On 10/20/2010 7:37 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> 1) Once you provide a definition that could be, it becomes testable, and
>> if it actually applied to the real world, would pretty much eliminate it
>> as "supernatural".
>
>    There's a complication with the definition of the concept "natural".
> "Natural" would be something bound to the laws of the Universe. *This*
> Universe where we are in.
>
>    Now, it may be possible that this Universe is all that there is. There's
> nothing outside this Universe (and it's not only that "there's nothing
> outside this Universe", but moreover, there is no outside, the "outside"
> doesn't exist; this Universe is all that there is).
>
>    If there is somehing outside of this Universe, it could not be bound to
> the laws of this Universe because eg. time and space, iow. the geometry
> of this Univserse, is bound by definition to this Universe, and this
> geometry does not extend outside. This Universe is a closed system in
> geometry and content (nothing inside can leave it by our current
> understanding of the laws of this Universe. because there is no way
> out, due to the Universe's geometry).
>
>    Hence if there is something outside of this Universe (ie. the "outside"
> *exists* in some way), it has to exist in some kind of "superior" form
> of existence which is not bound by the geometry and laws of our Universe.
> Maybe the geometry of the "outside" (if we can define it as such, with
> our limited view of the Universe) is more complicated than ours, and our
> Universe's geometry is only a subset of this "supergeometry".
>
>    Likewise the physical laws of our Universe would probably be a subset
> of the physical laws of this "superuniverse".
>
>    Thus if we define "natural" as anything inside our Universe and bound
> to its physical laws, anything *outside* our Universe (if it exists) would,
> by definition, be "supernatural" (in the sense that it would be bound to
> a *superset* of our own physical laws).
>
>    Of course even if there is a "superuniverse" (within which our Universe
> is only a small subset), that doesn't automatically imply that there
> exists any intelligent "life" (by whatever definition) there, or any
> "life" at all. Maybe our Universe simply popped into existence inside
> this "superuniverse" by some ("supernatural") physical phenomenon there
> (something popping out of nothing is actually not a completely alien
> concept even inside our own Universe, with quantum mechanics having
> defined such concepts already, eg. in the form of virtual particles).
> Maybe there are countless universes popping into existence in this
> "superuniverse", each one with differing energy and internal physical
> laws (and our Universe just happened by chance to be perfect to form
> life as we know it).
>
>    A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
>    However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
> can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
> "superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
>
So.. In other words, it doesn't matter if you name it supernatural, or 
superuniverse, its still not "testable" from inside ours, and therefor 
represents neither a useful question (since it can't apply, unless you 
can make **some sort** of testable predictions about it), nor something 
necessary for understanding the one we *can* test things about?

This is just a naturalist version of the supernatural. Its no more 
useful, profound, or meaningful than the theist version, and makes just 
as much sense to propose, which is "none". Why not the "Matrix", or 
"everyone is just the one and only real person's dream", etc.? Unless 
you can present something you can test, they are all equally valid, 
which is to say, not useful at all.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message