If Science Can't Answer it...

[KWED]

They have much better things to do.

Such as?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Without an intelligence capable of abstract thought, "time" doesn't exist in the universe, but that doesn't affect the existence of universe itself.

None of that works without the intelligence to impose the concept of time on the physical universe.

Nonsense. It merely felt its heart beating. You only consider that to be related to "time" in some way because you are capable of understanding the concept of time.

Orbits are physical phenomena. They only take on a temporal aspect because we created it ourselves.
Time is not a thing, it is an idea.

Physical phenomena exist in a four dimensional space-time manifold. Time has as much objective reality as does space, and the evidence for it is not only theoretical but empirical. It is evident in the lengthening of shadows towards evening, it is a factor in the flow of a river, every bit as much as gravity - the true nature of which is also a mystery- is a factor.

Whilst it might require a human intellect to understand the significance of the sun’s position on the horizon, the phase of the moon, or the position of the hands on a clock, all of these except perhaps the clock, would surely be objectively real regardless of whether we were there to observe it? Or do you believe, as Kant postulated, that a tree falling in a forest unobserved, makes no sound?

While time may be a mystery, it’s true nature elusive and mercurial, I don’t believe it is an abstraction. It surely exists outside of the human imagination, just as surely as the moon does. In my opinion.

 

[Sheldon]

Here's just one website chock full of evidence that I sincerely believe has never been explained-away by materialist science: Afterlife Evidence.

There's absolutely nothing about this paradigm shifting discovery on any global news network? It seems pretty obvious that what you sincerely but subjectively believe isn't true.

That link is a joke by the way, and Victor Zammit is a lawyer, he has no scientific credentials whatsoever..science is not obliged to explain away anything, least of all quackery.

 

[RestlessSoul]

1. Any poetry?
2. Define "poetry".
3. Do you consider your life poorer for not liking things that other people like?

Of course it is.

So presumably you accept the opinion that those with a sense of the spiritual in their lives are poorer for it as equally justified?

If you don't thing a person's "human spirit" originates in the brain, where do you think it does come from?

Which is why it is always a good idea to check your ideas before broadcasting them as facts. (They are called tuning wrenches. The size and shape of the socket varies with the type of instrument so tuners will have a set of them)

It was a humorous analogy rather than poetry. But yes, it did.

Sound and fury? First time I've been described like that. Usually along the lines of ignorant and sarcastic.
But no need to worry, we loop old Derek and Clive recordings on the PA, so laughs a plenty down here!

Must be 40 years since I listened to Derek and Clive. Something about Jane Mansfield and crabs iirc.

 

[KWED]

Physical phenomena exist in a four dimensional space-time manifold. Time has as much objective reality as does space, and the evidence for it is not only theoretical but empirical. It is evident in the lengthening of shadows towards evening, it is a factor in the flow of a river, every bit as much as gravity - the true nature of which is also a mystery- is a factor.

Those are all physical phenomena that we use the idea of "time" to describe.

Whilst it might require a human intellect to understand the significance of the sun’s position on the horizon, the phase of the moon, or the position of the hands on a clock, all of these except perhaps the clock, would surely be objectively real regardless of whether we were there to observe it?

What is the "significance" the sun's position on the horizon if there is no intelligent life to observe it? How is "significance" even a concept without someone to apply it?

Or do you believe, as Kant postulated, that a tree falling in a forest unobserved, makes no sound?

The atmospheric pressure waves are still there, but without an ear connected to a brain, the concept of "a sound" is meaningless.

While time may be a mystery,

Is it a mystery? What about it do you find mysterious?

it’s true nature elusive and mercurial, I don’t believe it is an abstraction. It surely exists outside of the human imagination, just as surely as the moon does. In my opinion.

On what do you base your opinion? How does time exist without an intelligence to perceive it? Why is it not simply the physical universe existing.

(This is purely me talking off the top of my head here. There may be rational argument that time is an essential part of the physical universe without any intelligence to perceive it, but I am not aware of it. I am happy to be corrected, but your opinion is not sufficient)

 

[KWED]

Must be 40 years since I listened to Derek and Clive. Something about Jane Mansfield and crabs iirc.

Lobsters.

 

[Sheldon]

Anecdotes are not perfect evidence but that does not make them worthless evidence either. One person enountering a ghost can always be mistaken or correct.

That infers it is in fact useless.

And further on I consider what are the chances all people claiming ghost encounters are mistaken.

That's just a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Why would you believe the odds of a claim being valid increase from useless just because there are lots of them? You can add zero together as many times as you like, it doesn't become more than zero.

 

[ppp]

Where does that leave mathematics and logic?

I don't see the connection. You are going to have to day more than that.

 

[Sheldon]

We use our best judgment of what is going on in our daily lives and the world around us as part of normal human reasoning. It's a judgment on 'all things considered'. It is not a perfect science,

It's not any kind of science, just subjective opinion.

Your religion says: Atheist. Sounds like you are forming an opinion on something science can't prove or disprove, right?

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is neither a religion or a claim. The real irony when apologists try to dishonestly pretend it carries a burden of proof, is they think that if it were true it would lend credence to their subjective belief, which of course it would not.

 

[George-ananda]

There's absolutely nothing about this paradigm shifting discovery on any global news network? It seems pretty obvious that what you sincerely but subjectively believe isn't true.

That link is a joke by the way, and Victor Zammit is a lawyer, he has no scientific credentials whatsoever..science is not obliged to explain away anything, least of all quackery.

Actually a lawyer is an excellent judge on these matters as the admissibility, quality and judgment of evidence is the main thing here.

 

[George-ananda]

It's not any kind of science, just subjective opinion.

Ok, well not myself being a follower of 'Scientism' then I am interested in my best subjective judgment.

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is neither a religion or a claim. The real irony when apologists try to dishonestly pretend it carries a burden of proof, is they think that if it were true it would lend credence to their subjective belief, which of course it would not.

I am aware of what atheism means. My point here was that you must have at some point made a subjective judgment that there are no deities as science cannot prove there are no deities.

 

[George-ananda]

So you reject any sources that may be inaccurate of dishonest.
But you also stated that you considered everything on that website to be "strong evidence" despite it being shown that some of it is inaccurate or dishonest.

No, I do not accept that anything on that website is intentionally inaccurate or dishonest. Mistakes and some differences of opinion on controversial subjects are always possible. The gist holds well in my judgment.

 

[George-ananda]

So "cumulative weight" principle only applies if you are already convinced that the component parts are accurate, honest, etc.

Of course not. In that example I have such overwhelming confidence in my knowledge of mathematics. Such is not the case for my knowledge of the paranormal/spiritual. I follow the data.

WADR I think the issue is actually your confusing "evidence of the supernatural" with "belief in the supernatural".

No, there's no confusion of the difference on my part.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Those are all physical phenomena that we use the idea of "time" to describe.

What is the "significance" the sun's position on the horizon if there is no intelligent life to observe it? How is "significance" even a concept without someone to apply it?

The atmospheric pressure waves are still there, but without an ear connected to a brain, the concept of "a sound" is meaningless.

Is it a mystery? What about it do you find mysterious?

On what do you base your opinion? How does time exist without an intelligence to perceive it? Why is it not simply the physical universe existing.

(This is purely me talking off the top of my head here. There may be rational argument that time is an essential part of the physical universe without any intelligence to perceive it, but I am not aware of it. I am happy to be corrected, but your opinion is not sufficient)

You’re unaware of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Often cited as embodying the arrow of time, it is the one law in physics which is not time symmetrical. The thermodynamic arrow always points irreversibly in the direction of increased entropy.

There is also, of course, the cosmic arrow of time, pointing in the direction of the expanding universe, the psychological arrow of time, and the arrow of inference, pointing always from data to desiderata (no signalling from the unknown to the known). These are not my ideas, they are Stephen Hawking’s, apart from the last, to which we must give credit to Carlo Rovelli, Andrea di Biaggio and Pietro Dona.

The physical universe is dynamic; that which moves in space also moves in time. What, after all, is momentum, if not energy carried over from the past?

That last paragraph is sort of off the top of my head, but I’m standing on the shoulders of Newton and Einstein when saying it. It’s called an informed opinion.

 

[Sheldon]

Just curious, do you believe every anecdotal, experimental and investigative claim of paranormal phenomena has a materialistic explanation?

You are and have several times used this form of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Leaving this irrational bias aside, not having or understanding a natural explanation (are there any other kind btw?) doesn't mean there isn't one, which is what you are implying. Supernatural claims have no explanatory powers, since at their core they involve an unevidenced appeal to mystery.

 

[Sheldon]

Just curious, do you believe every anecdotal, experimental and investigative claim of paranormal phenomena has a materialistic explanation?

You are and have several times used this form of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Leaving this irrational bias aside, not having or understanding a natural explanation (are there any other kind btw?) doesn't mean there isn't one, which is what you are implying. Supernatural claims have no explanatory powers, since at their core they involve an unevidenced appeal to mystery.

 

[George-ananda]

You are and have several times used this form of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Leaving this irrational bias aside, not having or understanding a natural explanation (are there any other kind btw?) doesn't mean there isn't one, which is what you are implying. Supernatural claims have no explanatory powers, since at their core they involve an unevidenced appeal to mystery.

Actually you got me wrong. I hold that the paranormal/spiritual are natural and scientific and involve realms of nature not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments. The 'mystery' then becomes just more science to understand.

 

[George-ananda]

You are and have several times used this form of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Leaving this irrational bias aside, not having or understanding a natural explanation (are there any other kind btw?) doesn't mean there isn't one, which is what you are implying. Supernatural claims have no explanatory powers, since at their core they involve an unevidenced appeal to mystery.

Let me go on to add that Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical wisdom traditions do indeed provide models with explanatory powers.

For one example, lets take a Near Death Experience where an experiencer describes verifiable events and conversations in say a hospital hallway. Concepts like a separated astral/mental body with astral senses does indeed provide a potential explanatory model.

 

[HonestJoe]

Perhaps I need to clarify that by the extended definitions of physical and material that I am claiming that living non-physical entities are indeed also physical and material.

I think that has to a record for self-contradiction. "Non-physical entities that are also physical", seriously?

Again, I am proposing a materialist explanation but one that involves material not directly detectable by science at this time.

Then why did you ask the question that triggered this entire sub-conversation?;

Just curious, do you believe every anecdotal, experimental and investigative claim of paranormal phenomena has a materialistic explanation?

You're either making this up as you go along, don't have the capability to clearly and consistently explain your position or are being deliberately evasive because you don't want to admit your beliefs can't be supported.

Not being a follower of Scientism. I am very interested in ideas from other wisdom traditions. It's of very practical use in forming my understanding of reality and my place in it.

Me too, but I also recognise them for what they are. You were still reference to concepts that are essentially blind faith declared to be only understandable or accessible by some limited group of people. I'm all for learning about them but that doesn't mean they should automatically be used as any basis for actually understanding anything.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
You are and have several times used this form of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Leaving this irrational bias aside, not having or understanding a natural explanation (are there any other kind btw?) doesn't mean there isn't one, which is what you are implying. Supernatural claims have no explanatory powers, since at their core they involve an unevidenced appeal to mystery.

Actually you got me wrong. I hold that the paranormal/spiritual are natural and scientific and involve realms of nature not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments.

The problem is that what you linked is pseudoscience. It doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny, let alone scientific scrutiny. If it did then it's not hard to imagine the kind of global story even one piece of such evidence would represent.