h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And a sequence of binaries would form a . . . (drumroll) line!

Re: natural versus supernatural, I agree with you - - - for me, the case hasn't been made for the supernatural as anything other than delusions. Maybe some of them are fun, like being high on LSD, I dunno. I just don't have them. The Ali-like bobbing and weaving that certain posters are wont to do when asked even to define *what* they believe leads me to think that their beliefs are 1) not thought out 2) not well thought out or 3) something that they wished they believed.

So, in the end, I remain unconvinced and ever an atheist.

While some of the stuff on this thread has been thought-provoking, and some has been fun, the shadow-boxing with phantoms has grown tiresome. There's not enough time at this end of my life to devote to the void. I leave the defense of reason to you, Nogg, and to others of your ilk and fortitude.


Thanks

Bye Chantel, nice knowing you.

BTW I assume you decided that God was fiction?



Jez - heathen and witch and not using a pseudonym

"Bye Chantel, nice knowing you."

"BTW I assume you decided that God was fiction?"

If you really believe he/she is leaving for good. I've tried it seeral times and I can't help but come back. I just gravitate to this place. I suppose it must be the same for some other people.

I was away from the guide becasue of homework and AP tests for a while, but I'm back.

<>

There may be other variables that determine which system to use--maybe depending on the time.

There's only a problem if there is no way to determine how those variables will be set at any space-time location.

And even then, if they can be probabilistically determined to be random, you just have quantum mechanics.

Dan. I guess you can determine that behaviour is random; but we can't/don't determine it to be bimodal (for example) unless we specifically look for bimodality. More often, we would just smooth out the data using some kind of overall average. This is, of course, just a typical illustration of the fact that we only find what our hypothesis suggests that we look for.

This is an insidious means of convincing ourselves that we know all that's going on when there are features we haven't even considered.

toxx.

az
*up too early*

buenos dias az.



Bod

"And if somebody does see a continuum they're not using the same definition of natural as I am. The question then arises as to what definition they *are* using, and consequently what sort of continuum is involved. I'm not doubting that some continuum is in use, since a number of individuals are able to use it in an internally consistent fashion."

OK, Noggin, let's say the continuum lies in the experience within (and possibly of, but I'll come on to that) human beings. Let us say there is a distinction between consensual and non-consensual reality, and that those things which cannot be measured in some way within the physical universe but lie within the dirct experience of individuals are within the NCR universe. There is a sharp edge there rather than a continuum, (though, as ever, that simply depends upon where you wish to place your boundary).

The continuum lies within the person. It's a fairly common attititude - maybe universal - among those of us who experience NCR that the NCR universe is continually interacting with CR, it's just that most people either don't realise it or else rationalise it. As an individual opens their mind towards NCR, they either find a comfort zone and stop there, or they begin to accept that more and more of what they experience is influenced by NCR: by the things gods do in our lives, by the actions of wights and suchlike. It's a bit like Alice Through The Looking Glass: you can stop in the room just on the other side of the glass, or stray a bit further, or just keep going. The further you go, the more you see: it's all familiar territory but with a twist. This is what I mean by a continuum.

So I can say, on a very minor level, if I choose to ask a god to find me a parking space in a very busy town when I'm under pressure, and a parking space turns up just where I am, that might be coincidence (rationalisation). If it happens 7 times out of 10, that might be coincidence, too, or it might be me not wishing to recognise NCR exists. Either way, the rationalisation is easy at this end of the continuum.

OTOH, if I see a god, or a ghost, or a wight, and they tell me something which will happen and it happens in exactly that way a few hours later, the experience might be more difficult for me to rationalise. This is towards the other end of the continuum.

Plenty of food for thought there, HS, which I will go away and digest

In the meantime, just to show that I pay attention to things people say even if I don't always respond directly, Lemon Blossom mentioned "systems that are too complex to be understood" and RDO brought up the subject of quantum mechanics, which are both possibly relevant here, together with the ever present problems of the relation between inner and outer and of language.

I'll be back.

Noggin

"Dan. I guess you can determine that behaviour is random; but we can't/don't determine it to be bimodal (for example) unless we specifically look for bimodality. More often, we would just smooth out the data using some kind of overall average. This is, of course, just a typical illustration of the fact that we only find what our hypothesis suggests that we look for."

"This is an insidious means of convincing ourselves that we know all that's going on when there are features we haven't even considered."

I see your point. It seems that the opposite is possible--finding patterns in truely random data.

This leads to a question--is it ever possible to absolutely determine if an apparently random set of data is random or not?

No.

Nor is it ever possible to determine whether events are fully deterministic or not. Part of the Quantum Mechanical conundrum. Doesn't help with supernatural events though, as these are generally only held to be such when they have "meaning".

Noggin

So a supernatural event can only be true if it is perceived to be true and have meaning?

But then if is be perceived to be true it would no longer be supernatural. No? Or have I missed something?

'Have meaning' how?

az

sorry - if it is perceived . . .

az

I think we're back to "seeing as". Someone may interpret an event as supernatural or natural, but this is not in the sense data themselves.

Not that you need me to tell you that, of course.

Noggin

Noggin. I guess you would agree, though, that we can determine to a certain statistical probability whether a sample of behaviours is random or correlated with something else. That leaves us with the familiar old problem of the justification of induction.

However when we come to the problem of the 'supernatural', which we seem to be generalising to that of domain interdependency, the hypothesised phenomenon might well be extremely rare and not correlated with anything observable in our own domain. For example, something we don't/can't know of changes the colour of a chessboard square leaving our two bishops on the same colour. Supernatural event or faulty pigment technology by the chessboard manufacturer? We can eliminate the latter but I guess that we will always have to allow that the possibility of a 'supernatural' explanation is vanishingly small to zero. Zero because if the 'supernatural' supported an explanation, then it would (would it not?) be considered natural, although perhaps most unusual.

toxx

"Zero because if the 'supernatural' supported an explanation, then it would (would it not?) be considered natural, although perhaps most unusual."

To attempt to answer my own question; perhaps things can be more complicated, at least if a personal agent is held to be behind what we observe.

toxx

"So a supernatural event can only be true if it is perceived to be true and have meaning?

But then if is be perceived to be true it would no longer be supernatural. No? Or have I missed something?"

Well, no - az. I think I'm saying the opposite: that many events are supernatural but, because we are brainwashed to think in a certain way, we do not perceive them as such.

What complicates things is that some types of event can be either, and it depends on context whether they are natural or supernatural. Let me illustrate by taking Samuel Pepys comment on the paucity of human physical reactions. He noticed that the range of potential physical reactions the body creates is so limited that he perceived similar physical reactions in his stomach to being in love and being ill. I might add to that apprehension prior to an exam or an important presentation. In the same way, there are some physical events in the real world the ultimate cause of which might be either natural or supernatural. The context and our interpretation determines which. For example, if someone is of the opinion 'falling in love' does not exist except as a psychological phenomenon they are not prey to, if they fall in love they may interpret the physical manifestations, ranging from melancholia to increased energy, or obsessive thoughts etc, to illness.

"'Have meaning' how?"

Regret you've lost me on this one. Can you explain the question?

hi HS,

The 'have meaning how?' was directed at Noggin about what he had posted.

In fact, most of my last posting was.

<>

My personal take is that if we can perceive and experience something then it cannot be supernatural. But that's just me talkin.

az

Since you're easier with the supernatural than most, HS, could you cite an example of a supernatural event for my consideration. Please try to make it something that doesn't beg to be interpreted as just dependent on your own interpretation. Maybe that's an impossible request. Tell me if it is and I shall understand. I shall find it less easy to understand if you can do it, I guess!

toxx