The “Supernatural”

Art48

Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature.

Author Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Change “magic” to “supernatural” and you have the point of this post.

Imagine Thor is a primitive person who lives in a hut. Imagine hiding a wireless doorbell camera that has a speaker somewhere in Thor’s hut. Thor enters and hears a voice, “Thor. I am God. Fall on your knees.” Thor looks around, confused; he can’t believe his ears. “Thor. Stop looking around and fall on your knees.” Thor complies. Later, he swears to everyone that he had a supernatural experience, that God spoke to him. When we perfect 3D free-standing holograms, we could project an image for Thor. Now, Thor would swear he heard and saw God, too.

The point is that we do yet fully understand nature. We do not yet know the limits of what can be done in the natural world. So, it’s presumptuous and foolish to decide something is beyond nature’s laws. True, we believe today that some things cannot be done, for instance, faster than light travel. But the list is long of things science once believed impossible which are now commonplace. In a few centuries, perhaps we’ll construct a warp drive.

It seems to me that no one can have any better justification in declaring something to be supernatural than does Thor. Supernatural as a concept is intelligible. But declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish.

180 Proof

Supernatural: a phenomenon or entity beyond the laws of nature. — Art48

I think "beyond" is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernatural".

Tom Storm

↪180 Proof

That's better. Can we think of any examples of this happening that are beyond myth or anecdote?

180 Proof

↪Tom Storm

Nope. It seems to me supernatural is synonymous with necessaeily fictional (i.e. impossible).

Tom Storm

↪180 Proof

:ok:

jgill

The point is that we do yet fully understand nature — Art48

An understatement of significant proportions. :roll:

L'éléphant

First of all, Arthur C Clarke is a science-fiction writer.

The point is that we do [not] yet fully understand nature. We do not yet know the limits of what can be done in the natural world. So, it’s presumptuous and foolish to decide something is beyond nature’s laws. True, we believe today that some things cannot be done, for instance, faster than light travel. But the list is long of things science once believed impossible which are now commonplace. — Art48

I think you're confusing discovery with construction. Humans discovered that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in the entire universe -- not just our solar system or our galaxy, but the entire universe. We also discovered that humans can't fly like birds, and to this day, no one person had flown in the sky like a bird. There are mechanics in place that sets limits on the workings of the universe. No one can walk on water without camera editing, lol.

Although I get your point -- let's wait until we have the means and knowledge to find things that would undermine what we previously believe. But again, this is discovery, not construction. Why we haven't discovered that one piece of the puzzle that could show us that there is something faster than the speed of light is because it's not there. Maybe aliens are faster than the speed of light. But aliens, if there are aliens, are part of our universe too.

Art48

I think "beyond" is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernatural". — 180 Proof

Agree

180 Proof

↪L'éléphant

:up:

↪jgill

:up:

Bret Bernhoft

...declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish. — Art48

Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature?

unenlightened

It's the definition of "natural" that is problematic. One the face of it, the laws of nature are merely descriptive of what happens. If something happens that doesn't fit with the laws as we have found them, then we change the laws. Unless it only happens once, in which case we dismiss it as fraud, coincidence, measurement error, or imaginary.

The concept of nature is part of a philosophy that is out of favour because it proposes a triple fundamental division, Man, Nature, and God. As soon as one leg of the tripod is removed, the thing collapses. Man is unnatural, God is supernatural. That is the way theses terms have some meaning.

But when the conception is that there is no God, man is part of nature and so is everything else. The term does not have a distinct meaning at all. And from there it becomes "obvious" that everything is natural and nothing is supernatural. That nothing is supernatural is true by definition in the current cosmology.

Art48

Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature? — Bret Bernhoft

I am saying that when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them AND that the burden is impossible to meet. Example: if someone says supernatural pixies cause earthquakes, the burden of proof is on them and the burden is impossible to meet.

unenlightened: the natural world can be defined without reference to any Gods.

unenlightened

unenlightened: the natural world can be defined without reference to any Gods. — Art48

Yes. It can be defined as the world.

Hanover

The term "supernatural" derives its meaning from usage, not through logical analysis. It generally is used to mean divine intervention or some type of interaction with a disembodied spirit, where the spirit is semi-transparent, can be sensed only through strange feelings or emotions, or through perhaps changes in temperature or whatnot.

If we try to define the supernatural as that which occurs outside nature, and we then define nature as everything we can sense, then we're left with a hopeless contradiction if we say that we have sensed the supernatural.

That is, if Casper is a supernatural ghost, but I've seen Casper floating around the living room, then he's not supernatural because I just saw him, which means he's physical. If we then say that some parts of Casper are supernatural and others natural, then I'm not sure what distinguishes Casper from anyone else if we assert that mental functions are not entirely physical.

unenlightened

If we try to define the supernatural as that which occurs outside nature, and we then define nature as everything we can sense, then we're left with a hopeless contradiction if we say that we have sensed the supernatural. — Hanover

Just so. A physicalist has no use for the term 'natural' because everything is natural. We all know that 'Natural Yoghurt' is just yoghurt, and there is no unnatural yoghurt or supernatural yoghurt that it is better than or not as good as."Natural", in modern cosmology, is a purely emotive term expressing approval. It is a hangover from a religious age when scientists didn't know everything about everything.

sime

unenlightened: the natural world can be defined without reference to any Gods. — Art48

That depends on whether "God" is narrowly understood as referring to a specific type of causal explanation that rivals physical explanations as another type of causation, or whether "god" is understood as being an integral concept to the very meaning of cause and effect.

E.g for Melbranche, God is the only causal agency, indicating that for Melbranche science is the study of miracles, implying that any empirically valid scientific law is god choosing to follow a deterministic strategy. His position might seem ontologically superfluous, e.g why assume that the course of the universe is the strategy of a single player game, as opposed to assuming the universe to be a zero-player game that is driven forward mechanically without any intervention, divine or otherwise? Melbranche apparently believed the universe to be mechanically describable but resisted the elimination of causal agency, due to believing that the propositions of mechanics aren't analytic but synthetic, making similar arguments to the empiricists such as Hume who came after him.

Experience of Clarity

↪180 Proof

“I think ‘beyond’ is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by ‘supernatural’.” ~ 180 Proof

This very responsible approach comes with irony.

A “law” of nature is given value because it allows us to navigate and/or account for whatever-reality-really-is by way of proposed causal interpretations. But “causality” is a cognitive construct, a very useful exercise of rendering our lot “intelligible”; it does not actually exist in the physical world.

Definition of “Supernatural”: The non-existence of causality (X) that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the successful proposition of its existence.

Alkis Piskas

when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them — Art48

Right. :up:
I'm using too this "burden of proof" principle in various cases where someone does not believe that something exists or occurs or can occur. E.g. If one does not believe in the existence of God --let's say the Christian God-- how can one prove that it doesn't exist? It's just absurd. The "supernatural", being something that is not visible or can be sensed in any other way, is one of these cases.
Hence the expression "Innocent until proven guilty". :smile:

ItIsWhatItIs

....; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernatural". — 180 Proof

It seems to me supernatural is synonymous with necessaeily fictional (i.e. impossible). — 180 Proof

How's it known that something is "inconsistent with the laws of nature"?

180 Proof

How's it known that something is "inconsistent with the laws of nature"? — ItIsWhatItIs

I think that to observe a change in nature which – within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' – could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent, this would imply that that causal "something" is inconsistent with – not constrained by – the 'laws of nature'.

Art48

Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature? — Bret Bernhoft

Not at all. If I did, I'd have a burden of proof. But if someone claims something thing or event is supernatural, then the burden of proof is on them. The point of the OP is that I don't believe that burden could be met.

180 Proof

↪Art48

Well, what do you think of my criterion for "proof" of the supernatural in my previous post just before yours, Art?

Bylaw

I think that to observe a change in nature which within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent implies that that causal "something" is inconsistent with – not constrained by – the 'laws of nature'. — 180 Proof

Isn't this what often leads to something being ruled out and then later accepted in science. For example: people lving near elephants and then some non-African visitors thought that elephants could communicate over long distances - one non-African actually could feel what later was discovered to be the method of communication. I understand that one does not immediately accept things without evidence or sufficient evidence. At the same time ruling out can seem logical. A mere deduction from the known laws. But this can later be overturned when anomalies are found to exist.

Rogue waves is another example. Current fluid physics/oceanography/meteorology ruled out the possibility of rogue waves. It wasn't possible given what they knew or 'knew'. It didn't fit then current models. Later after changes in technology confirmed what was dismissed as faulty emotional judgments on witnesses, then scientists sought out to explain what was going on.

IOW saying something cannot be true can be rather tricky.

Bylaw

But if someone claims something thing or event is supernatural, then the burden of proof is on them. — Art48

This is true regardless, or? It shouldn't matter what the person claiming X is the case categorizes the phenomenon as. What matters is if there is evidence (for communal acceptance, including scientific acceptance). And it also doesn't matter what others classify something as. Oh, that's supernatural so it can't be true. IOW this could well be a poor categorization and thus a poor deduction.

Doesn't (seem to) fit with current models should not rule something out.

And fits (or seems to) with current models doesn't get a pass, at least it shouldn't and not in science.

Wayfarer

people lving near elephants and then some non-African visitors thought that elephants could communicate over long distances - one non-African actually could feel what later was discovered to be the method of communication. — Bylaw

There's a well-known story of the death in Africa of a man called Anthony Lawrence, in 2012, who was known as the 'elephant whisperer' for his work in wildlife conservation and in particular helping elephants. When he died a herd of elephants appeared outside his home, although obviously they had obvious way of knowing what had happened. It's been documented often in the intervening years, here is an account by his widow.

180 Proof

↪Bylaw

Interesting, but I'm not proposing 'elimination by induction' in the post you cited.

Bylaw

↪180 Proof

Great, though I was thinking more of elimination by deduction, I think.

RogueAI

Can we think of any examples of this happening that are beyond myth or anecdote? — Tom Storm

↪Tom Storm

Why beyond anecdote? If a friend calls and says your house is on fire do you dismiss it because it's anecdotal information? What if a trusted friend said he saw a ghost? What if he was with three other of your family members and they all saw it? What if 30 trusted people said they saw it? 300? What if a crowd of a 1,000 people say they witnessed a huge rock levitate and fly through the air?

At what point does the anecdotal evidence outweigh the prima fascia improbability of miracles/supernatural events? I would argue that there IS some amount of anecdotal evidence that makes belief in the supernatural a rational position to take.

Bret Bernhoft

The point of the OP is that I don't believe that burden could be met. — Art48

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

RogueAI

I am saying that when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them AND that the burden is impossible to meet. — Art48

I can think of a scenario: suppose you wake up and everyone- I mean the whole planet- is talking about how, for about five minutes, the stars all moved around and spelled out "THIS IS GOD. BE GOOD TO EACH OTHER". You slept through it. And then the stars went back to their original position. Also, no recording devices worked at this time. So all you have to rely on is anecdotal evidence, but I know you would conclude millions of people saw the stars spell out a message from God. You might further believe that you're in a simulation, so no miracle explanation required, but you're still going to have the belief that something extraordinary happened in the sky that night. And that belief is going to be based entirely on anecdotal evidence.

My point is that when enough anecdotal evidence piles up, it's OK to conclude something strange is going on.

Tom Storm

f a friend calls and says your house is on fire do you dismiss it because it's anecdotal information? — RogueAI

Nice try but unrelated to the matter at hand. I wouldn't compare a piece of information like that - about a mundane event, coming to me from someone I have a trusted relationship with, about something which can be tested empirically - to an anecdote about a supernatural event.

I don't generally accept anecdotes as conclusive evidence about a given matter. But the more important part of this is context: where the anecdote is about, for instance, laws of physics being contradicted, I am going to need more than a personal experience account, right? If someone tells me they bought a kitten on the weekend I am unlikely to be sceptical and need more. If they tell me they bought a unicorn, I'm going to need more.

Pretty sure we can find thousands of people today who have been 'abducted and probed by aliens'. Do we have good reason to accept all these anecdotes? I would say no. The stories may well be interesting and may well be evaluated separately, but that's just the beginning of a process where actual evidence must be considered before any conclusion can be reached.

The “Supernatural”

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions