What Are the Rules Governing ...

Post Reply New Topic

At the bottom of all scientific principles, scientists rely on only two basic assumptions:

1. The entire universe and all of its contents behave according to a unique set of immutable rules that apply to everything, everywhere, and all of the time.

2. Those rules can be determined by observing how the universe behaves.

Scientists use their five normal senses (touch, taste, vision, hearing, and smell), plus reason in their quest to determine the Universal Rules. Thus, if a thing or its effects can not be measured, then the thing is unmeasurable, and it is therefor safe to assume that it does not exist.

However, there are those people who, for various reasons, claim that another realm exists outside of the natural universe – a “Super-Nature”, or the Supernatural realm. They further claim that para-normal senses exist, which completely bypass the normal senses and directly affect a person's perception of the universe around them.

Assuming, for the sake of the topic of this thread alone, that both the supernatural realm and the paranormal senses exist, I propose an enumeration of the rules that govern these two assumed "realities".

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.

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.

If multiple universes exist with their own rules and properties and are counteracting with each other to create and hold in place the natural properties required to allow life to even exist in this one, one could assume that perhaps the human being's ability to be in tune with the super natural is a reaction to an indescribable natural law of a counter acting universe and is sort of our connection to in this web of relationships.

Either way, I think it exists. Definitions help to understand the understandable, but one shouldn't close themselves off to possibilities because current modes of defining, measuring, and ultimately understanding something doesn't exist yet.

Personally, I operate under just a slight re-wording of what you have presented as scientific principles or assumptions upon which physical scientists rely:

1. The spiritual realm as I know it is both subject to and supplied/driven by a set of immutable laws;

2. Those rules can be at least generally known by observation, and they can be "employed" (either for good or for evil) at personal and inter-personal levels by anyone willing to heed them.

Note: As different from the realm of physical science, attempts at manipulations of principles/elements with the realm of spirit do not affect/effect anything beyond learning the futility of even trying same.

While it is certain that some in the scientific community sit atop the principles originally announced - my brother is clearly among them - for others they will not apply, not even as modified by leejosepho.

1. If there are, in fact, fixed universal laws they are not simplistically so. Parallel lines have slipped out of the hand playing non-Euclidean geometry, quanta have upset the Newtonian apple cart, the Brits were more right than the Americans about rules of engafgement in Linguistic Theory, and the Big Bang is - well, not simple.

2. If there are, in fact, fixed universal laws we have no guarantee we will ever have the data and the processing capacity to determine uniquely all and only that set of rules. In fact, we can just about guarantee we will not be able so to do.

3. Postulating a set of rules and saying ONLY what those rules account for actually exists is playing a totally different game.


--------------

That said, I am convinced there is a Outside to this bijou universe.

1. As to whether it is governed by laws no less immutable than those which govern the universe - which laws of the universe are not guaranteed to be immutable - we can have no data other than reports which seem to their recipients to come from entities outside the universe.

2. Determination by beings IN the universe of laws applying OUTSIDE the universe will have less validity than my example of the fish determinig conditions in the cebnter of the Sahara.

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

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.

That's a leap that I don't find logical.

If you mean; for any practical purposes, it's not worth worrying about, then yeah, I can understand that.

My science goes as follows:

1. Stuff happens
2. I observe stuff happening
3. I detect what seem like meaningful patterns that I refer to in the making of strategies and principles of how to interact with stuff happening with my brain.
4. I test those new strategies against old ones, and see if there's any subjective benefit.
5. Go to 1.

how do you know what you experience is real?, even in relation to your normal corporeal self?

I don't believe anyone can know that what they experience is real. It's an assumption that people make, for practical reasons, I suppose. I entertain the possibility that I am experiencing some kind of hallucination.

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.

Amen. Also, it is quite likely there are factors at play in the universe that affect what we can currently observe and measure but are at present outside the range of our senses or instruments. For example, there are natural sources of x-rays and radio waves that affected people and their environment after the scientific method was introduced but before people even knew those things existed.

I would say it shows arrogance and ignorance to assume that all that is real is what we can currently observe and measure, although I do agree those are the only factors that science can deal with and remain science. An interesting idea I've heard is that some of the variation in data in scientific measurements is not random or due to errors in measurement but may instead be caused by such currently unknown factors as I discussed earlier.

I always figured that the laws of logic, in particular, were not contingent on a particular universe.

Agreed, and I think TheBicyclingGuitarist has additionally addressed that well.

At the same time, however, we must discern "herd instinct" and "shared experience" from "herd mentality" and "mass idiocy".

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. As Alan Watts pointed out, what they usually present of other beliefs is highly superficial and grossly inaccurate. I learned much by studying the works of Joseph Campbell, who is best known for some of his PBS video series. He is a great storyteller, although some of his conclusions seem a bit of a stretch to me. Sometimes coincidences are just coincidences. What made his studies important is that instead of focusing on the differences of mythologies from around the world (including ancient ones and ones no longer practiced), Campbell focused on what was similar about them.

I learned even more from listening to many audio files of Alan Watts, who was a Christian minister at one time in his career but who is best known for explaining eastern philosophies to western audiences. He is a blast to listen to. Again, I don't agree with many of his conclusions either. He was not an expert on every subject (although his intellect was great).

One advantage of studying other people's beliefs is you may end up understanding your own culture's beliefs better. I know that has happened to me with linguistics too. I learned more about English in French class than I did about French.

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.