Ghosts/spirits/presences are a myth (Warning: Science included!)

[TechnoGuyRob]

If you clicked on this topic, then I assure you, it is worthwhile to hear me out. Before I say anything else, I would just like to establish myself as a senior physics and mathematics major (oh boy, this silly skeptic is just so ignorant, it's not even worth continuing). If this changes your mind, please at least finish this paragraph. Otherwise, (if you do not feel like reading it), you can go ahead and skip to after the "====". This is not meant as an approach that changes your belief. The title, regardless of my firm conviction in its validity (at least, for now, writing down my ideas and discussing it will help me see how I really feel), is nevertheless, still my opinion (and a fancy way to catch your attention ). However, the following logic might be of some interest. All logical arguments in this post are meant to be grounded in, much like ZFC and propositional calculus, a human understanding of logic, which is to be taken as the fundamentals of argumentation. For example, if the statement "Today is Tuesday" implies "Today is raining", then if today is Tuesday, we also know today is raining. Without such a foundation, all reasoning collapses. Recognize that everything in our universe (including everything you personally do, think, etc.) is held firm by such principles, so we can only discuss it in the context of such reasoning. For example, if one is not willing to accept the proposition "A statement or the (logical) opposite of the statement must be true," (which no one has found a counter argument to in the reality we obey), then there is no possible opportunity for rational explanation, and a belief becomes a mindless conviction and it is not worth anyone's time to discuss it and it must be kept to one's self. I will attempt to stick 100% to fully unbiased, neutral point-of-view, critical thinking, with as few axioms as possible; if you see a reasoning flaw, please do let me know (but only complain about axioms if it's something very few people would disagree with). I believe the only way to discuss or debate a concept that doesn't make it "chit-chat", "flame war", etc. is to rely on reasonably agreeable formal definitions and what those definitions imply. I will be using Wikipedia, and for anyone who does not consider this a credible source, each article I link to will have external consultable references.

====

Oops, my post is over 10,000 characters. I'll continue in the next post, and I'll make one more after that to reserve myself 30,000 characters.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Continuation of the above post.

I will be relying on the following axioms. Reasoning for using each axiom is highlighted in italics. You don't need to read the italic text if you fully agree with the axiom.

1. Human perceptions, experiences, and behavior are partly (if not largely or fully) affected by physics. "Physics" hereby refers to relativistic (Einsteinian) mechanics (which include classical (Newtonian) mechanics) and quantum mechanics.
   
   Since we are discussing a phenomenon that affects our reality, it is wise we include physics in our reasoning. One may proscribe physics from relating party or fully to supernatural concepts. However, physics is certainly influential in human perception; most notably, see the story of Phineas Gage, and additionally, the Milgram Experiment, and verifiable results in neuropsychology. There is no doubt among experts that physical interactions with and in our brain will change our perception and interaction with the world (whether that be one of our five senses, memory, personality, etc.). Technologies such as visual rendering systems connected to neurological pathways (artificial sight) and chemicals capable of affecting faculties such as memory should be enough to assert these statements. Even if human behavior is not fully determined by physical particles and forces, there must still be a method of "transferring" information from (and hence an interaction between) another reality to ours. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a way it could physically change our reality (e.g., a person relating it through speech). Thus, if human behavior is influenced by a factor outside of our physical (that is, obeying our laws of physics) universe, there must be some (unexplained) interaction at some instance between that reality and ours.
   
   Having established that human behavior is indeed at least partly determined by physics, we must verify physics can be used as a reliable gauge. One argument against accepting the physics we understand is the existence of some undiscovered principles. Undoubtedly, our understanding of physics is incomplete. However, note that this does not mean it is incorrect. For example, the first formally defined and verified physical explanation of our reality was offered by Isaac Newton. This led to other verifiable theories [1] [2] that were able to accurately predict physical interactions and reactions. However, Einstein later illustrated that special relativity (and perhaps general relativity) also described our universe. Newton's characterization was not inaccurate on the scale Newton was concerned with (special relativity reduces to classical mechanics at low "every-day" speeds), but there was more to the picture. Similarly, the arrival of quantum mechanics did not invalidate relativity or classical mechanics. All these theories (have been shown to) describe reality accurately and dependently. A more general or detailed depiction of reality does not invalidate them, simply expounds on them. Thus, even if a new physical theory is discovered that permits easy explanation of supernatural phenomena, the old theories must still hold.
   
2. A ghost is hereby defined as an entity satisfying the following properties.
   
   1. A ghost is observable by more than one independent observer.
      Observable is hereby defined as being capable of affecting the structure of our universe. For example, a chair is observable, because a component of it (a structure we termed a carbon atom) is able to create a reaction with entities that are not "chair"s, like the air (an oxygen atom; the reaction could be a collision, like the exchange of an exchange particle such as a photon through the electromagnetic force).
      
      An observer must be carefully defined. From axiom 1, we know that we have two options: a human's behavior is fully determined by physical reality (call this scenario A2.1.1), or a human's behavior's is partly determined by physical reality (scenario A2.1.2). In the case of scenario A2.1.1, we can define an observer in the physical sense: a particle or structure that is able to, in some way, interact with (more importantly, be affected by), in this case, a ghost. In the case of scenario A2.1.2, we cannot assume this perspective. There is no guarantee a ghost can actively change or affect any part of our reality; note that we must allow for the ghost's existence in a reality different from our own. In this latter scenario, an observer is defined as a human being capable of observing the ghost. Thus, a human would not necessarily be the only entity, but at least an entity capable of observing a ghost, presumably with tools we do not yet understand, or cannot understand (see rationale for axiom 1).
      
      We will require more than one observer. If there is only one observer, the phenomenon is, by definition, imaginary. Even if it is "real" in another reality, if it can only affect one specific observer over any span of time, and cannot be measured (preferrably by physical apparatus or, I suppose, human perception), then it does not affect our reality other than that one specific observer. In laymen's terms, somebody could be making it up, and even if they weren't, it wouldn't be "made up" in that other reality, but it would be in ours (since it can't affect our reality in any other way).
   2. A ghost is capable of deliberately communicating a message that a human being could understand and correctly interpret.
      From axiom 1, we know that we have two options: a human's behavior is fully determined by physical reality (scenario A2.2.1), or a human's behavior's is partly determined by physical reality (scenario A2.2.2). Considering scenario A2.2.1, a ghost must be able to physically influence our brain in some way: through one of the five (or perhaps more, as long as they're based on physical principles) senses, or in any case, some physical interaction. In scenario 2.2.2, there must exist a method of "transferring" information from another universe/reality to ours, so that the brain of a human (like a seer/medium) is capable of performing the necessary physical actions to inform others about it. If you doubt this, read the rationale for axiom 1.
3. A human being is unable to consciously transform any structure or state of the universe (excluding the human being itself) using a method different from physical contact.
   
   Unfortunately, in order to be able to form any argument at all, we must recognize this axiom. Fortunately, no undisputable scientific (or even other, to my knowledge) evidence recognizes a human is able to do so. However, if a human can affect the universe through "pure thought", we cannot rely on any empirical observation method. I will fill in the rest and a more detailed explanation here later. I have to go to sleep. I hate ostracizing a "subjective reality" viewpoint, but not only does it completely handicap any logical faculties, not much research and philosophy has been done regarding it.

Notice that by accepting these axioms, we are surrendering the colloquial definition of "ghost", and using a more general description. Let me provide an analogy to illustrate why this does not invalidate our logic. If one wanted to prove the area of a rectangle with sides of length A and B is A*B, then this does not invalidate that the area of a square with sides of length A and A is A*A; the rectangle is merely a generalization. Our definition of ghost encompasses humans on Earth, aliens (non-Earth inhabiting entities capable of deliberate communication), and our usual definition of "supernatural" creatures. While aliens satisfy axiom 2.2 (the second defining property of a "ghost"), so far we haven't found any that actually engaged the capability (assuming you didn't get abducted ).

Alright, I spent a considerable amount of time writing and thinking this out (well, thinking out how to phrase exactly what I want to say). I'm going to finish later, but if anyone finds any severe contradictions in my axioms (that don't rely on deep onthological questioning that's left to bored philosophers), please inform me now so I can fix them.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Continuation of the above post.


Here's a little informal sample to what arguments I claim (I will, of course, think them through carefully and formalize them):

If a ghost is composed in any way of physical particles, then it must obey physical laws, which leads to some contradictions. For example, if a camera can capture it or a human can "understand" it (or somehow communicate with it or vice versa), then that means it needs some significant amount of hadrons to emit the necessary bosons to transmit all that information (you couldn't otherwise have an "intelligent" entity)! But, if that is true, then that would mean it would be physically measurable using tools. Bosons have supposedly been detected (e.g., electromagnetic readings), but even if they have, there must have been hadrons that triggered those readings, but nobody has yet claimed to detect the presence of a "ghost"'s mass. If, on the other hand, if it does not follow our physical principles, then a ghost must still be able to communicate information (by axiom 2.2). If it doesn't follow physical principles, then those supposed "electromagnetic" (and other) "readings" must be false, and any claimed "photographs". Also, note that Earth is traveling at 300,000 miles an hour around the sun, and faster around the Galaxy, so even in some kind of identically "parallel" universe, a ghost would have to keep up with that, because if it didn't follow our laws, it wouldn't obey gravity (it wouldn't emit gravitons), which means it couldn't take advantage of the inertia! There's lots of holes in here, but I will attempt to fill them up to my best capability once I formalize it.

[Jill]

Thanks for the post, Rob. Way too long and technical though for me to wade through it tonight. Might give it a whirl after some coffee in the morning...

[MartialDev]

Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob

If you clicked on this topic, then I assure you, it is worthwhile to hear me out...

First, prove that. Then you may continue.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by MartialDev

First, prove that. Then you may continue.

I don't need to. It was just a suggestion. If you don't want to read it, fine.

[Daniel Terhorst]

So far, so good--you've got me interested!

My biggest problem is with the definition here:

Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob

1. A ghost is observable* by more than one independent observer.
   If there is only one observer, the phenomenon is, by definition, imaginary. Even if it is "real" in another reality, if it can only affect one specific observer over any span of time, and cannot be measured (by physical apparatus), then it does not affect our reality other than that one specific observer. In laymen's terms, somebody could be making it up, and even if they weren't, it wouldn't be "made up" in that other reality, but it would be in ours (since it can't affect our reality in any other way).

* Observable is hereby defined as being capable of affecting the structure of our universe. For example, a chair is observable, because a component of it (a carbon atom) is able to create a reaction with entities that are not "chair"s, like the air (an oxygen atom; the reaction could be a collision, like the exchange of an exchange particle such as a photon through the electromagnetic force).

The rationale for this definition doesn't quite do it for me.

First of all, the definition of "observer" gets a bit muddled up here. In your example, you were talking about an atom in a chair. Here, you don't state, but strongly imply that the observer is conscious (e.g. through the use of the word "imaginary"). Even the example of the atoms is dubious because they are made up of component parts (i.e. many observers at once).

Putting that aside, let me make a handful of assorted points:

1. How does one determine the capability of something to affect the structure of our universe? Clearly one can show that something is capable, but how does one show it is not? Can you conclude that something is not capable of affecting reality simply because it has not yet? The given definition of observable, then, is neither valid nor useful (or, at least, is infeasible to apply) in this context unless you happen to be visiting Belthesar at the End of Time.
   
2. Extending the previous point, let's examine the human scale. It is generally the case that a person is in possession of a brain--sometimes two, if one doesn't mind getting their hands a bit bloody. In the event of a simultaneous possession (or seeming possession) of said brain by a ghost (or duplicitous whim), with no other measurable physical signs (i.e. ceteris paribus), how does one determine if such a thing is imaginary (capable of affecting only this one observer)? Assuming we don't have the necessary tools or understanding to measure what changes did (or didn't) happen in the brain, how can we make a conclusion in either direction?
   
3. Now, let's say in the previous example that we did have such absolute and complete knowledge of every aspect of our physical (and, if necessary, un-physical) environment and were able to conclude definitively whether or not such a thing was imaginary. Given our established axioms of logic, there are only two cases, one of which or the other must be true:
   
   1. Proven imaginary: We can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was no outside influence on this observer. In the case that it is "proven imaginary" in this way, it is, in fact, shown that even the single observer was not affected in any determinable way.
      
   2. Proven not imaginary: We can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was an outside influence on this observer. In the case that it is "proven not imaginary" in this way, it is, in fact, shown that there is more than a single observer affected--the observer and the observer observers.
   
   To put it simply, a ghostamabob either A) cannot affect the physical world at all (no possible observers), or B) can affect the physical world in some measurable way (more than one possible observer). How, then, can something ever only be capable of affecting a single observer?
   
4. Furthermore, if we go so far as to consider the possible (maybe likely) situation where every single ghost/alien/pokémon observer is either faking or horribly mistaken, how can we reconcile the possibility that tomorrow some heretofore unobserved Douglasian space-faring race might destroy Earth to make way for an intergalactic highway? I'd think it'd be awfully hard to prove/disprove that one before seeing proof positive.

Note: I can be a bit... picky. Don't let it get to you. Also, I probably wouldn't have said much, except you literally asked for it, and this kind of discussion fascinates me.

Your article was great--I'd love to see more!

Good job!

-- Daniel Terhorst

[Savage]

If the universe is indeed an objective place that exists independent of our thoughts and consciousness, then Rob's points all have merit. But they pre-suppose the existence of an objective universe, which by itself is an unprovable assumption. Consequently, everything based on the objective model must remain in doubt because the foundation is merely an educated guess. And in fact there are many today who feel it's an inaccurate one, myself included. When you have direct personal experience that contradicts the notion of objective reality, it can be very unsettling at first, but then you come to realize that we live in a far more wondrous place than previously imagined, and that's when things begin to get interesting.

[Zach]

You just can't try to mix science and religion/spirituality..

[Akashic_Librarian]

I'm with Steve on this one, I have to say your points are correct and totally valid. IN AN OBJECTIVE UNIVERSE. IF however the universe is subjective, then your points are total rubbish to anyone other than yourself.

[Natsu]

First of all, even scientists have begun to admit the possibility of other planes of existence. Like parallel universes. I don't know if it was Sagan or Hawkins who talked of the Warp Plane, the plane where things that are impossible in the physical plane would be indeed possible. And that wouldn't only mean travelling faster than light speed, but also staying conscious after your physical body is dead. I didn't say this: scientists did.

Mind you, I took great pains in trying to conjugate spirituality with science. I cannot reject science, because it damn works. It's useful. Funny thing is, once you investigate about the paranormal enough, you find that the paranormal is NOT against science... It's a not-yet-discovered part of science. In Warp plane, things that are impossible in physical plane would be possible. And science considers the possibility of other planes of existence.

As for me, the day science can explain why in ouija sessions, the force of gravity is totally and absolutely ignored by wooden furniture with no propulsion machinery attached at all... that day Science will be able to convince me it's all mythical. Wooden chairs don't fly. Wooden chairs should obey the law of gravity. Wooden chairs could not be affected by strong magnetic forces... Only reason I found that a wooden chair would fly was the result of the ouija session. With no drugs, alcohol or mind illnesses involved, the only reasonable thing to deduce is that "something" acted upon the chair, and that "something" did not obey the laws of physics. As we know them so far, of course. We will probably understand them some day

[Andreas]

Flying chairs are great, aren't they?

Well, Rob, you're basically you're trying to disprove, or at the very least redefine, something millions of people have experienced throughout history. Now, I'm a big fan of the lens analogy. Your beliefs act as a lens. Your rather long post really only makes sense when viewed thru the Objective Lens.

Barring that, there are sub-lenses inside of that. Lenses like Belief in the Paranormal. Your argument is weak because of a common problem, assumptions. Here is where it falls apart for me:

A ghost is hereby defined as an entity satisfying the following properties.
1. A ghost is observable* by more than one independent observer.?If there is only one observer, the phenomenon is, by definition, imaginary.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Even if it is "real" in another reality, if it can only affect one specific observer over any span of time, and cannot be measured (by physical apparatus), then it does not affect our reality other than that one specific observer.

Back that train up, Conductor. Previously we've been unable to measure the mass of an electron. Does that mean the electron didn't exist previously? You don't even need other realities when talking about this. Just because something cannot currently be measure does not negate it's existence.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

When you have direct personal experience that contradicts the notion of objective reality, it can be very unsettling at first, but then you come to realize that we live in a far more wondrous place than previously imagined, and that's when things begin to get interesting.

And this leads me to the question, if you operate under a subjective reality, why would ghosts exist in the first place? Still trying to understand. Though I have to wonder exactly what personal experience Steve has in mind.

[zpivat]

Not everything in this world can (and should) be explained by science, I think.......
some are better left as mysteries......

[RandomJohn]

Or of just raw experience. (Maybe this is what you mean by "mysteries.")

[TechnoGuyRob]

EDIT: I am not talking about supernatural phenomena in general in this topic, just about, well, "ghosts" (see axiom 2 ).

Thank you so much everybody! Some fully excellent comments, tons of things I didn't think about. I'm already grinding my brain to reconcile, and I'll be making modifications to my axioms later today.

Daniel: You are correct. My definition of "observer" is horridly flimsy (there is none, in fact).

Steve and Akashic_Librarian: A very fine point! I'm pretty sure I can adapt to it. I'll see.

Zach: Why not? The only "religion" or "spiritually" we are accustomed with is that which affects humans, am I correct? Hence, humans (in a sense) invented--or rather, initiated--"religion" and "spiritually". Even if supernatural phenomena "exist", if there were no humans to "consciously" perceive them, and those phenomena did not affect the universe, then they might as well not have been "initiated" or "happening" in our universe.

Natsu: I'm not trying to disagree or "disprove" that. My axioms take into account multiple realities/universes. Also, ouija doesn't relate to what I'm rationalizing (see axiom 2).

Andreas: Regardless of any "Lens"es, there is still some instance when supernatural consciousness/thinking is "transferred" to our physical reality (see rationale for axiom 1). I don't think it will invalidate my argument. Also, I agree with you that--much like Daniel noted--axiom 2.1 is ill-shaped.

Thanks again everyone! I'll see if I can integrate your ideas so that the axioms still cover them, but also allow for the arguments I plan to make.

Sometimes, I just wish science was advanced to the point where it could map out every brain component's exact function so we could know once and for all if there is some information being transmitted from somewhere else.

[RandomJohn]

Sometimes, I just wish science was advanced to the point where it could map out every brain component's exact function so we could know once and for all if there is some information being transmitted from somewhere else.

Knowing would be nice, wouldn't it?

However, I get the feeling that once we get to that point, we'll have even more confusion.

[RandomJohn]

Originally Posted by Zach

You just can't try to mix science and religion/spirituality..

They do have a lot of friction between them. However, I think that's the work. We try align our observations (which is all science is, really, a fancy systematized way of observing and creating patterns out of those observations) with our inner work. It's difficult, but somehow I feel it's worth it.

[Andreas]

At this point I feel compelled to define a few words we're throwing around here. I hope you like the OED. And ironically enough this is my 42nd post.

science noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’

spiritual adjective
1 of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things
2 of or relating to religion or religious belief

Which leads to...

religion noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
• details of belief as taught or discussed
• a particular system of faith and worship

Emphasis in bold by me. It seems to me that Science & Spirituality are not so much at odds as they are pertaining to different aspects of consciousness.

[RandomJohn]

Well, that's the thing. If you are so immersed in science that you do not contemplate the immaterial, I think you start to develop a "spirituality" or perhaps philosophy that excludes the immaterial (supernatural, spiritual, paranormal, or whatever). And then when a person with such a radical materialist philosophy confronts the immaterial, there is a large amount of cognitive dissonance which needs to be worked through for personal growth (whether acceptance of the immaterial or stronger faith in the radical materialist philosophy).

[ImOpen]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If the universe is indeed an objective place that exists independent of our thoughts and consciousness, then Rob's points all have merit. But they pre-suppose the existence of an objective universe, which by itself is an unprovable assumption. Consequently, everything based on the objective model must remain in doubt because the foundation is merely an educated guess. And in fact there are many today who feel it's an inaccurate one, myself included. When you have direct personal experience that contradicts the notion of objective reality, it can be very unsettling at first, but then you come to realize that we live in a far more wondrous place than previously imagined, and that's when things begin to get interesting.

"When you have direct personal experience that contradicts the notion of objective reality, it can be very unsettling at first, but then you come to realize that we live in a far more wondrous place than previously imagined, and that's when things begin to get interesting."

You describe your subjective reality like it was an objective truth, how come?
Otherwise, I like the thinking of Pavlina (buddhism), altough I don't believe in ghosts.

[rini17]

I don´t see you have proven anything. Maybe except only thing you proven beyond doubt... that paranormal never ever happened to you.

Consciousness field (as cause of ¨ghost¨-like phenomena) definitely exists and is studied by some respectable contemporary scientists at Princeton University - Global Consciousness Project -- consciousness, group consciousness, mind

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob

Zach: Why not? The only "religion" or "spiritually" we are accustomed with is that which affects humans, am I correct? Hence, humans (in a sense) invented--or rather, initiated--"religion" and "spiritually". Even if supernatural phenomena "exist", if there were no humans to "consciously" perceive them, and those phenomena did not affect the universe, then they might as well not have been "initiated" or "happening" in our universe.

Gorillas and other primates do seemingly-religious ceremonies. Elephants do rituals with the bodies of their dead. Religion is not only human, the most intelligent among animals do rituals that could be considered religious. The elephant ritual is particularly interesting.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Natsu

Gorillas and other primates do seemingly-religious ceremonies. Elephants do rituals with the bodies of their dead. Religion is not only human, the most intelligent among animals do rituals that could be considered religious. The elephant ritual is particularly interesting.

Very enlightening, but relating to what I said, your point is moot. I'm not talking about religious rituals here, but conscious rationalization and/or contemplation about religion or spirituality. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an elephant that wrote a book speculating about supernatural idealogies.

[Radical]

My personal opinion is that all supernatural beings including god are a myth. A few people have strange experiences that they can't explain and then it becomes a superstition, which evolves into a tradition, ie. religion.

[Erin Pavlina]

I wouldn't say it's just a few people who have had supernatural experiences. It's in the hundreds of millions.

I also don't think something you can't explain becomes a superstition. I can't explain how an electron microscope works but I know others can. I don't assume they are all liars and scam artists. I assume I am simply not educated enough to know how something like that works.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I wouldn't say it's just a few people who have had supernatural experiences. It's in the hundreds of millions.

I also don't think something you can't explain becomes a superstition. I can't explain how an electron microscope works but I know others can. I don't assume they are all liars and scam artists. I assume I am simply not educated enough to know how something like that works.

Realising that you're not educated enough to explain things that well educated people are capable of explaining, isn't the same as realising that you're not educated enough to explain things that many well educated people consider ludicrous. Hope that makes sense.

I just personally don't think that you can hold the belief of supernatural phenomena alongside the laws of physics, as there are too many contradictions.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If the universe is indeed an objective place that exists independent of our thoughts and consciousness, then Rob's points all have merit. But they pre-suppose the existence of an objective universe, which by itself is an unprovable assumption. Consequently, everything based on the objective model must remain in doubt because the foundation is merely an educated guess. And in fact there are many today who feel it's an inaccurate one, myself included. When you have direct personal experience that contradicts the notion of objective reality, it can be very unsettling at first, but then you come to realize that we live in a far more wondrous place than previously imagined, and that's when things begin to get interesting.

It's worth noting that while many mathematicians lose track of the fact that math is empirical - that doesn't change the fact that it is. Gauss himself said, "Mathematics is Queen of the sciences."

Science is empirical and that includes math and logic.

Logic is how it is because we've observed it to be that way.

However if we observe something that is counter to logic enough times, then we have to admit that that logic does not apply in that situation.

Quantum mechanics, and more recently emergent phenomenon in condensed matter physics, are two great examples of the primacy of the empirical.

Before QM many many people believed in determinism as firmly as mathematicians today believe in the primacy of logic. Then the probablistic nature of reality emerged and we had no choice but to accept it - indeed the probabilistic non-determinist model is the most successful model in the history of science.

The same thing today is happening with emergent phenomenon in condensed matter physics - except now the sacred idea from philosophy that is under attack is reductionism. (That all phenomena can be explained by a single set of rules at the most basic level given enough work.)

Then there was Godel and his incompleteness. Before Godel many mathematicians had a very Pythagorean view that all nature was perfectly explicable and provable given enough insight. Well we've been forced to abandon that. Mathematical systems are always incomplete.

Then we go back to Ancient Greece with the founding of science, at the same time as the founding of philosophy. Aristotle, Pythagorus and Plato suppressed science and empiricism in favor of their logic and mathematics. Of course, the Pythagoreans were just empircal enough to discover imaginary numbers and their entire belief system went up in flames.

Then there is the story of how Greek philosophers of the Platonic school spent a hundred years discussing how many teeth a horse has. After a hundred years no one thought to open up the horse's mouth and check. They believed they could know through thought alone and considered it uncouth to experiment.

Aristotle himself believed that frogs were created by mud, because he relied on his logic instead of his eyes.

Democritus in the 5th century BC was among the first scientists, real true empricists. A scientist must always see his models for what they are - representations of reality. They are not reality itself.

Albert Einstein's great achievement was only revolutionary because he was willing to believe the evidence - no one thought it possible that light was not subject to relativistic effects. But the evidence had always said otherwise. The Lorentz transforms were around for 20 years before Einstein finally said, "That isn't just speculation, that is REALLY how things are!" He dared to let the evidence be his guide, and set aside preconceived notions. The only reason 19th century physics advanced so rapidly is because there is a certain point where all plausible deniability is exhausted. Humans are extraordinary in their capacity for denial.

There is the famous Richard Feynman story about how while everyone else was learning the names of things, his father taught him the nature of things:

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

Over and over and over in the history of thought have people lost sight of nature in favor of their abstractions and began using their models to justify their models.

Christians do it today. They use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. You (the original poster) are doing the same thing when you use the rules of logic and mathematics to disprove the "supernatural" which is, honestly, just the "natural" that is not yet explored.

I don't know what is true and what is not - but I do know that the way to find it out is to have an unwavering respect for empirical data. We must keep that in mind at all times.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Radical

Realising that you're not educated enough to explain things that well educated people are capable of explaining, isn't the same as realising that you're not educated enough to explain things that many well educated people consider ludicrous. Hope that makes sense.

I just personally don't think that you can hold the belief of supernatural phenomena alongside the laws of physics, as there are too many contradictions.

This is completely incorrect.

Physics is concerned with success and success alone. Physics explains reality, it does not define it.

Two seemingly contradictory ideas can be simultaneously true. A philosopher will tell you this is false, but a scientist who really knows what science is will tell you it's true.

In modern science there are many examples of two contradictory models which are simultaneously true.

An easy one is the geocentric vs. heliocentric debate. Both models are certainly correct because they recover the same empirical results. We use the heliocentric one because the math is easier, but both have the same results and so both are valid. It's a subjective choice which you'd like to use. The farmer might prefer geocentric just because saying, "the sun rises in the east" is easier than saying "the sun becomes visible in the east" or "my place on the earth begins to face towards the sun." They're tools in a toolbox - whatever gets your job done.

There are also multiple quantum theories that are correct at the same time. Richard Feynman's sum-over-histories model that says that when a particle moves from point A to point B it uses every path in the universe simulatenously to get there. A notable amount of professional physicists don't "believe" in despite it's accuracy.

There is only one measure of truth and that is accuracy. Or, more specifically, utility. If a belief provides you with utility it is true, and that is the exact way that science has advanced. An electron is real because it's useful for me to believe in it.

Anyway I kind of feel like I'm spinning my wheels here.

By the way - I'm a physics, math and computer science major. I've been studying physics and specifically the nature of reality since I was 12, and guess where it has led me? To StevePavlina.com. Also, I'm sorry if my posts seem a little too high-level. I really need to find time to sit down and put together my thoughts for those who might not be familiar with the specific anecdotes I address. I don't even want to begin because I know it will spiral into a 1000 page thesis.

[november]

For example, if the statement "Today is Tuesday" implies "Today is raining", then if today is Tuesday, we also know today is raining.

No offense, but I had to stop here.

Why would we assume that "Today is Tuesday" implies "Today is raining"? It's my understanding that in order to have an implication like that, we'd first have to have the supposed logical arguments that verified "Today is Tuesday" and/or "Today is raining". The implication comes into play when we say, "Since it is raining today, it must be Tuesday." or vice versa. One or the other must be established as fact before there can be any implications.

What you wrote is like saying, "The apple is red, so the apple is red." True? Maybe. Redundant? Yes. And, redundancy doesn't prove anything.

Okay...I'll read the rest of your post later. Maybe. I need to first get over the fact that you tried to prove your ability to think logically by being presumptuous and perhaps illogical. My issue, not yours.

[Radical]

Maybe you're right, there are many contradictions in science and certainly the classical model of physics totally collapses when you consider quantum mechanics, that contains phenomena such as quantum entanglement and wave–particle duality - impossible under the classical Newtonian view.