The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

stalkingluke wrote:Come on Snape not the answer I would expect from a scientist! but I do accept that unless it happened repeatedly there is no way of ever discovering what had created the exact and so far unique conditions to generate it.

I disagree. There are all manner of as yet unexplained phenomena which are entirely natural. The disappearance of quantum effects (eg being in more than one place at the same time (superposition) and moving from place to place without passing through the space in between - quantum tunnelling) when objects are scaled up clearly happens as they are readily observed in tiny particles but disappear when the object is scaled up although the larger object is simply a collection of the smaller particles. At the moment there is no explanation for this effect but it is in no way supernatural we just don't understand enough yet.
There are other effects which make this difficult because it is based on human observation and not reliable measurement and it cannot be repeated.

Donald Rumsfeld was talking sense when he said "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."

Snape wrote:

stalkingluke wrote:Come on Snape not the answer I would expect from a scientist! but I do accept that unless it happened repeatedly there is no way of ever discovering what had created the exact and so far unique conditions to generate it.

I disagree. There are all manner of as yet unexplained phenomena which are entirely natural. The disappearance of quantum effects (eg being in more than one place at the same time (superposition) and moving from place to place without passing through the space in between - quantum tunnelling) when objects are scaled up clearly happens as they are readily observed in tiny particles but disappear when the object is scaled up although the larger object is simply a collection of the smaller particles. At the moment there is no explanation for this effect but it is in no way supernatural we just don't understand enough yet.
There are other effects which make this difficult because it is based on human observation and not reliable measurement and it cannot be repeated.

Donald Rumsfeld was talking sense when he said "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."

This all sounds like the "Science of the Gaps" to me...

Snape wrote:
I disagree. There are all manner of as yet unexplained phenomena which are entirely natural. The disappearance of quantum effects (eg being in more than one place at the same time (superposition) and moving from place to place without passing through the space in between - quantum tunnelling) when objects are scaled up clearly happens as they are readily observed in tiny particles but disappear when the object is scaled up although the larger object is simply a collection of the smaller particles. At the moment there is no explanation for this effect but it is in no way supernatural we just don't understand enough yet.

Surely that is as good a definition of supernatural as any? What is 'natural' if not a predictable outcome based on our knowledge of the universe and the forces present within it? At one time man thought the sun ruled our lives as a wilful entity, and he made sacrifices to appease it. Now we know that the sun governs the environment of our planet without deliberate intent - though its importance to us is none the less for it.

As long as you stick to the concept of supernatural as being inextricably linked with sentient hauntings, spooks and ghouls, the matter rests on thin ice, but if you expand your mind to consider anything that defies explanation (which is itself limited by our understanding of the physical and psychological world) as being super natural (literally beyond nature) then the term ceases to carry dubious connotations. Maybe one day we'll understand the mechanisms behind these strange events, and look back and laugh at how ignorant 21st Century man used to be.

gloucesteroldspot wrote:

Snape wrote:
I disagree. There are all manner of as yet unexplained phenomena which are entirely natural. The disappearance of quantum effects (eg being in more than one place at the same time (superposition) and moving from place to place without passing through the space in between - quantum tunnelling) when objects are scaled up clearly happens as they are readily observed in tiny particles but disappear when the object is scaled up although the larger object is simply a collection of the smaller particles. At the moment there is no explanation for this effect but it is in no way supernatural we just don't understand enough yet.

Surely that is as good a definition of supernatural as any? What is 'natural' if not a predictable outcome based on our knowledge of the universe and the forces present within it? At one time man thought the sun ruled our lives as a wilful entity, and he made sacrifices to appease it. Now we know that the sun governs the environment of our planet without deliberate intent - though its importance to us is none the less for it.

As long as you stick to the concept of supernatural as being inextricably linked with sentient hauntings, spooks and ghouls, the matter rests on thin ice, but if you expand your mind to consider anything that defies explanation (which is itself limited by our understanding of the physical and psychological world) as being super natural (literally beyond nature) then the term ceases to carry dubious connotations. Maybe one day we'll understand the mechanisms behind these strange events, and look back and laugh at how ignorant 21st Century man used to be.

I essentially agree. I guess it gets into semantics but the word supernatural is too heavily loaded (as GOS suggested) with other meanings for me. Supernatural may mean 'beyond nature' but these things actually are nature but are beyond our understanding at the present time which is entirely different.
The sun as a god (or more recently will o'the wisp) is a good example in that it was once considered supernatural but not anymore. Therefore it actually never was supernatural (just thought to be).
As a scientist I cannot see how anything can be considered to be beyond nature as if it exists then by definition it is natural.

Anything labelled as supernatural has either never been proved to exist or has been proved not to exist. What do we call supernatural things which have been proved to exist? Natural....
(same argument applies to alternative medicine and medicine)

Arthur C Clark summed it up nicely as "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But it is not magic!

Snape wrote:

gloucesteroldspot wrote:

Snape wrote:
I disagree. There are all manner of as yet unexplained phenomena which are entirely natural. The disappearance of quantum effects (eg being in more than one place at the same time (superposition) and moving from place to place without passing through the space in between - quantum tunnelling) when objects are scaled up clearly happens as they are readily observed in tiny particles but disappear when the object is scaled up although the larger object is simply a collection of the smaller particles. At the moment there is no explanation for this effect but it is in no way supernatural we just don't understand enough yet.

Surely that is as good a definition of supernatural as any? What is 'natural' if not a predictable outcome based on our knowledge of the universe and the forces present within it? At one time man thought the sun ruled our lives as a wilful entity, and he made sacrifices to appease it. Now we know that the sun governs the environment of our planet without deliberate intent - though its importance to us is none the less for it.

As long as you stick to the concept of supernatural as being inextricably linked with sentient hauntings, spooks and ghouls, the matter rests on thin ice, but if you expand your mind to consider anything that defies explanation (which is itself limited by our understanding of the physical and psychological world) as being super natural (literally beyond nature) then the term ceases to carry dubious connotations. Maybe one day we'll understand the mechanisms behind these strange events, and look back and laugh at how ignorant 21st Century man used to be.

I essentially agree. I guess it gets into semantics but the word supernatural is too heavily loaded (as GOS suggested) with other meanings for me. Supernatural may mean 'beyond nature' but these things actually are nature but are beyond our understanding at the present time which is entirely different.
The sun as a god (or more recently will o'the wisp) is a good example in that it was once considered supernatural but not anymore. Therefore it actually never was supernatural (just thought to be).
As a scientist I cannot see how anything can be considered to be beyond nature as if it exists then by definition it is natural.

Anything labelled as supernatural has either never been proved to exist or has been proved not to exist. What do we call supernatural things which have been proved to exist? Natural....
(same argument applies to alternative medicine and medicine)

Arthur C Clark summed it up nicely as "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But it is not magic!

So to sum up, we agree on the mystery, but not the terminology! To take Clarkes' quote and turn it around, perhaps anything beyond technology IS magic, provided you define magic as 'beyond technology'? After all, words are just our way of expressing a concept as we perceive it, and need not mean anything absolute.

gloucesteroldspot wrote:

Snape wrote:

gloucesteroldspot wrote:

Snape wrote:
I disagree. There are all manner of as yet unexplained phenomena which are entirely natural. The disappearance of quantum effects (eg being in more than one place at the same time (superposition) and moving from place to place without passing through the space in between - quantum tunnelling) when objects are scaled up clearly happens as they are readily observed in tiny particles but disappear when the object is scaled up although the larger object is simply a collection of the smaller particles. At the moment there is no explanation for this effect but it is in no way supernatural we just don't understand enough yet.

Surely that is as good a definition of supernatural as any? What is 'natural' if not a predictable outcome based on our knowledge of the universe and the forces present within it? At one time man thought the sun ruled our lives as a wilful entity, and he made sacrifices to appease it. Now we know that the sun governs the environment of our planet without deliberate intent - though its importance to us is none the less for it.

As long as you stick to the concept of supernatural as being inextricably linked with sentient hauntings, spooks and ghouls, the matter rests on thin ice, but if you expand your mind to consider anything that defies explanation (which is itself limited by our understanding of the physical and psychological world) as being super natural (literally beyond nature) then the term ceases to carry dubious connotations. Maybe one day we'll understand the mechanisms behind these strange events, and look back and laugh at how ignorant 21st Century man used to be.

I essentially agree. I guess it gets into semantics but the word supernatural is too heavily loaded (as GOS suggested) with other meanings for me. Supernatural may mean 'beyond nature' but these things actually are nature but are beyond our understanding at the present time which is entirely different.
The sun as a god (or more recently will o'the wisp) is a good example in that it was once considered supernatural but not anymore. Therefore it actually never was supernatural (just thought to be).
As a scientist I cannot see how anything can be considered to be beyond nature as if it exists then by definition it is natural.

Anything labelled as supernatural has either never been proved to exist or has been proved not to exist. What do we call supernatural things which have been proved to exist? Natural....
(same argument applies to alternative medicine and medicine)

Arthur C Clark summed it up nicely as "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But it is not magic!

So to sum up, we agree on the mystery, but not the terminology! To take Clarkes' quote and turn it around, perhaps anything beyond technology IS magic, provided you define magic as 'beyond technology'? After all, words are just our way of expressing a concept as we perceive it, and need not mean anything absolute.

I'll go with that! :thumb:
Anyway back to these strange happenings........

gloucesteroldspot wrote:After all, words are just our way of expressing a concept as we perceive it, and need not mean anything absolute.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”

Whatever it was, send it back to Redmire where it belongs Luke you tea leaf!!!!

The Sweetcorn Kid wrote:Whatever it was, send it back to Redmire where it belongs Luke you tea leaf!!!!

I didn't know I had a stowaway, I'm surprised there was any room! but I'm happy to give it a lift back hopefully next year in the summer.

Snape and GOS, thanks for the discussion, I will digest it properly in the morning after some sleep.

Sounds like a ghostly thing followed you home luke, Be afraid, be very afraid

ONLY JOKING, was probably what Snape said