Evidence of miracles.

[stevevw]

No one who's ever constructed a simulation would ever think the Universe was a simulation. It's just an incredibly dumb idea.

As far as I understand simulation theory we have not created the simulation rather it is created by some future highly intelligent humans. So we would just be part of the program and we could not determine if there was any reality beyond that program.

One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.

Nick Bostrom's conclusion:
It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.
Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
— Nick Bostrom, Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?, 2003[6]

Its an interesting idea and one that more and more people are supporting due to the counter intuitive nature of QM. Methological naturalism is only one method of determining reality. It only describes whats happening and it may just be describing a simulation.

A simulation if true would change our philosophy about reality and make ID a very possible alternative in that our future selves are the creator. The point is science only describes what happening and not what has caused things. We could be just describing a simulation or miracles. If miracles have a real effect on the world then there will be some naturalistic description of them.

 

[SkyWriting]

They can make The blind see?
I think not.

Jesus healed people though Faith.

 

[stevevw]

Who is professor Lennon and why should we be expected to recognize his authority when randomly dropped into a paragraph?

Lol I put Lennon instead of Lennox. I was watching a doco on the Beatles at the time lol. He's a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University

 

[Ophiolite]

Lol I put Lennon instead of Lennox. I was watching a doco on the Beatles at the time lol. He's a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University

Imagine that!

 

[stevevw]

Imagine that!

Your not playing "Mind games" with me are you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your not playing "Mind games" with me are you?

Just sittin' here watching your wheels go round and round.

As to Lennox: Oh, that dude. As I recall his is largely just a sophisticated argument from incredulity. As in, he just can't wrap his head around the alternative to the position he's already accepted (God/Jesus/etc.) and then makes very sophisticated sounding arguments on top of his assumptions.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your not playing "Mind games" with me are you?

Which album was that on?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As to Lennox: Oh, that dude. As I recall his is largely just a sophisticated argument from incredulity. As in, he just can't wrap his head around the alternative to the position he's already accepted (God/Jesus/etc.) and then makes very sophisticated sounding arguments on top of his assumptions.

Yes; Lennox is right in his criticism of Atkins' analogy with mathematics (i.e. it doesn't arise from nothing), but Atkins' analogy being wrong doesn't mean that the universe therefore came from nothing and is the product of a mind. All Lennox's argument does is kick the can down the road, replacing an unknown with a speculative fantasy that raises far more unanswerable questions than it purports to answer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes; Lennox is right in his criticism of Atkins' analogy with mathematics (i.e. it doesn't arise from nothing), but Atkins' analogy being wrong doesn't mean that the universe therefore came from nothing and is the product of a mind. All Lennox's argument does is kick the can down the road, replacing an unknown with a speculative fantasy that raises far more unanswerable questions than it purports to answer.

I'm going to assume that "Atkins" was the other guy in the video I wasn't going to watch. Lennox is unwatchable. He has all of the arrogance of WLC and none of the charm.

 

[stevevw]

Which album was that on?

The song is from the album "Mind Games". But I know it mostly from his compilation album "Shaved Fish".

 

[stevevw]

Yes; Lennox is right in his criticism of Atkins' analogy with mathematics (i.e. it doesn't arise from nothing), but Atkins' analogy being wrong doesn't mean that the universe therefore came from nothing and is the product of a mind. All Lennox's argument does is kick the can down the road, replacing an unknown with a speculative fantasy that raises far more unanswerable questions than it purports to answer.

I think its more than speculative fantasy. As Lennox said "it takes a creative mind to develop the Mathmatics out of what Atkins calls absolutely nothing.

So in Atkins trying to make the arguement that Mathmatics is reflected throughout the universe and this somehow can create the universe is more or less arguing for Lennox as Maths is created by an intelligent mind and therefore this has created the Math that is suppose to have created the universe out of nathing.

The idea that the universe is Math is a well supported one and not speculative. That Math can describe the universe so well and that Math is based on intelligence its reasonable and logical to say that the universe reflects intelligence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think its more than speculative fantasy. As Lennox said "it takes a creative mind to develop the Mathmatics out of what Atkins calls absolutely nothing.

So in Atkins trying to make the arguement that Mathmatics is reflected throughout the universe and this somehow can create the universe is more or less arguing for Lennox as Maths is created by an intelligent mind and therefore this has created the Math that is suppose to have created the universe out of nathing.

The idea that the universe is Math is a well supported one and not speculative. That Math can describe the universe so well and that Math is based on intelligence its reasonable and logical to say that the universe reflects intelligence.

Of course a creative mind created math. A human mind. Math is just the language we created to describe the Universe. Not remarkably it works really well. The underlying properties of the Universe are physics not math.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course a creative mind created math. A human mind. Math is just the language we created to describe the Universe. Not remarkably it works really well. The underlying properties of the Universe are physics not math.

 

[Mountainmike]

Always interested in discussing the science, with healthy scepticism. If you come back, bring a scientific definition of 'miracle' and we can discuss that too.

And thereby is your problem.

Scientific model as you rightly said is an observation model in our senses of repeatable things.
And that is all. There is no way of knowing what the universe really is or why.

For example we observe a square law on gravity. But that doesnt explain gravity. It simply observes something we call gravity. I should say simplistically because the same models dont explain rotation of universes. ie the model is limited. Thats part of why dark matter is supposed.

There is no philosophical distinction between "Missing dark matter" and the model is simply not very good. Only those who assume the things of the model are mapped into things in actual reality are the concepts of Missing matter and bad model actually different...but then Kant and others demonstrated you cannot know what is actually there.

So Science has no definition of miracle nor can it.

So if you think nature is what repeats not God, , then look for Miracles where things are not repeatable.

They are done by a person not a thing. That doesnt want to be in a lab. But then neither is much of experience. The person who describes a scene they cannot have witnessed in near death experience cannot repeat it.

The scientific model is limited, and that lies outside it. That does not mean it did not happen. There are so many it is beyond doubt. The question is why not whether, and when individual experience gets involved, it is not repeatable.

So how do we know they happen?

If a God decided the law, then every motion of a planet is a miracle. Ie something done by God by creating the structure that is observed as gravity! That is not discountable just because it repeats.

As I said, science is an observation model. It explains nothing in absolute terms. It simply connects observations. And some relations in science eg "permeability of free space" do not exist in the universe. They are simply a relation automatically determined by our definitions of current, voltage etc.

So where is there evidence. Answer - when science (ie observation model) does not (and cannot) get the right answer.

I point at prophecy beyond the ability of the model to predict because of basic precepts of causality determinsism etc. A whole new science, not a law would be needed.

Where is there evidence of a soul. I point at consciousness beyond the brain. It Cant happen in the paradigm of consciousness as a chemical process. A new science needed not a new law.

So look for miracles in a place for evidence of cant happen in science, with theistic overtones.
Take Host to heart. So many have happened they are undeniable. No links between them to find a fraudster. Nobody has yet even offered a hypothesis of how that can be faked.

On each of them, at least 6-7 scientists agreed: inexplicable.

It doesnt "prove it" but then science doesnt prove the nature of the universe. It is just a useful model based on observations.

300 doctors were involved in the process that determined Bernadette Moriau case 70 was inexplicable.
(read her book) - multiple sclerosis suffers condemned to a wheel chair for 10 years dont just get up and walk in immediate cure. Case 69 did.

I can list evidence that simply does not fit the paradigm of the scientific model. Cannot be explained or faked.

You can believe what you will. Science can neither prove or disprove it. Science is just observations.

But I am through posting interesting things to study.
Nobody studies them.

Out of curiousity - Have you ever read the book "twins"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think its more than speculative fantasy. As Lennox said "it takes a creative mind to develop the Mathmatics out of what Atkins calls absolutely nothing.

Human minds devised mathematics.

So in Atkins trying to make the arguement that Mathmatics is reflected throughout the universe and this somehow can create the universe is more or less arguing for Lennox as Maths is created by an intelligent mind and therefore this has created the Math that is suppose to have created the universe out of nothing.

No. Atkins analogy was that if mathematics can come from nothing, the universe could come from nothing. Lennox's argument is that mathematics doesn't come from nothing, it comes from the concept of the null set, created by a mind, therefore the universe comes from a mind; an obvious non-sequitur.

The idea that the universe is Math is a well supported one and not speculative. That Math can describe the universe so well and that Math is based on intelligence its reasonable and logical to say that the universe reflects intelligence.

That mathematics can describe the universe well doesn't mean 'the universe is Math'. Mathematics is an abstract formal system, the universe is not. The universe necessarily has observable regularities and patterns (weak anthropic principle); mathematics is a model of regularities and patterns.

It is reasonable and logical to say that our observations and descriptions of the universe reflect intelligence - our intelligence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Scientific model as you rightly said is an observation model in our senses of repeatable things.
And that is all. There is no way of knowing what the universe really is or why.

It's a space-time event with matter and energy. "Why" is a silly question.

For example we observe a square law on gravity. But that doesnt explain gravity. It simply observes something we call gravity. I should say simplistically because the same models dont explain rotation of universes. ie the model is limited. Thats part of why dark matter is supposed.

It's *inverse* square law (relative to separation) for gravity.

The Universe doesn't rotate (to our knowledge), so why should any model or theory try to explain the rotation of the Universe?

There is no philosophical distinction between "Missing dark matter" and the model is simply not very good. Only those who assume the things of the model are mapped into things in actual reality are the concepts of Missing matter and bad model actually different...but then Kant and others demonstrated you cannot know what is actually there.

That's just not true, we do know the difference between a bad model and missing matter. I really don't care what philosophy says. Kant wasn't a scientist and neither are you.

So Science has no definition of miracle nor can it.

So if you think nature is what repeats not God, , then look for Miracles where things are not repeatable.

That's not what Nature is either. Sigh.

They are done by a person not a thing. That doesnt want to be in a lab. But then neither is much of experience. The person who describes a scene they cannot have witnessed in near death experience cannot repeat it.

Whatever this non-sequitur is I can't tell. You don't write much do you?

The scientific model is limited, and that lies outside it. That does not mean it did not happen. There are so many it is beyond doubt. The question is why not whether, and when individual experience gets involved, it is not repeatable.

So how do we know they happen?

I guess you're talking about miracles here, but your writing is hard to follow. I suggest editing before posting. It might help.

If a God decided the law, then every motion of a planet is a miracle. Ie something done by God by creating the structure that is observed as gravity! That is not discountable just because it repeats.

"If" is cool, but it's just a hypothetical.

As I said, science is an observation model. It explains nothing in absolute terms. It simply connects observations.

Again, that's not what science is.

And some relations in science eg "permeability of free space" do not exist in the universe. They are simply a relation automatically determined by our definitions of current, voltage etc.

For the love of sanity, Use electrostatic units!

So where is there evidence. Answer - when science (ie observation model) does not (and cannot) get the right answer.

Is this supposed to be a question? A statement? A conclusion?

I point at prophecy beyond the ability of the model to predict because of basic precepts of causality determinsism etc. A whole new science, not a law would be needed.

This is as incoherent as typical "prophesy" and can be interpreted in just as many ways.

Where is there evidence of a soul. I point at consciousness beyond the brain. It Cant happen in the paradigm of consciousness as a chemical process. A new science needed not a new law.

All over the place now aren't we...

There is none. Non-corporeal souls that can interact with the body are demonstrably false. And, consciousness isn't a "chemical process". Try learning about emergent properties.

So look for miracles in a place for evidence of cant happen in science, with theistic overtones.
Take Host to heart.

OK, I'm done now. I really don't care about your "examples".

[BTW. I got a pointy piece at XMas, it still tasted like bad, texture-less bread.]

[Edit: fixed formatting error]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And thereby is your problem.

Scientific model as you rightly said is an observation model in our senses of repeatable things.
And that is all. There is no way of knowing what the universe really is or why.

For example we observe a square law on gravity. But that doesnt explain gravity. It simply observes something we call gravity. I should say simplistically because the same models dont explain rotation of universes. ie the model is limited. Thats part of why dark matter is supposed.

There is no philosophical distinction between "Missing dark matter" and the model is simply not very good. Only those who assume the things of the model are mapped into things in actual reality are the concepts of Missing matter and bad model actually different...but then Kant and others demonstrated you cannot know what is actually there.

Sure, (although that's not quite what I said) but having an incomplete model of something ultimately unknowable doesn't stop us from improving that model, and long experience has shown that it is counter-productive just to make things up that are outside of or contradictory to that model without strong evidence and a testable hypothesis.

So Science has no definition of miracle nor can it.

So if you think nature is what repeats not God, , then look for Miracles where things are not repeatable.

They are done by a person not a thing. That doesnt want to be in a lab. But then neither is much of experience. The person who describes a scene they cannot have witnessed in near death experience cannot repeat it.

The scientific model is limited, and that lies outside it. That does not mean it did not happen. There are so many it is beyond doubt. The question is why not whether, and when individual experience gets involved, it is not repeatable.

So how do we know they happen?

If a God decided the law, then every motion of a planet is a miracle. Ie something done by God by creating the structure that is observed as gravity! That is not discountable just because it repeats.

As I said, science is an observation model. It explains nothing in absolute terms. It simply connects observations. And some relations in science eg "permeability of free space" do not exist in the universe. They are simply a relation automatically determined by our definitions of current, voltage etc.

So where is there evidence. Answer - when science (ie observation model) does not (and cannot) get the right answer.

I point at prophecy beyond the ability of the model to predict because of basic precepts of causality determinsism etc. A whole new science, not a law would be needed.

Where is there evidence of a soul. I point at consciousness beyond the brain. It Cant happen in the paradigm of consciousness as a chemical process. A new science needed not a new law.

So look for miracles in a place for evidence of cant happen in science, with theistic overtones.
Take Host to heart. So many have happened they are undeniable. No links between them to find a fraudster. Nobody has yet even offered a hypothesis of how that can be faked.

On each of them, at least 6-7 scientists agreed: inexplicable.

It doesnt "prove it" but then science doesnt prove the nature of the universe. It is just a useful model based on observations.

300 doctors were involved in the process that determined Bernadette Moriau case 70 was inexplicable.
(read her book) - multiple sclerosis suffers condemned to a wheel chair for 10 years dont just get up and walk in immediate cure. Case 69 did.

I can list evidence that simply does not fit the paradigm of the scientific model. Cannot be explained or faked.

Collecting a bunch of disparate unlikely or unexplained anecdotal and/or poorly documented claims and declaring them to be miracles that can't be explained because that's the nature of miracles, is just lazy thinking.

The history of science is a history of explanation for what was once thought inexplicable or miraculous. It's inevitable that many of such reports will be unverifiable - rare events and one-off mistakes are like that, and human nature is demonstrably susceptible to exaggeration, confabulation, misperception, misinterpretation, and a variety of biases in favour of pet beliefs and theories.

You can believe what you will. Science can neither prove or disprove it. Science is just observations.

Science starts with observations and doesn't prove things. For a self-proclaimed scientist, you seem to know surprisingly little about science.

Out of curiousity - Have you ever read the book "twins"

Not sure - there are quite a few books called 'Twins' (and a graphic novel). What's it about? who's it written by?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not sure - there are quite a few books called 'Twins' (and a graphic novel). What's it about? who's it written by?

Did they novelize the Schwartzenegger movie?

 

[stevevw]

Of course a creative mind created math. A human mind. Math is just the language we created to describe the Universe. Not remarkably it works really well. The underlying properties of the Universe are physics not math.

Yet many think Math is both invented and discovered.

“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics to the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”
Eugene Wigner “ The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences .”

I began with the question ‘is mathematics invented or discovered?’, to which my answer is both. The possibilities for extending the domain are to be discovered. They are ‘out there’, so to speak, and in no way depend upon what we do or think.
MATHEMATICS: DISCOVERY OR INVENTION? | Think | Cambridge Core

Numbers have always been there, waiting to be discovered and so were different ways of organising them. And over time humans in various cultures have noticed patterns that emerge in numbers, and developed mathematical systems around them.
Curious Kids: how was maths discovered? Who made up the numbers and rules?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet many think Math is both invented and discovered.

I've heard these arguments before. Even if math is "discovered" it doesn't imply intentionality behind it. Most of math is just the consequences of some basic premises just like logic or physics.

Not a miracle, not a convincing "proof" of god.