- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
SwissGambit in the crazies thread: "Maybe the so-called 'supernatural' realm is really
just a larger physical reality? Or a different physical dimension. Perhaps we have not yet
developed much ability to interact with it. You'd think our pronouncements on that realm
would be humbled and limited by that realization."
I do get that you're just pointing out the absurdity in proclaiming certainty from armchair
logic about what goes beyond our five senses and science, but I liked this idea and would
like to take it for a spin.
In what way (if any) do you (anyone) think that the human mind could possibly discover if
the "supernatural" is just a larger physical reality? I mean if we hypothesise that indeed the
"supernatural" is a larger physical reality, and that we could potentially interact with it, how
would we actually discover that?
Perhaps I just unwittingly left the realm of spirituality for the realm of pseudoscientific
hypotheticals. None the less, it could make for a fun distraction while waiting for the next
game move. 🙂
How does one define 'supernatural'?
My opinion on the matter is that the word tends to get used to specifically achieve incoherence in what is surprisingly a generally accepted way. Basically most people say something is 'supernatural' to mean 'it doesn't follow your rules, it follows whatever rules I choose to make up for it, and you can't question me about it, and it doesn't have to make any sense'.
Of course you may use the word 'supernatural' to refer to some hypothetical dimension in which God and other such entities reside. I this case I think we need to take a long hard look at dimensions and how they work, and also whether these entities can interact with us. We could ask whether such dimensions can be called 'physical' or not and why we should even posit their existence since all we ever observe is the interactions between us and it and these observations take place entirely in the known dimensions of space time.
Originally posted by C HessWell, one way is String theory. If it ever turns out to be more than just elegant mathematical equations, we might learn to interact from other dimensions from the study of it.
[b]SwissGambit in the crazies thread: "Maybe the so-called 'supernatural' realm is really
just a larger physical reality? Or a different physical dimension. Perhaps we have not yet
developed much ability to interact with it. You'd think our pronouncements on that realm
would be humbled and limited by that realization."
I do get that you're just p ...[text shortened]... s. None the less, it could make for a fun distraction while waiting for the next
game move. 🙂[/b]
I imagine if it's out there we'll have to stumble on to it. (Maybe we already have?! But this time stumble on to it and remember the footwork that got us there.)
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree that the word is problematic, but in this particular, hypothetical sense it's a larger
How does one define 'supernatural'?
My opinion on the matter is that the word tends to get used to specifically achieve incoherence in what is surprisingly a generally accepted way. Basically most people say something is 'supernatural' to mean 'it doesn't follow your rules, it follows whatever rules I choose to make up for it, and you can't question me a ...[text shortened]... ween us and it and these observations take place entirely in the known dimensions of space time.
physical reality that we could potentially interact with. The exact nature of this other reality
is what we would examine by proposing ideas and test those ideas logically. Certainly an
idea can't stand on the merit of its proponents stating "because I say so" alone, it has to
make logical sense.
For instance, if I were to propose that this larger reality could be the actual real world, and
that we're virtual simulations of living things, this may or may not be a logical (if not
rational) possibility. If I go further than that and suggest that this reality is like a nursing
chamber for intellects being developed before they're allowed to be downloaded into some
physical machine in the "real" world, someone may suggest that maybe it's not so trivial as
virtual simulations and robotics, but a natural reproductive process in a larger physical
reality.
In other words, I thought we'd just toy with ideas and see how well they hold up to the logic
and collective knowledge of the RHP spiritual community.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by SwissGambitCertainly most discoveries come about through "accident", right? Do you think it's possible
I imagine if it's out there we'll have to stumble on to it. (Maybe we already have?! But this time stumble on to it and remember the footwork that got us there.)
to stumble upon insight about this greater reality through reasoning alone?
Originally posted by C HessWell the first step is to identify any such interactions.
I agree that the word is problematic, but in this particular, hypothetical sense it's a larger
physical reality that we could potentially interact with. The exact nature of this other reality
is what we would examine by proposing ideas and test those ideas logically. Certainly an
idea can't stand on the merit of its proponents stating "because I say so" alone, it has to
make logical sense.
Are there any phenomena that anyone is aware of that are interactions with this 'larger reality' and for which the possibility of them being purely part of the known universe seems unlikely?
Without such phenomena to study, we simply cannot proceed, and must, by Occam's razor, assume no such 'supernatural' exists until such a time as evidence arises.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is a theory, maybe from string theory or M brane, not sure, but the idea is there are extra dimensions curled up so tightly there is very little interaction with our big 3 or 4.
Well the first step is to identify any such interactions.
Are there any phenomena that anyone is aware of that are interactions with this 'larger reality' and for which the possibility of them being purely part of the known universe seems unlikely?
Without such phenomena to study, we simply cannot proceed, and must, by Occam's razor, assume no such 'supernatural' exists until such a time as evidence arises.
Except for very tiny separations, which is where experiments are ongoing, trying to see if the inverse square law of gravity breaks down when two bodies get sufficiently close but not touching.
To that end, the experiment measures the force of gravity at closer and closer distances and so far Inverse Square law wins down to something like 100 microns separation. They are trying to get to the 10 micron and 1 micron distance and do an accurate measurement of gravity there but that has not happened yet. 1/10th of a millimeter (100 microns) is as close as measurements have been taken.
Originally posted by C HessFor me, the connection between the material world and the supernatural is love.
[b]SwissGambit in the crazies thread: "Maybe the so-called 'supernatural' realm is really
just a larger physical reality? Or a different physical dimension. Perhaps we have not yet
developed much ability to interact with it. You'd think our pronouncements on that realm
would be humbled and limited by that realization."
I do get that you're just p ...[text shortened]... s. None the less, it could make for a fun distraction while waiting for the next
game move. 🙂[/b]
Love by itself is not measurable. We can't see it, measure it, study it etc. However, it remains the single most important phenomena to our existence. By itself, love does not exist scientifically speaking, except for clumsily defining it as a complex set of chemical reactions in the brain.
If love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, then love does not really exist. I think it is no coincidence that many religions subscribe to the notion that God is love.
Originally posted by whodeyNonsense. Of course it can be measured and studied.
Love by itself is not measurable. We can't see it, measure it, study it etc.
If love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, then love does not really exist.
Love is a result of chemical reactions in the brain, and love does exist.
What are your views on 'happiness'?
Are you aware that happiness can be measured?
Are you aware that happiness can be studied?
Are you aware that happiness can be easily manipulated using chemicals in the brain?
Does happiness exist?
Originally posted by whodeyIf life is merely a chemical reaction in an organism, then life does not really exist, only chemical automata. ... Just a thought.
If love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, then love does not really exist. I think it is no coincidence that many religions subscribe to the notion that God is love.
Originally posted by C HessI don't think that's very likely. History has shown that a combination of thinking and doing yields the most discoveries. Many times, our initial idea is wrong, but the line of thought is promising, and with a bit of fiddling around we can figure out the right direction to think.
Certainly most discoveries come about through "accident", right? Do you think it's possible
to stumble upon insight about this greater reality through reasoning alone?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
"Maybe the so-called 'supernatural' realm is really
just a larger physical reality?"
If such is discovered to be the case, it will simply expand the scope of the natural world, to be studied under whichever scientific disciplines are fittingly successful in exploring it. For example if it is shown to be inhabited by thinking beings we can interact with, sociology and psychology and anatomy etc. will apply to them.
Originally posted by whodey
For me, the connection between the material world and the supernatural is love.
Love by itself is not measurable. We can't see it, measure it, study it etc. However, it remains the single most important phenomena to our existence. By itself, love does not exist scientifically speaking, except for clumsily defining it as a complex set of chemical reactio ...[text shortened]... ist. I think it is no coincidence that many religions subscribe to the notion that God is love.
If love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, then love does not really exist.
Sorry, but this is contradictory. If love exists as a chemical reaction in the brain, then it follows that love exists (as a chemical reaction in the brain). That's just tautological. A reductivist view (e.g., that love is simply reducible to brain states or processes) is not the same as an eliminativist view (e.g., that love does not really exist). Further, a scientist, just in virtue of being a scientist, is committed to neither reductivism nor eliminativism as far as I am aware. Your implication that "scientifically speaking" love is defined in the reductivist way you described is nonsense.
I think it is no coincidence that many religions subscribe to the notion that God is love.
And no more a coincidence that many religions subscribe to meaningless notions, since the notion "God is love" is best viewed as meaningless blather, in light of your primary commitment to God as an agent. Either that, or it is just an 'is' of predication, not one of identity.
