The most "supernatural" thing about the universe

[Magical Realist]

What would that be? To me it is Time. Imagine trying to explain time to someone who has never experienced it. "Well, I'm in a different place now even though I've never moved. Things are different from a second go even though I can't say how. I'm moving/not moving towards a horizon called "the Future" that I can never reach or get closer too. I am aware of things and states that simply don't exist anymore." We take time for granted. But is it not one of deepest mysteries haunting our experience?

 

[Balerion]

Quantum Mechanics, without question. Until we figure out what the "hidden variable" is that makes stuff act like it knows it's being watch...shudder.

 

[Syne]

Quantum Mechanics, without question. Until we figure out what the "hidden variable" is that makes stuff act like it knows it's being watch...shudder.

There is no "hidden variable", as QM is fundamentally indeterministic.

Others, however, believe that there is no deeper deterministic reality in quantum mechanics — experiments have shown a vast class of hidden variable theories to be incompatible with observations. Kirchmair and colleagues have shown that, in a system of trapped ions, quantum mechanics conflicts with hidden variable theories regardless of the quantum state of the system.
...
In August 2011, Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner published a proof that any extension of quantum mechanical theory, whether using hidden variables or otherwise, cannot provide a more accurate prediction of outcomes, assuming that observers can freely choose the measurement settings.[21] Colbeck and Renner write: "In the present work, we have ... excluded the possibility that any extension of quantum theory (not necessarily in the form of local hidden variables) can help predict the outcomes of any measurement on any quantum state. In this sense, we show the following: under the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, quantum theory really is complete". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory​

"Hidden variables" are the wet dream of the staunch determinist.

 

[Balerion]

Well, okay. It's still spooky.

 

[Seattle]

There isn't anything supernatural about the universe! There are things that are difficult to explain however.

 

[Magical Realist]

Quantum physics IS a big one. I'm fascinated with quantum entanglement and its philosophical implications for the nature of reality. This whole idea of non-locality proven by Bell's theorem and evidenced in numerous experiments. What a bizarre and "magical" concept! (for the literalist bores,"magical" in the sense of "like magic")

 

[paddoboy]

There isn't anything supernatural about the universe! There are things that are difficult to explain however.

Good answer!

Time and quantum effects are [or were] part of what we couldn't explain. BHs would be another.....The stars themselves were part of what we couldn't explain not so long ago.

 

[quinnsong]

Is time linear at the quantum level? Of course this is assuming time exists.

 

[Yazata]

What would that be? To me it is Time.

I think that I prefer the word 'mysterious' to 'supernatural'. To me, the natural world presents mysteries wherever I look.

Yeah, time is one of the all-time biggies. There's just something kind of...strange... about time. The past seems to be gone, and the future hasn't happened yet. And what's the present? It seems to be infinitesimally brief, and by the time we have even perceived it, it's already gone. Why are directions in time assymetrical, divided into future and past? Why do we seem to be rushing headlong out of the past into the future? Is the future fixed like the past, is it a quantum-style superposition of possibility states, or what? What's up with the time travel paradoxes?

There's endless mysteries wherever we look...

What is logic? What is logical necessity? How do we know about logic and how do we recognize logical necessity? What are numbers? What is mathematics? What are universals, generalities and abstractions? What's being abstracted from what? How?

What are words? How are words connected to meanings? What are meanings? How do words acquire reference to things existing out there in the world?

What are the so-called laws of nature? How were they established? Can they be altered? What is causation? Whats up with wholes and parts? What are events and processes? What about emergence? What are possibility and impossibility?

The thing that I absolutely love about philosophy is that as soon as we start asking child-like questions about our world, we almost immediately find ourselves at the boundaries of human knowledge. There's no need for huge observatories or atom-smashers. The unknown is right in front of our noses at every moment.

 

[quantum_wave]

Quantum Mechanics, without question. Until we figure out what the "hidden variable" is that makes stuff act like it knows it's being watch...shudder.

There is no "hidden variable", as QM is fundamentally indeterministic.

Others, however, believe that there is no deeper deterministic reality in quantum mechanics — experiments have shown a vast class of hidden variable theories to be incompatible with observations. Kirchmair and colleagues have shown that, in a system of trapped ions, quantum mechanics conflicts with hidden variable theories regardless of the quantum state of the system.
...
In August 2011, Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner published a proof that any extension of quantum mechanical theory, whether using hidden variables or otherwise, cannot provide a more accurate prediction of outcomes, assuming that observers can freely choose the measurement settings.[21] Colbeck and Renner write: "In the present work, we have ... excluded the possibility that any extension of quantum theory (not necessarily in the form of local hidden variables) can help predict the outcomes of any measurement on any quantum state. In this sense, we show the following: under the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, quantum theory really is complete". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory​

"Hidden variables" are the wet dream of the staunch determinist.

Lol, you two have just exemplified the current status of QM. I just started into, "The Quantum Challenge", by Greentein and Zajonc (I know, you say WHO?, lol). But after reading it as an e-book on line I decided it was good reference material to have on the shelf, and also I find it easier to read a real book than an e-book, especially since I can write notes in my own books.

I'm one of those "hidden variables" fans, but no matter how vocal advocates are from each side of the issue, it won't be resolved unless there are hidden variables, because you cannot prove their absence; there are always new loopholes.

 

[Syne]

I'm one of those "hidden variables" fans, but no matter how vocal advocates are from each side of the issue, it won't be resolved unless there are hidden variables, because you cannot prove their absence; there are always new loopholes.

No, it is just like atheists view the question of god. There is no good evidence to lead us to expect to find local hidden variables. Sure, you cannot prove their absence, but without compelling reason to assume they exist, you take it on faith (of a fundamentally deterministic universe).

 

[quantum_wave]

My answer to the question in the OP is that God, and the universe, might be one and the same. It is invariant natural law that governs, but freewill is in accord with that natural law, and freewill allows for the unfolding of the laws to be imposed upon.

 

[quantum_wave]

No, it is just like atheists view the question of god. There is no good evidence to lead us to expect to find local hidden variables. Sure, you cannot prove their absence, but without compelling reason to assume they exist, you take it on faith (of a fundamentally deterministic universe).

That's fine, but to take the view that the universe is strictly probabilistic, and each event the outcome of random chance at some foundational level, also lacks of a compelling reason behind it. Or do you have a compelling reason to support it, other than experimental sets ups designed to get beyond the loopholes. Like I said, there always seem to be new loopholes after every new experimental advancement.

 

[paddoboy]

My answer to the question in the OP is that God, and the universe, might be one and the same. It is invariant natural law that governs, but freewill is in accord with that natural law, and freewill allows for the unfolding of the laws to be imposed upon.

The view that Albert Einstein also held, and one which I find more to do with the awesome, natural wonders of the Universe around us.


wiki:

" Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism.[5] From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God.[1] All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.[7] Others hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical.[8]; in other words: that the Universe (with all its divine extensions, planets, suns, galaxies, thrones and creatures) is what people and religions call "God"

wiki:

 

[paddoboy]

"an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

Worth noting I suggest.

 

[Syne]

That's fine, but to take the view that the universe is strictly probabilistic, and each event the outcome of random chance at some foundational level, also lacks of a compelling reason behind it. Or do you have a compelling reason to support it, other than experimental sets ups designed to get beyond the loopholes. Like I said, there always seem to be new loopholes after every new experimental advancement.

Just the preponderance of experimental evidence. If these "loopholes" were compelling, the physics community would be closer to sharing your view on the subject.

 

[C C]

What would that be?

I feel that everything about the universe is "natural", or belongs to experience -- albeit a good deal of physics territory might have to be indirectly brought into everyday exhibition. Even our useful concepts / abstractions seem derived from overviews of concrete things and their motions. But then I tend to interpret "supernatural" as supersensible or metaphenomenal, whereas most traditions would seem to apply the adjective to a subdivision of sensed items and forces that I would still consider part of outputted empirical reality. If such anthropomorphic and zoomorphic gods, angels / demons, ghosts, monsters -- and mysteriously manipulated objects, curses, transformations, etc -- were intersubjectively / extrospectively the case at all, as opposed to private events or misunderstandings of outward, interpersonal occurrences.

OTOH, however, I guess any temporary intervals of non-consciousness which interrupted one's perceptual / thinking life -- IOW, mimicked much of "what it's like" to be dead -- might be a kind of intrusion of that general "existence" which has not been organized and manifested by the rules / patterns / properties of consciousness. Such "not even nothingness" being applicable to my meaning of "beyond or prior to nature" [supernatural]. That is, there actually being none of this "what it it is like" stuff which sensory and intellectual organization deliver to their version of the metapyschological brand of beinghood.

 

[quantum_wave]

Just the preponderance of experimental evidence. If these "loopholes" were compelling, the physics community would be closer to sharing your view on the subject.

Maintaining the position that the preponderance of experimental evidence is sufficient to decide that there are no hidden variables is itself a stimulus to quit looking. If the scientific community is leaning toward being so convinced that they quit looking, then I would say you may have a compelling argument that the community isn't close to sharing my view. But to the contrary, determining the nature of particle physics and quantum mechanics are at the forefront of much of the research currently being funded.

...
"Hidden variables" are the wet dream of the staunch determinist.

If that means you have decided the matter unequivocally for yourself, then you have abandoned what I think is one of the important pillars of science, that being the tentativeness of science.

Never-the-less, my view is not simply a rebellion against the idea that probability and randomness are the nature of things, i.e. that there is no local reality. My view of hidden variables is based on investigating the possibility of there being a realm of nature that functions at a foundational level below what we are currently capable of observing; a level where the mechanics are local and do explain quantum events.

But that view does not make one a "staunch determinist", I don't think. To me, determinism vs. probability in quantum mechanics is not the same thing as determinism in religion, though I guess I don't know much about philosophy.

Maybe someone will take a moment to explain what is generally meant by that label, "staunch determinist", as it applies to both science and religion? Is it about religious views of people that "want" there to be hidden variables to support or "prove" some notion of God :shrug

 

[kwhilborn]

Many here know I advocate what some consider supernatural, however I think most every one of my beliefs (Including God) will be found in nature and explained by science.

Even entanglement, telepathy, Double slit Experiment, etc., will all be explained in much greater detail in years to come.

However...

Here is my thoughts on what seems supernatural to me.

A) Is the Universe infinite? How can it end somewhere?

B) How did the universe begin? I know some who have said "Big Bang", but honestly what was here before the Universe.

 

[Sarkus]

But that view does not make one a "staunch determinist", I don't think. To me, determinism vs. probability in quantum mechanics is not the same thing as determinism in religion, though I guess I don't know much about philosophy.

Maybe someone will take a moment to explain what is generally meant by that label, "staunch determinist", as it applies to both science and religion? Is it about religious views of people that "want" there to be hidden variables to support or "prove" some notion of God :shrug

"Staunch determinist" is really just a dedicated proponent of the idea, with no religious connotation.

And as I understand it, most religious people would not want there to be hidden variables, as it could possibly be perceived as a nail in the coffin of freewill as anything other than illusory. Although I'm sure theories would arise as to how genuine freewill could still exist.

A) Is the Universe infinite? How can it end somewhere?

Some would argue that it is indeed infinite, at least in size if not time. But it remains a mystery as to whether it truly is or not.

B) How did the universe begin?

No one knows for sure. It's a mystery.
Out of curiosity, how are these supernatural rather than merely mysterious?


In answer to the OP: nothing supernatural, but many things are mysterious, such as Time, Consciousness, and how Justin Beiber can be so popular.