Jump to content

Does the current laws of physics allow for ghouls and such


Lekgolo555
 Share

Recommended Posts

Isn´t magic and that stuff outside of physics by definition? I think the magic spell "create light" loses it´s magic when the spell is a whistling and the required magic ingedient is a noise-triggered power switch that toggles a lightbulb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that most scientists tend to steer clear of such questions as it could damage the reputation. As such not much real science has been done in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the current laws of physics allow for ghouls and such

 

Like is it possible for spirits and ghosts, and demons and magic to be real

One big problem is that no test for evidence to date has been repeatable. Many claim to have found supernatural evidence but no one has been able to duplicate the experiments which supposedly procured the evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I don't see why not.

 

However, from our current knowledge in science, we haven't been able to experiment on a ghoul, nor actually prove they exist. This, however, doesn't mean we would not be able to figure out their physical composition were we to find one and dissect it.

 

A new branch of physics would have to be created, since we've never seen something like that before.

 

It's like asking if cats exist and we can understand their biology and physics, but in the situation where cats have never been seen on Earth; so in point, we don't really know.

 

But sure, anything is possible. However, that doesn't mean it exists.

 

After studying metaphysics, I've determined to call that which is metaphysics unseen, unknown, or untouched.

 

Now, from a physical standpoint, if we did find these things, we'd use empiricism to analyze them. Otherwise, we'd have to create a new branch of physics, as stated. If we couldn't use our system of mathematics and physics to understand these things, then apparently something is wrong with our system, or something in our system has not been 'empirically' created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes

 

but current concesus is no.... too many scientists pedal Darwin Dogma.

 

actualy the unverse somewhat requires it. (my beleif anyway)

 

This is science. It's objective. Belief doesn't matter, evidence does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. But Einstein changed the groundwork of Newton.

 

A non-sequitur. That in no way implies that "anything is possible." There is a corollary to this, "Think outside the box," which is equally flawed in many of its uses, especially on discussion boards. It's often used as an excuse to ignore well-established science. One should note that relativity reduces to newtonian physics in the limit of speeds that we normally experience, and has a solid basis in that it is a mathematically derived consequence of an observation of how nature actually has to behave. That's "thinking outside the box" done right.

 

Einstein's theories made predictions and could be tested experimentally. Ghosts, spooks and spectres, if they exist, have to also be able to be confirmed experimentally to be within the realm of science. One cannot, for example, be able to see a ghost but not have it show up on sensors that would detect the same EM radiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science does not allow for the supernatural by the very nature of methodological naturalism. The supernatural is inherently unscientific, as it defines itself such that it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

 

As for whether or not those who purport the existence of supernatural entities do so to avoid scientific scrutiny, that's up to you to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot, for example, be able to see a ghost but not have it show up on sensors that would detect the same EM radiation.

You are assuming that seeing is completely dependent on information coming from the eyes. What appears on a photograph is dependant on the wavelengths hitting that hit that piece of film when it was exposed, but seeing does not work that way. What we see is not a direct result of light-waves hitting our eyes. What we see is the interpretation our brain puts upon the image transmitted to the brain from the retina.

 

Our beliefs, our expectations and our familiarity with certain sights can all affect what we see, to the extent that fear and expectation can make a person actually see a ghost where there is nothing but a drift of smoke or fog. I'm quite short-sighted, and once visited a friend without my glasses on. I saw her mother at the sink, washing dishes, and could clearly see her old dress and grey hair. The she spoke to me, and it was the voice of my friend, not her mother. Immediately what I was seeing changed, and I could clearly see my friend Yvonne.

 

I'm not saying there is no such thing as ghosts. I have never seen one, but I've had some very strange experiences which I can't explain, and could not expect reasonable people to believe. What I am saying is that a person can be honest in claiming to see something, even though no camera can photograph it. However what is seen may be more a reflection of inner reality than outer reality.

 

The logical take on my little spiel is, "yes, we all know people can imagine things." My point is that everything we see is coloured by our minds and memories to some extent, so nothing we see can ever be completely trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying there is no such thing as ghosts. I have never seen one, but I've had some very strange experiences which I can't explain, and could not expect reasonable people to believe.

 

It is a huge leap of flawed logic to go from "I can't explain this" to "that was a ghost/UFO/Elvis/whatever." If you don't have enough evidence to explain something, the only scientific conclusion is that you don't have enough evidence to explain it. "Science can't explain it, therefore it was a ghost" is based on a flawed premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a huge leap of flawed logic to go from "I can't explain this" to "that was a ghost/UFO/Elvis/whatever." If you don't have enough evidence to explain something, the only scientific conclusion is that you don't have enough evidence to explain it. "Science can't explain it, therefore it was a ghost" is based on a flawed premise.

 

There's nothing unscientific about saying: "Science can't explain this flying object, therefore it is a UFO". The problem is when people confuse the terms "UFO" and "flying saucer". :P

 

But I agree 100% with the point you are making. Too many conclusions are jumped at merely because people can't think of any other explanation, so assume their theory must be correct. Scientists just as much as charlatans need to be careful in analysing what really does constitute proof. At least scientists try, but both can be misled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ghosts ghouls & spirits etc are supernatural why are they clothed -- or can innanimate materials have ghosts too ? Ghosts should be naked if they can only originate from dead once living entitiies .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ghosts ghouls & spirits etc are supernatural why are they clothed -- or can innanimate materials have ghosts too ? Ghosts should be naked if they can only originate from dead once living entitiies .

 

If these things were actual manifestations of something supernatural they would be too far outside our understanding for us to predict what they might wear or not wear. If I was haunting you I certainly wouldn't want to do it in the nude. :embarass:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to answering the original question... it depends what you mean by "allow for".

 

If you mean do scientific laws prohibit those things, then no. Unless they are defined with attributes that are contrary to those laws.

 

If you mean do scientific laws account for those things, then no - that's not their job.

 

If you mean can scientific laws be used to investigate such things, then "conceivably", but these things first require definition within the domain of useful scientific enquiry, which rather defeats their nature.

 

Like Atheist, I was under the impression that "magic" means forces which are, by definition, beyond science, so in that particular case it's "no" for that last scenario too.

 

For things like ghouls, it is much more sensible to look at the source of the folklore and decide from that how you wish to explain them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoul

Considering the dietary habits of hyenas, it is not really surprising that ghouls are most often "seen" in this form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.