Does Science/Statistics Prove a Supernatural Intervention?

[skydivephil]

Interesting piece on science and the supernatural. http://www.naturalism.org/Can Scien...views- Final Author's Copy (Fishman 2007).pdf

The author basically states that he thinks the supernatural can be tested for. One of the items he states is the laws of probability, claiming that any supernatural event only needs to be proven probable as opposed to definitive. It's a long read, haven't gotten through it all yet.

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global Consciousness Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PEAR found a slight, but statistically significant, effect on random number generators. The Global Consciousness Project is a different test using PEAR as it's foundation for further research.

It might be better to read the entire wikilink here that you posted:
dont you think this aspect is telling:
"These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.[4] Physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".[1] Park maintains that if a coin is flipped enough times, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads, and that the "tiny statistical edges" PEAR reported are the result of statistical flaws.[8]"

i think if the PEAr epople really could do what theys ay they could ddo, why didnt they go down to Vegas and make a fortune?

 

[brbubba]

It might be better to read the entire wikilink here that you posted:
dont you think this aspect is telling:
"These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out.[4] Physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".[1] Park maintains that if a coin is flipped enough times, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads, and that the "tiny statistical edges" PEAR reported are the result of statistical flaws.[8]"

i think if the PEAr epople really could do what theys ay they could ddo, why didnt they go down to Vegas and make a fortune?

I did read that. Just because certain scientists disagree about the validity of the work doesn't invalidate it. Research it for yourself and make your own conclusions.

There's no game in vegas that has a 50/50 chance. Furthermore affecting a random number is very different from affecting any game in vegas, whether that be a card game or electronic slots.

 

[idea]

I have not read the entire thread... has the fine tuning stuff already been brought up?

you know - how everything is set just right for life... and it is not like a different value would produce a different type of life - different values for any of these constants create black holes / dust - nothing at all...

gravity - all values above what we have create black holes, all values below what we have everything falls apart to just dust

- an infinite number of values where g=black holes,
an infinite number of values were g=dust...
only one value for stars/planets/etc.etc.

gravity is not the only value that is fine-tuned like this...


Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If you flip a coin ... the chances are even that it might come down heads or tails.

If you flip it 100 times and each time it came down heads, this in no way changes the chances that the

next time you flip it it remains a 50-50 chance.

Odds do not stack up , they remain the same.

However if you later plot the results you will come up with a typical probability curve.

Neither chance nor probability prove anything at all.

 

[Oberon]

If you flip a coin ... the chances are even that it might come down heads or tails.

If you flip it 100 times and each time it came down heads, this in no way changes the chances that the

next time you flip it it remains a 50-50 chance.

Odds do not stack up , they remain the same.

That's only true is you don't care about order. However, if we care about order, then we have nPr = 100!/(100-r)! where n in this case is 100 and r the number of heads/tails we are aiming for. In other words, if you flip a coin 100 times, each individual flip is a 50/50 chance, but if you look at all the 100 chances and try to determing the likelihood of a given r, your chances will be drastically reduced.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That's only true is you don't care about order. If you don't care about order, then the formula is nPr = r! x nCr where n in this case is 100 and r is 2. However, if we care about order, then we have nPr = 100!/(100-2)!

No order involved in my example.
The next flip is a single event, and has no relationship to previous results.

 

[Oberon]

No order involved in my example.
The next flip is a single event, and has no relationship to previous results.

I know. But the question is whether or not the probability issues we are talking about deal with the probability of a single event on a discrete countable sample space or not. Now, I've already argued the OP is off, but your example uses a totally different sample space and hence different equations to find the probability.

 

[skydivephil]

I did read that. Just because certain scientists disagree about the validity of the work doesn't invalidate it. Research it for yourself and make your own conclusions.

Its not the fact there are certain scientists that disagree that invalidate it, its the substance of the criticism that invalidated it.

There's no game in vegas that has a 50/50 chance. Furthermore affecting a random number is very different from affecting any game in vegas, whether that be a card game or electronic slots.

What thhe PEar people claim ia that they could influence a machine that produces random numbers, thats exactly what slots do in vegas, thats what Roulette wheels do. In a bais c statistisc class you are taught that if the effect size is too small to notice, its not likely to be real effect.

 

[brbubba]

What thhe PEar people claim ia that they could influence a machine that produces random numbers, thats exactly what slots do in vegas, thats what Roulette wheels do. In a bais c statistisc class you are taught that if the effect size is too small to notice, its not likely to be real effect.

I think you mean slot machines, not roulette wheels. Slot machines are extremely complex and even if you could alter them using your mind to pay out a jackpot for instance, it wouldn't matter because the casino would analyze the machine and see that the program erroneously paid out a jackpot. Then the whole thing would go to court when the casino tried to deny the payout. In addition to that slot machines don't have random number generators.

A statistical effect, no matter how insignificant, that can be repeated for 28 years consistently would seem to be significant to me.

 

[skydivephil]

I think you mean slot machines, not roulette wheels. Slot machines are extremely complex and even if you could alter them using your mind to pay out a jackpot for instance, it wouldn't matter because the casino would analyze the machine and see that the program erroneously paid out a jackpot. Then the whole thing would go to court when the casino tried to deny the payout. In addition to that slot machines don't have random number generators.

A statistical effect, no matter how insignificant, that can be repeated for 28 years consistently would seem to be significant to me.

Im not sure the point of the excercise would be to get the money it would be to show that there is a real phenemenon.
If the statistical effect is insignificant, it stay insignificant. There can any number of reason of getting positive results in these types of studies, including publication bias, the absence of fixed time periods (slight ahead? stop the trial), cheating, the operating learning a bias ina pseduo random number genrator, errors in recording. All of these things make it likely that a small positive result could be found when it is not a real phenemenon. Given the lack of prior plausibility and the utterly tiny deviation from chance, I would have though any of these are more likely to be a better explaantion than super natural powers.

 

[skydivephil]

I have not read the entire thread... has the fine tuning stuff already been brought up?

you know - how everything is set just right for life... and it is not like a different value would produce a different type of life - different values for any of these constants create black holes / dust - nothing at all...

gravity - all values above what we have create black holes, all values below what we have everything falls apart to just dust

- an infinite number of values where g=black holes,
an infinite number of values were g=dust...
only one value for stars/planets/etc.etc.

gravity is not the only value that is fine-tuned like this...


Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

The fine tuning argument is a pile of BS and here are a few reasons why:
1. the assumptions that life cannto arise under such and such a conditions assume we know all the possibilities of life. In fact we have only one data point : Earth, we have no idea what life may look lik elsewhere in the universe. Researchers cant even agree on what life is.
2 Many new papers show many of the fine tuning assumptions are false , example:
Life beyond our universe
3 even if they are not false, the fine tuning argument is answered easily by inflationary cosmology impling a mutliverse, as does string cosmology and even LQG also implies prior universes to our own.
4 Fine tuning assumes life is the bechmark to judge the universe, but this is a biased view. why should life and not black holes be the criteria?
5 the vast majority of space and time cannot support life as we find it on Earth and so the universe does not appear fine tuned.
6 If god is not constrained by the laws of physics why does he need to fine tune them to create life? He could make life in a vaccuum if he wants. Hence even if the universe is fine tuned it would only imply a deist concept not a theist one,.

 

[painted wolf]

Given the fact that gravity is not constant here on Earth.... one can hardly argue it is fine tuned for life across the whole of the universe.

And getting a statistical shift within the margin of error is still insignificant... no matter how often it happens.

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

He's talking about the constant that converts a mass into an acceleration, rather than gravitational force.

And he's also wrong. AFAIK, any positive value for G produces a "life"-supporting universe. (Possibly very small life, though, depending how high it is.)

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps I was confused by Idea saying more gravity means everything becomes a black hole and that less gravity means everything is dust.

Tis a silly argument regardless. Gravity is one of the weakest forces in the Universe AFAIK

wa:do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps I was confused by Idea saying more gravity means everything becomes a black hole and that less gravity means everything is dust.

Tis a silly argument regardless. Gravity is one of the weakest forces in the Universe AFAIK

wa:do

Reason is an even weaker force - at least when dealing with creationists.

 

[logician]

I have not read the entire thread... has the fine tuning stuff already been brought up?

you know - how everything is set just right for life... and it is not like a different value would produce a different type of life - different values for any of these constants create black holes / dust - nothing at all...

gravity - all values above what we have create black holes, all values below what we have everything falls apart to just dust

- an infinite number of values where g=black holes,
an infinite number of values were g=dust...
only one value for stars/planets/etc.etc.

gravity is not the only value that is fine-tuned like this...


Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

Fine tuning for what, a species that is currently killing off other species at a prodigious rate, and bringing many others to the brink olf extinction, causing global warming that will lead to ultimate catastropohy, and killing each other in sensless wars.

And also, no evidence has yet been found of other "intelligent" life. So the "fine tuning" leads a lot to be desired.:yes:

 

[Kerr]

I'm curious what everyone thinks of this.

If you consider the odds of your birth and they are probably pretty slim. Just for arguments sake, probably less than winning most lotteries. Now let's take that back to the odds of your parents' birth and so forth back to the beginning of the homosapien. Now we obviously know that the odds of successive events are measured through the product of the individual odds for each event. So we multiply all those odds together and we get a number, a very very small number.

Now I would argue that that number is so infinitesimally small that it would be equivalent to zero. So mathematics and statistics would effectively say that the likelihood of our individual existence is zero.

So since the odds for our individual existence are effectively zero, does that mean that other, potentially supernatural, forces were acting on our behalf???

The argument is independent of the existence of an external force, since we would make it no matter if our origin is natural or not, so it doesn´t really "prove" anything.

 

[David M]

If you want to call me delusional for seeing a fully formed apparition walk right in front of me then fine, but I'll be damned if I'm ever going to call myself delusional.

You don't seem to be grasping the difference between what may exist and what does exist.

Humans hallucinate, we see things that are not actually there. I have as a reaction to medication, the reason I know that it was the meds was that it was a known (rare) side effect and it went away when I changed to another medication.

Because it is a verifiable fact that humans hallucinate if you see an apparition that does not mean that ghosts do exist, it means that ghosts might possibly exist. To establish that they do exist you need to first rule out known natural phenomena that can produce the same effect and then establish that the apparition does indeed exist, for this you need verifiable evidence which is the thing that has never, ever been produced for a ghost.

 

[brbubba]

Reason is an even weaker force - at least when dealing with creationists.

Who's talking about Creationists?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The odds that the fourth page, third article, second paragraph, third word, second letter in last weeks local independent paper should also be the first letter of my middle name are astronomical.

Oh look, it's an S.


Unless the odds ratio of something occurring is less than zero, (like something that breaks the very universal laws that govern our universe), it is possible and needs no supernatural explanations or excuses.