DevilSolution

Has anyone yet found an example of something that science can't explain?

consciousness

human stupidity

And about a million "Why" questions...Why do magnets and electricity relate ? I know how, just not why. Why do humans believe we are superior to other animals?

Why are we so curious to know why? Why does anything exist...........shada shada shada.

Whats inside a blackhole? Whats dark energy? How many laws of physics are there? Why do sub atomic particles behave as they do?

Anyway, supernatural, as Ophiolite has mentioned (though on a different issue) there plenty of phenomena that exists in which we can only hypothesise, theorize or philosophise. Ofcourse we strive to comprehend some of these things which is progression (or sorts) but to fully dedicate yourself to the notion that all of these phenomena are of a natural cause is a harder notion to comprehend than that of something "supernatural" (atleast to me).

And i still believe some of the tools in which we use to explain nature are or could be defined as supernatural. As Phi for All pointed out there plenty of circles in nature and to assert "perfect" to anything makes it rather...well supernatural. Nothing is perfect, but still we use the theoretical notion of "perfect" to explain nature. We dont estimate pi when using it in our calculations to explain coloumbs law or general relativity. Infact we go beyond using perfect circles we create imaginary numbers, which them themselves have the mathematical principles of circles (or can be used as such). We made imaginary perfect circles to help explain the "natural" universe. Am i honestly the only one who can see that "perfect imaginary circles" dont exist in nature.....Not that they aren't profoundly useful at explaining nature through science. But your explaining nature with supernatural conceptions, non existent entities.

Even the nomenclature itself is somewhat open to interpretation. As i previously tried explaining, something that we currently have no "natural" law for, or way of explaining has by the law of logic the same disposition to be interpreted as supernatural. If you have no natural cause for something then its mutually exclusive and has as much right to be defined as supernatural until such a time as science can say otherwise. To what extent you wish to use this is completely subjective, i personally dont over extend my interpretation of what is and isnt supernatural but fundamentally you have the right to believe what you want beyond that which science can explain.

As far as religion goes, you need a natural first cause, at which point you could argue that if nature "caused" the big bang and all the laws and forces within the universe are natural they therefore exist everywhere. By extension we are then completely constrained by those laws and forces which are pretty powerful, well they are everything. Then nature itself seems omnipotent , omniscient and omnipresent. (omniscient by means of us being creatures of nature itself thats able to comprehend everything there is to know.....). It's actually quite malevolent aswell, as its unbiased and ruthless. You could also say its benevolent by having the exact balance of forces to allow animals and humans to exist, for which we should be thankful that we can love and hate and experience life as nature so deemed or ??? intended.

So even if the first cause is a completely natural phenomenon almost everything about it conforms to most religions belief of "God", maybe nature doesnt have a white beard and theres a good chance heaven isnt in a black hole but by most people standards there is enough similarity to say nature is the all powerful force and the source of our being.

Though in reality we're never going to explain half the questions we have, we'll probably not find a first cause or explain all the laws of the universe, most of us will barely figure out our own purpose let alone natures. We might just be lucky enough not to destroy ourselves. But then i remember that were smashing atoms together near the speed of light so i wouldnt hedge my bets even on that .

However the great thing about supernatural forces is that they dont have to conform to the laws of nature or maths or logic, which means there is no logical contradiction in terms of creation, by definition it should be supernatural enough to imagine itself. (atleast thats what i imagine). If we dismiss fairy tales, indoctrination and the irrational personification of what god is defined as by some religions, i think we come to the conclusion that there is something supernatural its just probably beyond our comprehension.

I havent really god much else to say other than I can see an intellectual rift between science and religion where really its probably our only chance, unless humanity unite is some form another then nature will do what she does. And whether atheists anonymous like it or not there's more believers than non. I think i've rambled on a bit too much so ill finish up with my beliefs, agnosticism is the only way, personal beliefs and philosophical debate, atleast thats a battle of intellect rather than money, oil or organised religion.

One question to everyone who questioned me for proof of something supernatural though, do you believe your more intelligent than people who believe in God?

Like im asking sincerely because there are alot of religious people who lack rational thinking, whether through indoctrination or ignorance and thats the only thing i fear. Anyone with a belief so strong that reason is replaced by their own inability to accept someone elses truth.

 

You know, there are plenty of things science doesn't have the information to explain yet, but there's not one phenomena science needs an omnipotent being to explain. The title question is flawed from the start.

 

Dimensional analysis says we're mixing units here. You can't measure reality accurately using empirical evidence AND goddidit.

I hate it when peoples counter argument to supernatural forces or being is the spaghetti monster or unicorns. Its innate philosophical curiosity to question and as i've said above, science can be very dangerous, not that religion is necessarily its moral counter part but most religious people i know are very drawn towards unity and selflessness. I think i've shown how theres a probability there might be a god by nature or otherwise.

And god didnt do it, it was a roman soldier

Oh and i can basically turn wine into water so..checkmate athiests. (i wouldnt personally drink though)

Has anyone yet found an example of something that science can't explain?

Wasnt the question based on an example of something supernatural?

I'm going with sex, its super and pretty natural.

NO .... i take it back, donald trumps dead hamster is super natural, it goes everywhere with him.

And it does not directly imply that we have to entertain the idea of 'supernatural' or 'god(s)'. It just implies that we have gaps in our knowledge.

Beyond our comprehension isnt learning to spell, its mankinds capabilities to think in abstract or conceptual terms.

You can entertain whatever beliefs you wish, and you will interpret things the way your brains adapted to, i doubt i could tap into that even if i wanted.

I offer a basic logical premise for the fact that "perfect" circles do not exist in reality but yet we use them over and over to explain nature, we construct abstract concepts and theories which are ideologies, you can choose to name something that doesnt exist in nature as unnatural if you so wish but i personally believe they're supernatural.

Here's a question for you though, why do you decide to not entertain the idea? What purposes do you have for not imagining something?

Logic and reason alone are like a void, why not fill it with unicorns and idea's of something better than yourself? (thats not attack btw, i literally mean imagining what perfection actually is, or what it might exist as)

Look at the world around you, then imagine that you could create heaven or hell. Just conceptually think about that. You don't need god to think in those terms but its not exactly counter active.

Me So Great!!!!

Nothing about being sexist in the rules? i guess theres not many around.

Im guna skuttle along and make thread about how women getting the vote correlated with the downfall of our once great nation. (true, i got sources)

Whats the triple post about rules and all that? I been getting jolly past few weeks.

Should add a rule about not getting drunk, its not healthy for the community or the person drinking!!!!!!!!!! (also got sources)

That's just getting silly.

If acts of God are supernatural and He made the Universe then everything is supernatural.

If you take a loose enough definition, it stops being meaningful.

 

"We can debate semantics of nature and supernatural, but as ive stated they at the very minimum are mutually exclusive. If it is not one, then it must be the other."

Good point.

Now, show me something that's actually supernatural.

Or stop going on about it as if it has some importance.

i never once mentioned an act of god, if you have read any of my recent posts you'd see i have defined a circle as supernatural as it does not exist in nature. Why is that silly?

And again your first argument falls into "the first cause" argument which essentially boils down to accepting a pantheistic view of the universe or the door is open for other forces beyond the realm of our comprehension....

 

We are part of nature, so why is a man-made concept not natural?

That just falls back into "the original cause" argument, which as ive already demonstrated leads to a pantheistic view of the universe.

Like every concept in physics ever?

 

The point is that these concepts should have some bearing on observables.

 

 

The big difference is that I can actually meaningfully study a circle. I can make conjectures about circles and then sit down and see if I can prove them or disprove them or find counter examples etc. How can I do that with a God? Something that different people think are very different things?

 

 

I will just take the definition from the Oxford dictionary

 

 

Now, do we need to include manifestation or event in this definition? That is, do we not need 'observed phenomena' in the definition?

 

If we do not, then we may have to include mathematics as supernatural, or we need to widen our definition of 'laws of nature'. I rather widen our definition of 'laws of nature' as mathematics has a lot of structure and it seems you cannot just do what you want. There are some rules in mathematics. I would not like to think of mathematics as 'supernatural' and suggest some equivalence with my work and that of Derek Acorah!

Not every concept in physics relies on some abstract portion of mathematics, but if it does, then it could be argued the answer is supernatural, as the means by which the answer was concluded didnt come from the "natural" world but some ideological world we created.

We can debate semantics of nature and supernatural, but as ive stated they at the very minimum are mutually exclusive. If it is not one, then it must be the other.

Its up to you if you wish to extend the "laws of nature" to include things that are not natural because thats easier to do? But thats not the empirical truth.

 

Sorry, I was on the road at the time.

 

Why do things have to exist in reality? Or, more to the point, why does not physically existing in reality make them supernatural? It's a concept, an abstraction, an ideal. It's not like circles are the only example of abstractions in life.

I was given the question of there existing a problem in reality in which we cant find the answer to naturally, Well it seems alot of our answers are not "natural" if they are using things not actually seen in reality or "nature", but man made concepts. God is as much a concept, an abstraction or an ideal as a circle is. i could very well describe god in those terms if i so wished. infact i could encompass god as all of those abstract, conceptual or ideological things we've made up to answer "real" questions. I think i'll do that.

P.S anything that doesnt exist within nature is "supernatural" by definition? as in mutually exclusive.

Therefore the universe is an extension of and or not? I agree we are completely constrained by logic, its our fundamental source of intellect. We'll never be able to comprehend anything above logical formalities. To say nothing exists beyond logic is almost a paradox though, its like a dog, they can only bark to communicate and it serves their purpose to most extents, but from a higher level of intellect we see that barking is primitive. There are parallels between our comprehension and those of other animals. Maybe were constrained on purpose? They'd be no point in experience if we already knew everything there was to know.

There maybe a tautology here. If we can observe it and measure it then it has to be natural. Then I would say that there is no supernatural and the term is quite vacuous.

 

Moreover, claims of phenomena by 'non-scientists' that are labelled as supernatural either fail to amount to anything, or are explained within science. Often the supernatural is explained by probability theory, known scientific phenomena or human psychology.

 

 

Well, some of this gets mixed with philosophy. Anwyway, even if it is impossible for us to find the right mathematics to describe some observed physical phenomena it is a big jump to say that something outside of nature is at play. I would even regular that we are still in this tautology of what is natural and what is supernatural.

 

 

So the moral is not to get your science education from a religious forum!

Where do circles exist in reality? are they even real? They must be supernatural unless you can show me a perfect circle in reality. It's strange how supernatural entities have such importance in science.

Worth a down vote but not a reply. I do like a good comedy.

The philosophers had a head start on science, got as far as they could and they stopped.

 

You keep claiming there's a solution, but failing to produce it when asked.

Are you going to repeat that pointless exercise?

Philosophers were scientists for the most part and mathematicians, great philosophers are always abstract thinkers so they work well together.

 

Does anyone suggest a supernatural cause? There are a number of natural causes hypothesized, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it is ghosts.

 

So there are only natural explanations (I include "we don't yet know" in that set).

Science doesnt say the supernatural doesnt exist, it only applies itself to what is natural. If science cant explain what time is, or what was before the big bang, then those things are supernatural. Not that it shouldn't try. Maybe just accept its limits.

P.S if you went on a religious forum you might find people claiming dark matter and energy as proofs of god.....but you dont, so you dont. Neither do i.

 

I'm confused. You were asked to name something real with only supernatural explanations. All of those things are real and (with the possible exception of Boris's hair) have naturalistic explanations. There is nothing supernatural about any of them (not even Boris's tonsure).

 

I don't know what that means. How can "only" and dark matter, for example, be mutually exclusive?

My bad, "Dark energy" is currently mutually exclusive to natural or supernatural cause.

As it is "real" and undetermined it exists in as or the other until an answer is found.

Some of those example might be rather hard to find the answer to.

If we carry on we'll end up at the "first cause" paradigm which as we know is a paradox of logic. So maybe end here?

We could carry on for those that dont understand it.

If we're talking about science, then "everything" should be defined as "everything natural". That's all science is interested in.

 

God(s) are supernatural by those standards. So of course we can explain nature without god(s).

 

Can you name something real we are so baffled about that the only explanations are supernatural ones?

Dark energy.

Dark matter.

What happens in a black hole.

The Big Bang.

Time.

Existence of life.

Boris johnsons hair.

The word only is mutually exclusively to all of these "real" things.

The word "nature" can be used to extend anything, everything is natural by causality. Otherwise synthetics are supernatural, which we shall dismiss.

If then "nature" can be an extension of anything and everything is natural by causality, then nature is everything. That's shorthand for pantheism.

If the causality is not natural, then you have entirely different equation, The first should be suffice?

Isn't a mathematical model more of a proof than theory?

Tell that to Buddha.

I dont think i'd be over exaggerating by any sense of the imagination to say that buddha was anything but existentially bored.

Can Science explain everything in the universe? If no then god;

If we don't destroy ourselves, why presume we can explain everything in the universe?

And if we can explain everything in the universe, then we are gods.

Science is the tool. It could destroy us or it could make us divine. I'll edge my bets on the former.

 

I always thought he was an insane idiot, that kinda confirms it.

Because being born with a silver spoon in your mouth ever helped these existentially bored people?

Me think No.

If you want confirmation he got sectioned at around 45 and died in a mental ward........

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/10/causes-war-peace/

I don't think america has been at war for 9/10th's of its history because of theocracy, fascism, communism or nazism. They have been at war for so long for self preservation in the form of MONEY and POWER.

I wonder what their death toll is? I bet its comparative with any religions. (nuke here, drone there, meh).

nietzsche once said he hoped the worst sort of pain, embarrassment and failure to his closest friends and family. Only then they will appreciate the true value to success and human endeavour.

There will be an explanation for everything eventually, but for now, there are many things yet to be explained. I cannot perceive of a time when science will have come up with all the answers; there will always be a thirst for more knowledge.

There's a contradiction in terms within your terminology. Will we or wont we know everything?

Religions cause wars. It's a statement of fact. That doesn't mean that eradicating all religions would mean an end to war. Without religion to fight over, we would find other excuses to go to war.

Money and power cause wars, religion is usually just the excuse.

Dont ban him yet, i like it when there's less intelligent people around, i stand out less then.

"I'll open a thread about how bored i am and how intelligent i am and then argue with any suggestions"

You need a self help book.

What? did you want one of us to give you a purpose in life? or did you want us all to talk about the void?

Looks like an ATR indicator to me. If its curved then use Fourier, but i have no idea what the data relates to in your image, looks more like quantity than price and volume has its own indicators with similar results.

My apologies my minds on other things, what exactly do you actively monitor? I wont hazard a guess.

An easy solution would be simple regression where the two line would meet at right angles, codes simple

 

Nothing proves that God exists. Religion is about belief and doesn't require proof. God exists in the mind of the believer. Not content with believing, religious believers want others to believe in the same God to strengthen their own belief. This is taken to extremes and causes conflict, war and death. Love thy neighbour ... but only if he is of the same faith!

 

Science can explain everything, but we have a long way to go before we understand everything.

What makes you so certain were capable of explaining everything through science? What if there's concepts we'll never be able to comprehend?

I dont think religion intends on causing harm any more than science does, strange really, we've been fighting over our beliefs for thousands of years, only now the weapons are bigger. Most people have the right intentions, same as you would expect from a scientist but eventually the morals break down and the science becomes war. In fact alot of scientific breakthroughs have come directly from war, so lets not be hasty.

No not playing with AI at all, discrete numbers, i thought perhaps something like the Fourier but the data hasnt been standardised or normalised etc.

Basically patterns in the forex and stock markets. I know trading is so quick on the forex but i believe various patterns will emerge as recurring events. I was thinking about hard coding the logic and using classifiers to permute as much data as i could but i dont have the resources.

I need a quick fix, i read there were techniques using matrices and some form of statistics to normalise the data so its in the right format, but i dont know much beyond an identity matrix, transformation and trig matrix that i used in computer graphics.

Do you know if matrices are used commonly in pattern recognition?

1) The land is versatile, you wouldnt notice an 8 inch curvature within a mile and you'll find some places with bigger and some with smaller

2) The weight of the ball relative to the propulsion, 9Mps may seem fast, but to inanimate heavy object it counts for a fraction of the propulsion

3) It's an illusion, if you were to imagine the moon rotating around the earth, faster than the we span on our axis you wouldnt say its going backwards.

(BTW i don't know if any of these are the right figures, i havent checked your math)

Sensei any chance you know of a way of pattern recognition within discrete data, I've though about permutations and tested a little but the set size is too much for my computer to handle. I was thinking more along the lines of some matrix magic, with some given statistical functions to clear out some of the "noise". However i dont have a clue how to break the discrete data into matrix form, i just know its a possible way of dissecting patterns.

Regards.

Balance.

Particles pertaining to little to no mass are pretty much non existent, The force they exert acts as if they were the same.

There's no absolute form of knowing where particular particles will be at any given time so we apply laws of probability to give an approximate. The sub atomic movement is dance of balance within the atom. EMW behave differently, they are in wave form and flow like a spiral of sorts with the sine and cosine having a relative phase to each other, because they're electro magnetic they are effected by various things within the universe like magnetic flux or other EM waves. The cause of most of the EMW are by product to huge nuclear reactors or stars basically, energy transforms from the tightly compact, high temperature chemical reaction into the release of this energy.

Realistically speaking we don't have the means to measure things we may presume have no mass.

Its easy to measure the mass of a bowl of sand, its almost as easy to measure a grain, it gets harder to measure fine particle of sand and once you get to the subatomic levels you might aswell give up on thinking in general terms of mass, speed, distance and time as they are impartial to some of what we observe.