such a realm where scientific method may work unhindered, as to deal with the nature of that part of our experience which lies beyond it. This defence of scientific method may not be superfluous. The accusation is often made that, by its neglect of aspects of human experience evident to a wider culture, physical science has been overtaken by a kind of madness leading it sadly astray. It is part of our contention that there exists a wide field of research for which the methods of physics suffice, into which the introduction of these other aspects would be entirely mischievous.

    He had previously said:

    Natural and Supernatural. A rather serious consequence of dropping causality in the external world is that it leaves us with no clear distinction between the Natural and the Supernatural.

    I haven’t read it in full yet but I look forward to doing so.

    At the beginning he said:

    But to think of a man without his duration is just as abstract as to think of a man without his inside. Abstractions are useful, and a man without his inside (that is to say, a surface) is a well-known geometrical conception. But we ought to realize what is an abstraction and what is not.

    This is basically what I have previously said here concerning any organism. The reality is not a static snapshot. The unity of an organism encompasses an ever changing physical form. Reality can only be grasped supersensibly. What our senses give us can only be turned into reality by the conscious, thinking mind.

    IMO it is important that the supersensible be distinguished from the supernatural.

  30. DNA_Jock:
    Alan, it does appear that, sadly, no explanations will be forthcoming from J-Mac.

    If this is J-Mac in his own words,
    then J-Mac is an attractive Bengali lass with the handle LondonCityGirl.
    Not what I expected.
    😮

    What explanation would you like, in my own words?
    You have an opportunity for the second time…
    If you blow it, in my own words, you know how those trolls are treated here even if they are admins, in my own words…lol

  31. CharlieM:
    An interesting book by Sir Arthur Eddinton, entitled, “The Nature of the Physical World” based on his Gifford lectures of 1927, is available here. I went to the site (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu) where it said the book can be paid for, but I’m still none the wiser on how to pay for it, or even if it needs to be paid for.

    He said, in the conclusion:

    He had previously said:

    I haven’t read it in full yet but I look forward to doing so.

    At the beginning he said:

    This is basically what I have previously said here concerning any organism. The reality is not a static snapshot. The unity of an organism encompasses an ever changing physical form. Reality can only be grasped supersensibly. What our senses give us can only be turned into reality by the conscious, thinking mind.

    IMO it is important that the supersensible be distinguished from the supernatural.

    I would like to warn you, in my own words, that TSZ has introduced a new rule to present other’s ideas or work, in our own words…
    In my own words you my be breaking that rule…😂

  32. J-Mac: In my own words, random and with a cause…

    Sand exists because of a cause? Wind exists because of a cause? That is sort of the debate isn’t it? There is either a cause for everything or this isn’t. Again, I don’t accept chaos as a cause.

  33. J-Mac: I would like to warn you, in my own words, that TSZ has introduced a new rule to present other’s ideas or work, in our own words…

    This is false.

    Alan made a personal request to you, that you present your ideas in your own words. But there is no new TSZ rule to that effect.

  34. J-Mac,

    They were my own words. I just chose to put some of them together in the same order as Sir Arthur Eddinton did in his book. Although I’m sure I’ve seen most of them scattered around TSZ in the past 🙂

  35. phoodoo:
    Sand exists because of a cause?

    Yes, sand exists because of a “cause,” or more than one, depending on how we think of it. To determine this all we need to do is observe, and you’ll see that, for example, waves constantly hit rocks, and the rocks eventually break, and we get smaller pieces, and then those waves continue getting those pieces to hit each other and make smaller pieces, and we get that waves are thus a “cause” for at least some of the sand.

    phoodoo:
    Wind exists because of a cause?

    Again, yes. For example, the sun “hits harder” at the equator than at the poles, thus the air gets warmer there, and thus runs upwards, that’s upward wind. Air from the “sides” to the equator fill the void left by the hot air that went up. This would be horizontal wind running towards the equator from both poles. This wind would have a “cause” in the void left by the air that went up. There’s much more, ending with a beautiful “ring” of wind that goes up in the equator, horizontally towards the poles, downward at the poles, horizontally at the surface towards the equator, etc. Then there’s those details that break the main pattern, like the season, like the rotation of the planet, like whether there’s bodies of water, mountain ranges, oceans, etc. etc. etc. etc.

    phoodoo:
    That is sort of the debate isn’t it?

    I doubt that there’s an actual debate about those. So, no, it isn’t.

    phoodoo:
    There is either a cause for everything or this isn’t.

    Problem being that the cause/effect model is something we humans devised to try and understand how things work, but the conceptual frameworks are not the phenomena. In other words, we can think in terms of cause/effect for as long as it makes sense and for as long as it helps us understand, but the cause/effect model is not the reality we’re trying to understand. So, yes and no. Everything can be thought of as having a cause or many causes, or whatever, but everything could also be thought differently and be described some way other than in terms of cause/effect.

    phoodoo:
    Again, I don’t accept chaos as a cause.

    I’d explain that chaos and randomness are not the same thing, but that would not change my answer: of course chaos and random events can be “causes.” In the wind scenario, the positioning of different elements can be thought of as random, and they break the wind patterns, thus randomness being the “cause” that a snow storm is coming our way, rather than some other way.

  36. phoodoo: Which part is non-random-that wind exists? That sand exists? Other than those two facts, its random. So it seems you believe the fact that things exist is designed.

    The non-random is interaction of the landscape and fluid mechanics with your random windswept sand.

    And yes, I think the Dunes are non-teleologically designed. Just like Delicate Arch. Just as some human design.

  37. J-Mac:Newton: Only for the teeny tiny eyes. More like the Quantum world can exist before it is designed. Effect preceding cause.

    If I could correct this statement, in my own words, this is a distortion of truth…

    You may be correct since we don’t know how or whether the Quantum World was designed . But if it was designed so that the effect can precede the cause, then effect of that design possibly precede the cause which is the design.

    That is the thing about design, it can get complicated when you go from the abstract to the concrete.

    Do you start top down, or bottom up? Is the existence of space enough to start the particles popping in and out of existence? Or is space just an illusion which has been proposed to explain entanglement?

  38. J-Mac: Belief, in your own words, could be deceiving…

    It depends on the basis of the belief, in this case, the “ If “ at the start of your statement is pretty strong evidence.

  39. DNA_Jock: True. But given that he was trying to rebut your “so you have to have the design before the designer” comment, his ‘if’ statement only makes sense if he reckons…
    Oh.
    My bad.
    I may have made an unwarranted assumption about J-Mac.

    An assumption is warranted, you just made the wrong one.

  40. Neil Rickert: This is false.

    Alan made a personal request to you, that you present your ideas in your own words.But there is no new TSZ rule to that effect.

    Thank you for the clarification!
    Several people, including admins, were on my case to put science in my own words… I thought I had missed something…

    This example just proves that the supprters of Darwinian ideology ignore any kind evidence that doesn’t support their views…In this context, Darwinism is no different than any other ideologies that have hindered the scientific processes by bullying those who disagreed…

  41. CharlieM:
    J-Mac,

    They were my ownwords. I just chose to put some of them together in the same order as Sir Arthur Eddinton did in his book. Although I’m sure I’ve seen most of them scattered around TSZ in the past 🙂

    😀

  42. phoodoo: Sand exists because of a cause?Wind exists because of a cause?That is sort of the debate isn’t it?There is either a cause for everything or this isn’t.Again, I don’t accept chaos as a cause.

    Everything has a cause…well maybe with one exception: the first cause…

  43. newton: You may be correct since we don’t know how or whether the Quantum World was designed . But if it was designed so that the effect can precede the cause, then effect of that design possibly precede the cause which is the design.

    QW should have a cause if big bang or anything similar is true..

    You are buiding a strawman by substituting cause with design…
    This is subatomic world we are talking about, so the analogy like that is almost certain to be false…

  44. newton: It depends on the basis of the belief, in this case, the “ If “ at the start of your statement is pretty strong evidence.

    “IF” is almost a necessity in QM… at least until we have some concrete proof… 🙂

  45. newton: Do you start top down, or bottom up? Is the existence of space enough to start the particles popping in and out of existence? Or is space just an illusion which has been proposed to explain entanglement?

    Good questions!
    Each of them good enough for an OP…Why don’t you do it?

    Einstein’s statement about time makes the nature of space, as it is understood today, doubtful…at least spacetime…or insufficient…something is wrong or missing…
    In my own words, dark energy could be some kind of solution perhaps because we know it exists due to its effects…Materialism is slowing down the scientific progress because of the possible implications of supernatural…

  46. Eddington gives us some food for thought on the nature of reality with this passage

    is sometimes urged that the basal stuff of the world should be called “neutral stuff” rather than “mind-stuff,” since it is to be such that both mind and matter originate from it. If this is intended to emphasize that only limited islands of it constitute actual minds, and that even in these islands that which is known mentally is not equivalent to a complete inventory of all that may be there, I agree. In fact I should suppose that the self-knowledge of consciousness is mainly or wholly a knowledge which eludes the inventory method of description. The term “mind-stuff” might well be amended; but neutral stuff seems to be the wrong kind of amendment. It implies that we have two avenues of approach to an understanding of its nature. We have only one approach, namely through our direct knowledge of mind. The supposed approach through the physical world leads only into the cycle of physics, where we run round and round like a kitten chasing its tail and never reach the world-stuff at all. I assume that we have left the illusion of substance so far behind that the word “stuff” will not cause any apprehension. I certainly do not intend to materialize or substantialize mind. Mind is⎯but you know what mind is like, so why should I say more about its nature? The word “stuff” has reference to the function it has to perform as a basis of world-building and does not imply any modified view of its nature.

    It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference⎯inference either intuitive or deliberate. Probably it would never have occurred to us (as a serious hypothesis) that the world could be based on anything else, had we not been under the impression that there was a rival stuff with a more comfortable kind of “concrete” reality⎯something too inert and stupid to be capable of forging an illusion. The rival turns out to be a schedule of pointer readings; and though a world of symbolic character can well be constructed from it, this is a mere shelving of the inquiry into the nature of the world of experience.

    For anyone who wants any further details on his use of the term “pointer readings”, they can go to chapter XII of the above link. I suppose if he were writing this today he would substitute “digital readouts” for “pointer readings”.

    So

    Newton’s concrete

    if, Newton, by concrete you mean physically real stuff, becomes an abstraction in the eyes of physicists if they want to be consistent.

  47. J-Mac: This example just proves that the supprters of Darwinian ideology ignore any kind evidence that doesn’t support their views…

    I disagree.

    My take is this. Several people (perhaps most people) who post at TSZ suspect that you have a very poor understanding of what you post about. When they ask you to use your own words, they are encouraging you to study and better understand it before you post.

  48. Neil Rickert: I disagree.

    My take is this.Several people (perhaps most people) who post at TSZ suspect that you have a very poor understanding of what you post about.When they ask you to use your own words, they are encouraging you to study and better understand it before you post.

    I have made my views clear more than enough times…
    People like Alan and you and others questioned them as unscientific.
    I quote experimental scientists and world authorities, it’s not good enough…
    The only understanding you accept is yours, which is Darwinism…

    Who are you to question world’s most accomplished scientists? Who’s Alan?
    Why would continue to deceive yourself and others? Based on what? Ideology?
    Who gives a damn what and why you choose to believe something?!

    TSZ is supposed to be a science blog and not a feel-good-daycare for disillusioned Darwinosaurs…

  49. CharlieM: For anyone who wants any further details on his use of the term “pointer readings”, they can go to chapter XII of the above link. I suppose if he were writing this today he would substitute “digital readouts” for “pointer readings”.

    I noticed that the word “entanglement” is not used once in the entire book…
    Don’t you think it’s odd?

  50. J-Mac: Everything has a cause…well maybe with one exception: the first cause…

    What’s the cause of gravity?

    What’s the cause of radioactive material?

    What’s the cause of material to a materialist?

Leave a Reply