Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

quote:

---

Because it appears that the math, which, as I understand what was alleged, is supportive to the multiple universe hypothesis which BB science ascribes to.

---

You have some major confusion in your thinking/understanding as well as an obvious lack of any mathematics.
a) The BB theory says nothing about other universes. It is quite possible for other spacetimes to exist outside this one, just as it is actually quite possible that THIS spacetime is infinite in extent. Those that know the comic-book version, like yourself, believe the comic-book reports of an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity. The BB theory has no such assumption inbuilt.

quote:

---

My response related to the claim that the laws of physics observed in our universe may not apply to other universes.

---

Quite so. Why should they?

quote:

---

The problem still remains that more universes imply an outside of our universe and that there is a between universes.

---

No, that is simply a misunderstanding of basic physics. Your mind deals with 3-D visual information and you think that this extrapolates to the whole universe. A rather parochial and very limited viewpoint I'm afraid, that completely fails with even the basics of modern physics, let alone the more speculative areas of cosmology. I'm afraid you need a few years of study to even understand the questions, let alone pontificate about the implications.

quote:

---

Imo, applying unknown laws of physics to explain that problem is even more absurd than explaining the supernatural hypothesis. There is a lot more sensible evidence for the a higher level of intelligence than that of humans than for the multiple uiverse claim.

---

Again that is simply an appeal to your own ignorance. I could explain the Everett MWI interpretation of Quantum Physics but you don't appear to have the basic tools to understand it. Common-sense seems to be your only metric, and given that such 'common sense' is based on observation of an extremely limited subset of conditions then it is not going to be much use when describing things outside your perceptual experience.

quote:

---

If anything has failed, it's the multiple universe hypothesis; not the supernatural.

---

But, again, you don't understand the multiverse hypotheses (there are several, not one) so saying it has failed is just blowing smoke.

quote:

---

When secular science can't come up with a logical and sensible reason for alibis to explain away intelligent design and the supernatural it's MO is to make their explanation so complicated, and mystical that even they (as is the case in this site) must talk in terms of probabilities, multiple possibilities, unrealistic dimensions, concocted up math, negative gravity effecting energy popping up from nothing and nonsense (I say nonsense because they as much as admit so) like that.

---

Again this demonstrates that you don't understand the basics.
a) Science doesn't deal with the supernatural unless it is manifest in some way which can be tested. Those reported phenomena which can be tested have been tested and found to be illusion, invention or imagination.
b) What you seem to want is an explanation of physics which YOU can understand, without being prepared to do the bare minimum necessary - ie learn some basic maths. Why do you think the universe should be simply explicable to someone who's only experience is on a small planet in a tiny corner of an unremarkable galaxy and who's brain was evolved to yell at apes about food and predators? Anything is complicated to those who are ignorant. The answer you seem to adopt is to wail that it cannot be so, because you don't understand it. Kids do the same thing quite a lot. The brighter ones learn that the problem is theirs, not the explanation's.

quote:

---

Yet they have the audacity to call multiverses and string theories when, in fact, there's no model or ability to predict from these alleged theories.

---

There is both - a model (actually several) and quite a few predictions to be tested. Again the problem is that you won't understand either if you insist that it is translated into a language best suited to jabber about the parochial experiences of an evolved ape.

quote:

---

I don't care if you have 4D, 10D or 11D layers, bubbles or whatever multiverses, like 3D, there is a separation known as a between. I'll never be convinced that I must toss out of my thinking all logic and reason so as to become scientific. I call that mysticism, magic, delusional and impossible.

---

And thus speaks the ignoramus through history. What thinking and logic? You display very little of either. You don't care. Those 3 words sum it up. You don't really want to learn because you are frightened that:
a) You are not capable of understanding
b) It might shake your current worldviewIt isn't new - we see the same attitude in all recorded history, from the persecution of Socrates in Plato's account of the trial, through the imposed ignorance of the medieval Church, and, today, in the blind refusal to accept basic science from the creationists.

quote:

---

maintain that the supernatural has far less evidence of failure than these alleged theories which scientists argue, debate and for the most part have little understanding of themselves. Richard Feynman as much as admitted that he doesn't fully understand a lot of what he believes himself, including string theory.

---

Yes, of course you 'maintain' - that is all you can do. Feynman was talking about quantum physics when he said he didn't 'understand' and he was conveying to his audience that the laws of Quantum Physics are not amenable to 'common sense'. They are incredibly accurate and have never been shown to be in error - even to one place in 10^8, and Feynman knew this - having been responsible for a major part of QED himself. He was simply trying to explain to an audience of non-scientists that they shouldn't worry if what he said contradicted their parochial common-sense notions because that is how it is - take it or leave it. In fact, if you like Feynman quotes then he says exactly what I am saying:

quote:

---

To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.

---

In fact if you want to know a lot more than you do now, I recommend you sit attentively through the following Feynman lectures:
The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos
You still won't understand the physics but at least you might learn to ask sensible questions about it.

I'm afraid I missed this. What evidence for the supernatural? I'm aware of a few unexplained sightings of UFOs, but that isn't really evidence for the supernatural, even if they WERE aliens. Apart from that, the only things I know of are pretty well refuted stories of mass visions and tales of miracle healings which nearly always turn out to be bogus, and when not bogus don't require any supernatural agency.
Even the Catholics are laying-off the miracle stories these days, since previous stories have been so well refuted that they are wary of ridicule if they try to proclaim another miracle.
Shermer is worth a hearing on this sort of thing:
http://bikerman.co.uk/media/beliefs-sherman.isxEdited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Oops - sorry, I thought you had been discussing this with Jar and might be able to point me to the stories...my bad....PS - ahh....I trawled back and see the origin of this particular sub-plot.
Hmm...was Jar winding you up I wonder (not having been here long enough to form solid opinions on the regulars yet, I dunno)....
Seems like a semantic argument mostly - he saying that beliefs in the supernatural exist and that an individual will decide upon the evidence available to them personally.
Actually I find that a weak argument. At one time it would have been valid. Certainly I believe that there is a strong evolutionary predisposition to seek supernatural agencies based on what Dan Dennet calls 'intentionality'.The basic thesis in a nutshell:
There are three ways of looking at the world - Dennett calls them 3 stances.
1 Physical - how does it work? what are the components? how do they fit? Basically what is the physics?
2. Design - what does it look like it is designed to do?
3. Intentionality - what does it want to do?Dennett argues, I think convincingly, that our distant ancestors, when faced with, say, a tiger, could adopt any of these 3 stances.
The physical stance involves looking at the length of the animal, the way the....(oops, too late....eaten).
The design stance involves looking at the big teeth and the strong claws and saying - that thing looks designed to kill and eat things....I'd better get...(oops, too late, eaten).
The intentionality stance involved looking at it and thinking 'that bugger intends to eat me....I'm offski'.Clearly the third offers a survival advantage and therefore a potential evolutionary advantage.Now, this 'assigning agency' misfires, as do all our 'instincts', and we begin to assign agency to pretty much everything. A large thunderstorm must have intentionality which means it must have an agent that directs it...so we look for one. The sun is impressive and therefore must be an agency with intentionality. The stars are impressive and......and so it goes.
From there to rudimentary religion is a very short hop.The reason it is weak today is that nobody can be unaware of the basic discoveries of science unless they are living somewhere remote or are willfully ignorant. Likewise it takes some self-deception to select only the confirmations of a theory and ignore all the counter-cases where it fails (something every woo-woo merchant does routinely). Therefore you need to really want to believe in whatever woo-woo it is or you need to have been very strongly indoctrinated with not just the woo-woo itself but with a lack of intellectual curiosity and a fundamental lack of self-honesty....Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That's because secular science has never made any attempt whatsoever to test supernatural phenomena.

---

Simply a lie.
Randi has made a career out of it.

quote:

---

You, along with most secularists do not understand the basics of the supernatural phenomena which exists. You people chide me for not getting myself programmed into what you are convinced to be truth. By the same token, you appear to have a fobia about anything pertaining to the possibility of the supernatural.

---

Again completely wrong. Any evidence of supernatural activity would be fantastic. It would open up whole new avenues of science. Scientists have been seriously studying parapsychology. miracles, psychic phenomena and various other 'supernatural' for centuries. The thing is - no evidence ever holds up.

quote:

---

Predictions of supernatural phenomena predicted thousands of years ago have been tested by fulfillement.

---

If you mean the bible then this is clearly nonsense. There are no predictions in the bible about Jesus that have any validity, since Jesus, if he actually existed, clearly new about the Tankah and probably knew most of it off by heart. Even then most of the 'predictions' are complete bunk. They couldn't even get his name straight, let alone where he would be born. So they invented some fable about a Roman census to try and fit with the prediction in the Tankah. Obvious invention (there was no such census and the idea that any Roman census involved men travelling to their place of birth was sheer fantasy).

quote:

---

By the same token I can argue that secular science wants an explanation of supernatural phenomenon, without being prepared to test and research evidence of supernatural phenomenon

---

No you can't because it is simply a lie.
The thing that you seem to be also ignorant of is that I know the bible - probably as well or better than you do. I can swap verses all day if you like - I was taught theology by monks for years.

You want a scientist to study bible prophecy? OK. Go ahead. Give me any 2 you like and I'll deal with them right here.In the meantime you might like to read the results of a detailed scientific study into prayer - Commissioned by the Templeton foundation who are sympathetic to religion. I'm sure you can google it fairly easily, but as a spoiler - no effect at all.
If you want scientific studies of the paranormal or supernatural then let me know what specific type of supernatural phenomenon and I'll bet I can find published work on it.How generous is that!?

quote:

---

First off, it would be nice if you understood and applied the difference between "You are lying" and "You are mistaken."

---

It is not possible to be genuinely mistaken when corrections have been offered previously.

quote:

---

Perhaps, to be more accurate, I should not have said never, etc.

---

To be more accurate you would have never suggested that science is frightened of investigating the supernatural. Scientists do it ALL the time.

quote:

---

In your list I see everything but Biblical stuff. I've long derided National Geographic's Robert Ballard and others because they appear to have no interest in falsifying or verifying the very significant evidence of the Exodus crossing site at Nuweiba Beach on the Gulf of Aqaba. There's a lot of debate on that in EvC's archives. Perhaps you would like to search in the archives or click my profile as it's in my profile history.

---

How is that a prophecy? Most scholars have come to the conclusion that the Exodus story is a composite, not history. The details have never made much sense. Look at Numbers 1:46 - it says that the Jews numbered 603,550 fighting men. That is preposterous. When you add in the women, children and older men and women you are going to get somewhere around 2 million people on the exodus. The entire population of Egypt at that time was about 3 million. If the Jews had marched in close order 10 abreast, that would have made a line 150 miles long.
Not to mention the fact that this lot are all supposed to have descended from 70 people over the course of 215 years. It isn't just wrong, it is barking mad.
The numbers don't add up, the chronology is all wrong, the archaeology offers no support and the actual text is obviously from the wrong period - 5th/6th century BCE.
Add all that up, and the fact that your suggested crossing place is about 800-1200 metres deep is the least of the problems. (Just think about that for a moment - 3/4 of a mile deep. How the hell did they get up and down? More preposterous nonsense I'm afraid).

quote:

---

To a person, the science buffs here at EvC are not studied on the remarkable Biblica prophecies, though, like you, they make weak attempts to refute what I cite.

---

You haven't cited anything to refute yet - you have made several obviously wrong statements which I have corrected, that's all.

quote:

---

You're revealing your ignorance relative to the messianic prophecies. The Jesus stuff is not the most imperially significant of the fulfilled prophecies relative to fulfilled predictions in the Biblical record. The dispersement and end time restoration of Israel, the messianic nation chosen by Jehovah is more imperical, for example so far as the here and now fulfillments.

---

No ignorance here. The Jesus stuff is certainly the most important to a huge number of Christians. Because you think otherwise does not make it so. What 'significant empire' are you talking about? What empirical data have you got?

quote:

---

The end time predictions relative to what is now the Islamic block of nations and their role as enemies of the restored nation of Israel is another. Those are just a few. I've been studiously into them and daily reading the Bible for over 60 years, since a teenager.

---

I hope you are not talking about Revelations here? Poor Mad John of Patmos? Surely not. Gibberish, written by a mad hermit, open to just about any interpretation you care to put on it. The only surprising thing about Revelations is that the 382CE council (after Nicea) agreed to leave it in the cannon. If you have been reading the bible daily for 60 years you will be able to cite the verses you maintain make some valid prophecies about Israel. Up to now it is just words I'm afraid.

quote:

---

I'm neither lying or mistaken. LOL on the theology that the monks teach. How much of the prophets did they apprise you on? If they knew and believed the Bible themselves, they would know that the Holy Father is in Heaven and not a sinful earth creature. Obviously they failed to apprise you on the messianic prophecies, etc.

---

The Salesian and Jesuit monks who taught me as a youth (I went to catholic single-sex grammar from 11-19) have several centuries of bible study to call on. I assure you that in any debate with a knowledgable Jesuit you would end up thinking black was white and your elbow was your backside. They have had much practice in theological double-speek and semantic sophistry.
You keep talking about 'prophets' - WHICH prophets? There are at least 60 that I can think of without checking - probably more.

quote:

---

The Bible is not a simple book. One never masters it totally. I'm still studiously at it as an Olympian works out for the high prize. I have not arrived, so to speak. I've learned some things Biblically related from secularist members like you over the years here.

---

The bible is a collection of various things. The OT is largely a manual on Jewishness with a folk history, the laws and customs, the creation myth etc. The NT is a very selectively chosen set of stories about the life of Jesus written by...well, after Paul there is no real certainty about who wrote what and we could debate the various theories forever. It isn't particularly complex - people choose to make it so. There is nothing complex about the simple equation x(n+1) -> x(n)*C*(1-x(n)), but that little equation contains the seeds of chaos and has so many possible outcomers that it boggles the mind. You read in the bible what you want to read and you put into it whatever meaning you bring to it.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

As has been noted the problem is semantic. The word 'evidence' is like the word 'theory' in that both have an everyday meaning which is rather different and distinct from their scientific meaning.
You are using the word in the everyday sense - anything that supports an idea or concept, regardless of accuracy or even relevance. OK, that is permissable and you will find a similar definition in many dictionaries.
When a scientist uses the word, or it is used in a scientific context, then we want it to work a bit harder. Scientifically valid evidence will normally be empirical (not always) and will conform to the scientific method - ie it will be testable and properly documented. Specifically the evidence will not be dependant on inference, and it will not be tautologous (eg supporting the historical accuracy of the bible by pointing to a passage which says it is historically accurate).If semantics is the game then fair enough, you both have a point and both are technically correct. It is, though, IMHO pretty sterile and boring to read....

Ahh, still with us then?
Criteria don't satisfy theories, you have that reversed.I presume you mean that multiverse theories have no evidential support which would satisfy my definition of scientific evidence?
If so then it depends which multiverse theory you mean.
The Everett Many World theory - true. There is no testable data or prediction arising from MW that I can think of. In fact it is not so much a theory as an interpretation. What I mean by that is that Quantum physics has one particular part - the 'collapse of the wavefunction' which is just not ontologically understood at all - ie we can't say what it actually means, even though the theory works, makes testable predictions and is very accurate.
There are a couple of alternatives in such a situation. You can do what the Copenhagen people did - say 'look, there is no deeper meaning, this is just what happens, so looking deeper for some explanation is futile, just accept the maths, accept it works, and stop trying to describe what it means'.
Now I KNOW that you would not find that satisfactory, but believe it or not neither do many physicists. One possible alternative is that there is no wavefunction collapse (ie a transition from many possibilities to one certainty). Instead every possibility actually happens - but they all happen in different 'worlds' which are completely isolated from each other.
Now, can you test this? Not currently using any method I can think of. Is it therefore a valid theory? No, it is simply one possible interpretation of the underlying theory which we know is sound.
So, in simple terms, ignore Everett's interpretation if you like - it doesn't really matter - the physics will still give you the correct answer everytime.On the other hand, if you mean other multiverse theories then you will have to specify which one you mean and I will attempt to tell you whether it is testable or not.PS - did you watch the Feynman video series I dug out for you? I do hope so. I'd hate to feel I wasted my time searching them out for you.PPS - I should say, for the sake of completeness, that there IS a way of testing Everett's Many World Theory. (I call it a theory here because a test is proposed).
The problem is that it is a bit extreme. The experimental protocol would be very similar to the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment, as follows:1. Rig-up a small photon detector capable of determining the spin of a photon. (Spin is a quantum number which is similar to but not the same as what you would normally understand the word to mean - rotating around an axis. All photons have spin value 1 but the direction can be one of two possibilities)2. Attach an electrical activator to the output of the spin detector and to a lethal weapon. The weapon must be sure to kill a person quickly and reliably, so a bomb, though a bit messy, would do the trick. Alternatively a suitable firearm would also do if correctly aligned and loaded.3. Set set the activator such that any photon spinning in one direction is ignored whilst a photon of opposite spin triggers the device.4. The experimenter now takes up position such that the weapon is targetted correctly on him/her.5. Start the detector.Now, if Many World is correct, the experimenter will be fine. The bomb will not explode or the gun will not fire as far as he/she is concerned - ever.
Everyone else in world 1 would see a boom or a bang and a dead experimenter, but the interpretation means that the experimenter duplicates into a separate world everytime a photon is collected and so would notice no break or discontinuity, but would carry on existing in a manner which to them would seem quite normal, even though they were dying in one world and continuing in another.This is also, by the way, why your notion of 'gaps' between universes doesn't really make sense. The different worlds exist in what is called a superpositional state - in exactly the same way that particles exist in a superpositional state until the wavefunction collapses. In one sense they exist at every point and in another they exist at no point. There is no suitable analogy because there is no common experience.Anyway - that is the test - the quantum suicide test. Do you feel strongly enough to volunteer? After all, if you are right you have everything to gain and nothing to loose. If the theory is wrong and you die then it was surely a moral death - advancing knowledge at personal cost is certainly a moral act. So you get eternity in heaven - what could be nicer?
Alternatively, if the theory is right and you survive then you have lost nothing.PPPS - If my suspicion that you are a dispensationalist is correct then this experiment is actually prophesied in scripture and you absolutely MUST take part to fullfil the prophecy. Revelation 2:10-11 Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.It could NOT be clearer. You will be on the point of death at the start of the experiment. The Crown of life means Many Worlds is indeed correct and you will live, even though your first body dies. The second death is that death of the body in Word 2, and obviously you will not be hurt because consciousness continues into world 3.
What more convincing could you need? Can I tell the Uni to start preparing?Edited by Bikerman, : To add a proposed experimental test of MWEdited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

no it hasn't, it is just foolishness on the part of the unbeliever to expect to understand the Bible or expect God to answer their demands when they do not believe the Bible or Him.

---

You contradict yourself, and set up a straw-man in the same passage. Not a great start to a posting. How can an unbeliever expect God to answer their demands? They demand nothing of God because there is no God.
The better question is why the believer expects God to do anything. Prayer has no effect - as has been demonstrated by a large scale study (the Templeton Foundation study a couple of years ago).

quote:

---

that is just one of the impossible things that secular scientists cannot verify, prove or observe thus it is insane to even promote such thinking.

---

Unfortunately, like many, you haven't got much of a clue about science and what it does. You do not try to 'prove' things because that is not possible in any field, aside from maths. You look at disproving, or refuting instead. Until you understand at least the basic mechanisms of science then you won't really be able to make any intelligent (or even coherent) criticisms - as we see in this posting.Edited by Bikerman, : corrected quote tagEdited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

I have to ask this...who is the WT Young in your sig? I know of a businessman in the US, but he died in 04, so cannot be the source of the 08 quote....I'm intrigued...

You aren't the son of the famous W.T? If so, lend us a tenner guv..just for a cup of coffee...

---

There are 10 types of people. Those who undestand binary, and those who don't.Chris

Personally I make distinctions as follows:theory - sound model with numerous lines of supporthypothesis - proposed model with no or little support but logically coherent and physically possible using either current laws of physics or suggesting a modified law that is logically and self-consistent and not contradictory to other established laws (unless also supplying the replacement with same conditions as above)...this last bit can be iterated as many times as needed....Pseudo-science - model pretending to be theory or hypothesis, but with logical or self inconsistency, and/or contradiction of established laws with no alternative self and logically consistent replacement, or a model entirely tautologous which pretends to be predictive or explanatory. (this latter could be part of a separate category - bad science - but I'll leave that out for simplicity)Paranormal/supernatural - report or event which is not explicable by current laws, suggests no alternative self and logically consistent laws......etcI've probably not expressed it as well as I could with more time, but that gives the gist, I think...

quote:

---

I suggested that once a scientific theory is overturned, it becomes 'science fiction' - as relevant to the scientific culture as anything 'supernatural'.

---

Doesn't often happen. You get bits of a theory changing as new data comes in, but the theory itself, being based on evidence, is unlikely to be wrong - it is usually just incomplete or too small a picture. Hence Newton wasn't really wrong, he just had too small a view, so mechanics still works for most purposes but doesn't at the extremes - which is where Einstein comes in. Newton is still extremely relevant though - anyone doing calculations involving ballistics, navigation and most other 'mechanics' applications will use Newtons laws since they will give an answer that is 'good enough' unless your problem involves something moving very fast indeed, or something very small indeed.

Problems with this:
a) The story relates to a historic event. God is not, as far as most people are concerned, a historic event. The only religious people who would fit into that category would, as far as I know, be Deists and Deism is not refutable.
b) The story is testable. It is possible to test at least some parts of the story. For example, is it physically possible for a dog to jump 5.5 ft in the air? If the answer is no then it matters not what the story teller thinks he saw, the story is false. If the answer is yes then the story remains possible. The problem with many versions of the God hypothesis is that they fail those parts of the hypothesis which can be tested.
c) The latter part of your argument is simply the 'god of the gaps' argument in a slightly different format.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.