Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[spidergoat]

Cough.. Eh.... Hmm....

I believe I said "You can't really 'study' the mechanism of the supernatural, you are limited to studying the effects of it"

Only a fool would believe that 'observable effect' is the only reality..... Perhaps the complete nature is an effect of the supernatural and science is basically the study of that effect- can you show anything about the supernatural mechanism that lead to this- no- because you're part of the effect itself.

Peace be unto you

So there is no evidence for the supernatural, nor can there be (according to you). It cannot be observed directly or indirectly, so the logical conclusion is that it exists only as a belief in your mind. No other inference is possible. The data that you assert supports the supernatural is the same as that which supports my belief that you are in fact an alien communicating to me from a distant galaxy via a human host which you have taken over telepathically.

 

[786]

So there is no evidence for the supernatural, nor can there be (according to you). It cannot be observed directly or indirectly, so the logical conclusion is that it exists only as a belief in your mind. No other inference is possible.

The supernatural itself can not be observed directly, I believe. Indirectly it could potentially in a form of some 'miracle' or something like it.

Supernatural can be 'inferred' from the effect as being the cause- the effect being nature- but of course this is an on-going debate if nature is self-caused or not.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

All things are studied by their effects. I'm glad you admit to at least indirect data on supernatural claims.

 

[786]

All things are studied by their effects. I'm glad you admit to at least indirect data on supernatural claims.

Science studies the effect to know more about the mechanism of the cause..... that is what you can't do with the supernatural.... You can only study the effect but have no knowledge about the mechanism that led to it- And because science tells you more info about the 'cause mechanism' it can also make predictions- So it isn't that the supernatural is less but simply the fact that you can't know the mechanism in order to make the predictions... it is simply due to practical limitations... That is why science appeals to us because of its predictive power but the supernatural does not- but one has to realize why that is.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Right, because there is no mechanism, that's the definition of supernatural. But, we could detect the supernatural indirectly by observing something for which there is no other plausible mechanism.

 

[786]

Right, because there is no mechanism, that's the definition of supernatural. But, we could detect the supernatural indirectly by observing something for which there is no other plausible mechanism.

Possibly.... but then one would have to make the assumption of how does the 'supernatural' interact with the natural world. Does it violate the laws to create something unusual that for which there is 'no other plausible mechanism'- or does it change the natural world by manipulating something totally different- perhaps something totally immaterial which then translates to a natural 'change' but which would still be explained by the natural laws.

I think the most convincing argument will come from quantum cosmology at some point.....

Peace be unto you

 

[Dredd]

So your example of science and mysticism working together is actually mysticism saying "Yes science you're right, and we've contributed nothing".

Actually "scientist", not science, and "mystic" not mysticism.

If you are hung up on being right, no problem, take it that way, but don't let it consume your heart.

Just so long as the people, whom science and mysticism should serve, are benefited you can win them all, it is not important to me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually "scientist", not science, and "mystic" not mysticism.

Actually, no.

If you are hung up on being right, no problem, take it that way, but don't let it consume your heart.

Ah I get it.
It's okay to present incorrect answers to people.

Just so long as the people, whom science and mysticism should serve, are benefited you can win them all, it is not important to me.

And mysticism, benefits people by presenting answers that are wrong, or not demonstrably correct?
Interesting.

 

[786]

Wow you really have missed the point.
Change require time. Otherwise everything remains static. Change is a consequence of time. Without time there is no alteration. Alteration (of any kind) implies THEN is was like that, NOW it's like this.

And this follows from what? Common sense? Apparently common sense has no place for in quantum mechanics first of all- if it comes from physics and how everything is time dependent- then I don't see the need to repeat myself....

Just keep on saying the word 'fail' while you fail to understand the difference between natural and supernatural.

Also wrong: destruction is a progression. (Maybe you're taking "progress" to mean "improving". It doesn't).

So you were using the word progress to mean just any change, why not stick to the word evolution then? No reason to introduce new words to the discussion.

Oh fail again. That wasn't the contention.
Your own words - "Can evolution for this complexity occur in a 'timeless' dimension" specifies in the "timeless dimension", not affecting us from that dimension.

I don't see what you are saying at all.... WE are in a TIME-dependent dimension...... Suppose higher dimension holds everything in a singularity where all-time is present at the same point- Something from the timeless dimension can change that which is in the 'time' dimension- then the change would be reflected in the 'time' dimension (which we observe as evolution) while nothing changes in the timeless dimension. Thus evolution occurs only here and not there-

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

And this follows from what? Common sense?

Hardly. For anything to follow anything else indicates a before and an after.
Without time there is no before and after.

So you were using the word progress to mean just any change, why not stick to the word evolution then? No reason to introduce new words to the discussion.

Since evolution is a subset of change I haven't exactly introduced anything new.

I don't see what you are saying at all.... WE are in a TIME-dependent dimension......

Correct. But your question was:
"Can evolution for this complexity occur in a 'timeless' dimension".
Evolution cannot occur if there's no time.

Suppose higher dimension holds everything in a singularity where all-time is present at the same point- Something from the timeless dimension can change that which is in the 'time' dimension- then the change would be reflected in the 'time' dimension (which we observe as evolution) while nothing changes in the timeless dimension.

Wrong again.
If something from this hypothetical timeless dimension changes then it's not timeless.
Change depends on time.
Without time things remain exactly as they started, so what "change" would there be that be "reflected" in our dimension?

 

[786]

Hardly. For anything to follow anything else indicates a before and an after.
Without time there is no before and after.

Which is common sense..... (that's a no no in the quantum world...)

Since evolution is a subset of change I haven't exactly introduced anything new.

Please define the difference in progression and evolution...

Correct. But your question was:
"Can evolution for this complexity occur in a 'timeless' dimension".
Evolution cannot occur if there's no time.

Correct... I answered my own question with a 'no' at the time I asked it... so why did you waste my time?

Wrong again.
If something from this hypothetical timeless dimension changes then it's not timeless.

And when did I say the something changed in the timeless dimension? I only said the something from the timeless dimension CHANGES THE TIME-Dimension! Nothing in the timeless dimension is changing- it is changing something else spontaneously with an infinite speed (zero time?)

Does a photon age? Yet it can change things without itself being 'aged'- a timeless existence yet the ability to change something else?

How about you read the following- it is an interesting read.

"http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05010.htm"

Change depends on time.
Without time things remain exactly as they started, so what "change" would there be that be "reflected" in our dimension?

How does a photon create a change when it is timeless in itself? You must realize 'time is relative'- It is timeless in itself but can have a affect on something which does have time....

Also from another forum this guy has an interesting thought, I'm not sure how correct it is but here it is:

No. It necessitates that at time T1 it is a point A, that at time T2 it is at point B and that the difference in time between these events (T2-T1) is not just less than the time required at the speed of light but is less than the time it takes a photon to travel a planck's width no matter the distance between A and B.

It would not be a matter of being faster than light or time slowing down. It would be a matter of time being irrelevant to any and all calculations.

We see this effect, for example, when we look at the position of an electron in an atom. Electrons do not circle or orbit the nucleus. They appear to be at one instant at position A and at the next instant at position B without ever having traversed the space between A and B.

But do keep in mind that my example, above, while real is being used to describe a situation in which a wholly theoretical construct might exist. There is essentially zero evidence for my explanation being either correct or incorrect.

Quantum mechanics and common sense do NOT go together! Does change depend on time or does time depend on change- even this is up for debate amongst philosophers.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Which is common sense..... (that's a no no in the quantum world...)

Which doesn't alter my statement.

Please define the difference in progression and evolution...

Huh?
Evolution (as we've been discussing it) refers to the evolution of life forms. Progression covers all change.

Correct... I answered my own question with a 'no' at the time I asked it... so why did you waste my time?

Because then you went on to suppose that it somehow worked a change elsewhere.

And when did I say the something changed in the timeless dimension? I only said the something from the timeless dimension CHANGES THE TIME-Dimension! Nothing in the timeless dimension is changing- it is changing something else spontaneously with an infinite speed (zero time?)

I see so when you wrote "the change would be reflected in the 'time' dimension" you didn't actually mean it?

Does a photon age? Yet it can change things without itself being 'aged'- a timeless existence yet the ability to change something else?

Ageing (or not) isn't the same as "existing in a timeless dimension".

How does a photon create a change when it is timeless in itself? You must realize 'time is relative'- It is timeless in itself but can have a affect on something which does have time....

See above.

Quantum mechanics and common sense do NOT go together!

You keep saying that as if it actually means something.

Does change depend on time or does time depend on change- even this is up for debate amongst philosophers.

Can't have one without the other.

 

[786]

Which doesn't alter my statement.

And it doesn't alter mine either... You are using conventional common sense to propose an argument of time-dependency.... I'm not going to continue arguing with you when clearly I am talking about something which doesn't sit well with 'natural' or conventional understanding hence the word 'supernatural'.

Huh?
Evolution (as we've been discussing it) refers to the evolution of life forms. Progression covers all change.

And I've been using the the word evolution to mean 'change over time' all along and not limited to biology, I believe I gave this definition before too.

Because then you went on to suppose that it somehow worked a change elsewhere.

Yes but you keep on saying that the change occurred in the timeless-dimension when I clearly did not say that.

I see so when you wrote "the change would be reflected in the 'time' dimension" you didn't actually mean it?

And so I was saying the only change occurs in the dimension with time? Where have I said there was a change in the timeless dimension.

Ageing (or not) isn't the same as "existing in a timeless dimension".

Of course but it is only an example that a timeless thing can have a impact on something with time.

You keep saying that as if it actually means something.

It means something because you are repeating the same argument.... You're applying your natural rules that of time dependency to something which is not natural....

I don't feel the need to continue with this.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes but you keep on saying that the change occurred in the timeless-dimension when I clearly did not say that.

Correction. You CLEARLY said it here.
""the change would be reflected in the 'time' dimension"

And so I was saying the only change occurs in the dimension with time? Where have I said there was a change in the timeless dimension.

So where does the change occur that is only reflected in our dimension?
If it's reflected then it must have occurred elsewhere, since the only two dimensions under discussion are the "timeless" one and ours, and the reflection is in ours then the original is in the "timeless" one...

Of course but it is only an example that a timeless thing can have a impact on something with time.

But the photon doesn't exist in a timeless dimension.

It means something because you are repeating the same argument....

Because you're barking up the wrong tree, the fact that QM doesn't follow common sense does NOT mean you can't work with it. (Having done so, I know).

You're applying your natural rules that of time dependency to something which is not natural....

Yet you seem to think they do apply: by trying to use the photon as an example.

 

[786]

Correction. You CLEARLY said it here.
""the change would be reflected in the 'time' dimension"

Hmmm.... I meant that the change would be in the time dimension and since it would be in it that is also the place it will be reflected in. I see where the confusion came from.

But the photon doesn't exist in a timeless dimension.

True but it is the closest thing to which I could give an example of a timeless thing changing something with time.

Something that is in a timeless dimension could potentially change something in another dimension while still being timeless.

Because you're barking up the wrong tree, the fact that QM doesn't follow common sense does NOT mean you can't work with it. (Having done so, I know).

Who said you can't work with it? I only said you can't apply your 'common sense' rules to everything.... Unless you would like to prove that everything regardless of being 'natural' or not MUST follow natural common sense rules.

Yet you seem to think they do apply: by trying to use the photon as an example.

Only because the photon itself is timeless.... and it is only a close example not the real thing... As can something timeless affect something with time so can a timeless dimension affect a dimension with time. It is not a natural law I'm trying to use but only a proposal that the possibility does exist.

Peace be unto you

 

[Doreen]

Yet.

Actually Gödel shows how it must be the case.

 

[Doreen]

Right, because there is no mechanism, that's the definition of supernatural. But, we could detect the supernatural indirectly by observing something for which there is no other plausible mechanism.

Supernatural is an unnecessary term that makes it easy for skeptics. It merely has to be mechanisms we do not, at this time, understand. Some people feel that God or ghosts must be unnatural or supernatural. But I see no reason to assume they are beyond nature - this smacks of the Abrahamic religions and their need for so much transcendence. Pagans would consider these things natural.

 

[James R]

Nonsense. Have you ever heard of Godel's theorems? Even in mathematics there are true statements that cannot be proved.

Yet.

Ever.

 

[parmalee]

Ever.

yeah, that was kind of my understanding of it too--and the russian logician who bore an uncanny resemblance to kyle mchlachan assured me that such was the case too, and i'm gonna take his word for it.

 

[parmalee]

Supernatural is an unnecessary term that makes it easy for skeptics. It merely has to be mechanisms we do not, at this time, understand. Some people feel that God or ghosts must be unnatural or supernatural. But I see no reason to assume they are beyond nature - this smacks of the Abrahamic religions and their need for so much transcendence. Pagans would consider these things natural.

somewhere in this thread (or maybe it's the "atheist world=better world" thread) i reviewed the proper definition of the supernatural--actually, now that i think of it, it was the other thread (in response to (Q)).

anyhow, i wish this thread were in the linguistics subforum so fraggle could interject and establish that there are countless terms being thrown about in this thread INCORRECTLY.

c'mon--just stop using the term "mystic" for fuck's sake, because frankly, it makes absolutely no sense in this context.

and this bit: "this smacks of the Abrahamic religions and their need for so much transcendence": i would add, this smacks of metaphysics (possibly as informed by abrahamic traditions, but as formulated in western traditions prior to the influence of abrahamic traditions) as well--it's curious, and ironic, how much metaphysics still informs empiricism and science.

and not only pagans, but some asian philosophy (obviously, by no means all) and the thinking of some nomadic peoples, inasmuch as they are not "contaminated" by the influence of abrahamic traditions. as discussed elsewhere, some are informed by such--and even profess a sort of "allegiance" to such, i.e. bedouins and islam--but their allegiance is superficial, and little more than "going through the motions."