Does the supernatural exist?

M

MildSkeptic

Chrono Cadet
It has recently come to my attention that many congregants of this forum are exploring scientific explanation of phenomenons like Creation and the nature of God. This is interesting to me since I have always believed God to be inexplicable by natural physics. While I am always interested in theories about God existing in a dimension or state different than ours rather than a different nature altogether, I can't help but wonder wether you lot believe that there is a realm entirely beyond natural law?
 
I can't help but wonder wether you lot believe that there is a realm entirely beyond natural law?
Click to expand...
Question: Is it possible to violate natural law in our minds (e.g. in our dreams)?

You've asked a deep question, and I surmise you will get a LOT of deep answers. Realize that, as far as we know, "natural law" (i.e. scientific laws) are confined to the physical realm that I call Massive SpaceTime. Using the Tree Of Life as a model for Creation, Massive SpaceTime exists only as the bottom portion of the Tree. Everything above it (aphysical) is likely subject to a different (but related) set of "natural laws"... at least if one believes that coherency is important in our universe. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

N/I RMT
 
To answer your question exactly, there is a one main god who is both employed here on Earth and also has residence here.

These facts are plainly given in Betty Lucas series of books.

There is also, by arrangement due to ethnenticity classes, other separate gods, as not everyone's belief systems are the same.

Very simply put, your world is being decided upon now, as to whether it is to go on, or to be stopped.
 
I don't think you want a deep answer - so i won't bore you with one. I'll just offer my opinion.

I think that ANYONE who claims to know (or state in a book that they know) the full story behind the architect(s) that brought this reality into existance - is a phoney.

Lets us also clarify that this World, is a valid playing ground of learning no matter what chaos is going on within it. It is not likely under review for destruction by anyone but ourselves.

With the certain threads you may have been reading, You were just hearing speculation as to what aspects of this reality are results of interaction with realities/dimensions/domains beyond this one we detect with our current 5 senses. I'm quite impressed with how this subject is handled in the TTI forum. As its is done under as grounded basing and using as much observable evidence as is possible (which is obviously not much). As this subject is VERY essential to the subject of manipulating the effects of Time.

You really don't find this on any other forums - I know, i've been a member of most of them.

i think it is good that you feel that you are ready to discuss/mentions your intuative thoughts on the subject though. And you certainly won't be laughed at for going into them.

Kind regards,
Olly
 
I have real difficulty with the way the "supernatural" is presented in the media and in some people's subjective experience with it. I tend to think more on the lines of the "super" natural, and find it to be a natural occurence in the real world. Much of this phenomena can be squarely placed within the realm of "normal". To be sure, much of it is inexplicable and cannot be explained by "normal" means. It takes a stretch of the imagination to look at these things "objectively" and place them on the table next to the things we clearly understand.

I am sure that many in the far past would look at much that is evident to us now and get the heebie jeebies at what would appear to be supernatural to them. By the same token, much of what we consider "spooky" now, will be explained by science, religion, intuition, and experience.

Some people have senses that others do not have and can, therefore, see things we cannot. Some people can "see" sound, "hear" colors, taste auras, etc. When they temporarily lose these senses they have always had, they feel blind or deaf or any of a myriad of adjectives to describe their special insights. Like everything else in the universe, everything is "relative" to the observer. The supernatural may someday become quite commonplace.
 
much of what we consider "spooky" now, will be explained by science, religion, intuition, and experience.
Click to expand...
The supernatural may someday become quite commonplace.
Click to expand...

So do you believe we will reach an absolute understanding of existence eventually?
(I realize you're using words like "may" and "much" instead of "can" and "all", I'm just asking to be clear.)

I don't think that (at least in this life and probably in the one I believe will occur for me afterwards) it is ever possible to understand everything. You have aptly noticed that we now have a much higher understanding of our existence, and yet, each time we uncover a secret of the universe, a myriad of new, unanswered questions appear.

Also, please note (as Zerubbabel did) that I am using the word supernatural in the most linguistically basic meaning, to mean anything 'above' nature.
 
Using the Tree Of Life as a model for Creation, Massive SpaceTime exists only as the bottom portion of the Tree. Everything above it (aphysical) is likely subject to a different (but related) set of "natural laws"... at least if one believes that coherency is important in our universe. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Click to expand...

But who's to say that "coherency" is a two-way street?
I'll elaborate a bit on that question if you can answer me a question about the ToL as a model of Creation. Are natures higher up on the tree than space-time only different natures or objectively superior ones to our own?
 
In the Judeo-Christian understanding of the afterlife, there is "never" an absolute understanding. From my understanding, we will be ever learning, ever knowing about the Creator and His Creation. The only absolute that I could probably go along with would be absolute acceptance of the endless process of learning. Boredom is perhaps one of the most insidious passive emotions and I doubt that the traditional view of the afterlife (playing harps on clouds), will suffice to keep us healthy in the world to come. In fact, it is quite likely , since we are to be overseers of our universe, that there will be much work to do in the future world (not like our work here, of course).

Perhaps you would like to share examples of your experiences and bounce off the people here. There are many who have had "supernatural" experiences here and maybe they can give you the answers to the questions that you haven't voiced yet? Obviously, you have a point and are feeling your way towards getting to it. This is not a forum about the supernatural--except perhaps its role in manipulating time. Do you have a point you would like to discuss. People in general have a short attention span--especially when it comes to generalities.
 
Well, it seems to me that if there are in fact natures above human understanding, human manipulation, the physics of our universe, etc., all the theoretical work relating to time travel might very well be useless. Has space-time theory (or for that matter practice) reached a point where we can objectively say that the 4th dimension is within grasp? I am inclined to think that the God I believe in exists in a 'fuller' (for lack of a better word) reality than on the time plane, but this is purely based on my faith, not scientific work, which, while no more important, has considerably more credibility in our society.

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that heaven will be infinitely more than sitting on a cloud playing a harp. For that matter, I believe it will be infinitely more than anything I can think of. The key for me is that heaven will be a place in which humankind is fulfilled perfectly. I believe that a) this means I will certainly not be bored. b) that you are correct that there will be things to be done. c) that God will play an instrumental role in this fulfillment.

As for supernatural experiences, it has occured to me that i hardly know enough about science to objectively say that the feelings I have experienced could not occur outside of a natural phenomenon, and it is not based on these experiences that I believe God exists outside of nature, but what was revealed to me through those experiences.
 
Hello MS,
But who's to say that "coherency" is a two-way street?
I'll elaborate a bit on that question if you can...
Click to expand...
Yes, I certainly would like some elaboration on that, as I don't quite follow what you mean.
Are natures higher up on the tree than space-time only different natures or objectively superior ones to our own?
Click to expand...
Well, the typical view espoused by those who accept (or have spent time understanding the TOL) is that those natures that are higher up on the Tree are PART of our own nature. We are them and they are us. So in that sense, I guess the answer to that question would be they are simply "different" natures, mostly because they transcend our physical domain.

Finally, how would you objectively measure the superiority of a nature that transcends the physical? I wouldn't know how to do that, and my opinion is that "superiority" is a concept invented by mankind as a result of us observing "what works" vs. "what doesn't work" for any specific intention.

N/I RMT
 
Finally, how would you objectively measure the superiority of a nature that transcends the physical? I wouldn't know how to do that, and my opinion is that "superiority" is a concept invented by mankind as a result of us observing "what works" vs. "what doesn't work" for any specific intention.
Click to expand...

This is a fairly valid point, except that (as my description of heaven last post) many people regard things they can't understand as superior simply because many things they can understand suck so much.

Due to your explanation of the ToL, the coherency point I was going to make is a little less valid, but I owe you the elaboration:

Perhaps the people of nature A see nature B as condusive with their own, but the inhabitants of nature B can't begin to understand the workings of nature A.

Example: I understand the 2nd dimension, but a stick figure would have a hard time understanding 3d.
 
Edwin Abbott\'s FLATLAND

Thanks MS,
Perhaps the people of nature A see nature B as condusive with their own, but the inhabitants of nature B can't begin to understand the workings of nature A.

Example: I understand the 2nd dimension, but a stick figure would have a hard time understanding 3d.
Click to expand...
While you may not realize it, your example is one of my most favorite examples for demonstrating how coherency is not only a good assumption, but how human perception can lead to the belief that coherency across dimensions does not exist.

Have you ever heard or, or read, Edwin Abbott's famous tome on dimensionality called Flatland? It is a scientific examination about how life would appear in a 2-D world, and how a 2-D being would perceive an interaction with a 3-D being or object.

The best example from this story is how a sphere would appear to a denizen of Flatland as it passed through Flatland's 2-D plane. The most astonishing thing to the Flatlander is that, out of what seems like nowhere a dot appears in his field of view (sounds like a coherency problem, but in reality we can see it is a perception problem). As the sphere passes through Flatland that dot begins to grow into a line from the perspective of our Flatlander. At some time this line reaches its greatest extent, and must be quite frightening to our Flatlander, but then it begins to shrink again. Eventually it again shrinks back to a single point and then vanishes completely!

The importance of this thought experiment to our situation is that it can give us a modicum of hope that coherency exists between the dimensions we live in (and can perceive) and any dimensions beyond our perception. So armed with this knowledge of how a 2-D being would perceive an interaction with a 3-D being, does it make sense to assume discoherency between our realm and the realm beyond ours? I'd have to say this would not be a good assumption, and one would have to ask what evidence it would be based upon.

I like the Flatland analogy so much, that I have developed a similar thought experiment that applies to the speed of sound vs. the speed of light. The intent of this thought experiment is to help us get beyond the belief that the speed of light is some cosmic, God-enforced speed limit. Rather, it is simply a phase transition that is an artifact of our limited senses. If you align the concept of Flatland with a being whose highest physical sensory response is that of hearing (speed of sound), then the analogy of 3-D space in the Flatland story would align to our situation of having a physical sense that responds to the speed of light.

I won't spell out the entire thought experiment here (unless you really want it), but the upshot of this is that WE SET THE ARROW OF TIME BASED ON OUR HIGHEST FREQUENCY RESPONSE SENSORY APPARATUS. Beings who can only hear will order causality in their world based on the speed of sound. However we, who can see at the speed of light, will have a different order of causality (order of temporal events) than our blind friends.

It is my belief that this thought experiment should be sufficient to convince us not only that Time is merely an artifact of human perception, but also that it is reasonable to assume that the laws of physics retain coherency on the other side of the speed of light, as well as in "higher dimensional realms."

Thoughts?
N/I RMT
 
Re: Edwin Abbott\'s FLATLAND

But isn't your example of 2d-3d interaction assuming physics are in fact constant between the two dimensions?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is an assumption. Since we live in 3-D we can set up physical experiments that are limited to 2-D to test these hypotheses by setting the 3rd dimensional component to either zero or some other constant value (a valid approach for eliminating one or more degrees of freedom). In fact, such an approach could lead to potential insights about the "mystery" of gravity. (Consider the impact of our radially-oriented understanding of gravity on two different 2-D realms, each oriented at 90 degree angles to each other with respect to the gravity vector. Those two 2-D worlds would have different, but coherent dynamics caused by a different orientation of the gravity vector.)

BTW - There is a difference between stating physics across dimensions are "constant" vs. "coherent". I do not believe they are constant, but rather coherent.

N/I RMT
 
Back
Top