Thoughts on the Spirits of Old
My conception of magic was that it is a process of being a conduit, so like a conductive metal in a circuit, mixed with willpower: willing an often elemental force to occur. As such I often consider being able to do stuff, the 'get shit done' being as thereby being slightly magical. Mostly becuase I cannot always fathom how that person can have the will to do such and such a thing.
So expanding on that point the Spirits of Old could be considered beings willed into existence, as little more than a token symbol for a certain feeling that a person feels. The reason these creatures cannot be seen by others and identified and examined is because they do not exist: the product of an individuals mind rather than an quantifiable thing. Its like when someone is in love or sees life through rose tinted glasses: reality is distorted for them. They do not necessarily achieve a different plane, or access a higher power, but merely seeing the same thing but in a different way.
Some fallacious blanketing to end with. In Religion it is 'I believe', in Science it is 'I know', and in Philosophy it is 'I think'. And in communication it is always lost slightly.
So expanding on that point the Spirits of Old could be considered beings willed into existence, as little more than a token symbol for a certain feeling that a person feels. The reason these creatures cannot be seen by others and identified and examined is because they do not exist: the product of an individuals mind rather than an quantifiable thing. Its like when someone is in love or sees life through rose tinted glasses: reality is distorted for them. They do not necessarily achieve a different plane, or access a higher power, but merely seeing the same thing but in a different way.
Some fallacious blanketing to end with. In Religion it is 'I believe', in Science it is 'I know', and in Philosophy it is 'I think'. And in communication it is always lost slightly.
@ Harpalycus
the premise of this discussion as I understand it is about our thoughts on the existence of what are now presumed mythical creatures. though it would seem now to be leaning more towards something entirely different.
....... ....... ....... ....... ....
however, on point of the original question I think that the idea of the magic attributed to creatures stemmed from imagination, that is not to say a creature did not look akin to some of the images put forward by artists. the Kistune for example looks a lot like a fox
that said, lets look at the Phoenix, a mythical bird that can ( among other things) burst into flames and renew itself. is this beyond the means of earthly dwellers ? well certainly humans have been known to burst into flames but none have renewed themselves that I can account, but again I draw your attention to the immortal jellyfish who can renew themselves. so perhaps the phoenix may after all have at least had the ability .(.or just plain bad luck ) to burst into flames and just maybe they could renew themselves afterwards
these are my thoughts, and I am well aware science does not back them up
the premise of this discussion as I understand it is about our thoughts on the existence of what are now presumed mythical creatures. though it would seem now to be leaning more towards something entirely different.
....... ....... ....... ....... ....
however, on point of the original question I think that the idea of the magic attributed to creatures stemmed from imagination, that is not to say a creature did not look akin to some of the images put forward by artists. the Kistune for example looks a lot like a fox
that said, lets look at the Phoenix, a mythical bird that can ( among other things) burst into flames and renew itself. is this beyond the means of earthly dwellers ? well certainly humans have been known to burst into flames but none have renewed themselves that I can account, but again I draw your attention to the immortal jellyfish who can renew themselves. so perhaps the phoenix may after all have at least had the ability .(.or just plain bad luck ) to burst into flames and just maybe they could renew themselves afterwards
these are my thoughts, and I am well aware science does not back them up
Think very hard about the difference between magical creatures and creatures created by magic...
Some light reading on the subject
mercedes laceys serrated edge series and the bedlams bard correlary
Dead bodies of magical creatures dead at the portal
Living creatures formed by magic that wander away from the portal...
These would inform mythology
Even if magic doesnt work here, if the many worlds hypothosis holds, then there is the correlary that writers dreams are links to those worlds this would be how we would have an inkling of how magic works... when and where it does
As for why psionics would be linked to negative survival traits... i take it you do not watch much tv...
Some light reading on the subject
mercedes laceys serrated edge series and the bedlams bard correlary
Dead bodies of magical creatures dead at the portal
Living creatures formed by magic that wander away from the portal...
These would inform mythology
Even if magic doesnt work here, if the many worlds hypothosis holds, then there is the correlary that writers dreams are links to those worlds this would be how we would have an inkling of how magic works... when and where it does
As for why psionics would be linked to negative survival traits... i take it you do not watch much tv...
I am sorry, but a great deal needs to be clarified. To those of you with a life I wouldn’t bother even starting.
Snugglebuck has the right to withdraw from the debate but it seems that what he said lingers on, so I will comment.
1. His ‘recognition’ of my ‘transparent’ motives seems somewhat odd, in that I have never disguised my philosophical world view, nor should have the need to. It is specified in my profile.
2. I am not sure what he thinks my motive is. The language suggests something slightly underhand. So I will clarify. I have no problem with personal belief, but personal beliefs, when put into a public arena, should be open to analysis and criticism. If claims are made then they should be tested. That is how we rationally test our own world view and it is philosophically right and proper that we should so do, so long as we are prepared to accept valid criticism and change our mind accordingly. That is a difficult thing to do, and I am probably no better at it than others, but I do try and have shifted position dramatically, in the past, when obliged to do so by convincing argument and strong evidence. I hold to the philosophical position that all knowledge is provisional, there is no ‘absolute’ truth available to us and therefore one should always be prepared to follow where the evidence leads.
3. This particular strand of the debate was about factual claims which I considered, and still do, with good reason I believe, to be wrong. Pointing this out does not seem to me, to be reprehensible in any way.
4. The description of me as an atheist is perfectly sound and I am happy to accept it, but the description of me as nihilistic is pejorative, unsubstantiated and simply false.
5. I may be an appalling poet, I profess no musical talent and I make no claims to be a Don Juan. But the claim is risible. That an atheist should necessarily be wanting in those departments seems to be a classic logical non sequitur Perhaps it was an unfortunate joke of sorts.
To Kou Indigo.
1. Where on earth do you get the idea that I believe in nothing? The manufacture of straw men seems to be a cottage industry in this forum.
2. It takes as much faith to disbelieve as to believe. I completely reject this rather stale and undeservedly popular idea. Faith is ‘belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence’ which is as good a dictionary definition as any. There is a clear asymmetry. I rest my beliefs on reason, evidence and coherence. I may be inept at doing so, I may be spectacularly wrong, but they are not based on faith. They are open to modification at any time. If the evidence and weight of argument justifies it.
3. You then set about building your straw man with enthusiasm. I suggest that you think about that claim. To believe in nothing I would argue is as impossible as is Pyrrhonian scepticism. What you are really saying is that I don’t happen to believe in your set of beliefs. And with good reasons, in my view. Obviously not in yours. Your certainty does, indeed, seem to be faith. But a blind man does not need faith to believe the sighted’s description of the sky. It is the best explanation that fits the facts. The fact that he has organs that do not seem to work, that others can predict things where he cannot and therefore have some ability that he lacks, that different people at different times describe the same thing to him, that there is no credible reason why everybody else should be lying to him, and that it would require a vast and incomprehensible conspiracy leads him to a reasoned conclusion. Not a faith based one.
4. You are arguing with and criticising my (supposed) beliefs, which you have every right to do. But it is disingenuous to regard someone who has the temerity to take issue with yours as immediately taking up a position of superiority and equated pejoratively with jihads etc. It is interesting that the examples are all faith based. You have had the gift of divine gnosis bestowed upon you and you are a ‘a divine being in mortal form’ and you criticise me for ‘superiority’????
5. Even science requires faith. Nonsense. Science requires provisional acceptance of the assumption that the universe is a lawful place that can be understood by a certain approach and methodology. Scientists believe in science because it works. If it stopped working, if the universe became a place of random occurrences that could not be patterned and predicted you would not find any scientists.
6. ‘That is how I see these matters anyway and I will never change my viewpoint.’ I think that adequately sums up the difference between our philosophical positions.
To Viddax.
1. I agree entirely with your summation of much of the problem being perspectivalism.
2. I take slight issue with your summary however. Science is not ‘I know,’ but ‘I think I know.’ There is a world of difference between the two positions.
To Craicdealer.
1. Just as a matter of interest. We know of nothing that is immortal. Even as individual organisms we change through life so we are not the same being. Bacteria have always been ‘immortal’ in the sense of the ‘jelly fish’s immortality, but are still subject to the accidents of life and the irresistible force of evolution. Inevitable death is an attribute of ‘higher organisms’ and is inextricably bound up with the advantages of sexual reproduction. Jellyfish do reproduce sexually and die. I think perhaps that you are thinking of something like the infamous Portuguese Man o’War, which is not a true multicellular animal but a colony of individual cells and is therefore equivalent to a bacterium in its replication.
2. As to the phoenix, the creation of mythical creatures does not require exact correspondences. The whole point of human creativity is that it juxtaposes different elements of the known to create a new and original concept. Put bird and combustion and regeneration together and you have a phoenix.
To HHM
1. I have thought about the difference. But if magic did not work in this universe then how could a magical creature exist in it or return to its own universe. If the living creatures are magically created but not magical then they could, hypothetically’ wander through this ‘portal’. But what happens then? It cannot magically disappear or magically return to its own reality. Moreover the overwhelming ‘evidence’ of those who believe in such creatures is that they have magical powers. It seems a case of wanting your cake and eating it. If these creatures are magical then magic can occur in our universe and is open to scientific investigation. If they are not magical then the overwhelming number of stories about them are manifestly false and you are left with little reason to believe in them.
2. Actually I never watch TV. And I do not find hypotheses based on the imaginative ideas of the entertainment industry a sound basis for credibility.
Wow, now I’m tired…..
Snugglebuck has the right to withdraw from the debate but it seems that what he said lingers on, so I will comment.
1. His ‘recognition’ of my ‘transparent’ motives seems somewhat odd, in that I have never disguised my philosophical world view, nor should have the need to. It is specified in my profile.
2. I am not sure what he thinks my motive is. The language suggests something slightly underhand. So I will clarify. I have no problem with personal belief, but personal beliefs, when put into a public arena, should be open to analysis and criticism. If claims are made then they should be tested. That is how we rationally test our own world view and it is philosophically right and proper that we should so do, so long as we are prepared to accept valid criticism and change our mind accordingly. That is a difficult thing to do, and I am probably no better at it than others, but I do try and have shifted position dramatically, in the past, when obliged to do so by convincing argument and strong evidence. I hold to the philosophical position that all knowledge is provisional, there is no ‘absolute’ truth available to us and therefore one should always be prepared to follow where the evidence leads.
3. This particular strand of the debate was about factual claims which I considered, and still do, with good reason I believe, to be wrong. Pointing this out does not seem to me, to be reprehensible in any way.
4. The description of me as an atheist is perfectly sound and I am happy to accept it, but the description of me as nihilistic is pejorative, unsubstantiated and simply false.
5. I may be an appalling poet, I profess no musical talent and I make no claims to be a Don Juan. But the claim is risible. That an atheist should necessarily be wanting in those departments seems to be a classic logical non sequitur Perhaps it was an unfortunate joke of sorts.
To Kou Indigo.
1. Where on earth do you get the idea that I believe in nothing? The manufacture of straw men seems to be a cottage industry in this forum.
2. It takes as much faith to disbelieve as to believe. I completely reject this rather stale and undeservedly popular idea. Faith is ‘belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence’ which is as good a dictionary definition as any. There is a clear asymmetry. I rest my beliefs on reason, evidence and coherence. I may be inept at doing so, I may be spectacularly wrong, but they are not based on faith. They are open to modification at any time. If the evidence and weight of argument justifies it.
3. You then set about building your straw man with enthusiasm. I suggest that you think about that claim. To believe in nothing I would argue is as impossible as is Pyrrhonian scepticism. What you are really saying is that I don’t happen to believe in your set of beliefs. And with good reasons, in my view. Obviously not in yours. Your certainty does, indeed, seem to be faith. But a blind man does not need faith to believe the sighted’s description of the sky. It is the best explanation that fits the facts. The fact that he has organs that do not seem to work, that others can predict things where he cannot and therefore have some ability that he lacks, that different people at different times describe the same thing to him, that there is no credible reason why everybody else should be lying to him, and that it would require a vast and incomprehensible conspiracy leads him to a reasoned conclusion. Not a faith based one.
4. You are arguing with and criticising my (supposed) beliefs, which you have every right to do. But it is disingenuous to regard someone who has the temerity to take issue with yours as immediately taking up a position of superiority and equated pejoratively with jihads etc. It is interesting that the examples are all faith based. You have had the gift of divine gnosis bestowed upon you and you are a ‘a divine being in mortal form’ and you criticise me for ‘superiority’????
5. Even science requires faith. Nonsense. Science requires provisional acceptance of the assumption that the universe is a lawful place that can be understood by a certain approach and methodology. Scientists believe in science because it works. If it stopped working, if the universe became a place of random occurrences that could not be patterned and predicted you would not find any scientists.
6. ‘That is how I see these matters anyway and I will never change my viewpoint.’ I think that adequately sums up the difference between our philosophical positions.
To Viddax.
1. I agree entirely with your summation of much of the problem being perspectivalism.
2. I take slight issue with your summary however. Science is not ‘I know,’ but ‘I think I know.’ There is a world of difference between the two positions.
To Craicdealer.
1. Just as a matter of interest. We know of nothing that is immortal. Even as individual organisms we change through life so we are not the same being. Bacteria have always been ‘immortal’ in the sense of the ‘jelly fish’s immortality, but are still subject to the accidents of life and the irresistible force of evolution. Inevitable death is an attribute of ‘higher organisms’ and is inextricably bound up with the advantages of sexual reproduction. Jellyfish do reproduce sexually and die. I think perhaps that you are thinking of something like the infamous Portuguese Man o’War, which is not a true multicellular animal but a colony of individual cells and is therefore equivalent to a bacterium in its replication.
2. As to the phoenix, the creation of mythical creatures does not require exact correspondences. The whole point of human creativity is that it juxtaposes different elements of the known to create a new and original concept. Put bird and combustion and regeneration together and you have a phoenix.
To HHM
1. I have thought about the difference. But if magic did not work in this universe then how could a magical creature exist in it or return to its own universe. If the living creatures are magically created but not magical then they could, hypothetically’ wander through this ‘portal’. But what happens then? It cannot magically disappear or magically return to its own reality. Moreover the overwhelming ‘evidence’ of those who believe in such creatures is that they have magical powers. It seems a case of wanting your cake and eating it. If these creatures are magical then magic can occur in our universe and is open to scientific investigation. If they are not magical then the overwhelming number of stories about them are manifestly false and you are left with little reason to believe in them.
2. Actually I never watch TV. And I do not find hypotheses based on the imaginative ideas of the entertainment industry a sound basis for credibility.
Wow, now I’m tired…..
yes, if science was a unified entity then there would be no need for faith in it. exact science is by definition exact but scientists can’t agree on a lot of stuff. black holes have been proven and dis-proven countless times as recently as last month. as indeed E =Mc2 was shattered in Geneva some years ago. so there is some amount of faith required, yes ?
That is exactly why they are NOT faith positions. Because when anomalies occur scientists shift their position for a better understanding. They do not deny the evidence, explain it away with ad hoc excuses, or simply ignore it. They look for a better theory. But you must be careful about reading some of the more lurid accounts. E=mc2 was not shattered in Geneva. The evidence that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light needs first to be thoroughly confirmed. Can it be replicated (I believe that it has been) is it an experimental artefact (I do not know whether that had been completely ruled out) and then, what does it mean. It does not mean that Einstein was wrong. It probably means that modifications will have to be made, just as Newtonian physics are not wrong, but had to be 'extended' by Einsteinian relativity. It would be amazing if the mass energy equivalence is wrong as our understanding of the sun and particle physics would be totally wrong. However, if it was shown to be wrong, scientists would look for alternative theories. Where is the faith? All scientific theories are provisional. Look at the so-called paradigm shifts, heliocentricity, the nature of life, evolutionary theory, the periodic table, relativity, plate tectonics, the Big Bang, quantum mechanics. All were completely new understandings of the nature of the world.
I do not understand your point that if science was a unified entity there would be no need for faith. I would be astonished if there is any bona fide scientist in the world who does not accept that the earth is a planet in space orbiting a star. Parts of science are as unified as anything could be. Whether a scientist is part of such a unified position or at the boundaries of science squabbling with his or her colleagues about string theory, every scientist accepts that they could be wrong and faith is required by neither. Science is the very antithesis of faith.
I was discussing religion with two believers recently and one challenged me as to what would make me change my mind about the existence of God. It was easy. 'Convincing evidence and arguments,' I replied, 'What would make you doubt the existence of God?'
'Nothing,' he replied honestly and stoutly.
Now that is faith.
I do not understand your point that if science was a unified entity there would be no need for faith. I would be astonished if there is any bona fide scientist in the world who does not accept that the earth is a planet in space orbiting a star. Parts of science are as unified as anything could be. Whether a scientist is part of such a unified position or at the boundaries of science squabbling with his or her colleagues about string theory, every scientist accepts that they could be wrong and faith is required by neither. Science is the very antithesis of faith.
I was discussing religion with two believers recently and one challenged me as to what would make me change my mind about the existence of God. It was easy. 'Convincing evidence and arguments,' I replied, 'What would make you doubt the existence of God?'
'Nothing,' he replied honestly and stoutly.
Now that is faith.
yes, that would be what I referred to as exact science, science that could only be denied by a buffoon. that said, there is now evidence that the planets in our solar system don't simply revolve around the sun in a circle, they spiral.
I'm not sure if 'needing modifications' couldn't be a scientific way of saying we got it wrong, if it's not exactly right, or right up to a point then surly in an environment where fact and math equations are paramount then it is wrong ? I believe the experiment was replicated at least once
getting back to the mythical creatures, there is a phenomenon in Thailand that occurs once a year where fireballs shoot out of some river there. the Naga fireballs so far cannot be explained by science but can readily be explained by locals who say its the breath of some dragon.
I'm not saying they're right, there must be some explanation but in the absence of a solid scientific explanation for phenomena like that it falls under 'unexplained' yet it is explained however wishy washy the explanation is
I'm not sure if 'needing modifications' couldn't be a scientific way of saying we got it wrong, if it's not exactly right, or right up to a point then surly in an environment where fact and math equations are paramount then it is wrong ? I believe the experiment was replicated at least once
getting back to the mythical creatures, there is a phenomenon in Thailand that occurs once a year where fireballs shoot out of some river there. the Naga fireballs so far cannot be explained by science but can readily be explained by locals who say its the breath of some dragon.
I'm not saying they're right, there must be some explanation but in the absence of a solid scientific explanation for phenomena like that it falls under 'unexplained' yet it is explained however wishy washy the explanation is
Of course we got it wrong, and will continue to do so. We hope, with good evidence, that we produce ever better models of reality. That is why prediction is so important in the scientific method. When you can predict things to the phenomenal accuracy that some scientific theories can (quantum electrodynamics has successfully achieved accuracy of ten parts in a billion) you suspect that you have got it more or less right. Anomalies are difficult. There are times when scientific theories continue despite anomalies because they remain by far the best explanation. The anomalies await some better understanding. This is in keeping with the provisional nature of science. So Newtonian mechanics described the planetary orbits with impressive accuracy, but Mercury obstinately refused to behave itself, awaiting Einstein to extend the understanding of mechanics into relativistic areas. So right and wrong is not an absolute concept. Righter and wronger might be better, if somewhat grammatically suspect.
As for the Naga fireballs, I am unfamiliar with them. But one thing that a long acquaintance with 'fringe' science has taught me, it is to question the sources. Time and time again the inexplicable falls apart when the true facts are known. People lie, confabulate, misperceive, misremember, embroider. We are truly terrible 'witnesses'. Consider all the nonsense about the Bermuda Triangle. Berlitz made a fortune convincing people that it was a great and terrible mystery. Kusche simply went back to the actual records and showed time and time again that there was a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation for what actually happened rather than Berlitz's imaginative reconstructions. So I would be dubious about their very existence to begin with, before checking the sources. If they are genuine then they will have an explanation, as you correctly say. We inhabit a causal universe. That they are dragon breath is but one possible explanation among many and would come predictably very low down on the list. To explain one unknown (fireballs) in terms of another unknown (dragons) is pretty paltry. Off the top of my head I could suggest several much more likely explanations. Hoaxers. Some phenomenon involving reflection (distant fireworks?). Military exercises. Jack o'lanterns (spontaneous combustion of methane or marsh gas). Biophosphorescence. Foaflore. All we can say is that it is a mystery at the moment.
As for the Naga fireballs, I am unfamiliar with them. But one thing that a long acquaintance with 'fringe' science has taught me, it is to question the sources. Time and time again the inexplicable falls apart when the true facts are known. People lie, confabulate, misperceive, misremember, embroider. We are truly terrible 'witnesses'. Consider all the nonsense about the Bermuda Triangle. Berlitz made a fortune convincing people that it was a great and terrible mystery. Kusche simply went back to the actual records and showed time and time again that there was a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation for what actually happened rather than Berlitz's imaginative reconstructions. So I would be dubious about their very existence to begin with, before checking the sources. If they are genuine then they will have an explanation, as you correctly say. We inhabit a causal universe. That they are dragon breath is but one possible explanation among many and would come predictably very low down on the list. To explain one unknown (fireballs) in terms of another unknown (dragons) is pretty paltry. Off the top of my head I could suggest several much more likely explanations. Hoaxers. Some phenomenon involving reflection (distant fireworks?). Military exercises. Jack o'lanterns (spontaneous combustion of methane or marsh gas). Biophosphorescence. Foaflore. All we can say is that it is a mystery at the moment.
so we're agreed then, science can get it wrong, and has done. which is cool cos everybody gets it wrong sometimes, and science can't explain everything, though in fairness they keep trying which is cool too.
I think most of us are agreed that the big bang happened and that the universe still holds the evidence for that, I'm sure the remnants of the actual bang have been picked up.
what science hasn't been able to explain is what happened before it or why it happened and I think for all the information we have, that's a crucial part in the story of the universe and one that brings multiple plains into the fold.
I'm interested to hear your own thoughts of what this universe was before it exploded into what we see and live in now. just your thoughts mind you
I think most of us are agreed that the big bang happened and that the universe still holds the evidence for that, I'm sure the remnants of the actual bang have been picked up.
what science hasn't been able to explain is what happened before it or why it happened and I think for all the information we have, that's a crucial part in the story of the universe and one that brings multiple plains into the fold.
I'm interested to hear your own thoughts of what this universe was before it exploded into what we see and live in now. just your thoughts mind you
To HHM
1. I have thought about the difference. But if magic did not work in this universe then how could a magical creature exist in it or return to its own universe.
I write short with whitespace for a reason, and you still missed it.
Magical Creature Crosses through the portal, and expires due to lack of Magic - the strange body would inform the mythology of the age, and, if improperly preserved, would not inform science
If the living creatures are magically created but not magical then they could, hypothetically’ wander through this ‘portal’. But what happens then? It cannot magically disappear or magically return to its own reality.
unless a breeding pair crossed over, the strange creature would only serve to would inform the mythology of the age, and, if improperly preserved, would not inform science
Moreover the overwhelming ‘evidence’ of those who believe in such creatures is that they have magical powers.
not all magical creatures have powers
2. Actually I never watch TV. And I do not find hypotheses based on the imaginative ideas of the entertainment industry a sound basis for credibility.
Yet again you get ithe inverse of what i was saying...
i was using literature and television as a short hand/snap shot to tell you the point that i was making.
it is not my issue if you do not even choose to wiki the references.
The two shows referenced show ways that Psionics could exist today and not be the overwhealming force that you postulate them to be.
even so, one hopes that you are at least familiar with the works of Robert Anson Heinlein and Mercedes Lackey? or do you not read Science Fiction and Fantasy?
1. I have thought about the difference. But if magic did not work in this universe then how could a magical creature exist in it or return to its own universe.
I write short with whitespace for a reason, and you still missed it.
Magical Creature Crosses through the portal, and expires due to lack of Magic - the strange body would inform the mythology of the age, and, if improperly preserved, would not inform science
If the living creatures are magically created but not magical then they could, hypothetically’ wander through this ‘portal’. But what happens then? It cannot magically disappear or magically return to its own reality.
unless a breeding pair crossed over, the strange creature would only serve to would inform the mythology of the age, and, if improperly preserved, would not inform science
Moreover the overwhelming ‘evidence’ of those who believe in such creatures is that they have magical powers.
not all magical creatures have powers
2. Actually I never watch TV. And I do not find hypotheses based on the imaginative ideas of the entertainment industry a sound basis for credibility.
Yet again you get ithe inverse of what i was saying...
i was using literature and television as a short hand/snap shot to tell you the point that i was making.
it is not my issue if you do not even choose to wiki the references.
The two shows referenced show ways that Psionics could exist today and not be the overwhealming force that you postulate them to be.
even so, one hopes that you are at least familiar with the works of Robert Anson Heinlein and Mercedes Lackey? or do you not read Science Fiction and Fantasy?
Science not only can get it wrong but it will get it wrong. It just happens to be the best method of interrogating the world that Homo sap has come up with. We do the best we can. One cannot even speculate reasonably about what happened before/caused the Big Bang. Time and space were created by the Big Bang so we do not have any idea of any beyond at all. There has been speculation that it was a quantum event. I don't know if you know but space is seething with particles created from nothing. So called virtual particles. They are created from energy according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle within a quantum field but annihilate one another in an incredibly short space of time. If there was some sort of quantum field then a virtual event could occur which would expand by inflation and cause the big bang. But it is all very much imaginative speculation. My own suspicions, for whatever worth they are, is that there is a multiverse of sorts that has always existed and universes are being created all the time. It is a somewhat exuberant hypothesis I grant you. And is nothing more than a whimsical guess.
To HHM. Consider the number of mythological creatures known to world mythologies. It must have been a hell of a death rate. How frequent are these portals? What are the chances of them being found before rotting/scavenged? Why have they stopped coming through? Why are they able to come through? Who sends them? How do these portals work. If I thought my notion of the universe was exuberant this is exuberance in spades.
Unknown people with unknown powers from unknown universes send unknown creatures through unknown portals for unknown reasons. This apparently occurred widely in the past but not now - again for unknown reasons.
Compare with the known fact that people are creative storytellers, which is all you need to explain mythological creatures. No contest. Ask Mr Ockham.
Now consider Greek mythology. Flying horses, talking ships (how did that get through the portal), Gorgons that turn people to stone with a look, Sirens with magically seductive voices, lions impervious to weapons, self immolating and regenerating birds and so on. If all these stories of magical abilities are not true, but invented by finders of these monstrous corpses, then there is your evidence of the creative imagination of people. If they could make up all that they could make up the rest.
If you are going to use things as a shorthand it might be worth while ascertaining whether it is a mutually understood language. No, I do not read fantasy and science fiction. Would it not be easier to tell me the point you wish to make?
And I am afraid I disagree with you that it is not your responsibility. If you wish to engage in meaningful debate then it is your responsibility to make what you wish to say as clear as possible. By all means give references to sources that support or evidence your contention, but I do not consider that you should put the onus on your interlocutor to research and interpret what your actual argument is.
The fact that a fantasy writer creates a fantasy world does not provide evidence that such a world is plausible, or even possible. The word fantasy is used for a reason.
As for telepathy not being advantageous, consider the tremendous power of evolution in giving us voices to communicate. The descended larynx is extremely disadvantageous. there is a significantly increased risk of choking to death. Now, if one could communicate by telepathy (forget the problems of suitable organs, inverse square laws and so on) this has to be advantageous, especially if one has the ability and others, as yet do not. It would almost certainly spread like wildfire through the population. If you have a plausible scenario to the contrary I would be obliged if you would explain the idea.
To HHM. Consider the number of mythological creatures known to world mythologies. It must have been a hell of a death rate. How frequent are these portals? What are the chances of them being found before rotting/scavenged? Why have they stopped coming through? Why are they able to come through? Who sends them? How do these portals work. If I thought my notion of the universe was exuberant this is exuberance in spades.
Unknown people with unknown powers from unknown universes send unknown creatures through unknown portals for unknown reasons. This apparently occurred widely in the past but not now - again for unknown reasons.
Compare with the known fact that people are creative storytellers, which is all you need to explain mythological creatures. No contest. Ask Mr Ockham.
Now consider Greek mythology. Flying horses, talking ships (how did that get through the portal), Gorgons that turn people to stone with a look, Sirens with magically seductive voices, lions impervious to weapons, self immolating and regenerating birds and so on. If all these stories of magical abilities are not true, but invented by finders of these monstrous corpses, then there is your evidence of the creative imagination of people. If they could make up all that they could make up the rest.
If you are going to use things as a shorthand it might be worth while ascertaining whether it is a mutually understood language. No, I do not read fantasy and science fiction. Would it not be easier to tell me the point you wish to make?
And I am afraid I disagree with you that it is not your responsibility. If you wish to engage in meaningful debate then it is your responsibility to make what you wish to say as clear as possible. By all means give references to sources that support or evidence your contention, but I do not consider that you should put the onus on your interlocutor to research and interpret what your actual argument is.
The fact that a fantasy writer creates a fantasy world does not provide evidence that such a world is plausible, or even possible. The word fantasy is used for a reason.
As for telepathy not being advantageous, consider the tremendous power of evolution in giving us voices to communicate. The descended larynx is extremely disadvantageous. there is a significantly increased risk of choking to death. Now, if one could communicate by telepathy (forget the problems of suitable organs, inverse square laws and so on) this has to be advantageous, especially if one has the ability and others, as yet do not. It would almost certainly spread like wildfire through the population. If you have a plausible scenario to the contrary I would be obliged if you would explain the idea.
can we say with conviction that time and space didn’t exist. I mean there must have been space or at least room for space or where would the space have been to facilitate space and the subsequent outward movings of our universe ? what you have there is a theory, a poor one at that. one might just theorise that a god or higher being made the space heh heh
Yes. Pretty much. Space and time are dimensions of the universe, not dimensions in which the universe exists. And as we have no idea what is 'beyond' the universe, even if that word has any meaning in this context, we cannot extrapolate from our universe to outside. Whether space exists beyond, or time, or unknown dimensions beyond our ken, or something so alien that we could not even begin to imagine it is an unanswerable question. One can always theorise about a God, but like LaPlace we have no need of that hypothesis. God merely provides an extra layer of confusion. If God created the universe, multiverse whatever, then who or what created God? The stock answer is that God is necessary and has always existed. But that is begging the question. merely smuggling in the conclusion you want by inventing a concept for which we have no evidence or understanding. It is explaining a puzzle by means of a mystery. Of course that does not prove that there could not be a God. Just that there is no need for a God. Nor any evidence. If God can necessarily exist for eternity then why cannot the universe? It is a much simpler and more elegant answer. That doesn't make it right, but certainly destroys the cosmological argument.
"By all means give references to sources that support or evidence your contention, but I do not consider that you should put the onus on your interlocutor to research and interpret what your actual argument is."
You reference Scientific Theories by Name and expect the reader to be familiar with the broad strokes
I referenced popular culture and expected you to be familiar with the broad strokes of the show... one of the integral parts of the show "believe" is that the achilles heel of those possessing psionics in that shows universe is that use of the abilities harms the individual often to the point of death
why? i do not know why the writers set it up that way.
probably one of the questions that the writers sought to answer is why society would not be dominated by psionics
You reference Scientific Theories by Name and expect the reader to be familiar with the broad strokes
I referenced popular culture and expected you to be familiar with the broad strokes of the show... one of the integral parts of the show "believe" is that the achilles heel of those possessing psionics in that shows universe is that use of the abilities harms the individual often to the point of death
why? i do not know why the writers set it up that way.
probably one of the questions that the writers sought to answer is why society would not be dominated by psionics
"The fact that a fantasy writer creates a fantasy world does not provide evidence that such a world is plausible, or even possible. The word fantasy is used for a reason."
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense. - Tom Clancy
the best science fiction and fantasy is where the authors of a book and writers for a show construct a world that minimizes the suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy the show or book.
Plausibility and Possibility are, in fact, tools of the masters.
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense. - Tom Clancy
the best science fiction and fantasy is where the authors of a book and writers for a show construct a world that minimizes the suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy the show or book.
Plausibility and Possibility are, in fact, tools of the masters.
