We're getting ourselves onto a garden path here. I cannot "prove" via science that the supernatural doesn't exist.
OK, I'll try again.
Let's be more specific. You cannot "prove" (scientifically that is) that there is nothing beyond what can be scientifically measured and specified via scientific models. For that however, my deduction would not be necessary, since science
by definition alone cannot prove anything. So there is no need to show
that. My deduction goes further than that. It shows that such a statement is
redundant. This means the question of provability doesn't even arise. A redundant statement is always true, but meaningless.
Since I must assume that if a scientist makes such a statement, he is smart enough to realise that it would be redundant when made
within science, he obviously has something more in mind when using the term "world" than what can be scientifically tackled. Then however, he has created a self-contradicting statement.
The reason why such redundant and circular thoughts arise in scientists is often their lack of ability to formulate exact statements. Why they don't recognize such a simple flaw in their arguments, I don't know. It seems to slip the mind of even some of the greatest scientists out there.
Your usage of the term "supernatural" is also such a simple error in reason that seems to have slipped your mind. The only definition
you are allowed to have as a scientist for the supernatural in the first place, is 'everything that cannot be tackled by science'. In this case however, you can say
absolutely nothing about the supernatural. So it's not that you cannot prove if it exists or not, it is that you are not allowed to talk about it at all, since by definition it is completely without the realm of science. Hence, as soon as you use the term 'supernatural', you are already a philosopher.
I can make a more general statement though, if something is observable and measurable then it falls within the domain of science. If we come across something which cannot be explained within our current framework of science, then the framework expands to explain this new phenomenon. A classic example of this is the apparent vs expected orbit of Mercury. The observed orbit was a counter example to science's understanding of physics. It wasn't until the works of Lorenz, Maxwell and Einstein that we understood the reasons for this. Science axiomatizes phenomenon which it doesn't fully understand. The value of pi, the charge of an electron, the strength of the nuclear force, etc. It isn't to say that we won't be able to explain it one day, but for now some concepts are taken as axioms.
Of course, these are the (very simple) principles of science. A theory is true until it is overthrown by the next theory which provides a better approximation.
When you are talking about new phenomenon, you are again only talking about the scientific aspect of new phenomenon, so this does not add anything essential. All that will ever be contained in a scientific model of the world is still just that, a mathematical model of it. This has nothing to do with what will be scientifically discovered in the future and what new scientific theories will arise that provide a better approximation of the scientifc aspects of the world.
This is also one of the simple errors in reason of scientists. When confronted with what is impossible within science, they take refuge in the future. But the future cannot change what is a matter of principle.
What I'm trying to say is that if something is observable and measurable then it is necessarily material.
If that's what you wanted to show, please rephrase, I did not understand your original argument.
#2 seems to be essential because without the ability to execute the algorithm it timer would never function. #3 I do not believe that the abstract idea is necessary i.e. with the blind watchmaker, evolution did not produce the human being according to a specific ideal. The algorithm is emergent from natural physical processes. The abstract algorithm seems to be a wholly human concept.
You stumped me there. I never thought that a statement like 'The abstract algorithm seems to be a wholly human concept' would come from you. I agree. This statement alone already disproves the original claim of course, but let's get not ahead of ourselves.
So what remains from the original statement is:
"The temporal processing of the timers algorithm adds a bit of consciousness to the coffee machine."
If we look at the scientific model (the algorithm) of such a timer, it would be something like:
for(t=0;t<limit;t++) Sleep(1);
The informational (scientific) value contained in the processing of the timer could be captured by printing the state of the machine in each processing cycle, assuming that the cycle is defined by Sleep(1), since nothing seems to happen in between, which would be essential to the timer. The state can be defined by the values of 't', 'limit', 't+1' and the result of 't<limit'. This seems to be all that can be scientifically said about the current state of this machine. So we temporally process the algorithm and get (with e.g. limit=5):
1. 't'=0, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=1, 't<limit'=true
2. 't'=1, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=2, 't<limit'=true
3. 't'=2, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=3, 't<limit'=true
4. 't'=3, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=4, 't<limit'=true
5. 't'=4, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=5, 't<limit'=true
6. 't'=5, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=6, 't<limit'=false
There is ends, since the temporal processing of the scientific model of the timer is over now. The problem we have now however, is that the informational value of what is now already written above, is
exactly the same as the informational value produced during the temporal processing of the machine. We can look at the results all at once, we can even look at single lines in random order, the information contained in it is always the same. Nothing could be added to that e.g. by processing the scientific model of the timer again.
So the temporal processing of the timers algorithm can not be essential in adding consciousness to the machine. Since all three subclaims are disproved now, the original claim is also disproved.
