-0+ wrote:A character in a computer game is controlled to some extent by the program (which may be viewed as controlling the nature of the character's universe) and it may or may not also be controlled to some extent by a player (who may be viewed as supernatural, existing beyond the nature of the character's universe, not controlled by the program). How can this character tell if any particular command it experiences is controlled by the program or the player? Even if the command indicates it is from the player, it could actually be from the program, and vice versa. How can the character tell for sure either way?
This is easy.
But only if the character has a way of establishing the rules of what the program does.
And that assumption is further strengthened by the other assumption, that the program's actions are repeatable and predictable; and the human's actions are random.
Possessing these two assumptions, the character, in time, can separate the random from the predictable.
Your dilemma still stays; the human who controls the game as well as the program, can be acting consistently, on purpose.
In this case the character could not tell the difference between the features in the game that are human-(i.e., by analogy, supernaturally) driven, and program- (i.e., by analogy, naturally) driven.
However. If the human is consistently consistent, then the paradigm of "consistency" and "predictability" can sub for "program" or "natural". And the characteristic of "random" can still apply to the human, in a hypothetically metaphysically connected way.
The human stays not random, and always predictable, means to the character in the game, IN PRACTICAL terms, that there is no supernatural forces present.
---------------
If one could show that there are supernatural forces acting on things in the universe, then we would find scenarios where things would happen in an unexpected way. This is when a pencil, a ruler, and a chair would fall downward in a room, but an apple and a teacher would fall upward. This does not happen, so we say with confidence, there is no supernatural forces acting in the room.
If we examine all claims that involve supernatural forces, then we find that there were no supernatural forces.
But one could still claim that the teacher actually fell upwards, or was going to be made to fall upward, by a supernatural force, but the same supernatural force instead made her fall downward, because that was the fancy of the supernatural at the moment. If the supernatural made the teacher fall down (and not gravitational attraction), consistently and in the same way as if gravity made her, then the supernatural would not be visible, and physics would not be able to tell the difference between her falling due to gravity and due to supernatural forces. So the supernatural forces would not be detected, and if they never get detected, then they can be ignored.
We must at one point commit to one side (supernatural forces exist) or to the other side (supernatural forces don't exist) in order to establish a policy of how to proceed, and not for any other reason. The policy which the scientific part of mankind adopted is that there are no supernatural forces. This allows them with confidence to proceed with their examinations of nature. If their ideology was clouded by "but it could be explained by the act of the supernatural", then the scientists could stretch, yawn, and give up their jobs, in futility.
One may make the claim that the unknown things in nature (the nature of mass or gravity, or the nature of perception or soul or self-awareness) is explicable only by assuming the presence of the supernatural. This is fine and dandy, perfectly allowed by logic (where -0+'s criticism applies as per the first part of the criticism of my claim) and is completely unconducive to furthering empirical human knowledge of the nature of the universe, things, laws, and events.
So the committing to the scientific assumption of no supernatural thingies is not logically necessary, and its validity can't be logically proven, but it has tremendous practical value.
Of course you, +0-, did not refute this, which I fully realize. This very post was left by me to show you that while you are right in your criticism in logical ways, there are still reasons, valid reasons, albeit not necessarily valid reasons in an a priori logical manner, why the scientific community assumes there are no supernatural in the actions of things in the known universe.
-- Updated 2017 July 27th, 7:25 am to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:
Please let us refrain from equating science with atheism. One has nothing to do with the other and only gives science problematic reputation by faulty association. Science is a tool of thought and methodology of process to explain reality not a philosophical toy to manipulate pseudo scientific assertions of belief.
Atheism? Who talked about god or atheism? You did ? I did? Nobody did.
I don't know why all of a sudden you pulled god or the lack of it into this.
Supernatural does not start or end with god. There are many aspects of God that are not supernatural, (and many that are) and there are many aspects of the supernatural that have nothing to do with God (while there are many that do.)
So cut that out, will ya?
-- Updated 2017 July 27th, 7:31 am to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:There is a great difference in knowing and understanding. A blind may know of color red but never will he understand it.
So I gather from this that you understand the colour red.
What is the underlying meaning (which you understand) of the colour red? Pray tell us.
Because I am a seeing being, I see colours properly (tested for it when I applied for a cartographic scriber position) and yet I don't see any meaning in the colour red, or yet I don't understand the colour red.
You want to have an interesting conversation, fine, you said that, but you still have to work with the confines of the language. If you can't express a thought properly so it is unambiguous or at least not nonsensical (like a "meaning of red") then please don't say it. It destroys the quality in the level of conversation.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.