Does 'supernatural' mean 'imaginary'?

[Nous]

Obviously I did not "attribute knowledge to a law of nature".

Indeed you did. You said,

How do these laws of nature know about and choose between the available options?

My question obviously doesn't attribute knowledge to the laws of nature. I asked that question in response to your reply to my observation that "Apparently you are unable to name any law of nature that accounts for the ability of humans to choose what acts they will perform, foretell what acts they will perform, then perform those acts." Your reply was "The laws of nature . . ."

And, of course, you still haven't named a single law of nature. You don't seem to have a clear idea as to what are laws of nature, or what function they might perform. You indicate that laws of nature are prescription rather than descriptive, which raises the question of how laws of nature cause effects.

Are laws of nature exceptionless? Many philosophers have cogently argued that they are not. If laws of nature are not exceptionless, then that ruins your whole theme here. Doesn't it?

Is Newton's law of universal gravitation a law of nature? A lot of people thought it was. Was it a law of nature for the couple of hundred of years before it was superceded by Einstein theory of general relativity?

I asked you, "What law of nature explains the ability of humans to, first, say that they will pay their landlord a certain amount of money by a certain date of each month for the next year, then actually do exact what they said they would do?"

Brain functions operating in accordance with the laws of nature explain those decisions.

Name the laws of nature you are referring to here.

Have you just not done any reading on the topic of laws of nature? Perhaps information on the topic would be disturbing to you?

I guess we shouldn't get our hopes up that you'll be able to substantiate any of your claims here, eh?

No, the existence of energy would simply be the fundamental datum, the cosmic equivalent of cogito ergo sum, energy is thus everything is. Nothing supernatural would be involved.

Name the law of nature that "explains" the existence of energy in the closed system of the universe.

(Of course, I ask that even while recognizing that apparently you can't name any laws of nature.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have not asserted that tornadoes and hurricanes are not natural events, or that their occurrence means that nature is angry at anyone. Those sound like religious arguments to me and I am not religious. Nobody who knows what they're talking about would assert that cavemen were driving SUV's and I have to say that's one of the silliest and lamest arguments I've ever seen on this topic. Do people who assert this silliness honestly think that scientists aren't aware that climate has changed in the past without the input of humans? Like you're the first person who thought of that? Give me a break.

We know better, of course we do. You sound like an intelligent person to me. we know that correlation does not equal causation. So we don't need to make this point to each other, or most rational humanity, but to certain politicians, celebs and journalists, who cite a correlation between CO2 emissions and temp rise as strong evidence, if not proof of causation, and I doubt many of them even believe this themselves- they are banking- quite literally in many cases, on you being a little more gullible

Most of us know, that you can think of any two unrelated trends, and the probability of an overall correlation is 50%. Not only is it not proof of causation, it does not even suggest such a thing.

And that's even if there was any statistically significant temp change, which there has not been

Let's stick to the point please.

Flooded cities are more than some fantasy of pop culture. It is happening on grander and grander scales, all over the world as time goes on, as storms increase in intensity and damages skyrocket. Human activity you mention like building cities, changing land usage and drainage only serves to exacerbate the already existing problem. Over the last 50 years the sea level in Texas has risen by 12.5 inches, and it doesn't help that Houston itself has been sinking for several decades. The sea level in New York has risen by about the same. Jakarta is sinking as sea levels rise. Tens of millions of people have been affected by severe flooding in India, Bangladesh and Nepal. Thousands more have been affected in Hong Kong, Pakistan, Niger, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Yemen, Iran, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and New Zealand due to flash floods, landslides, and monsoons that are increasingly getting worse. Scientists warned us that this kind of stuff would happen. And here you are asserting that it's not happening. What does it take to make you get it?

again, rising sea levels have been occurring since the last glacial maximum. To the extend that well over a MILE of solid ice sat above my house, it melted and flooded 100,000 square miles, several hundred feet deep

you are the one insisting on an anthropomorphic causation for changes in weather, sea level, melting glaciers, so if not by SUV's, how did stoneage man achieve all this?

if the correlation is causation as some suggest, what was the mechanism of this causation before industrialization? any ideas?

And as you say, many land elevations are sinking, again I assure you this is also entirely natural, land moves up and down for various reasons, so do sea levels, climate patterns change- always have and always will, that's why I regularly find fossilized sea creatures on my property at over 1000 ft elevation- what did the Indians do to evaporate this vast ocean? neglect to recycle their plastic bottle caps?

There are very interesting scientific reasons for anyone interested. We are very lucky to live in an extremely stable hospitable warm climate over the last century. Things can, and probably will one day get much colder and much worse

The IPCC itself concedes that 'no significant acceleration in sea level rise has been detected over the 20th C' which is a very interesting way of interpreting what was actually a slight deceleration.

Ice caps, glaciers have been melting/retreating and hence sea levels rising for millennia, and this has not increased in the last C, let alone because of us taking road trips, you give humanity way too much credit

But pray this trend never stops or reverses in our lifetimes, or we will have some real problems to worry about-

 

[blü 2]

Are laws of nature exceptionless?

We like to think so, and proceed as thought they are, but as I mentioned earlier, they derive their validity by accurately describing / predicting their particular aspects of nature, and the demonstration that they do so is empirical / inductive. Hence they're never absolute. Nothing protects them from some further inconsistent datum we may find tomorrow ─ or never find.

If laws of nature are not exceptionless, then that ruins your whole theme here. Doesn't it?

I wouldn't say so. There are no absolutes, and 'truth' means 'our best understanding for the time being'; but each time we find an error, an inaccuracy in our formulae, we set out to fix it. Science is always a work in progress, and each of its well-founded findings about nature is true until it no longer is.

Is Newton's law of universal gravitation a law of nature? A lot of people thought it was. Was it a law of nature for the couple of hundred of years before it was superceded by Einstein theory of general relativity?

That's a good example of what I'm talking about. Archimedes was true until Newton, who was true until Einstein, who was less true after QM, so induction suggests there'll be other substantial revisions we'll need to make in the future.

Name the laws of nature you are referring to here.

Newton's law of gravity is an example ─ F=Gx(m[1]m[2] /r[2]) (the square brackets indicate a subscript). If you need to compare frames of reference, then the better description is Einstein's, because c is constant in all of those frames, but that's not always necessary.

As you can see, it's based on observation of the regularities in behavior of objects in reality, and it's generalized as a formula of universal application ie to all single-frame instances of gravitic attraction above, in effect, very small clusters of atoms.

And knowing that, you can now work out the rest of the list for yourself. I'm genuinely surprised you were incapable of that before.

I guess we shouldn't get our hopes up that you'll be able to substantiate any of your claims here, eh?

Not least because I've told you from the start that it's an hypothesis. But as I've also pointed out, that's all it needs to be.

Name the law of nature that "explains" the existence of energy in the closed system of the universe.

Ex hypothesi, E ≡ ℇ (where ℇ is ℇverything). Or we could just say, "energy is".

 

[Muffled]

Therefore?

I believe therefore it is supernatural. In truth everything that man does tends to be supernatural. Do we grow corn? Corn does not grow naturally in rows. The seed has to be sown in rows for that to occur.

I believe what people like to think of as supernatural is actually divine intervention or spirit intervention instead. I am not sure those things are not natural but perhaps beyond the pale which seems to make them more mysterious.

 

[Muffled]

Put it this way. Things can exist in two ways: as things with objective existence, out there in reality, and as things imagined, with no counterpart in objective reality.

If something exists, but not in objective reality, then the only way it can exist is in imagination.

I believe then that you would have to call that objective reality and not simply reality.

So I believe then that Hogwarts is imagined reality and God is objective reality.

 

[Muffled]

But 'unnatural' in that sense doesn't mean 'outside of nature'.

Once it means 'outside of nature' (= outside of reality) then it can only be imaginary.

I believe that is what unnatural means: outside of nature.

I do not believe outside of nature means outside of objective reality and it does not mean imaginary. What would you call homosexuals, imaginary?

 

[SkepticThinker]

We know better, of course we do. You sound like an intelligent person to me. we know that correlation does not equal causation. So we don't need to make this point to each other, or most rational humanity, but to certain politicians, celebs and journalists, who cite a correlation between CO2 emissions and temp rise as strong evidence, if not proof of causation, and I doubt many of them even believe this themselves- they are banking- quite literally in many cases, on you being a little more gullible

Most of us know, that you can think of any two unrelated trends, and the probability of an overall correlation is 50%. Not only is it not proof of causation, it does not even suggest such a thing.

And that's even if there was any statistically significant temp change, which there has not been


again, rising sea levels have been occurring since the last glacial maximum. To the extend that well over a MILE of solid ice sat above my house, it melted and flooded 100,000 square miles, several hundred feet deep

you are the one insisting on an anthropomorphic causation for changes in weather, sea level, melting glaciers, so if not by SUV's, how did stoneage man achieve all this?

if the correlation is causation as some suggest, what was the mechanism of this causation before industrialization? any ideas?

And as you say, many land elevations are sinking, again I assure you this is also entirely natural, land moves up and down for various reasons, so do sea levels, climate patterns change- always have and always will, that's why I regularly find fossilized sea creatures on my property at over 1000 ft elevation- what did the Indians do to evaporate this vast ocean? neglect to recycle their plastic bottle caps?

There are very interesting scientific reasons for anyone interested. We are very lucky to live in an extremely stable hospitable warm climate over the last century. Things can, and probably will one day get much colder and much worse

The IPCC itself concedes that 'no significant acceleration in sea level rise has been detected over the 20th C' which is a very interesting way of interpreting what was actually a slight deceleration.

Ice caps, glaciers have been melting/retreating and hence sea levels rising for millennia, and this has not increased in the last C, let alone because of us taking road trips, you give humanity way too much credit

But pray this trend never stops or reverses in our lifetimes, or we will have some real problems to worry about-

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
What has global warming done since 1998?
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
How much is sea level rising?
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles

I think you should read the IPCC report again:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

 

[blü 2]

I believe then that you would have to call that objective reality and not simply reality.

So I believe then that Hogwarts is imagined reality and God is objective reality.

If Yahweh exists in reality then you can give us a satisfactory demonstration of [him] in reality. A photo would be an interesting start, though not a definitive one.

If Yahweh exists only in imagination then you won't be able to do this.

 

[blü 2]

I believe that is what unnatural means: outside of nature.

But we're talking about ontology here, not about morality. In context your remark is a category error.

I do not believe outside of nature means outside of objective reality and it does not mean imaginary. What would you call homosexuals, imaginary?

If you want to talk about homosexuality, then the place to start is our modern understanding of human sexuality (which entirely fails to support your claim).

But not in this thread, please.