> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Richard Brodie
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 9:17 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: No! This is rationality. was metaphysics 001 for
> TV brains
> RE: virus: Rationality in the Cave
>
>
> Carl,
>
> The questionable plank in your metaphysics is the following:
>
> <<1. All things that have real existence conform to natural
> laws. Nothing is
> separate from or superior to what are considered natural laws. Thus
> supernatural things cannot exist.>>
>
> It is more accurate to say the following:
>
> "Natural laws" are extremely accurate models of what we
> perceive goes on in
> the universe. When something violates a "natural law," it indicates an
> imperfection in our model.
>
I was taking "natural laws" in stride to make what seemed the more important
point. "Natural laws" are nothing more or less than strong hypothesis. I
totally agree with the formulation you have used as a description of both
what "natural laws" do and the primary means by which they are updated in
order to cover new or improved observations or realizations.
On the other hand, "All things that have real existence conform to natural laws." applies and is true. Real things are always subject to them. If for example, somebody claims a thing to be "real" when it claims to be a "perpetual energy machine" then I would lay strong odds that a "little heat death" awaits the idea and entropy will defeat it. This is much more likely than our needing to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics and relativity. I am not suggesting that our understanding of "natural law" is perfect, just that the probability of any single person overturning any significant portion of it is rather low. When you bring something to me that conforms to "natural law" I will not question it nearly as hard (I don't need to, many others have done that for years) as when you bring something to me that requires the laws to be rewritten. Strange claims need strong evidence.
The above was useful but a digression to the primary thought. The approach I was taking was didactic based on the exact meaning of supernatural. The primary meaning of supernatural is defined (Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus) as: of, pertaining to, or caused by forces separate from or superior to what are considered natural laws. I was saying that "real" things are always subject to "natural laws". That based purely on the definition that "real" supernatural things could not exist.
> <<As the old song goes, "It ain't necessarily so",>>
>
> It ain't necessarily so.
> It ain't necessarily so.
> The things that you're liable
> To read in the Bible
> It ain't necessarily so.
>
I rather like it.
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
> Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
> Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>
TheHermit