Nature, the supernatural, and a primary cause.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
That is because they constitute nature, wouldn't you say? The question is; Is nature eternal?
It’s hard to say, there are various arguments either way but none of them are decisive.
That depends on what you term as "super-natural."
In this case, “not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material”. While I realize this introduces certain circular references, the concept of the supernatural (magical or miraculous if you prefer) is not very well defined.
What is the use of hypothesis in direct knowledge?
Wow, that’s a big question. I hope you don’t mind if I try to synthesize a brief answer rather than go into a full justification. A hypothesis, conceptually, is a method for deriving meaning from the raw datum of experience. While specifically I am referring to the rather formal method of explanation and testing used in science generally it is a method that we all use.
If we could prove, scientifically, that nature/the Universe is not sufficient cause for its own existence and thereby demonstrate the necessity of a preceding cause it reveals nothing aside from that fact. Nothing further can be attributed to it besides the principle of primary cause. One cannot make a leap to Yahweh, Gaia, or whomever. At best you have Aristotle’s ‘Unmoved Mover’ a principle of perfection that creates without action or volition.
Where did the energy come from in the first place?
Is it safe to assume that wherever there is energy, there must be an energetic principle? If you don't think so, please state why?
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘energetic principle’ but observation seems to indicate that what we tend to think of as nothing is actually roiling with activity. The ground state of the Universe contains an intrinsic potential for existence.
Maybe energy goes back to its original source.
If we were able to provide "a mechanism," to measure where the energy goes, that mechanism would also be part of the said energy and is in no position to go outside of itself, therefore all calculations would be, in part, speculation. So in effect physical science has no jurisdiction.
No, that wouldn’t be the case, ideally. If energy were leaving the Universe we could quite easily measure its loss as long as we were in a position to do so. One might, for instance, posit that energy ‘boils off’ of the ‘surface’ of the Universe. We could measure that, provided we could reach the ‘surface’ of the Universe. Of course, until we could get there and measure the loss the hypothesis would remain only a hypothesis. Meanwhile every experiment thus far has only shown that energy is always conserved.
Prisme’s adopted argument is that the Universe is ‘winding down’, that it contains less energy than it once did which necessitates that he provide someplace for this energy to go. I’ve already mentioned the prime possibilities… I’m willing to consider others but they must be posited. In any case, his assertion has most definitely not been ‘demonstrated’.
Where do these various particles/quantum fluctuation come from?
The background potential sometimes called ‘vacuum energy’ which is somewhat misleading. In an attempt to explain what I should probably leave to the professionals; Quantum physics seems to show us that, quite contrary to our classical perspective, nothing smaller than an atom (and even maybe including atoms) is really static, there is a level of indeterminacy that cannot be reduced. This even includes what we conventionally thing of as nothing or a vacuum. This indeterminate state allows for the spontaneous occurrence of particles from nothing as long as those particles eventually return to ‘nothing’. That this occurs has been demonstrated by experiment.
Then what you mean is "something" as opposed to "nothing," because surely "nothing" means "nothing" including energy.
Nope, I mean nothing, see above paragraph. I realize it is a difficult concept. I certainly do not understand it fully.
Is this a general, across-the-board claim, or is it a personal claim?
If the former, then please explain to me how you can speak for everybody (all species) living, or have lived, on this planet?
I’m speaking of, as I believe I indicated, absolute truth. There are all sorts of truths but most of them are relative, dependant upon definition and various frames of reference. For instance: 1+1=2 is only true if we agree upon what 1, 2, and = mean as well as the function of +.
Having faith doesn't mean your certain, it means you believe something based on some kind of authority, in the hope that you will become certain in due course of time. When certainty is reached, there is no need of faith. The reality is dependant on the authority.
Faith means many things, not excluding my use of it, which is why I tend to use it less and less. But even using your definition I find it a poor replacement for independent rational thought and even personal experience (as you mention).
Nothing (including ourselves), is static, everything is changing
That is what I said.
which is one of the basic laws of the matter.
1) comes into being
2) develops/grows
3) produces by-product
4) dwindles
5) vanishes
While this seems apparent on a macroscopic level, we have found that this is not actually what happens. Matter changes form but (aside from the temporary virtual particles I mentioned before, which is why they’re called virtual) never seems to come into being or vanish. There are some hypothetical situations whereby the Universe as a whole may do this and whereby virtual particles may be able to do this on an individual basis but neither has been demonstrated.
When someone is possessed by a demon, do you check the gas or battery in your car, or do you go to someone who knows the art of exorcism.
The first person I would have them see is a doctor, failing that a psychiatrist, then maybe if all else fails I would take them to an exorcist in the hopes that the psychology of the delusional person might respond to a ‘remedy’ that fit the theme of their experience.
Agreed. I would not take the above person to see a physicist.
~Raithere