We can also consider that the anomalous phenomenon might be a quantum wave – some yet to be discovered array of various signals that make up human reality. What if the true nature of the anomalous phenomenon is so unrecognisable that we see ‘Tic-Tacs’ and ‘Flying Discs’ because that is what makes sense to us and that is what it makes us see as part of a symbiotic relationship. A continuous ‘möbius loop.’ The concept of High strangeness is one that has captured the imagination of many for decades, for it encapsulates a mysterious assortment of all things mystical and unknown. From flying saucers to cryptids to unexplainable historical anomalies, this sometimes ethereal phenomenon has drawn the intrigue of the curious and daring alike who are searching for glimpses into those secrets that still remain unveilled beyond the reach of our comprehension. The argument is appealing to scientific integrity, humility, curiosity, and courage). Of course, logical conclusions are easy to reject or refute. Empirical evidence; not as easy. In my opinion, there is compelling empirical evidence of the high strangeness aspect. However, a review or an assessment of the evidence is outside the purpose and scope of this article. The general idea with the overview has been to explore, from a metaphysical perspective, whether physicalism is a sufficient reason for science to reject the high strangeness aspect of UFOs/UAP. I will, in a moment, share my answer to TMQ, but it is up to you to come up with an answer and your justifications for it.

For the interested reader, I can recommend the following sources for a more detailed overview of the issues debated in today's version of metaphysics: a) The phenomenon is the product of a technology. During the observation, the UAP is a real, physical, material object. However, it appears to use either very clever deception or very must eventually advanced physical principles, resulting in the effects we have called “anti-physical” which be reconciled with the laws of Physics. with the laws of Physics. So, ND leaves open the metaphysical possibility that two physically identical beings can differ mentally (for instance, it opens up the possibility of the philosophical notion of a “zombie”). For example, one version of dualism, property dualism, leave open the metaphysical possibility that mental facts/properties are non-physical (the so-called double-aspect theory of Benedict de Spinoza (1632–77) can be thought of as property dualism) and, if I understand it correctly, that the non-physical properties are causally efficacious.

High Strangeness in the Paranormal

One last thing on why care about metaphysics before moving on to my answer to TMQ. Some basic knowledge and awareness of metaphysical subject matters can, and should, make us realize how little we know about topics we take for granted that we understand what they are and how they work. That realization should make us humble and wiser. I hope my answer to “why metaphysics?” is clear enough, and if so, it is still ok to disagree. Now, it sounds rather convincing that everything in the universe supervenes on the physical. Supervenience physicalism is an attractively parsimonious thesis of reality. But should we accept its conclusion? So far, we have mostly examined the completeness question (question b) above). But in this section, we will focus on an objection to (supervenience) physicalism that goes to the heart of the condition question: what is the condition of being physical (question a) above)? And it is the notion of qualia — subjective experiences of “redness”, the smell of chocolate, and so on — that underlies the objection called the knowledge argument. However, as I understand it, the high strangeness aspect per se is not inconsistent with physicalism. Rather, the debate on whether, for instance, paranormal phenomena are possible or impossible comes down to the question of the nature of the physical; in other words, what is it for something to be physical? Because, on a quantum level, we can legitimately ask if the objects we are studying are “objects” in an everyday sense or they are theory-based conceptions.

The above statement is supervenience physicalism's answer to the completeness question: what relation (or dependence) obtain between everything and the physical, if physicalism is true? Put in another way, if you had a physical “copy” of yourself on a possible world, your physical copy must be identical to who you are in this actual world (that is, your physical copy must have the same subjective experience of what it is like being you, if physicalism is true). Both Keel and Jacques Vallée both make use of the late 19th century UFO wave to point to the ‘high strangeness’ that is associated with the phenomena. Theories of ‘high strangeness’ incorporate all of the weird and illogical paranormal incidents and associated phenomena that is tied to UFOs. According to ND, physical information is not the whole story, and two physically identical worlds can differ in non-physical respects. In contrast to David Lewis´ concept of supervenience, ND says that even if the “dots and non-dots” are identical in two worlds, these worlds can still differ in their respective “global properties”. That is, a possible world that in every respect is physically identical to our actual world can still differ in psychological, biological, or social respects.Seemingly, the anomalous phenomena are incredibly complex, beyond simple lights in the sky. We can assume that this extreme technology is controlled by non-human intelligences, but we simply cannot clarify the reality of such things. The consciousness of such phenomena cannot easily be categorised, classified and easily referenced. Now, I assume that metaphysical possibility is the same as a logical possibility (this is a fairly but not a totally uncontroversial assumption). If that is the case, we can express supervenience physicalism more technically: c) The purpose of the technology may be cultural manipulation -- possibly but not necessarily under control of a form of non-human intelligence -- in which case the physiological and psychological effects are a means to that end. But the parapsychologist with a Jungian framework may argue that the human collective unconscious is also a potential source of such effects without the need to invoke alien intervention.

The issue of UAP origin, therefore, might come down to intention, and more specifically whether or not what we are observing actually has consciousness and intelligence in the way we would consider. Vallée et al, would draw reference from the encounters with Marian apparitions and from encounters with ‘extra-terrestrials’, whose claimants also follow a similar narrative with a specific message or prophecy relevant to that time period and usually one which is understood by the claimant.I have no idea what I saw,” Commander Fravor replied to the pilot. “It had no plumes, wings or rotors and outran our F-18s.” But, he added, “I want to fly one.” - Blumenthal, R., Cooper, H. & Kean, L. The New York Times . For the reader who wants to know more about the knowledge argument and overview the arguments for and against it, this is a good entry: There are simply too many confounding variables we can’t consider because we don’t have the data from those timeframes.