Page 2 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

27 May 2011, 7:00 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
Oodain wrote:
what mystifies me after reading this thread is how to interpret the multitudes of religion in relation to a supernatural universe

If I am hearing your correctly, I think I would say something similar. I once tried a bit of "comparative religious studies" and had to abandon that because I just could not find enough parallels to make sense of their differences and justify the effort being spent.


I had the opposite experience, leejosepho. The more I studied other beliefs, the more I found they have much in common with each other, using similar metaphors that may be similar because we are all humans, with similar body chemistry, brains, and life experiences.

Most courses in comparative religion do a very poor job of presenting other than Christian theology ...

I do suspect (or I do today realize) that was my obstacle there. In fact, I thank you for jogging my memory a bit.
I had seen/suspected some things held in common there, but I "gave up" because I did not at that time know how/where to get past the obvious bias held by the presenter.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

27 May 2011, 7:05 am

leejosepho wrote:
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
Most courses in comparative religion do a very poor job of presenting other than Christian theology ...

I do suspect (or I do today realize) that was my obstacle there. In fact, I thank you for jogging my memory a bit.


:D

and thank you for participating here leejosepho. You share your honest perspective, but humbly. That's a breath of fresh air.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 May 2011, 7:35 am

Moog wrote:
Oodain wrote:
oh sorry, i didnt mean in that sense.

even if you accept that there is a "real" world, then how could you be sure in the moment where the aforementioned experience happens?
in such a case only multiple people and/or instruments will allow any truth to be had, even that is not a guarantee.


I'm not sure I'm getting you right, but I don't believe there's any way to be sure of anything. Stuff grazes my senses, and that's how I come to believe that stuff is happening. My senses tell me.

I sense, therefore I sense.


i think you got it quite right :wink:

im trying to say not to trust oneself too much.(i am usch a dolt at self expression at times >.<)


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

27 May 2011, 7:47 am

Oodain wrote:
what mystifies me after reading this thread is how to interpret the multitudes of religion in relation to a supernatural universe

@philologos
1: well that has nothing to do with "breaking" a rule, it just means our first observations werent as accurate as we thought


Right - it is that inherent inaccuracy / inadequacy that says we cannot tell if rules are ever broken. Is Heisenberg indeterrminacy fo sho NOT an inadequacy of our instrumentation?

If one of us could grasp the totality of the smallest grain of sand she [pronoun deliberately chosen here] would equal the pitiful power we postulate for most gods.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 May 2011, 7:56 am

Philologos wrote:
Oodain wrote:
what mystifies me after reading this thread is how to interpret the multitudes of religion in relation to a supernatural universe

@philologos
1: well that has nothing to do with "breaking" a rule, it just means our first observations werent as accurate as we thought


Right - it is that inherent inaccuracy / inadequacy that says we cannot tell if rules are ever broken. Is Heisenberg indeterrminacy fo sho NOT an inadequacy of our instrumentation?

If one of us could grasp the totality of the smallest grain of sand she [pronoun deliberately chosen here] would equal the pitiful power we postulate for most gods.


the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with inaccuracy,
it states that to observe a particle one needs to interact with the particle, when one interacts the particle reacts, it has nothing to do with shortcomings but laws of physics.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

27 May 2011, 8:04 am

That one is going to be an issue of terminology / perspective, not agreement / disagreement. It still adds up to a limit on our comprehension of any laws of physics whether local in space-time, universal in space-time, or extrauniversal.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 May 2011, 9:38 am

Magic is Reality misunderstood.

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,899
Location: Stendec

27 May 2011, 9:25 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What are the rules that govern the alleged Supernatural realm?
What are the rules that govern alleged paranormal senses?

Both are governed by the same rules.

Evidence, please? Just what are these alleged rules, anyway?
zer0netgain wrote:
Our understanding of the "universe" is vastly incomplete. "Supernatural" and "paranormal" are fields of events that fall beyond our current understanding and indeed might rewrite what we accept as "immutable" laws of science.

No, "Not studied yet" falls beyond our understanding, examples being conditions at the center of a singularity, conditions before and at the moment of the "Big Bang", and where half of my socks go when I put them in the dryer.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Paranormal: Not scientifically explainable (see "Supernatural").

Supernatural: (1) Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. (2a) Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature. (2b) Attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).

These are the standard definitions that I accept. Unfortunately, many who actually believe that there is a realm of existence beyond our natural universe tend to make up their own definitions for these words.


_________________
 
The previous signature line has been cancelled.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,899
Location: Stendec

27 May 2011, 9:33 pm

Oodain wrote:
the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with inaccuracy, it states that to observe a particle one needs to interact with the particle, when one interacts the particle reacts, it has nothing to do with shortcomings but laws of physics.


Wikipedia is your friend...

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum; both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled or determined...


In other words, you can measure the exact position OR the exact velocity of a quantum particle, but not both.


_________________
 
The previous signature line has been cancelled.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,899
Location: Stendec

27 May 2011, 9:34 pm

Philologos wrote:
That one is going to be an issue of terminology / perspective, not agreement / disagreement. It still adds up to a limit on our comprehension of any laws of physics whether local in space-time, universal in space-time, or extrauniversal.


Both the Merriam-Webster dictionary and Wikipedia are your on-line sources for accurate definitions.


_________________
 
The previous signature line has been cancelled.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

28 May 2011, 8:39 am

I will not jump onto the topic of lexicography where [even more than with most topics] my biews are numerous, strongly held, and heretical.

One of my students was a member of a group that believed [honestly if in my opinion wrongly] that it is possible to determine certain features, including basic vocabulary, of the original language of mankind. By the time I was examining his materials they had made quite a bit of progres toward their goal.

I, as Alpha Skeptic and Established Expert on the Arcane Art of Diachronic Linguistics, attempted to point out the to me obvious:

Even if we buy into the assumption of a unique "evolution of language", which is by no means certain; even if we postulate a single ancestral language [which is without gerrymandering definitions patently false, the depth to which we can hope to reconstruct the linguistic past is strictly limited. Binocular vision with a 3 - 4 inch separation of the eyes can gauge depth adequately only so far even before we add in smoke, water vapor, or other distortions. In linguistics, reconstruction is not too bad looking at ProtoSemitic [sitting on the porch on a clear day watching the cranes fly over], but looking at ProtoAfroAsiatic or ProtoSinoTibetan we are already trying to resolve the trees on the distant mountain. To attempt to bo beyond that and check out the features of Mars with nothing better than Galileo's telescope.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,899
Location: Stendec

28 May 2011, 12:12 pm

Let's not let this thread devolve into a debate over the meaning of meaning; especially since subjective definitions are always made to favor the argument of the person creating his own definitions. Instead, let's get back on topic...

What are the rules that govern the alleged Supernatural realm?

By comparison, here are some of the rules that govern the natural universe:


THE RULES OF THERMODYNAMICS:

Zeroth Rule
“If two thermodynamic systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.”

First Rule
“The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system.”

Second Rule
“The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.”

Third Rule
a. “As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.”
b. “The entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero.”
c. “It is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes.”


NEWTON’S RULES OF MOTION

Newton’s First Rule
"A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced net force."

Newton’s Second Rule
"The net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."

Newton’s Third Rule
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."


KEPLER’S RULES OF ORBITAL MOTION

Kepler’s First Rule
"The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the foci."

Kepler’s Second Rule
"A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."

Kepler’s Third Rule
"The squares of the orbital periods of planets are directly proportional to the cubes of the axes of the orbits."


INVERSE-SQUARED RULE

The strength of radiated energy inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that energy.


ENERGY-MATTER EQUIVALENCE RULE

The equivalent energy content (given in Ergs) of a quantity of matter (given in kilograms) is equal to the mass of the matter multiplied by the square of the speed of light.



Are there any analogous rules that govern the alleged Supernatural realm?


_________________
 
The previous signature line has been cancelled.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

28 May 2011, 12:36 pm

Fnord wrote:
Oodain wrote:
the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with inaccuracy, it states that to observe a particle one needs to interact with the particle, when one interacts the particle reacts, it has nothing to do with shortcomings but laws of physics.


Wikipedia is your friend...

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum; both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled or determined...


In other words, you can measure the exact position OR the exact velocity of a quantum particle, but not both.


and the reason that effect arises is because to observe something it has to interact with something(not necesarily an instrument but its suroundings as well), ever wondered why neutrino detection was so hard?

*edited for clarity*


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Last edited by Oodain on 28 May 2011, 2:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

28 May 2011, 1:12 pm

Fnord wrote:
Oodain wrote:
the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with inaccuracy, it states that to observe a particle one needs to interact with the particle, when one interacts the particle reacts, it has nothing to do with shortcomings but laws of physics.


Wikipedia is your friend...

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum; both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled or determined...


In other words, you can measure the exact position OR the exact velocity of a quantum particle, but not both.

Right, but (as far as I'm aware) the consensus in physics is that the reason why you can only measure one is because of the way nature works, not because of the limitations of our equipment. I think that's what Oodain was talking about - the uncertainty principle isn't about inaccurary... it's not an epistemological claim that we can't know both position and momentum, it's an ontological claim that particles have properties that are in some sense literally, objectively undetermined.

Here's an example from Feynman's 'Six Easy Pieces' that illustrates how the uncertainty principle can be seen to be a fact of nature (check out the 'Quantum Physics' section of 'Basic Physics'). Feynman asks, why is there so much empty space in atoms? What is it that keep the electrons from simply falling into the nucleus? It's the uncertainty principle. If the electrons were in the nucleus, they'd have a precise position, but that would require that have very large, but uncertain, momentum - which would make them break away from the nucleus. The electrons need room to jiggle around, and they're always jiggling, with never both the position and momentum being precise.

.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


Last edited by you_are_what_you_is on 28 May 2011, 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

28 May 2011, 1:17 pm

Fnord:

your list of rules is fine so far as it goes, though as I have said it is not going to be exhaustive nor in the long run adequate nor in ten years accurate.

AS I think I tried to say - if I did not I should have - any rules that may exist outside the universe [supernatural is another misleading and archaic term] can be noted by us only in the effect inside of what goes on outside. We have rarely even begun to consider analyzing the effects from outside, and have no access to the source.

IN the universe we are groping the elephant and by comparing notes MIGHT come close to a description of a big hairy beast with earflaps and protruding teeth.

Outside the universe, we are limited to measuring the elephant's moving shadow cast on the rough wall of the cave by occasional flickers of heat lightning.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,899
Location: Stendec

28 May 2011, 1:26 pm

If nobody knows what the rules are that govern the alleged Supernatural realm, then they should just say so, or not post a response full of excuses.

Any system can be described by its internal workings, if those internal working operate in a consistent - if not logical manner.

I am asking for a listing of these rules, not a collection of philosophical essays.


_________________
 
The previous signature line has been cancelled.