Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 12 of 230 (544724)
01-28-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
01-27-2010 11:58 PM


multiverse
Multiverse is the logical result of string theory,
Minor clarification here. Multiverse is actually the logical result of Hugh Everett's relative state theory, a formulation of quantum state physics that alleviates the asymmetry of wavefunction collapse, developed in detail by Brice Seligman DeWitt as "Many Worlds" theory working with John Archibald Wheeler and resulting in Wheeler getting most of the blame for the whole thing in popular opinion. This specifies one or more extra dimensions of time and gives us the concept of "alternate realities".
M-theory and its predecessors in the string field have some surface similarities, but they are current and therefore in compliance with the renewed definition of "universe" as simply, everything. As a result they try to avoid terms like "multiverse" and instead of speaking of other "universes" they refer to the individual spacetime instances as membranes, D-branes, or simply branes. Another difference is that they specify extra dimensions of space, not time, giving us grounds for the concept of "parallel realities".
Wheeler's extra worlds are just like our own up to some point where one quantum dealie goes differently, then they branch off. The other branes don't show a history with us except to the extent that they may (or may not) be experiencing duration along an axis parallel to our own. All of the multiverses branching off since 1889 can be expected to have had certain Godwin-censored persons and events in them in one form or another. Other branes can't even be expected to have had carbon-based life, planets, or the same physics constants.
There's nothing supernatural about any of this. If it's what's actually going on behind the history of theology, then the subjects of theology aren't actually supernatural, simply extra-dimensional. This is the way all the supernatural stuff that has since been understood has gone, it isn't supernatural anymore. This is an important point to this question. In reference to ID, if it was an alien, even an extra-dimensional alien, even a relatively immortal all-powerful alien with direct access to various areas of spacetime from outside, with three persons worth of single being, there's still nothing supernatural about it.
If we can understand it, we can kill it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 11:58 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 12:43 AM Iblis has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 14 of 230 (544728)
01-28-2010 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
01-28-2010 12:43 AM


Re: multiverse
Right, it's definitely not uncommon to hear the string manifold referred to as a multiverse, even by very important people and experts in their fields. But the problem with this usage is that everyone in the field is trying very hard to reserve the word "universe" to mean "everything, anything at all, the whole deal". This justifies the uni- prefix. So now, when we talk about the extra histories in Wheeler et cetera, we call them "worlds". And when we talk about the extra dimensional constructs in M-theory et al we call them "branes".
In other words, it's just semantics. That's what makes it a minor clarification. You aren't wrong, you could just be more politically correct.
I actually follow what you are saying fine. And other constructs would make it less fluid. But if you really care, then our observable and implied universe or comoving now is in M-theory our "brane" and those other ones are "other branes". These are totally different, not variations on our own. On the other hand our dealie in relative state theory is our "world" and those that branch off in different directions toward alternate futures are "other worlds".
A good way to pay lip-service to this stuff would be to mention whichever construct you mean in quotes at the beginning of a statement and then use whatever usage flows smoothly for you thereafterward. For example
The "manifold" or multiverse concept in string theory postulates the existence of other "branes" or universes like our own. These universes cannot be observed as of yet, but many believe that ...
Kindof a thing. Sorry for breaking up your flow, but I don't want you having to fight for pages against people who say there is only one universe and then once you have it settled have Son Goku or someone show up and say Oh I always use the word "universe" to refer to whatever I'm talking about right now, and devil take the hindmost! If you show awareness of the quibble up front then you won't get treated like a target.
Sorry again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 12:43 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 2:53 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 17 of 230 (544731)
01-28-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 1:06 AM


supernature
If God has ever been observed, and if there is a book that describes God and assigns various traits to Him, then to some extent He can be studied and understood. Which, as I see it, places Him within the natural realm.
This definition of reality makes "supernatural" an obsolete concept. Instead, we have the bits of nature that we understand, and the bits of nature that we may one day come to grips with.
Is there any useful reason to label something supernatural?
The reason for this usage is based in the idea that what we call "nature" is a construct. This is very similar to the "universe" argument, which is why I just gave it such a hard banging. When the theologian talks about "nature" he means creation. Whereas in your usage, nature would simply be Everything.
Thus the theologian can speak of other natures, and even God's nature. From a more comprehensive viewpoint of science, all these would just be aspects of a single nature. This is a quibble, and can endanger communication. When the theologian says "supernatural" they just mean, from outside the world we know. When they say "Supernatural" in capitals they may mean, pertaining to the creator and cause of our own state of being.
Note that for all the translating I'm doing here, I tend to agree with Coyote that most of our ideas about the supernatural are actually swindles built on ignorance and sealed in place by pride.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 1:06 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 43 of 230 (544852)
01-28-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
01-28-2010 4:43 PM


Muggle Alert
Nope. In Harry Potter's world, wizardry is genetic, demonstrably recessive, and subject to specific laws of nature studied by a well-developed academic community. The only thing spooky about it is that it is a well-kept secret, intentionally confused with folklore and urban legend that society in general is trained to disbelieve. When someone gets inside information about it in an unauthorized fashion, they are isolated and brainwashed by officials deputed for that purpose.
In short, it is no more "supernatural" than WMD technology or Stealth brand UFOs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 7:16 PM Iblis has not replied
 Message 47 by AustinG, posted 01-28-2010 8:57 PM Iblis has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 49 of 230 (544879)
01-29-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by AustinG
01-28-2010 8:57 PM


File Cabinets
Hi AustinG
That pattern-recognition you are getting isn't anything to be disturbed about, it means you are a good candidate to understand more about life and how to make the most of it. I will follow up on this later I think, just wanted to make confirmation noises right now.
I keep thinking about your file cabinet analogy. I think a better name for these two cabinets, from a science viewpoint, would be the Known and the Unknown. Science expects that everything currently in the second cabinet will eventually be in the first. Note that that doesn't mean that the second cabinet will be empty, presumably new things will have turned up to put in it in the meantime.
So if ID were science, it could be arguing that the Unknown should receive more emphasis in science classes, and not be far from wrong. From a "creation science" viewpoint, this wouldn't be a bad outcome, because creationism/ID has always been really truly just anti-evolutionism, a demand that the so-called "flaws" and gaps in the science synthesis be given equal time.
But they don't campaign for it on those terms, because, let's be honest, they have no intention of getting what they claim to want. If they did, their funding would get cut off and they would have to get real jobs or at least find new marks. A nicer way of saying this might be to point out that fighting evolution without glorifying their god in the process wouldn't be worth doing for them.
This scientific split between Known and Unknown is very different from the viewpoint of Religion. The supernatural that ID is talking about is similar to things that, in this world at least, will always remain in the second cabinet. We could call these things the Unknowable. I don't believe they exist, I believe the modern slave-priests are exploiting our sense of the numinous to manipulate society in such a way that they don't have to work for a living. And this is why they prefer to say "supernatural" rather than merely unexplored, or secret, or ripe for study.
I think this is a very bad move on their part, in terms of general value to our culture. Every time they stake out a gap and claim it proves God is there, and then we explore that gap and find that he isn't, their God takes another hit in the public estimation. A far better approach would be to point at the marvels of the universe as they are, without lying and dancing around contradicting themselves, and just say Wow, if you think that's awesome, wait til you meet the Guy who done the job.
But that would be the mature thing to do, and if creation scientists were mature, they would be eating meat instead of trying to chew spilled milk.
. . .
"Ah, but it makes a great deal of difference, you see. It is the difference between the unknown and the unknowable, between science and fantasy -- it is a matter of essence. The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom, and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three. I may submit to the unknown, but never to the unknowable. The man who bows in that final direction is either a saint or a fool. I have no use for either."
-- Zelazny

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AustinG, posted 01-28-2010 8:57 PM AustinG has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024