Rationale Method for identifying super natural

Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:54:29 EST

>>>> I thought this group would be interested in discussing my article
>>>> So I submitting the outline in case readers are interested in looking
>>>> at the full article at the web site
>>>> http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm
>>>>Rational Method for Identifying the Super Natural
>>> [snip]
>>>> By use of the logical principle, proof by elimination, this article
presents a
>>>> rationale for identifying super natural intervention by requiring showing
>>>> the natural cannot successfully explain the event in question.
>>> There is a difference between "is not currently able to explain" and
>>> successfully explain". While it is easy to find phenomena that natural
>>> theories cannot currently explain, it is much more difficult to
>>> demonstrate that no natural theory will ever be able to explain
>>> those phenomena.
>> Valid point to differentiate between what cannot be currently explained
>> and what could never be explained naturally. If there is a clear violation
of a well
>> established theory to the extent that explaining the observation would
require a
>> complete dismissal of the well established theory not just a slight
perturbation as
>> Relativity did for planetary motion then there is a definite case. Read my
>> and consider the Jupiter example. If you do not consider such an example
>> evidence for the intervention super natural intervention then what would it
>> take for you to admit to the intervention of the super natural?
>Your example is hypothetical. It is also possible that one night
>I look up in the sky and the stars have been moved so that they
>spell the word "God". I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that
>god exists in either case, although I would certainly consider it
>more likely than I do now.
>By this standard, however, I feel it is pretty safe to say that
>there is no evidence of the super-natural. Can you give a real
>example which you think is evidence of the super-natural, or
>do you admit that no such evidence exists?
These two sentences of yours imply that you do think there is some standard or
criterion that could if the appropriate observation occurs objectively
indicate that the super-natural intervened, but in sentences just prior you
still would not conclude the super natural intervened from a case that you
appear to agree would be evidence that would meet this standard. All the stars
immediately moving in space to form the word "god" would obviously violate our
understanding of inertia among other things. If you would not acknowledge the
intervention of the super-natural in such a case then I suspect no observation
would ever cause you to acknowledge the intervention of the super-natural. A
crucial logical principle used in Science is proof by elimination. If all
possible hypothesis except for one can be objectively eliminated or falsified
then the one remaining must be the true one. This is why in order for an
approach to be considered scientific it must be one that is falsifiable which
is a point that the scientific philosopher Popper wrote about. If your
approach does not include the possibility of rejecting the idea that natural
processes caused the event then why should your approach to determining if
natural process caused the event be considered scientific? Since some of your
statements seem to imply you think there is an objective standard for
identifying the super natural but then others don't, it is not clear to me how
you would respond to such a question. I realize that a lot of religious people
approach their beliefs in an unfalsifiable manner.

I think the objective standard for identifying the intervention is definite
violation of natural principles. If all possible natural hypothesis can be
objectively rejected then the case is made for the super natural. This
standard is derived from the logical principle of proof by elimination so it
is objective.

Actually, I am not aware of any evidence for violation of deterministic
principles except for perhaps the big bang which since it appears to have come
out of nothing it appears to violate the conservation of mass and energy
principle. However, we do not know naturally what was behind the singularity.
I would not deny that there is plenty of evidence that the big bang did occur.
The examples I am aware of that make the best case for super-natural
intervention involve violation of indeterministic natural principles. The best
one from religion is listed in Ref. in my article; from biology,
section 5.2; from Cosmology, section 5.3.
>>> Do you have a methodology for such a demonstration?
>> If there is a sufficiently established natural theory that involves
>> mathematical principles then I propose one method would be if the primary
>> mathematical terms have to be rejected to explain the observation then a
case is
>> made for the super natural. In other words, the data can't be explained by
>> slight perturbations to the primary governing principle.
>Please define "slight".
If the deviation of actual observations from a well established deterministic
theory could be objectively determined then there would be an objective means
to define slight. For example, in the case of planetary motion if the position
of the planet over time could be plotted on the orbit predicted by the theory
then the difference between the actual and predicted would be the deviation.
This deviation would be due to either to the inaccuracy in the measuring
device or due to the actual theory being wrong. Statistics could then be done
on this deviation and a confidence interval for this deviation could be
objectively established. Slight changes in the theory would be defined as new
theories that would make prediction that stay within this confidence interval.
The confidence interval should be set at a certain probability level very
close to 100%. Scientist quite commonly use a confidence interval of 95% and
have had a lot of success with it. Section 2 of my article list the
probabilities. Just take those values and subtract them from 100% to obtain
the confidence interval. I am sure at a confidence interval of 99.99999%,
Jupiter reversing its orbit or the stars forming "god" in the sky would still
be well out of this slight range.

>> For example, if no slight
>> perturbation to the gravity force proportional to inverse of distance
squared term
>> could explain the extraordinary observation then a definite case is made. I
>> but do not know for sure that the mathematics of Relativity that describes
>> planetary motion has as a first order term the gravity force proportional
to inverse
>> of distance squared term and adds second order terms that would explain the
>> precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury.
>There is no question that the inverse square relationship is approximately
>correct, so that any theory of gravitation must be approximately equivalent
>to Newton's Law. However, the mechanism of Newton's Law is completely
>different from the mechanism of the GToR. One involves an attractive
>force, the other involves a curvature of space. While the mathematics
>may be similar in many cases, the difference between the two theories
>is not "slight" in any normal sense of the word.
I was aware of these major differences between the two but mathematics derived
from either theory could still produce equations as I described. For example,
for my physics 15 years ago, (I lost my physics book so I am recollecting) I
recall that the energy for a the mass at certain velocity was E (1 + (V/Vl)^2
)^0.5. E: energy of mass at rest, V: velocity of mass, Vl: velocity of light.
Thus, relativity produces an equation that at low velocities is just a small
perturbation to the classical theory. If there is a similar result for motion
of planets then my example still applies to planetary motion. Planet V is well
below Vl.

>Furthermore, neither mechanism
>agrees with quantum mechanics, so even the GToR is not completely
>acceptable. You may view this as evidence of the supernatural, but I
>view it as an indication that a new theory of gravitation will be
>discovered. Do you have a method to determine which of us is correct?
I am aware that relativity does not incorporate the quantum phenomenon which
we have observed to be true at the micro atomic level. I do not mean to claim
that just slight violations make a case for the super natural; thus, I do not
view this quantum example as evidence for the super natural so I do not think
we have a disagreement for me to explain that your question implies. We do
know that the effect quantum phenomenon become trivial for the macro scale.
Planet mass is much greater than quantum level of mass. Thus, where we
disagree is that I think it is obvious that planetary motion is at the macro
scale so major changes like Jupiter reversing its orbit or the stars forming
"god" in the sky could not be explained by quantum phenomenon. They present
clear violation; thus, they would make the case for the super natural.

I suspect scientist will never completely get the correct fundamental physics
theory, but I think they will always be getting closer to it. However, this
does not mean that we can never be certain about any natural thing. I am sure
that the correct fundamental physical theory will never predict that Jupiter
would reverse it's orbit, all the stars form "god" in the sky or the earth has
two moons of about the same mass.

>>>> This means that the event violates deterministic or indeterministic
natural theories.
>>>> Violation of deterministic principles present, based upon present
knowledge, a
>>>> clear case that the super natural has intervened.
>>> NOT! It demonstrates that the particular theory is inadequate. Are you
>>> aware of the precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury? It
>>> violates Newtonian Gravitation. Prior to the General Theory of
>>> according to your statement, the precession presented a clear case
>>> that the super natural had intervened. But according to the GTR,
>>> the super natural had not intervened.
>>>> Violation of indeterministic is not necessarily definite.
>>>> The strength of the argument depends upon how small the probability
>>>> is. This probability should be determined by a conservative analysis.
>>> God of the Gaps strikes again!
>>> [snip]