What's new

On knowledge, observation, and differing modes

If you "create" a law, then don't follow it, it isn't a law.

It just doesn't work that way.

This is for everyone talking about following natural laws:

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. We know how objects in nature typically behave, when we can simplify this sufficiently, we create a type of description called a law.

A putative supernatural being would not need to act like a natural thing, and therefore would not need to follow natural laws, but there own descriptions of how supernatural things behave (supernatural laws?).
 
Back to the topic.

As a starter, I have been using observation to describe a relationship where the interaction between the observer and the observed is more limited. When you start talking about observing yourself, any experiments run into difficulties with self-fulfilling prophecies, as well as that humans are notoriously bad judges of their own intentions.

I'll use this as a similar example.
Let's just say somebody has been not feeling well every once in a while, and it is a particular feeling with particular symptoms for them. After quite a few experiences they notice that it generally happens about an hour after they have eaten, but it is not regular.They write down some of the symptoms, that they are unusually tired, have an upset stomach, and sometimes get a rash on their arms. They start to pay more attention to what they eat, and see if there is a correlation between what they eat and how they feel. They start to look into the ingredients of the foods they ate before the instances of not feeling well. They may notice that there is a particular food or food group that is consistently in the foods they eat when they feel this way. They might test their theory by eating some of what they think it is alone, and with nothing else to interfere and see if it truly is tied to this food. They may even go to their doctor and be tested to see if they have allergies to these foods, or consult their doctor to see what they know about something like this.

In the same way the person in this example has experimented with their feelings to find some answers to how they feel at certain times, so can a person experiment with their feelings in regards to activities that are spiritual in nature.

I have no issue with calling your example observation, but note that determining how you feel physically is more reliable than determining how you feel spiritually, and even then you also suggest getting external evidence from a more neutral source is important. Relying just on feeling better or worse can help you find real issues, but it can't tell the difference between what works, what is a placebo, and what is a coincidence.

While you mention it is a non-physical experiment, I say it is both physical and spiritual. There has to be a physical portion to it as we are both physical and spiritual beings.

It can relate to prayer, scripture study, helping a neighbor, giving to the poor, service, pretty much any activity you can test.
The results that are easiest to tie to the activity is what you mentioned, good feelings or bad feelings. There are other possible results, but in my opinion they are more difficult to tie to an activity at times, at least on the spiritual side. Keep in mind there can also be physical results.

Also of note, a true experiment means having an open mind and heart to whatever the true result is. If you only go through the motions and really want the experiment to fail, or the opposite really want it to succeed, are you really performing an experiment? Are you really open to what is going on or are you only going to see what you want to see. This cuts both ways, and most of the time only the person performing the experiment will really know where they stand.

This part was very general. I don't have any disagreements with it, except that the person performing the experiment is often unaware of where they really stand. I want to note that it does make observation of the result very problematic indeed. You're not observing, you're reacting. Reacting is a good thing much of the time, and I'm not downplaying it, but it is not observation.

I personally don't think asking/looking for a sign like that is part of an experiment. Maybe that's the religion in me, where I've learned that sign seeking does not lead to anything good.

We agree here.

Basically the test of the Lord is to do what he has asked you to do, and see how it works out. That is the faith part. Test it out by doing it willingly to see if it is good.

I have tested the law of tithing. Mathematically it doesn't make sense that if I give 10% of my increase to the Lord, or His Church as I see it, that I will end up doing better than if I take that 10% and do what I want with it. I have tried it both ways, and I've had enough experiences in my life where I have always had what I need for myself and my family when I faithfully pay a full tithe even in the times that I add up my income and my expenses and there is no way my income will cover it... yet it does. I have also had the experience to know I've had some of my lowest and most difficult times financially and in other ways when I have not. Others may call it a coincidence, but for myself I know it was directly tied.

I have done the same testing to many other principles of the gospel. I still have testing to do on other principles I have not brought myself to test. Do I believe they are true based on what others have said that I trust, yes. Do I know it for myself yet, no. When I get around to testing it for myself then I will know and be better for knowing one way or the other.

Back when I was in high school, the theater director would tell us, 'When you are working the hardest on plays, your grades should go up, not down'. At the time, I didn't understand it, but now I do. Pressures create stress, and the stress can force us to organize and prioritize in order to relieve it. In addition, my understanding of you is that tithing brings you in closer accord to your vision of who you want to be. Naturally, when we act in ways that are closer to our visions of our ideal selves, we receive comfort from the result. However, I would not qualify this comfort as an observation.
 
I found this essay regarding Classical mechanics(materialism) vs. Quantum mechanics, God, and miracles:

To begin, let's consider a few assertions of the traditional materialistic worldview. Of course, materialists who are aware of quantum mechanics may have slightly different views, but I suspect that these assertions will resonate with many modern materialists:

1. The laws of physics state that miracles are impossible. For instance, Jesus could not have turned water into wine because that would have violated numerous physical laws (conservation of energy, conservation of mass, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc...)

2. Even if God exists, He could not be a God who intervenes in the natural world because he would have to violate the physical laws that he supposedly created.

3. Consciousness or subjective mental experiences are a collective property of brains (just as wetness is a collective property of water molecules). There is no such thing as a "mind" or "consciousness" separate from physical constituents.

4. The universe does not contain "hidden" or "unknowable" realities that are fundamentally inaccessible to science and reason.

There are of course other major components of a materialist worldview, but I think that most materialists would generally agree with these four statements. By the end of this essay I hope to show you that, if you believe quantum mechanics, assertions 1 and 2 and 4 are simply false. Statement 3 can still be retained, but only at an extremely high cost. Based on these statements, I think it is clear what motivated Danish physicist and father of quantum mechanics Niels Bohr to remark "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics has not understood it."



So where does quantum mechanics leave us with regard to physical laws? Certainly with a feeling of vague discomfort. A physicist who is being honest with you will have to admit that the most iron-clad laws of physics now no longer deal with certainties, but only probabilities. We have to conclude that miracles are not impossible. Furthermore, when and if God chooses to intervene in the natural world, he can do so without in any way violating the laws of nature as we currently understand them. Lest you think I am exaggerating, let me close this section with a quote from physicist Alvaro de Rujula of Cern who was in charge of writing a safety report for the recently constructed Large Hadron Collider. When asked whether there was a possibility that the collider could produce a world-ending black hole, he answered that calculations showed that this was incredibly unlikely, but that it was impossible to be certain: "the random nature of quantum physics means that there is always a minuscule, but nonzero, chance of anything occurring, including that the new collider could spit out man-eating dragons.' (Dennis Overbye, "Gauging a Collider's Odds of Creating a Black Hole", NYTimes, 4/15/08)

https://www.shenvi.org/Essays/QuantumMechanics.htm
 
Just want to re-derail things and get back to the laws of science. I believe science was not created by god, as god was once a man like us, who had all the experiences we are having now. We have the ability to ascend and inherit knowledge and power and create universes as he has. As far as as anyone knows, the laws of science have no beginning and no end. God is bound by the law no less then the rest of us. If his power seems magic, it's not, he only has a greater knowledge of the law.
 
This is for everyone talking about following natural laws:

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. We know how objects in nature typically behave, when we can simplify this sufficiently, we create a type of description called a law.

A putative supernatural being would not need to act like a natural thing, and therefore would not need to follow natural laws, but there own descriptions of how supernatural things behave (supernatural laws?).
Like I said in my post if a god like person acts like he is all powerful it's becuse he has a greater knowledge but still following the law as everyone else. If a caveman traveled to our time and saw a car or airplane he would perceive it as magic, and us as gods.
 
The religion of science was something else at the beginning of the 20. century, let me remind you.
It is all fluctuating,
Tomorrow can we see the rebuttal of today's solid scientific facts!

Religion on the other hand cannot (by definition) have the "scientific" claim.
It is all personal, emotional etc.
Even though those experiences like visions are real, we don't know if they are really a recurring pattern.

Each individual experience could be different and we may not get/perceive that.
But we know at what degree water shall boil (under normal circumstances).
 
Even though I am a materialist, I hope it is clear from post #22 that I do not agree with those points.

If this is true, as you say, I think what Niels Bohr said applies to you. . . . . you have not understood QM.

IMO, just the belief in path-dependent time is proof a person has not understood QM's impact on classical beliefs and philosophy.

Following from my understanding of QM, whatever the apparent observations may be under whatever circumstances an observer may be influenced or affected by, I say "time" is not path-, nor velocity-, dependent, and the wild fantasy of the Whovians, the "Tardus", is just that. . . . fantasy. . . . .

Probably Albert Einstein did not understand it.

Probably, Newton did understand it. Poor bumbling Neanderthal ignoramus lost in his web of religious faith/fantasies that he was, he at least had a correct view of "time".
 
Just want to re-derail things and get back to the laws of science. I believe science was not created by god, as god was once a man like us, who had all the experiences we are having now. We have the ability to ascend and inherit knowledge and power and create universes as he has. As far as as anyone knows, the laws of science have no beginning and no end. God is bound by the law no less then the rest of us. If his power seems magic, it's not, he only has a greater knowledge of the law.

This is the "necessary axiom" of Mormonism, and the essential core of teachings of Jesus. In saying to his believers that following his precepts would lead them to be, when they came to the presence of God the Father, "like him", clearly places man in the same class of living things as "The Father". Saying "whosoever has seen me has seen he Father" is not an "identity equation" as understood by most Christians since Constantine, that says "one is one", but an achievement equation, that says something about the observer measured on a scale of understanding. . . . .

Understanding that a Son has followed the necessary principles that the Father has led in following, it is a statement that those who believe in Jesus and who live by those principles will become like both Jesus and His Father. . . . .
 
This is for everyone talking about following natural laws:

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. We know how objects in nature typically behave, when we can simplify this sufficiently, we create a type of description called a law.

A putative supernatural being would not need to act like a natural thing, and therefore would not need to follow natural laws, but there own descriptions of how supernatural things behave (supernatural laws?).

While what you say here is logically consistent, it is not the assertion of Mormonism. . . . or the Bible. . . . that God is "supernatural".

To the Hebrews, their God was unique because he was principled, and because he was principled he was worthy of respect, and could command his people on that basis. His people had the duty of obedience because He, God was Holy, that is to say, virtuous. That is to say, also, law-abiding.
 
Tomorrow can we see the rebuttal of today's solid scientific facts!

Facts never get rebutted. They just exist.

Generally, by the time something rises to the level of theory, it also does not get rebutted. It is just extended and altered. The theory of Relativity did nto rebut Newton's theories, but extended them to places Newton could never measure.
 
If this is true, as you say, I think what Niels Bohr said applies to you. . . . . you have not understood QM.

IMO, just the belief in path-dependent time is proof a person has not understood QM's impact on classical beliefs and philosophy.

Following from my understanding of QM, whatever the apparent observations may be under whatever circumstances an observer may be influenced or affected by, I say "time" is not path-, nor velocity-, dependent, and the wild fantasy of the Whovians, the "Tardus", is just that. . . . fantasy. . . . .

Probably Albert Einstein did not understand it.

Probably, Newton did understand it. Poor bumbling Neanderthal ignoramus lost in his web of religious faith/fantasies that he was, he at least had a correct view of "time".

1) I have no idea how yougot from post #22 to quantum mechanics.
2) This depends on whether you discuss time as something experienced, or as a measurement tool by a single observer.
 
Facts never get rebutted. They just exist.

Generally, by the time something rises to the level of theory, it also does not get rebutted. It is just extended and altered. The theory of Relativity did nto rebut Newton's theories, but extended them to places Newton could never measure.
of course they do!
well, at least those claimed by science as "facts" get rebutted pretty frequently.
Like the planet Pluto :)

hope you get the memo, science is not as solid as one believes.
Once there were Ptolameic facts (!) which were then crushed by Copernicus.
Just saying, science isnot as solid one thinks. I guess this makes me a sceptic, which I really am not.
Just hate the arrogance of the "believers" of the church of science, given science's well-veiled true nature.

Science evolves my friend.
Newton's theories work under strict assumptions BTW. It is still in use for it has some operational value in engineering and stuff.
Otherwise, it is a theory left behind by the advance of human's knowledge as regards the universe created by God. (GAOTU)

PS: underlined part is my trolling attempt :)
 
Last edited:
Like the planet Pluto :)

A definition is not a fact. They changed the definition of what it meant to be planet, and Pluto didn't fit the new definition, but none of the facts about Pluto changed.

hope you get the memo, science is not as solid as one believes.
Once there were Ptolameic facts (!) which were then crushed by Copernicus.

Ptolemaic theory was supplanted by Keplerian theory as new facts came to light, but none of the facts Ptolemy used were altered.

Just saying, science isnot as solid one thinks. I guess this makes me a sceptic, which I really am not.

I think the strength of science is its fluidity, not solidity.

Science evolves my friend.
Newton's theories work under strict assumptions BTW. It is still in use for it has some operational value in engineering and stuff.

Of course.

Otherwise, it is a theory left behind by the advance of human's knowledge as regards the universe created by God. (GAOTU)

PS: underlined part is my trolling attempt :)

I can't tell the difference between your trolling and your non-trolling. :)
 
Facts never get rebutted. They just exist.

Generally, by the time something rises to the level of theory, it also does not get rebutted. It is just extended and altered. The theory of Relativity did nto rebut Newton's theories, but extended them to places Newton could never measure.

By extension, could it be said that if a fact can be rebutted then it is indeed not a fact?
 
By extension, could it be said that if a fact can be rebutted then it is indeed not a fact?

Interesting question. Say I measure a wooden beam to be 36 inches, and you later measure it at 38 inches. Is my measurement rebutted? Yours? If I make a second measure of 38 inches, does that change the answer?
 
Back
Top