1. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    17 Sep '11 01:476 edits
    Is there any law, rule, acceptance or allowance in science for the phenomena of pure invisibility.

    Edit: Meaning it is there..... but you cannot detect it with eyes or instruments..
  2. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    17 Sep '11 02:06
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Is there any law, rule, acceptance or allowance in science for the phenomena of invisibility.
    You would have to clarify (as if you were interested in an answer!)

    I'm going to make a huge assumption that you are talking about matter ....

    Colourless gases are essentially invisible.

    Microscopic particles are invisible (to the naked eye). (less than 0.1mm)

    Particles less than the wavelength of visible light are invisible. (less than 10^-6 m)
  3. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    17 Sep '11 05:33
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Is there any law, rule, acceptance or allowance in science for the phenomena of pure invisibility.

    Edit: Meaning it is there..... but you cannot detect it with eyes or instruments..
    yes, but purely on a speculative/hypothetical basis. for example, if we can detect the effects/result of a phenomenon acting on things that can be detected, but can't detect the cause itself, an allowance of a theoretical phenomenon is made, as a place filler until more information can be gathered, or our instruments improved to a point that we can detect it.

    see dark matter/dark energy as an example.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Sep '11 07:03
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Is there any law, rule, acceptance or allowance in science for the phenomena of pure invisibility.

    Edit: Meaning it is there..... but you cannot detect it with eyes or instruments..
    No. It is illogical.
    If it cannot be detected in any way, then it is by definition, not a phenomena. That doesn't mean that there aren't things that we have not detected or that are difficult to detect, but if, by definition, it cannot be detected, then it is as good as not being real.

    We have a situation in quantum mechanics, where not everyone agree whether a particle really exists at a given point or whether it is just a wave function of possible particles. Now I believe there is a detectable difference between the two situations, but if there wasn't, then does one say the particle exists or not?
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Sep '11 13:51
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Is there any law, rule, acceptance or allowance in science for the phenomena of pure invisibility.

    Edit: Meaning it is there..... but you cannot detect it with eyes or instruments..
    It depends on what you mean by 'pure invisibility'.

    There are particles called neutrinos created by nuclear fusion reactions that interact so weakly with other matter that if you
    were to try to stop half the neutrinos emitted from the sun you would need nine light years of lead to do so.

    It is possible to create structures that bend light around them so that you can see what's behind them but not actually see
    them. These usually only work for pre specified wavelengths and not for all wavelengths at the same time.
    And has yet to be demonstrated for visible wavelengths.

    There are objects in space that are so dark we can't see them directly and can only detect their presence via their effect on
    objects we can see that surround them.

    However if you mean an object that doesn't interact with anything in any way and thus could not be detected directly or indirectly
    by any test or observation, then the answer is, such an object might exist, but there is no reason to suppose it does or test that
    would confirm it.
    Thus it would and could not be part of any scientific theory because it would have no effect on any test or result we could see.
    It would have no predictive value.

    There is no rule or law that says such a thing couldn't exist, in the same way as (and this is where I think you are going) there is no
    law that says god can't exist. But there is no evidence for it, no way of testing for it, no predictive value, and thus it wont appear in
    any scientific explanation of the world.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Sep '11 14:57
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    There is no rule or law that says such a thing couldn't exist, in the same way as (and this is where I think you are going) there is no
    law that says god can't exist. But there is no evidence for it, no way of testing for it, no predictive value, and thus it wont appear in
    any scientific explanation of the world.
    But God in every definition I have ever heard, does have a measurable effect on the universe.
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Sep '11 15:57
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But God in every definition I have ever heard, does have a measurable effect on the universe.
    Ah but only at the times and places of his choosing.

    God is usually posited to be, or to be observing, everything everywhere all the time.
    but undetectably.

    While god can have an effect (pretty much any effect) at any time or any place,
    god only has an effect if it chooses.
    So god is posited to be undetectable, unless god happens to choose to have an
    effect in the middle of your experiment.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Sep '11 18:20
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    So god is posited to be undetectable, unless god happens to choose to have an
    effect in the middle of your experiment.
    You may have a point for non-creator Gods, but most creator Gods are claimed to have had a profound effect on the universe (by creating it). And unless he covered his tracks really well - that effect should be detectable. I have often suggested the 'covered tracks' hypothesis to young earth creationists, but most of them deny the possibility.
  9. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    18 Sep '11 03:32
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    It depends on what you mean by 'pure invisibility'.

    There are particles called neutrinos created by nuclear fusion reactions that interact so weakly with other matter that if you
    were to try to stop half the neutrinos emitted from the sun you would need nine light years of lead to do so.

    It is possible to create structures that bend light around t ...[text shortened]... no predictive value, and thus it wont appear in
    any scientific explanation of the world.
    What if something can be detected by consciousness?.........But cannot be detected with instruments that have been made by the imperfect senses of man then rendering the instrument imperfect.
  10. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    18 Sep '11 04:07
    Originally posted by Dasa
    What if something can be detected by consciousness?.........But cannot be detected with instruments that have been made by the imperfect senses of man then rendering the instrument imperfect.
    Love, grief, satisfaction, anger, fear, loyalty, courage, hope, ambition, reflection, dedication, responsibility, fairness, empathy and all the rest. These are all functions of the human spirit and, being abstract things, are not visible - and yet exist. Claims about the "imperfect senses" of humans are irrelevant. That emotions, for example, cannot be "detected" by "instruments", and that this is because of some sort of "imperfection" is a complete red herring, no doubt seeking to set up some follow up assertion you are itching to make. It is one of the wonders of this life - this human life, I am not talking about animals - that we are able to create and comprehend such a complex array of abstract things and communicate about them. This capacity is surely the very basis of all forms of spirituality.
  11. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    18 Sep '11 04:58
    Originally posted by Dasa
    What if something can be detected by consciousness?.........But cannot be detected with instruments that have been made by the imperfect senses of man then rendering the instrument imperfect.
    if something can be detected by consciousness, then consciousness would just be another one of the imperfect senses of man.
  12. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    18 Sep '11 05:21
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    if something can be detected by consciousness, then consciousness would just be another one of the imperfect senses of man.
    Yes true........but you can at least detect something that an instrument has not been able to detect.

    As far as the imperfect consciousness goes - after detecting the undetectable it would probably have trouble understanding that which it has just detected.

    However when the consciousness is not imperfect it would be able to understand that which has been detected.
  13. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    18 Sep '11 05:24
    I can sense a circular argument on the way.
  14. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    18 Sep '11 05:53
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Yes true........but you can at least detect something that an instrument has not been able to detect.

    As far as the imperfect consciousness goes - after detecting the undetectable it would probably have trouble understanding that which it has just detected.

    However when the consciousness is not imperfect it would be able to understand that which has been detected.
    the term consciousness itself denotes the ability to have experiences via senses as opposed to unconsciousness where the ability to experience sense is halted.

    what you are talking about here is not consciousness, but a currently undetected/unproven 'sense,' sometimes called the 6th sense, but for the sake of argument, let's call it sense n so that we may define it within the scope of this discussion.

    let's refine it a bit more. you say when consciousness (sense n) is not imperfect, it would be able to understand that which has been detected. this too is inaccurate since senses only detect, they don't analyze. the human brain analyzes senses and it is the ultimate limiting factor, so any sense experienced by humans will forever be imperfect.

    one can also train the brain to analyze and improve senses but in the end, no matter how much training, a deaf man will remain deaf without the help of instruments. so if anyone lacks sense n, they will remain lacking their entire life, unless an instrument or medical procedure can be invented to cure the problem.

    we have further problems here. since sense n is the detection of that which is undetectable by the other senses or any instrument we currently have, we have no way of falsifying that which has been detected by individuals, even if they have a very well developed sense n, the vast majority of people with sense n will have weak development and they will see and hear things that are not there (a.k.a. have delusions, mental illness).

    so what are we left with? not much. we have a global phenomenon of people who experience sense n and they interpret their experiences from the context of their personal cultural background. most of them believe themselves to be right and everyone else to be wrong. some of the more enlightened views, such as daoism and buddhism don't have this bias, but they are in the minority.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Sep '11 07:10
    Originally posted by Dasa
    What if something can be detected by consciousness?.........But cannot be detected with instruments that have been made by the imperfect senses of man then rendering the instrument imperfect.
    There is no law or rule in science that prevents us from detecting something with instruments that can be detected by conciousness. There is of course an allowance for the fact that we may not yet have been able to construct an instrument that can detect it.
Back to Top