Is "supernatural" a useful word?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2016, 03:48 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I tend to think of supernatural as meaning, "not having a local cause".

Suppose you are really living in a computer simulation. The simulation is paused. The programmer changes the value of some variables that determine your location within the simulation. The simulation is restarted.

In such a situation you would find yourself instantly transported from one location to another. You would look for a cause and find none. Then you would invent an explanation like quantum randomness caused you to tunnel from one place to another and call it natural. But really the cause was a natural one that wasn't local.

Why wouldn't the programmer just be categorized as part of "the natural"? Your definition of local seems arbitrary.

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 03:59 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2016 04:08 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 03:48 AM)cactus Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I tend to think of supernatural as meaning, "not having a local cause".

Suppose you are really living in a computer simulation. The simulation is paused. The programmer changes the value of some variables that determine your location within the simulation. The simulation is restarted.

In such a situation you would find yourself instantly transported from one location to another. You would look for a cause and find none. Then you would invent an explanation like quantum randomness caused you to tunnel from one place to another and call it natural. But really the cause was a natural one that wasn't local.

Why wouldn't the programmer just be categorized as part of "the natural"? Your definition of local seems arbitrary.

To the programmer there is nothing non local about it. Its all local. But to the being who finds himself instantly transported to the other side of the world, the cause of his transport isn't local to him. To the being who finds himself transported, the programmer and the programmer's actions are not part of the reality the transported being has access too. To the being who finds himself transported, the cause of his transport is a non local one.

Science will not ever classify something as supernatural. It will never attribute anything to a non-local cause. It will simply change the axioms by which the world is understood. So while it used to be true that every effect has a cause, and randomness was just a function of ignorance.....now the world is just inherently random on the quantum level. I don't by that at all. There is a larger reality that we don't have access too. Every effect has a cause and if the cause isn't local, then it must be non local....or supernatural. I'm okay using either term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 05:55 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 03:48 AM)cactus Wrote:  Why wouldn't the programmer just be categorized as part of "the natural"? Your definition of local seems arbitrary.

To the programmer there is nothing non local about it. Its all local. But to the being who finds himself instantly transported to the other side of the world, the cause of his transport isn't local to him. To the being who finds himself transported, the programmer and the programmer's actions are not part of the reality the transported being has access too. To the being who finds himself transported, the cause of his transport is a non local one.

Science will not ever classify something as supernatural. It will never attribute anything to a non-local cause. It will simply change the axioms by which the world is understood. So while it used to be true that every effect has a cause, and randomness was just a function of ignorance.....now the world is just inherently random on the quantum level. I don't by that at all. There is a larger reality that we don't have access too. Every effect has a cause and if the cause isn't local, then it must be non local....or supernatural. I'm okay using either term.

In a couple billion years, we will lose access to parts of the universe we can now see. Because of expansion. Would you be okay using supernatural to describe them then?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 05:55 AM)tomilay Wrote:  In a couple billion years, we will lose access to parts of the universe we can now see. Because of expansion. Would you be okay using supernatural to describe them then?

When I say that "Non local" and "Super Natural" are the same, I am talking about causes not places.

Anything outside the observable universe is non-local to us. If anything outside the observable universe causes an effect you or I can observe it is supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 12:43 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2016 12:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 12:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Anything outside the observable universe is non-local to us. If anything outside the observable universe causes an effect you or I can observe it is supernatural.

You have absolutely no evidence for that crap.
It's 100 % made up woo that you named "supernatural".
Your definition is unique to yourself.
If you communicate using words, Blowjob, you have to agree to use words that have some meaning to others.
As far as we know, spacetime is a property of this universe only. "Outside" our universe is meaningless, (as are almost all your stupid pontifical pronouncements).
You really think you're a smart guy don't you ? Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 01:16 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
Bottom line, the fact that we can't even agree what the word means is the greatest indicator that the word is not useful.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Every effect has a cause ...

Says who? You?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 01:31 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
No, "supernatural" is a meaningless gap filling argument from ignorance.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 01:33 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Every effect has a cause ...

What is the cause of virtual particles popping into and out of existence ? What causes excitations in quantum fields ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-08-2016, 01:36 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(17-08-2016 01:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-08-2016 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Every effect has a cause ...

What is the cause of virtual particles popping into and out of existence ?

I think that was the blue acid....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Dark One's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: