Can the Laws of Nature be temporarily altered or suspended

[ytrewq]

Modern science is based on the assumption that the so-called Laws of Nature are fixed, and that temporary and/or localized variations or suspensions do not occur.

A supernatural event may be defined as one that could only occur if the Laws of Nature were temporarily altered or suspended, so the question being asked is essentially the same as whether supernatural events can occur.

Here are some examples of supernatural events under this definition.

(a) You are holding a heavy (10kg) stone. Suddenly you feel the stone become lighter, then weightless, then it starts pulling upwards. In surprise, you let go, and the stone falls upwards, away from the earth rather than towards it, and accelerates upwards into the sky and out of sight. In scientific terms, the Law of Gravitational Attraction has been temporarily altered (reversed) for this stone. Is this possible?

(b) A massive (3000kg, or 3 ton) tree branch has fallen on your child. Although the main weight has been taken on the ground, your child is nonetheless pinned between the branch and the ground, and screaming out that they cannot breath. You attempt to lift the branch, but it weighs 3000kg, so you cannot lift it, but of course you try anyway. Only a supernatural event can help you and save the life of your child. The Law of Gravity could be temporarily altered, so just for a few seconds, the branch weighed only 50kg. Is this possible? Alternatively, you could temporarily acquire superhuman strength, and for a few seconds be able to lift the 3000kg, which would normally snap your tendons or bones. Is this possible?

(c) Your mobile phone stops working, but there is nothing whatsoever physically wrong with it. Instead, one of the Laws of Physics that make computers work become temporarily altered or suspended such that your computer stops working. Is this possible?

All of the $100 notes in your wallet sponaneously change into $10 notes, or your gold ingot spontaneously changes into a steel ingot, etc. Is this possible?

In my opinion, the answer to all these questions must surely be NO. As far as science is concerend the answer most certainly is NO, for all of the scientific knowledge gained over the past 200 years depends on fundamental Laws of nature being stable and reproducible, at different times and in different locations. It would be either a brave or foolish person that would dismiss the past 200 years of scientific knowledge with a wave of the hand.

However, regardless of what science says, through human experience, the very society in which we live has de-facto already answered answered NO to questions of this type. For example, our legal system will not (and could not possibly) allow or dispute evidence on the basis of a supernatural event having occured. Society would simply disintegrate into chaos if we had to seriously entertain the possibility of all potential supernatural events. Futhermore, almost every modern machine from cars to phones to computers simply could not work unless the underlying physical Laws were totally rock solid and reliable. Imagine taking your brand new malfunctioning computer back to the store, only to be told 'I'm terribly sorry sir, but there is nothing physically wrong with your computer. Unfortunately for you, the Laws of Nature upon which it relies for it's operation are unstable. Although unusual, this can happen.' Of course, nobody believes this. Do you?

There is, of course, a temptation to make 'exceptions' for the suspension or alteration of the Laws of Nature, when doing so makes possible an event that you wish to believe is possible. This is really just hypocrisy and wishful thinking. If your pet beliefs are entitled to such an exception, then of course so are mine, and so are everone else's, including the pet beliefs of every crackpot under the sun. Logical debate ceases altogether. Unless we can find evidence to the contrary, and none has ever been found, then (perhaps unfortunately) we need to accept that the Laws of Nature cannot be suspended or altered just because we would like it to be so, and get on with life.

[ytrewq]

Ytrewq, you have not provided a credible source to support your earlier claim:
"Scientists unambiguously believe that these particular examples are impossible .... "
This is important because you have written your post to give the appearance of being firmly backed by science; but if you can't substantiate this claim, it will be clear that the appearance is an illusion disguising metaphysical opinions piggy-backing on scientific knowledge.

I'm sorry, but I did, by taking the example of the boiling point (BP) of water. Presumably we agree there are thousands of scientific references stating that the BP of water at standard atmospheric pressure is a constant of ~100 DegC, and we are not aware of even a single one of these references mentioning the possibility that it might sometimes be different by a large amount, such as boiling at 150 DegC.
If this is not a reflection of what scientists believe, then what is???
If scientists believed that there was a possibility, even a small one, that the BP was not a constant, then of course they would say so in the references, and they do not. End of story. Please do not try to tell that scientists somehow believe something and do not write it in the scientific literature.

So your 'confirmation' of your earlier claim is another claim: That scientists publish all of their beliefs in scientific literature?

You made a claim. Why are you so reluctant to provide a credible source to verify it? You know what a source is, don't you? It is not your personal verbal gymnastics. It is an external provider of reliable information regarding what you have asserted. If you don't have a credible source for your claim - if you are simply taking it for granted that scientists publish all of their beliefs in scientific literature - that's okay. You can say so.

Mithrae, This debate is descending into a farce, where it appears to me that you are desperately descending deeper and deeper into more and more nit-picking, philosophical nonsense.

I made a claim, and I stand by it, that scientists (meaning modern scientific belief) unambiguously rejects that the events that I gave as examples are possible, by which I meant, 'is not possible for all practical purposes' or 'is extremely unlikely'.

I made the valid and rather obvious point that it is easy enough to look at the scientific literature to know what science believes, as expressed at the top of this posting, and scientific references make no mention of the possibility that the BP of pure water at 1 atm might be as high as 150 DegC.

You did not deny this (because you couldn't), and instead descend into complete farce by telling me that we cannot judge scientific belief by reading scientific references and literature. Presumably you expect me to personally interview every scientist alive today, and ask them what they personally think, and to hell with what they have written. Sorry mate, but that is plain ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as claiming that your house can spontaneously transmutate into a completely different house, by means unknown, while you were not looking. And then claim that such a transmutation is not contrary to well established science!

There reaches a point where reasonable and logical debate cannot proceed, and for me you have reached it by claiming that we cannot reliably learn about current scientific belief by reading scientific references and literature. Why do you think that scientists publish their findings, results and conclusions??!! Forget it. It has been nice talking with you, and I thank you for some of the interesting points that you have raised.

I will happily continue our discussions if you have the honesty to admit that the example events that I gave are considered extremely unlikely (though to be fair, not impossible) according to very-well-established scientific belief, that can be found in any science textbook. I think you should also have the decency to concede that you have no evidence that any of the example events that I gave have ever been detected.

[Mithrae]

Science - like any academic/formal field of enquiry - operates according to certain methodological premises and constraints. I explained this very clearly in my last post, I think. Key to our discussion are these:
> That the properties of matter do not vary with time or location (your point)
> That theories must be testable or repeatable by observation and experimentation

These are extremely useful principles which have been consistently validated over the past few centuries. You challenged me to find in scientific literature something which contradicts those principles - specifically that water might possibly boil at 150 degrees, which to my knowledge has never yet been observed and without any expectation of repeatability. I'm not sure why you seem so upset when I've pointed out the problem with your challenge, the reason why it says nothing about the beliefs of scientists themselves, nor proves anything about whether the 'laws of nature' are descriptive or proscriptive.

You are attempting to turn science's supremely useful methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism. There are certainly many scientists who would share your beliefs on that point. There are also many scientists who believe that 'supernatural' events cannot be ruled out as possibilities, and even some who believe that specific miracles have indeed occurred.

You originally affirmed that -
"Scientists unanbiguously believe that these particular examples are impossible, with a certainty equal to the certainty that we can ever have in anything at all"
You appear to have shifted the focus to 'scientific beliefs' (whatever they are, if they're different from methodology, observations or theories) in the intervening posts and toned it down considerably, which I appreciate. But you've ignored the bulk of my post and chosen not to address the issue of whether methodological premises/constraints and the bulk of modern observations can be validly extrapolated as absolute truths, in contradiction to numerous alleged directly-observed exceptions.

You have not explained why you think your view is superior to mine. You've implied a 99.999% or more certainty that the 'laws of nature' describe 100% of events in reality. Until recently you have consistently used the word 'impossible,' said you knew it as certainly as you know anything, and described the probability of any exception as "so small that the event is not expected to happen in the age of the universe." I have suggested a 99% certainty that the 'laws of nature' can be justifiably relied on to accurately describe 99.999% or more of events in observable reality. While I don't know, I think it's probable that exceptions are possible, and I've repeatedly explained my reasoning. Obviously, you are making the greater claims of knowledge here (albeit with increasingly careful qualifiers), but you're apparently unwilling or unable to justify them as valid.

Instead you're continually attempting to challenge me to prove you wrong, and you continue to misrepresent me in your posting, for example that I -
"claim that such a transmutation is not contrary to well established science"
and
"that we cannot reliably learn about current scientific belief by reading scientific references and literature"

Under these circumstances, I think I would have to agree that the discussion has probably run its course.



Edit: In case anyone else reading this is interested, I myself have never experienced anything 'supernatural'; the few such experiences I would have described that way while I was a Christian I would now dismiss as coincidence and emotionalism. But as I've posted in other threads in the past, I do give some creedance to two of the various 'supernatural' claims I've heard from those I know. Both were from intelligent, level-headed friends (one studied medicine, the other law) who I knew for many years and with whom spent hundreds of hours discussing matters intellectual and mundane - and neither of them Christians Both alleged events would sit very poorly with a physicalist view of reality (one was of apparent telepathy or divination by a Buddhist monk, the other more akin to a ghost story) though I'm not sure that either of them would directly violate any 'laws of nature.'

It was from considering those two accounts - neither of which are certainly true and accurate, but neither of which I could easily hand-wave away - that I began to ponder the problems of dismissing out of hand all alleged reports of directly-observed 'supernatural' events, as I explained in post 40. Proponents of physicalism or naturalism might be comfortable making such huge assumptions as a consequence of their worldview, but I am not.

[dianaiad]

Modern science is based on the assumption that the so-called Laws of Nature are fixed, and that temporary and/or localized variations or suspensions do not occur.

A supernatural event may be defined as one that could only occur if the Laws of Nature were temporarily altered or suspended, so the question being asked is essentially the same as whether supernatural events can occur.

Here are some examples of supernatural events under this definition.

<snip to end>

None of the events you mention are impossible...NOR do they break or bend scientific principles (well, perhaps the demotion of the money, and even that seems to be something the government is rather good at without deity).

Just because an event SEEMS miraculous, and just because science can't explain it right now, it doesn't mean that the event is impossible. Your light rock, for instance; I can think of several reasons why it might jump out of your hands and fly up---without breaking the laws of gravity. We CAN transmute one element to another; it's more expensive than simply going out and getting the stuff we want in the first place, by a WHOLE bunch, but we can do it.

Pump enough adrenalin into someone and you have no idea how much weight someone can lift; I know this one personally, my mother and I having picked a truck up off of my father and pulled him out from underneath. The firemen who showed up couldn't lift the truck. That didn't break any natural laws either.

Oh yes, and people CAN walk on water, too. You just have to have the right shoes:



Oh, and virgins can give birth.

...........no breaking of scientific principles going on there, either.

Why is it that it is NON-believers that insist upon God breaking His own laws more than the believers do?

Just because we don't know all the laws doesn't mean that God is breaking them.

[ytrewq]

Science - like any academic/formal field of enquiry - operates according to certain methodological premises and constraints. I explained this very clearly in my last post, I think. Key to our discussion are these:
> That the properties of matter do not vary with time or location (your point)
> That theories must be testable or repeatable by observation and experimentation

These are extremely useful principles which have been consistently validated over the past few centuries. You challenged me to find in scientific literature something which contradicts those principles - specifically that water might possibly boil at 150 degrees, which to my knowledge has never yet been observed and without any expectation of repeatability. I'm not sure why you seem so upset when I've pointed out the problem with your challenge, the reason why it says nothing about the beliefs of scientists themselves, nor proves anything about whether the 'laws of nature' are descriptive or proscriptive.

You are attempting to turn science's supremely useful methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism. There are certainly many scientists who would share your beliefs on that point. There are also many scientists who believe that 'supernatural' events cannot be ruled out as possibilities, and even some who believe that specific miracles have indeed occurred.

You originally affirmed that -
"Scientists unanbiguously believe that these particular examples are impossible, with a certainty equal to the certainty that we can ever have in anything at all"
You appear to have shifted the focus to 'scientific beliefs' (whatever they are, if they're different from methodology, observations or theories) in the intervening posts and toned it down considerably, which I appreciate. But you've ignored the bulk of my post and chosen not to address the issue of whether methodological premises/constraints and the bulk of modern observations can be validly extrapolated as absolute truths, in contradiction to numerous alleged directly-observed exceptions.

You have not explained why you think your view is superior to mine. You've implied a 99.999% or more certainty that the 'laws of nature' describe 100% of events in reality. Until recently you have consistently used the word 'impossible,' said you knew it as certainly as you know anything, and described the probability of any exception as "so small that the event is not expected to happen in the age of the universe." I have suggested a 99% certainty that the 'laws of nature' can be justifiably relied on to accurately describe 99.999% or more of events in observable reality. While I don't know, I think it's probable that exceptions are possible, and I've repeatedly explained my reasoning. Obviously, you are making the greater claims of knowledge here (albeit with increasingly careful qualifiers), but you're apparently unwilling or unable to justify them as valid.

Instead you're continually attempting to challenge me to prove you wrong, and you continue to misrepresent me in your posting, for example that I -
"claim that such a transmutation is not contrary to well established science"
and
"that we cannot reliably learn about current scientific belief by reading scientific references and literature"

Under these circumstances, I think I would have to agree that the discussion has probably run its course.



Edit: In case anyone else reading this is interested, I myself have never experienced anything 'supernatural'; the few such experiences I would have described that way while I was a Christian I would now dismiss as coincidence and emotionalism. But as I've posted in other threads in the past, I do give some creedance to two of the various 'supernatural' claims I've heard from those I know. Both were from intelligent, level-headed friends (one studied medicine, the other law) who I knew for many years and with whom spent hundreds of hours discussing matters intellectual and mundane - and neither of them Christians Both alleged events would sit very poorly with a physicalist view of reality (one was of apparent telepathy or divination by a Buddhist monk, the other more akin to a ghost story) though I'm not sure that either of them would directly violate any 'laws of nature.'

It was from considering those two accounts - neither of which are certainly true and accurate, but neither of which I could easily hand-wave away - that I began to ponder the problems of dismissing out of hand all alleged reports of directly-observed 'supernatural' events, as I explained in post 40. Proponents of physicalism or naturalism might be comfortable making such huge assumptions as a consequence of their worldview, but I am not.

Mithrae, I suggest we make a fresh start, for the topic itself is interesting.

I like to cover one point at a time, which is largely why I have not addressed some of your points.

Also, please note that the examples I gave were always intended as specific (not general) examples, carefully chosen to violate unusually well established and accepted Laws and properties of matter, in a particularly blatant and unambiguous manner.

All I wanted to say, at least initially, was that if any of these specific examples were apparently observed to actually occur, then either modern science is in a heck of a lot of trouble (turned on it's head would not be too strong an expression), or the claimed observation is in a heck of a lot of trouble.

IMHO it would be fair to say that anyone who thinks they are about to turn 200 years of modern science on it's head had better have very good evidence. That does not mean it is technically impossible and it does not mean that all 'supernaturalish' claims will be in this category.

Also, we need to be clear about a very well accepted principle in debating, that in general it is impossible to prove a negative, such as proving that fairies do not exist, or proving that water can never boil at 150 DegC. I won't insult you by explaining (again) why this is so. I was surprised and diappointed that you abused (or maybe did not understand) this principle by saying I had made some kind of admission that supported your case, whereas in fact I was politely pointing out that it is impossible to prove a negative in general, and that therefore it is absurd to ask me to do so. I correctly pointed out that I had provided a considerable amount of evidence to show that the occurence of the specific events was extremely unlikely, and that you had provided little or no evidence to show that these specific events had ever occured, or given reason why we would expect them to. Given the relative weights of evidence provided, I maintain that we should reasonably conclude that the occurence of these specific events that I gave as examples is extremely unlikely and, if true, modern science would be in a lot of trouble.

If I used exaggerated wording then I apologize.

How about we let bygones be bygones, stop stroking our egos by trying to 'score points', and discuss the pair of specific 'supernatural' events that you think there could be a real chance are true. I promise not to 'haul you over the coals' here, because a claim such as mental telepathy does not directly and unambiguously require the suspension or alteration of well etablished scientific Laws or properties of matter.

[Mithrae]

Also, we need to be clear about a very well accepted principle in debating, that in general it is impossible to prove a negative, such as proving that fairies do not exist, or proving that water can never boil at 150 DegC. I won't insult you by explaining (again) why this is so. I was surprised and diappointed that you abused (or maybe did not understand) this principle by saying I had made some kind of admission that supported your case, whereas in fact I was politely pointing out that it is impossible to prove a negative in general, and that therefore it is absurd to ask me to do so.

If you knew in advance - and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough that you did - that you could never demonstrate that the 'laws of nature' cannot be temporarily altered or suspended, what exactly was the point of this thread?

You're saying that it was absurd of me to ask you to support your claim.

You should be saying that it was absurd for you to claim knowledge "with a certainty equal to the certainty that we can ever have in anything at all" that these things are impossible.

Extremely unlikely? Yes, that's obvious. Unlikely in the order of once a decade? Once a century? Once a millenium? I don't know; maybe never at all, particularly the direct and blatant contradictions of the 'laws of nature' you've been careful to define. In the order of once in the lifetime of species, or the planet, or the universe? That's a claim you'd need to justify.


I'm not interested in discussing specifics of my friends' experiences, and 2nd-hand anecdotal evidence has quite limited value in any case. I've taken a position that exceptions to current scientific understanding are probably possible - or put more precisely, that it's improbable we can adequately understand reality so as to justifiably rule out their possibility - and I've explained my reasoning for this suspicion. You have not contested it.

You've taken a position either that the quite limited 'acceptable' observations of recent centuries can be validly extrapolated as general truisms, or that scientific methodological naturalism can be extrapolated as a description of reality in general (metaphysical naturalism). If there's some other way you reached the conclusions evident in your comments, let me know. Otherwise, you have obviously not justified either of these approaches.

I note that you are (again) making a grandiose appeal to consequences, an unsubstantiated assertion that modern science would be "turned on its head" if any exceptions were possible. I thought I'd made it clear that I'm even less interested in that absurd hyperbole than you are in philosophy.

You can stroke your ego if you want to, gets me all hot when you do that But as far as I can tell you simply have no case to make, or you would've done so by now.

[olavisjo]

...or proving that water can never boil at 150 DegC. I won't insult you by explaining (again) why this is so.

Water will boil at 150° C when it is at 69 psi or so.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boili ... d_926.html

[ytrewq]

...or proving that water can never boil at 150 DegC. I won't insult you by explaining (again) why this is so.

Water will boil at 150° C when it is at 69 psi or so.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boili ... d_926.html

Yes, we are all aware of that. Please read my previous postings, where it was made abundantly clear that we are referring to pure water at 1 standard atmosphere (101325 Pa) of pressure.

[ytrewq]

I note that you are (again) making a grandiose appeal to consequences, an unsubstantiated assertion that modern science would be "turned on its head" if any exceptions were possible. I thought I'd made it clear that I'm even less interested in that absurd hyperbole than you are in philosophy.

No, that is not quite what I said. What I actually said was that if the particular blatant examples that I gave were observed to actually occur, then science would be turned on it's head. Note also that I am not just talking about consistent, repeatable exceptions to very well established scientific laws and properties of matter, but the violation of the scientific premise that these laws and properties are stable. Taken together, this would indeed turn modern science on it's head.

I realize that you are not in the slightest bit interested in knowing this, because it conflicts with your pet beliefs, but that does not alter the truth of my statement.

In contrast, the reason I am little interested in philosophy and metaphysics is because of their very poor record of gaining useful knowledge. Philosophers argue and discuss for centuries about whether we exist or have free will (and are not certain to this day!), but there is precious little useful knowledge that has ever come from philosophy in the last 2000 years.

By comparison, science and the scientific method have been spectacularly successful in gaining real knowledge, knowledge that describes the world around us, and makes accurate predictions. There is still much to be learned, and perhaps much that we can never learn, but that does not alter the remarkable achievements made already by science, and the notably small amount of knowledge to ever come out of philosophy. The computer (or other device) that you use to contribute to this forum did not come about through knowledge gained by philosophy.

[TheTruth101]

I note that you are (again) making a grandiose appeal to consequences, an unsubstantiated assertion that modern science would be "turned on its head" if any exceptions were possible. I thought I'd made it clear that I'm even less interested in that absurd hyperbole than you are in philosophy.

No, that is not quite what I said. What I actually said was that if the particular blatant examples that I gave were observed to actually occur, then science would be turned on it's head. Note also that I am not just talking about consistent, repeatable exceptions to very well established scientific laws and properties of matter, but the violation of the scientific premise that these laws and properties are stable. Taken together, this would indeed turn modern science on it's head.

I realize that you are not in the slightest bit interested in knowing this, because it conflicts with your pet beliefs, but that does not alter the truth of my statement.

In contrast, the reason I am little interested in philosophy and metaphysics is because of their very poor record of gaining useful knowledge. Philosophers argue and discuss for centuries about whether we exist or have free will (and are not certain to this day!), but there is precious little useful knowledge that has ever come from philosophy in the last 2000 years.

By comparison, science and the scientific method have been spectacularly successful in gaining real knowledge, knowledge that describes the world around us, and makes accurate predictions. There is still much to be learned, and perhaps much that we can never learn, but that does not alter the remarkable achievements made already by science, and the notably small amount of knowledge to ever come out of philosophy. The computer (or other device) that you use to contribute to this forum did not come about through knowledge gained by philosophy.

I got another one for you. Refer to this thread,
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22391 (upto 0:36)

You can clearly see the film has NOT been edited and has added numerous angles and super slow motion to prove it as a true claim. Now, you can clearly see the object dissapearing inour eyes when it travels, in which it would ultimately mean it is going PAST the SPEED OF LIGHT which our eyes cant catch. It's defying all of our current understanding of physics and can be considered a supernatural phenomena.

If you can somehow rent the movie "Fire in the Sky" (Since its based on true story), it can very well mean that you are actually seeing Angels in action (Since biblical prophets spoke of UFOs as well, Ezkiel and Elijah) and the main character was abducted by Angels pretty much. And from what I remember it wasnt a pleasent "experience" from him and crippled him for life.

Thats' why it says in the Bible, Fear God.

[Mithrae]

I note that you are (again) making a grandiose appeal to consequences, an unsubstantiated assertion that modern science would be "turned on its head" if any exceptions were possible. I thought I'd made it clear that I'm even less interested in that absurd hyperbole than you are in philosophy.

No, that is not quite what I said. What I actually said was that if the particular blatant examples that I gave were observed to actually occur, then science would be turned on it's head. Note also that I am not just talking about consistent, repeatable exceptions to very well established scientific laws and properties of matter, but the violation of the scientific premise that these laws and properties are stable. Taken together, this would indeed turn modern science on it's head.

My apologies. I agree that "consistent, repeatable exceptions to very well established scientific laws and properties of matter" would present a very significant challenge for scientists. That's not what I had been talking about of course, but I think we're agreed to call it quits on that discussion.

I realize that you are not in the slightest bit interested in knowing this, because it conflicts with your pet beliefs, but that does not alter the truth of my statement.

You're welcome to believe that, and I guess I deserve it. In the sober light of day my post last night was a little more scathing and considerably less funny than I'd intended at the time.

In contrast, the reason I am little interested in philosophy and metaphysics is because of their very poor record of gaining useful knowledge. Philosophers argue and discuss for centuries about whether we exist or have free will (and are not certain to this day!), but there is precious little useful knowledge that has ever come from philosophy in the last 2000 years.

Physics, biology and psychology are a few notable disciplines to have come out of philosophy as their empirical methodologies became more robust. Logic, ethics and political philosophy have remained very significant and influential branches of philosophy through the modern era. Out of interest, do you know the name of Isaac Newton's famous work in which his laws of motion and gravitation were described?

We could claim most major branches of modern science as specific, rigorous branches of natural philosophy as validly as we could claim all that's been learned in recent millenia for science. Both types of one-upmanship would be equally petty, in my opinion. They're both just ways of seeking answers to mankind's questions. Scientific disciplines emerged as distinct from philosophy because they focus on specifically empirical questions and answers; but all too many people seem to think they can now ignore questions of epistemology and assume that science can answer all earlier metaphysical questions. Instead that's often an approach which simply adopts philosophical positions in the name of 'science' without really understanding them, in my experience at least