Freethought & Rationalism Archive

YHWH666 · 08-19-2002, 09:50 PM

I�ve been rethinking metaphysical naturalism. I think it�s possible that the �t=0� state of the universe cloud be defined as supernatural.

The usual criteria for determining if something is supernatural goes something like this:

#1) It is incomprehensible to humans.

#2) it is not a part of the physical universe.

#3) it cannot be studied by science ( A.K.A �Natural Science�)

#4) it is not bound by natural law.

Big Bang theory seems to imply that before the Big Bang ( i.e. before the universe, t=0) there was nothing�total oblivion. Oblivion is consistent with the first two criteria. You cannot conceive of oblivion, because in order to conceive of it one must apply qualities too it�thus invalidating it as a conception of some thing which lacks all qualities. Also if something is a part of the universe then it must exist in some way. Oblivion, by definition, does not exist.. one can�t see, smell or touch oblivion. You can�t even comprehend it. The very fact that it �existed� before the universe shows that it exists outside the universe.

I think that it is also consistent with 3&4.<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html" target="_blank">This article from the infidels library</a> illustrates:

Quote:

The significance of the principle of ignorance can be easily missed. It implies that the big bang singularity behaves in a completely unpredictable manner in the sense that no physical laws govern its behavior. The unpredictability of the singularity is not simply an epistemic affair, meaning that 'we humans cannot predict what will emerge from it, even though there is a law governing the singularity which, if known, would enable precise predictions to be made.' William Lane Craig assumes unpredictability to be merely epistemic; he writes that 'unpredictability [is] an epistemic affair which may or may not result from an ontological indeterminism. For clearly, it would be entirely consistent to maintain determinism on the quantum level even if w e could not, even in principle, predict precisely such events.'13 Now I grant that there are legitimate uses of 'unpredictability' that are merely epistemic in import, but this is not how the word is used in Hawking's principle of ignorance. Th e unpredictability that pertains to Hawking's principle of ignorance is an unpredictability that is a consequence of lawlessness, not of human inability to know the laws. There is no law, not even a probabilistic law, governing the singularity that places restrictions on what it can emit. Hawking writes that
A singularity can be regarded as a place where there is a breakdown of the classical concept of space-time as a manifold with a pseudo-Reimannian metric. Because all known laws of physics are formulated on a classical space-time background, they will all break down at a singularity. This is a great crisis for physics because it means that one cannot predict the future. One does not know what will come out of a singularity.14
Deterministic or even probabilistic laws cannot obtain on the quantum level in the singularity, since there is no quantum level in the singularity; the space-time manifold that quantum processes presuppose has broken down. The singularity is a violent, terrifying caldron of lawlessness. As Paul Davies notes, 'anything can come out of a naked singularity�in the case of the big bang the universe came out. Its creation represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.'15 The question I shall examine is whether this primordial lawlessness is consistent with the hypothesis of divine creation. I shall argue it is not.

*Note I am not trying to argue for the existence of god. The supernatural does not imply the existence of an intelligent creator in any way.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]

YHWH666 · 08-21-2002, 12:02 AM

No one is going to flame me? I feel insulted!

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]

Vorkosigan · 08-21-2002, 12:04 AM

Whaddaya talkin' about? We flame YHWH all the time here!

Jayhawker Soule · 08-21-2002, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWH666:
The usual criteria for determining if something is supernatural goes something like this:

#1) It is incomprehensible to humans.

What is this other than a restatement of the God-of-the-Gaps? It seems to me that one consequence of such an anthropocentric criteria is that the realm of the supernatural is constantly in retreat, constantly shrinking with each advance in science.

YHWH666 · 08-21-2002, 12:15 PM

Quote:

What is this other than a restatement of the God-of-the-Gaps? It seems to me that one consequence of such an anthropocentric criteria is that the realm of the supernatural is constantly in retreat, constantly shrinking with each advance in science.

Absolutely not. This is because not arguing for the existence of gods, fairies, demons, tooth fairies, leprechauns, Santa clause e.t.c.

The only thing I am trying to say is the T=o state could be defined as �supernatural� as it doesn�t seem to be apart of the �natural universe�.

To my understanding, philosophy branches off into three parts epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Then metaphysics branches off into �natural science� and �theology� (or �supernatural science�.)

By definition natural science has an in-principal epistemic limitation when it comes to studying the supernatural. just as it does inregards to the t=0 state.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]

Kent Stevens · 08-21-2002, 12:51 PM

Quote:

The usual criteria for determining if something is supernatural goes something like this:

#1) It is incomprehensible to humans.

#2) it is not a part of the physical universe.

#3) it cannot be studied by science ( A.K.A “Natural Science&#8221

#4) it is not bound by natural law.

It is slightly arbitrary to say what is and what is not supernatural. Currently anything like god, demons, heaven, hell, or ghosts is deemed to be supernatural.

If God did exist some might argue that he is part of "nature". God could be studied by science just as contemporary person could be studied. God could then be thought of part of the Cosmos which is defined as everything that exists. God though not bound perphaps by normal physical law is bound by other rules or regularities. For example God could not do wrong.

If there was convincing evidence for ghosts there would be scientists studying them. Ghosts would be thought of part of nature. Maybe natualists would then redefine naturalism to include ghosts, or they might come up with a completely new term to describe their philosophy.

Before the big bang there might be "something" that could be bound by cosmological rules or laws. These laws might just be different from the ones we normally experience.

YHWH666 · 08-21-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

It is slightly arbitrary to say what is and what is not supernatural.

Actually it is defined as �anything that is not apart of the natural universe�.

Quote:

Currently anything like god, demons, heaven, hell, or ghosts is deemed to be supernatural.

So?

Quote:

If God did exist some might argue that he is part of "nature". God could be studied by science just as contemporary person could be studied. God could then be thought of part of the Cosmos which is defined as everything that exists. God though not bound perphaps by normal physical law is bound by other rules or regularities. For example God could not do wrong.

Just what does god have to do with anything?

Quote:

If there was convincing evidence for ghosts there would be scientists studying them.

Thank you captian obvious!

But I really don�t understand what this has to do with my argument that the t=0 state should be considered supernatural.

Quote:

Before the big bang there might be "something" that could be bound by cosmological rules or laws. These laws might just be different from the ones we normally experience.

If you read the article that I posted you will see that Stephen Hawking�s principle of ignorance seems to imply that the t=0 state is NOT bound by natural law.
I don�t know much about that however so I could be wrong.

Kent Stevens · 08-23-2002, 03:08 AM

When I think of the supernatural I think of things such as ghosts and witches. I would tend to classify even the beginning of the cosmos as part of nature as it involves no powerful wizard types. Instead it might just involve material causes and rules, even if they were different ones from what we normally experience.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2002, 12:02 AM	#2
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	No one is going to flame me? I feel insulted! [ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>

08-21-2002, 12:04 AM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Whaddaya talkin' about? We flame YHWH all the time here!

08-23-2002, 03:08 AM	#8
Kent Stevens Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 484	When I think of the supernatural I think of things such as ghosts and witches. I would tend to classify even the beginning of the cosmos as part of nature as it involves no powerful wizard types. Instead it might just involve material causes and rules, even if they were different ones from what we normally experience.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.