It Shows on Your Face, Ichijou-San - Vol. 1 Ch. 4

[dementati]

That's the part of the argument I question. It seems too presumptive to put forward as an axiom. I mean, sure: if what we call "reality" does not seem to contain and constrain God, then we can always expand our field of consideration to the unknown super-reality (superset) that presumably does. But if God and his superset are at every level of such expansion expressions of God's will alone, and if God himself remains immeasurable at every level of expansion, then scientific inquiry into the fundamental nature of God might not be capable of revealing anything. This fact alone, however, would not necessarily make God irrelevant so far as humans were concerned. It would only make him impossible to "pin down" scientifically.

Since science is the domain of that which is objectively perceptible, and that which is not objectively perceptible is irrelevant to our lives as I argued above, then any aspect of God which is not the domain of science is irrelevant to our lives. Yes, we may not be able to discern God's fundamental nature, but we also don't really care about it, because it doesn't matter to us. Only those aspects of God which does make its way into objective reality is relevant to us, i. e. when they burn bushes and such.

Sure, we could always record information about the perceived effects of God's action: "A bush was seen to burn in the year 1270 BC and measured at a temperature of 484°C. The voice that supposedly issued from said bush was allegedly heard and understood by Moses but could not otherwise be detected." From such observations we could compile data and plot probabilities, but that would only prove useful if God were at some level bound by laws or tendencies that could be revealed by such effort.

There's really only two possibilities. Either God follows some set of laws or tendencies, like for example maybe it's a moral and just God who wants to teach us to be good people, etc. Or God acts completely randomly. There isn't really any room for anything else, right? Either you act randomly, or you act according to some kind of order, obscure though it may be. It might be very difficult to discern what the laws God obeys are just based on the effects they have on objectively perceptible reality, but it's at least theoretically possible, granted we acquire the right tools and methods. And if God does act completely randomly, that in itself is a law, which we could discover.

 

[beep_repair]

Since science is the domain of that which is objectively perceptible, and that which is not objectively perceptible is irrelevant to our lives as I argued above, then any aspect of God which is not the domain of science is irrelevant to our lives. Yes, we may not be able to discern God's fundamental nature, but we also don't really care about it, because it doesn't matter to us. Only those aspects of God which does make its way into objective reality is relevant to us, i. e. when they burn bushes and such.

If you'll forgive me for belaboring the point....

I'm not convinced that, "...that which is not objectively perceptible is irrelevant to our lives..."

Therefore, and purely for argument's sake, I propose that there exists a ghost-type being, a "spiritual emanation" with no directly measurable physical properties. This ghost is not bound by the laws of space or time that exist in our physical universe. We humans cannot perceive the ghost, nor can it perceive us.

The ghost can perceive an entire "spiritual universe" filled with other spiritual beings of various types. These other beings cannot in any way affect or perceive our material universe, nor can we affect or perceived them and theirs. The ghost in question, however, is unique in that it can affect us. Specifically, it can cause spontaneous human combustion (SHC). That is the only effect it can have on our physical universe.

The ghost does not simply burn anyone who comes into its proximity (which after all, exists outside of what we perceive as space and time). It burns humans according to subtle fluctuations its emotional and intellectual state, in response primarily to stimuli generated not within our physical universe, but within its own spiritual reality. In other words, the ghost kills us by accident without ever knowing it or of us.

Human science could certainly collect the dates, times and locations of deaths resulting from SHC, as well as information about the victims. But given the nature of the phenomena as I've described it, I suggest that science could not learn enough from the available information to test and validate any even partially accurate hypotheses about its true cause - much less accurately model the ghost and its universe.

I would argue that the ghost's passing thoughts and feelings, though they are not objectively perceptible to us, are relevant to our lives, in that they can trigger our deaths. They remain relevant to us whether or not we know of them (warning: semantics).

There's really only two possibilities. Either God follows some set of laws or tendencies, like for example maybe it's a moral and just God who wants to teach us to be good people, etc. Or God acts completely randomly. There isn't really any room for anything else, right? Either you act randomly, or you act according to some kind of order, obscure though it may be. It might be very difficult to discern what the laws God obeys are just based on the effects they have on objectively perceptible reality, but it's at least theoretically possible, granted we acquire the right tools and methods. And if God does act completely randomly, that in itself is a law, which we could discover.

That's a fair response not only to the "God problem" I proposed before, but also to the hypothetical "ghost problem" above. In the ghost version of the problem, I've tried to constrict the one-way "information leak" from the ghost's reality to our own so as to confound scientific inquiry, but I do concede that where information exists, things can be learned. Nevertheless, while an infinite timeframe would make all understandings possible, I believe that the ghost problem as formulated would prove impervious to human science on a human-scale, practical level.

I say this because science does not deal in absolute truth or falsehood. It concerns itself only with what seems to be true (or at least reliable) and that which is yet unknown. I mean by this that scientific "truths" and principles are inherently provisional. They attempt to account for what we have observed but say nothing about anything else. Logic and other valid forms of human understanding are similar. Therefore, we can't ever rule anything out in an inviolably absolute sense. We can only speak of what seems reliably to be. Put more simply, I'm splitting ghost hairs

 

[dementati]

If you'll forgive me for belaboring the point....

I'm not convinced that, "...that which is not objectively perceptible is irrelevant to our lives..."

Therefore, and purely for argument's sake, I propose that there exists a ghost-type being, a "spiritual emanation" with no directly measurable physical properties. This ghost is not bound by the laws of space or time that exist in our physical universe. We humans cannot perceive the ghost, nor can it perceive us.

The ghost can perceive an entire "spiritual universe" filled with other spiritual beings of various types. These other beings cannot in any way affect or perceive our material universe, nor can we affect or perceived them and theirs. The ghost in question, however, is unique in that it can affect us. Specifically, it can cause spontaneous human combustion (SHC). That is the only effect it can have on our physical universe.

The ghost does not simply burn anyone who comes into its proximity (which after all, exists outside of what we perceive as space and time). It burns humans according to subtle fluctuations its emotional and intellectual state, in response primarily to stimuli generated not within our physical universe, but within its own spiritual reality. In other words, the ghost kills us by accident without ever knowing it or of us.

Human science could certainly collect the dates, times and locations of deaths resulting from SHC, as well as information about the victims. But given the nature of the phenomena as I've described it, I suggest that science could not learn enough from the available information to test and validate any even partially accurate hypotheses about its true cause - much less accurately model the ghost and its universe.

I would argue that the ghost's passing thoughts and feelings, though they are not objectively perceptible to us, are relevant to our lives, in that they can trigger our deaths. They remain relevant to us whether or not we know of them (warning: semantics).


That's a fair response not only to the "God problem" I proposed before, but also to the hypothetical "ghost problem" above. In the ghost version of the problem, I've tried to constrict the one-way "information leak" from the ghost's reality to our own so as to confound scientific inquiry, but I do concede that where information exists, things can be learned. Nevertheless, while an infinite timeframe would make all understandings possible, I believe that the ghost problem as formulated would prove impervious to human science on a human-scale, practical level.

I say this because science does not deal in absolute truth or falsehood. It concerns itself only with what seems to be true (or at least reliable) and that which is yet unknown. I mean by this that scientific "truths" and principles are inherently provisional. They attempt to account for what we have observed but say nothing about anything else. Logic and other valid forms of human understanding are similar. Therefore, we can't ever rule anything out in an inviolably absolute sense. We can only speak of what seems reliably to be. Put more simply, I'm splitting ghost hairs

Fair enough, but from our perspective those spontaneous combustions are just random, and we'd model it as such. As far as we are concerned, that's what they are, and the ghost's own nature, and the fundamental cause of the combustions is in fact irrelevant to our lives. It's sort of what I talked about before. The aspects of God that affect our lives can be modeled, and the aspects that don't can't, and don't matter. The fact that the ghost is a conscious agent and that the combustions have causes doesn't matter, because the actual impact on our lives is random from our perspective. If there was no true cause, and random combustions was just a law of nature, we'd live the exact same lives. Referencing what I said earlier, the ghost itself, and its true nature, is "far from us, apart from us and unrelated to us".

 

[beep_repair]

Fair enough, but from our perspective those spontaneous combustions are just random, and we'd model it as such. As far as we are concerned, that's what they are, and the ghost's own nature, and the fundamental cause of the combustions is in fact irrelevant to our lives. It's sort of what I talked about before. The aspects of God that affect our lives can be modeled, and the aspects that don't can't, and don't matter. The fact that the ghost is a conscious agent and that the combustions have causes doesn't matter, because the actual impact on our lives is random from our perspective. If there was no true cause, and random combustions was just a law of nature, we'd live the exact same lives. Referencing what I said earlier, the ghost itself, and its true nature, is "far from us, apart from us and unrelated to us".

And fair enough in return. I suspected this would boil down to differing definitions of "relevant", but it was an interesting conversation anyway.

Cheers & thanks 🍻

 

[dementati]

And fair enough in return. I suspected this would boil down to differing definitions of "relevant", but it was an interesting conversation anyway.

Cheers & thanks 🍻

All philosophy is just semantics anyway.

 

[Szaal]

 

[hawkflights]

OpenAI joins the thread

 

[cubico]

Read through this whole bloody thread just to find nobody mentioned it says "Spirtits" on page 8

 

[draxdeveloper]

my bet is on werewolf.

 

[redscizor]

I like her fang, but a mouse is very small blood unit, maybe 1/4