Why do you keep referring to it? — unenlightened

To illustrate the point!
Many people constantly reference nonexistents such as god or ghosts or winged horses.
They are constructing or relaying a fable or they are trying to convince others that a nonexistent exists.
In my case, I am trying to convince others that nonexistents don't exist based mainly on the logical inference of the term.

" :fire: " usually means I find the quote or entire post illuminating — 180 Proof

ok, thanks for illuminating me regarding your purpose in using the symbol.

I didn't read it that way. The OP states the supernatural is an empty useless term, but the existence of the supernatural isn't necessary for the term to have meaning or use. — Hanover

Well, I am certainly not immune to misinterpreting the meaning of others. Clarification from the source is usually the road to solution of such misinterpretation.
I think I have been clear in my typings that I think it is a useless term when it is used to refer to woo woo. But I think it could be a useful term if it was disconnected from woo woo.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by the 'existence of the supernatural,' so that it can be clearly understood what alternative 'meaning or use' the term can have in your opinion.

If the world consists entirely of X and only X and we speak of there being exactly two categories of X, X(a) and X(b — Hanover

I find this confusing if your X = 'natural' as X(a) and X(b) would then have to be subcategories of natural.
Surely the contest is between x=natural and y=supernatural.
If y doesn't exist, then sure you can still reference it as a nonexistent, just like winged horses, orcs and elves or the word nothing.
@unenlightened exemplified not having money in your bank account as a possible use of the term 'nothing.' But having no money does not negate the existence of money just like having an empty tin of beans does not mean beans don't exist in the same way as the literal term 'nothing,' which is logically self-contradictory. Logically, 'nothing,' cannot have a reference to it.

:fire: — 180 Proof

Does your use of the fire image mean you agree or disagree with the quote you include?

I learned everything I know about prehistory from the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do — Clarky

I think Ken Ham uses that clarion call every time he inspires his followers in their daily toils on his tower of babel replica. 'C'mon ye glorious warriors of god, build build build our holy task! YABBA DABBA DO!'
It's probably the ringtone on his mobile phone. Perhaps even on his personal comlink to his true god, his bank manager.

I'm an engineer with a strong interest in science. That has a lot to do with my interest in philosophy. — Clarky

I know this based on your posts. I consider myself in a similar category. A career in teaching computing science and an interest in all science and some philosophy.

Unless you are very unusual, perhaps unique, you don't examine every fact rationally and test if for validity. You make assumptions, listen to what other people tell you, follow your intuition. While I think intuition ultimately comes from experience, in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical. — Clarky

Yes, what you describe above is part of my emotional/intuitive life but ALL that I am informs ALL that I do. So I also, as much as I can, examine rationally and seek confirmation of validity before I act or speak or type. I have clashed often with a few members here on TPF. Often the exchange is 'good natured.' On other occasions, it has been a slagfest. I learn from both flavours, I see value in both.
I disagree with you that experienced intuitive responses are mainly irrational and illogical. I think this was discussed in detail in your own thread, a while ago, about pragmatism.

Ohh, no, it is everything but the scientific method. It is a version of scholasticism — Tobias

I think it earlier systems such as 'scholasticism' and even stoicism etc are 'contributors' to the development of the scientific method. From wiki:
Scholasticism is a method of learning more than a philosophy or a theology, since it places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit disputation; a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, oppositional responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and oppositional arguments rebutted. Because of its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other fields of study.

I think the scientific method does employ 'inference,' 'rigorous conceptual analysis,' 'distinctions,' 'explicit disputation,' 'argument rebuttle,' etc. This will be based on many many, rigorously controlled
experiments, but scientists will still interpret the results gained in different ways and project implications.

However what I will not do to substantiate the common expected reasonable conduct norm, is to ask 10.000 people what they think in this case reasonable conduct would be — Tobias

Not 10,000 laypeople no, but perhaps you will garnish the opinion of a few of your experienced colleagues to build confidence in your own direction of thought. This is akin to the scientist trying the same experiment or different scientists trying the same experiment more than once to attempt to confirm results or find anomalies in interpretations of results already gained.

But metaphysics as a term for 'the search for the supernatural' has really nothing to do with philosophy. — Tobias

Do you think all 'philosophers,' would agree with you here?

What I use the example for is to show you made a metaphysical move, namely reduce all our knowledge to physical knowledge and all 'science' to the positivistic natural sciences, whereas in law we deal with a normative science (or art, the judgment is still out) which is not (and arguably cannot be) conducted with the same natural scientific concepts. — Tobias

Which is part of our disagreement. To me, you are suggesting that insisting all knowledge and all future knowledge belongs to the label 'natural science,' is problematic and insufficient. I disagree and insist that the label 'natural' is sufficient for all knowledge that passes scientific scrutiny and any proposal or idea that does not pass such scientific scrutiny should be refused the label 'knowledge.'

The judgment that we o ultimately displays the metaphysical assumptions inherent in law, that people have a choice to open or close the tap, that if they possess a modicum of rationality, they should figure out the concsequences, that the world is not a deterministic place because otherwise it would not make sense to hold people morally culpable on normative grounds, but only on utilitarian grounds etc. — Tobias

Again, in the example you raise above, you are imo, exemplifying the wisdom of supplying humans with the best 'knowledge' that we can produce. Then they might make better choices in their day-to-day lives.
If we keep providing them with very bad examples of 'applied knowledge,' such as swearing to tell the truth by placing their hand on a book of fables.' Then they might feel they can waste as much water as their mood dictates, regardless of the cost to another. They can always claim god commanded them to 'let its glorious waters flow freely into the thirsty Earth!!' Who are you to judge the will of the supernatural? Metaphysically speaking of course.

I agree with all you typed here Tom :up:

Therefore you are wrong because you limit supernatural to undiscovered natural without knowing the limits of natural, no? — SpaceDweller

Right back at you, as we don't know the limits of 'natural,' so we think

but we know it's impossible to reach the ends of the universe and fathom beyond smallest thing which is singularity. — SpaceDweller

We don't know such is impossible because we can even clearly define what such IS yet.

Your statement here is performative contradiction. Go and ask your bank what it means to have nothing in your account, and they will explain it to you. — unenlightened

No, it's not my statement that's a performative contradiction, it is a statement such as 'nothing is something' or the concept 'nothing' exists. Just like the term 'solipsism' is a performative contradiction.

So if the supernatural does not exist, it seems to follow that everything is natural. — unenlightened

Yes, correct! Including all knowledge that humans have yet to discover!

Saying 'everything is natural' is equivalent to saying 'everything is', and the term 'natural' adds nothing, because it has no meaning. But you continue to use the term as if you are saying something profound, and as you say, deeply felt. It's not your fault, it's the result of the religious thinking out of which science was born and which it now usurps without much understanding. — unenlightened

This just seems like desperation to hold on to your own attraction to or need for the supernatural.
Are you afraid of oblivion after you die when you have no knowledge of it before you were born?

This is called 'agnosticism', and allows you to be sceptical of other folk's claims about the supernatural and yet keep the meaning of the natural world coherent. — unenlightened

I don't mind the term 'agnosticism,' it's an advance from theist or theosophist etc but it's too weak for me as my level of conviction is much higher than the average agnostic. Atheist for me, is a much more accurate label. I am sure you also reserve the right to choose labels that best fit your viewpoints no matter if I or/and others might judge them to be logically challenged.

Yes, but that one decision does not come about williy nilly. It is not solely my decision. There are procedures I follow. I check the legislation, I check jurisprudence and I read up on the opinion of the authors in cases alike. If I am feeling very meticulous I might even look up the opinions of courts in other jurisdictions. I read up on the state of the art concerning standards of care and try to gauge the meaning of the legislators behind the article at stake. I present my opinion not as my gut feeling but as informed legal judgment, the steps of which everyone can follow. — Tobias

Sounds like a valid version of the scientific method as applied in the legal profession, to me.

There are however metaphysical assumptions made in law. For instance that I should follow the supreme court's judgments. (Not mandatory in NL though, but still often done) That I should care about what learned scholars had to say about such a matter. That the goal of the legislator can be deduced from the parliamentary documents. Moreover law also assumes people have a choice in doing what they do and so are liable for tort when they make a choice that harms others. Those are a lot of assumptions revealing the rationalistic metaphysics behind law. — Tobias

But this is the kind of definition/application of the term 'metaphysics' that I support, although it's probably more 'metajudicial, or metajurisprudence.' I notice you didn't mention god once or any other supernatural source, that you might consult, to help you with your decision-making. Based on that, you would make a better USA president than Regan (who it is rumored consulted soothsayers) Bush (the senior narcissist or the junior narcissist) and you would definitely be better that the sociopathic Trump.
I find it incredible that courts still have witnesses place their hand on a book of fables before they swear to tell the truth. Hah! They are swearing to tell the truth with their hand on a book containing very little truth imo.
You offer some indicators of your own struggles, based on your own interpretations, of the guidelines around the current legal system (at state and national level) where you live.These guidelines suggest the path you must follow and you are analysing the guidelines, and the path, based on the cases you deal with.
I like the fact that you struggle and that your struggle is based on a wish to not do unjust harm to others. Surely such struggles will make you a good legislator in the final analysis.

Yet... reformulating the problem in physical terms brings me nowhere. That shows that metaphysics cannot be reduced to physics. There is more to 'being' than mere particles moving about. The humanities may not be capturable in your physicalist metaphysics. That is: what a thing is, is perhaps not ultimately decided upon by the matter it is made of — Tobias

I don't see how that follows from what you describe above?
You are considering 'guidelines,' in what sense are guidelines or suggestions based on the similar experiences of other legislators not 'physical.' These other examples really happened, they are not merely based on the fabled decisions of Solomon in the old testament! or the fabled judgments of god via Moses when he came down from mount Sinai! I would be a lot more concerned for your position if they were.

I see no logic to your path of thinking here. Metaphysics should be used to assist and complement physics not be 'reduced' to it!
There is more to 'being' than mere particles moving about
I don't remember suggesting this is wrong, but I do suggest that the 'more' you suggest has nothing to do with woo woo.
The humanities may not be capturable in your physicalist metaphysics. That is: what a thing is, is perhaps not ultimately decided upon by the matter it is made of
I am an advocate of the Aristotelian metaphysical viewpoint that 'The whole is more than the sum of its parts,' but I temper it with what can occur when 'very large diversity is combined in many many ways.'
It's still physical materialism. There is still no need for woo woo imo.

I would suggest that the term 'supernatural,' is a useless term when it is used as a reference to gods/devils/the undead(from ghosts, to zombies and vampires etc)/magic/human mediums etc.

BUT I think the idea of CURRENTLY 'above' what we accept as 'natural,' is a very valid and useful use/redefinition of the term. I am also attracted to stealing words from theism (sorry @Clarky) who has said that I am too disrespectful towards theists. Perhaps I am but they have been quite lethal towards nonbelievers in the past and still are in far too many countries.

I would suggest something like this:


could summarise that which I would currently label as supernatural.
If you listen to the individuals in this 'closer to truth' episode, then I would glean my list of supernatural or currently above what seems natural in classical Newtonian mechanics as:

1. Superposition.
2. Entanglement.
3. Quantum Tunneling

I am sure others could add to this list with 'multiverse, superstrings etc.
This could prise the word 'supernatural' out of the hands of the 'woo woo' peddlers and into the realm of 'science that we don't know enough about yet.' Waddyaallfink?' I can hear the click and whirs of many weapons starting to reposition toward my direction. Do I have any defenders?

Tom storm and universeness suffer from enlightenment. It's highly infectious and most people here have it. — unenlightened

Do you also have this benevolent infection or do you really consider yourself as your 'handle' suggests, unenlightened?

The ancient regime had a triple concept at its root of God, Man, and Nature. (Or the supernatural, the human, and the natural.) Having a three legged philosophy is always a good idea for stability, — unenlightened

What a bizarre and somewhat illogical concoction.
Are these three legs you concoct of equal status, do they provide equal contributions of strength and 'stability' via your tripod metaphor?
In your imagery man, is the equal of god. God is merely a tripod leg even though it is posited as creating the nature leg and from the 'ground dust' produces by the nature leg, god fashioned the man leg.
Surely god should get to be more that a mere leg in your tripod stabiliser and exactly what is it stabilising? Nature (the Universe). So nature is a leg used to stabilise nature? along with man (produced from nature) and god (who fashioned nature and man). Not a very logical concoction.

Thus if 'supernatural' refers to nothing, 'natural' refers to everything, and both terms lose their meaning — unenlightened

It is not possible to refer to nothing. It's a logical fallacy. 'Nothing' is a concept, where existence has no meaning, and therefore, it cannot be logically referenced. Supernatural does not refer to nothing.
I simply suggest that that which is supernatural, has never been evidenced in such a way that it stands up to scientific scrutiny.
I am prone to making emotive comments like 'the supernatural does not exist' or 'god does not exist,' just like anyone else is prone to emotive commentary but I will normally reduce that to something less emotive such as 'well, I am strongly convinced that the supernatural or/and gods don't exist.' If you push further then I will state my 'level of conviction indicator,' as the by now, well-known and emotive, 99.9%

Everyone knows dinosaurs were the biggest threat to humans. — Clarky

:smile: Ken Ham would love you and welcome you into his group who are currently trying to build a replica of the tower of babel. :lol: The poor man will be so devastated, if you utter the words, 'I was only kiddin Ken,' to him. :naughty: Especially if you shout it in a different language as you visit and climb up his newly completed replica tower. Do you think the level of the tower where Engish is spoken will be at the top, middle or bottom?

I agree with you that my descriptions of how humans learn from the moment they are born, are not as rigorous and formalised as the application of the scientific method is, when assessing the validity of a scientific hypothesis, but the scientific method was created due to human desire to establish better and more reliable ways to separate truth from non-truth. It's a method that took millennia for humans to finally arrive at.
The scientific method is our best methodology for finding out truths about the workings and structure of the universe and truths that lead to technologies.
I do also think that the scientific method has a much better chance of eventually explaining the origins of such phenomena as human consciousness and human psychology (via neuroscience) when compared to the chances of getting any reliable answers from the supernatural, the mystical, theism, theosophistry, magic, astrology, tea leaves or the entrails of a chicken.

Yet your struggle with the issue continues and you will make a decision.
This will show your brain is up to the task. Mainly because it sounds like that's what your current job is and what you are paid for. Many justice systems have appeal systems in case the judged feel utterly wronged by your decision. I am sure you can consult with the legal records of similar cases. If you are the final arbiter for your 'water tab,' case then have faith in your training. Consult and make the call!
As long as you are not relying on the supernatural to send you a decision, you will be fine.

We differ. I disagree with each point, but let's not let a little thing like faith come between us — Tom Storm

I will try to maintain my faith in your honorable intentions Tom. :grin:

We know countless things like "Paris is the capital of France", — Janus

There is the more nuanced observation that the capital of France is 'F,' personal interpretation can always offer a different perspective.

Well yes, but knowing that brain activity is neurons firing and all kinds of cellular activity simply does not tell me whether I should rule that Mrs S needs to compensate Mr P for the damages she has caused by leaving a tab running. — Tobias

Not individually no but as a collective, yes. The full detailed neuroactivity that happens in your brain when you make a decision/ruling based on earlier information/evidence is not fully understood but it certainly does involve neurons firing and accessing information previously stored in your brain and 'processing' it using your previously developed reasoning techniques.
Computers are mimicries of the human brain and computers contain operating system software as well as application software. In computing science, we call the equivalent software contained in the human brain, 'wetware.'

Very little of what we know is based on "studied empirical evidence." — Clarky

Why do you think this is so? Each human gathers empirical evidence from birth.
I think even human instincts, are based on empirical evidence gained by our earliest ancestors.
Observing daily life as it unfolds IS empirical evidence.
In Carl Sagan's book 'The Dragons of Eden.' He talks about the human sounds 'shhhhhhhhhhh' and 'pssssssssssst.' Scientists suggest that human babies recognise these two sounds from birth, instinctively. They are signals for a human to become quieter and come from our days in the wild, living in caves at night. They are both sounds that reptiles make. Reptiles were the biggest nighttime threat to humans sleeping in caves and they could find you if you made a sound.
I take the opposite view from you, I think almost everything we KNOW is based on empirical evidence/everyday observation of the happenings around you since you were born.
From when to plant, when to harvest, when to fight, when to take flight etc, etc

I generally agree. Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world. When I catch a plane or go travelling I don't base the decision on faith but a 'reasonable confidence' that the plans will work out and the plane won't crash. This is a rational position based on the fact that travel and planes generally work safely. Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason — Tom Storm

'Faith,' is another word which is currently 'claimed,' almost exclusively by theism.
@Clarky made the valid point:

I certainly don't want to leave language about spirituality in the sole hands of science. — Clarky

It follows then that a word like faith should not be left solely in the hands of theism.

Consider the following from etymonline.com:

faith (n.)
mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust,"from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust, confide, persuade." For sense evolution, see belief. Accommodated to other English abstract nouns in -th (truth, health, etc.).

From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

And faith is neither the submission of the reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is: the being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self. [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]
From late 14c. as "confidence in a person or thing with reference to truthfulness or reliability," also "fidelity of one spouse to another." Also in Middle English "a sworn oath," hence its frequent use in Middle English oaths and asseverations (par ma fay, mid-13c.; bi my fay, c. 1300).

I glean a lot of evidence from this that the word is more related to trust between humans than it is related to belief in god(s). A husband should be able to say to his wife (or vise versa) that he has faith that she does love him, without his wife jumping to the assumption that he is 'appealing to god,' that when his wife claims she loves him, she is in earnest. It's just as valid that he is making a statement of 'trust' or as you describe it, a statement based on 'reasonable confidence.' I don't see why you feel
"Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world."

Metaphysics is commonly used as a synonym for supernatural or religious. I don't really like that, so I try to avoid the discussion because I don't think it is easily resolvabl — Clarky

I don't much like it either but I feel more and more compulsion to combat the use of metaphysical and supernatural synonymously, whenever people try to do so.
I need to get all my counterpoints in order however, when I do combat it.
From an etymological, historical and empirical standpoint, with lots of examples included.
Metaphysics is a very important word in philosophy and in science.
Its use has to be robust and clear imo.

Your post for instance contains hidden assumptions, for instance you equate knowledge with the physical world. However when I want to enlarge my legal knowledge, physics does not bring me much. — Tobias

Legal knowledge is a product of human endeavours. It what way is legal knowledge not part of the physical world? All human thoughts are products of physical brains!

I'm with universeness. The scientific method isn't science, it's metaphysics. — Clarky

The scientific method can be applied by anyone seeking new knowledge of any kind.
It has been honed since the moment a human first started to try to make sense of its own existence, so It's not exclusive to scientists or only when a person is doing science.
Any idea, suggestion or belief should be challenged, modeled, tested, evaluated etc.
I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true.
I will take 'a leap of faith,' in life, or if a loved one asks me to or needs me to and the circumstances prevent me from taking the time to model, test and evaluate before I act but I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence.

People with mystical leanings, of which I am one, have as much right to use the English language as anyone else. The way they use it is as legitimate as any other. I certainly don't want to leave language about spirituality in the sole hands of science. On the other hand, yes, we should be clear about what we mean by the words we use — Clarky

I don't advocate for restricting how others choose to use language but based on the OP, I do want to assess the 'shakiness' of the ground I will be on if I choose to challenge anyone who tries to connect the term metaphysics with the term supernatural and its related nomenclature.

I don't see that any of the posts you've quoted are necessarily inconsistent with each other — Clarky

Well, you agreed with 'overburdened,' which was the extent I was suggesting. The quotes just demonstrated a ' wideness of range,' which I thought was enough for illustration purposes.
I agree with your 'colouring inside the lines, but I think the lines are too far apart as I think there are many who will connect the metaphysical with the supernatural and others who restrict it to the natural.

I tend to see it as the framework for knowledge and understanding, which I guess is what you mean by "beyond" in this context. — Clarky

Yes, I also think @Wayfarer described it well with:

Meta-physics is reflection on what it means, or what must be the case for it to have the meaning it does, and so on. So for example in current physics, the metaphysical debates revolve around the meaning of quantum physics - what the quanitifiable observations and predictive theories mean about the larger reality, what is implied by the theory. — Wayfarer

As for the supernatural, that's always given me pause when the subject is metaphysics — Clarky

So does this sentence not confirm that in your opinion, many people do connect the two terms supernatural and metaphysical. Do you pause because you seek to disconnect them or do you pause because the they are in fact traditionally connected.

One of the most important ideas for Collingwood, one that I strongly endorse, is that metaphysical principles are not true or false. — Clarky

Can you give me an example of a metaphysical principle which is neither true or false?
Do you mean a principle that may be true under certain circumstances and false under other circumstances or a principle that might be a bit of both under certain conditions? or is he suggesting that all metaphysical principles are paradoxical?

That works fine for talking about God or gods in general — Clarky

Do you think the god posit is a metaphysical concept?

When I performed a the google search 'Is god a metaphysical concept,' I got a great many interesting hits, including such as:

Process theology is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947).

For me, this is further evidence for how much the term is overburdened and perhaps it should be tightened. If someone suggests that the human 'soul' is a metaphysical concept, could I insist that is an invalid use of the word?

I would not use "reliable" as a test for truth — Jackson

I cant see a lot of value in unreliable truths.It's true that the Earth orbits the Sun. If such truths are not reliable then I would think that science is not so useful.

I always find it amusing when people come to a philosophy forum to say physics is really where truth lays — Jackson

I didn't come to TPF with that particular goal in mind, nor am I suggesting that the scientific method is the only way to gain new knowledge. I stated that it is, imo, the most reliable way.
I have experienced amusement as well, on many discussion forums, including this one.

So why combine them? Is that not like saying metadata has nothing to do with data or metacognition has nothing to do with cognition? I think the scientific method employed by physics is fundamental as the most reliable way of pursuing new knowledge and testing its validity.

The trick of modern physics, energy has inertia, without mass. But we need to be careful not to confuse the inertia pf energy with the inertia of mass. — Metaphysician Undercover

But does energy actually move? A human 'Mexican wave' looks like movement in the horizontal but its actually each individual human moving up and down in the vertical,
Same with water waves, it's just undulating water until it meets land and the breaker wave 'falls over' or crashes into the land. If QFT is correct and particles are field excitations then particle movement would be similar undulations, would they not? So energy inertia would be a change in velocity due to some underlying quantum effects/fluctuations happening within field structures.
My thinking is probably inaccurate and too simplistic here. No doubt, I would greatly benefit from a much deeper delve into areas like classical mechanics and comparing it with quantum mechanics. Another entry on my wish list.

I think your post above contains a very good level of clarity and reason.
I think too many terms like metaphysical, supernatural, spiritual etc can be and have been 'claimed' by those with theosophist leanings and I think philosophers and scientists should work hard to combat this by making the context within which such a term is used, very very clear.
I like the old greek definition of spiritual as 'animated,' such as used in a phrase like 'it was a high spirited attempt at reaching the top of the mountain.' Or in the case of the term supernatural, 'The amount of effort scientists have made to understand the workings and structure of the universe is almost supernatural in its intensity.' :grin: Ok, I admit, I find my attempt at removing the 'sting' from the term 'supernatural' harder to do.

An immortal transhuman (or close to it), with an optional built-in 'termination' facility.
An honest politician.
A god that can make public appearences.

I think you are making the same mistake I already said: — Angelo Cannata

I accept your opinion, as your opinion and I am sure you return that accommodation. But that which manifests in reality and that which are mere manifestations of a curious human imagination regarding that which is currently misunderstood or is currently unknown, should never be conflated.

I am not suggesting we stop pursuing any new knowledge.

I see little value in the term supernatural but I also think too many people get 'overexcited' about such terms. Humans love drama and we love mystery and 'the unknown.' We ask questions, it seems to be our main function imo. I cannot imagine what purpose a human or even a future transhuman would have without questions to answer. Such a creature would be as pointless as a god. What can existence offer a god who IS as the OMNIS define it to be? I think the answer is nothing at all.
The best it could do is create little inferiors like us to give its existence some meaning but that would be like offering a dollar to the richest man/woman in the world to give him/her purpose. I cant see how that would work.
Words like supernatural, evil, god etc, are just manifestations of human curiosity about questions they can't answer yet. They are just emotive exaggerations, like:

Any material object can be understood in an infinity of ways, from an infinity of perspectives, that make it really infinite. — Angelo Cannata

A large number of ways is not anything like an infinity of ways, but that's what humans do, including me, at times, we embellish, we dramatise, we exaggerate, we attempt to create excitement about what we don't know and coin emotive phrases like 'supernatural,' in the same way we create other fantasies like, superman/woman/boy/dog etc.

(To my fallibilist mind, the alternative is to hold all beliefs to at the end of the day be fallible, and thereby remain open to revising them if evidence or reasoning gives warrant to so doing.) — javra

This to me is a crucial prerequisite to all beliefs. Believing is not the problem. Even belief held with such fervor that it might even be labeled obsessional. Such strongly held beliefs can be great motivators for the good as well as the bad. I hold a very very strong belief that a system that creates rich people and poor people is fundamentally unjust and must be defeated. But if you hold any belief, including that one as a belief that is absolutely unchallengeable and if you claim your belief was always true, is true and will always be true then you are not a balanced individual. You must be willing to look at valid empirical evidence that suggests a particular belief you hold may be flawed, no matter how deeply it runs through you. Otherwise, you are a fool, who can and will be infected by the viewpoints of nefarious b*******.

For me, metaphysics is context. — Clarky

Metaphysics, to me, is about how you think about the world. Not in terms of truth, but what kind of thing it is. — Jackson

If you think about your own metaphysical leanings, do you detect emotion? What are they? What are they connected to? — Tate

Kant critiqued metaphysics. But he reduces metaphysics to epistemology. — Jackson

So traditional metaphysics can't be accomodated within that framework, as it's like trying to fit a three-dimensional form into a two-dimensional plane. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that the term 'metaphysics,' is, to say the least, 'overburdened.'
In Computing the term metadata means data about data. So for a website, the metadata will include 'keywords' from the site to be matched via search engines.
Meta can be self-referential, so metaphysics could also be a self-referential term. 'extra data to help in the understanding and pursuit of new knowledge of physics.' A projection of the idea that metadata helps you access the information on a website in a more efficient manner.
I suppose such a redefinition would remove the power and appeal of the traditional use of the term metaphysics but I would ask those I have quoted above. Is there any aspect of your personal interpretation of the term that you associate with the supernatural? And do you see very different 'connotations' or emphasis if you associate the term metaphysics with 'after' physics compared to 'beyond' physics?

Good point — igjugarjuk

:up:

Dawkins and Sheldrake are poles apart. Read about this encounter between them. (I'm a Sheldrake admirer, actually had the good fortune to meet him and hear him speak in the early 90's. Of course he's regarded by establishment science as a maverick and crank, as many of those who argue against scientific materialism are. — Wayfarer

I read the article and yes, it's a report on that particular encounter with Dawkins, but its his report, his interpretation of what the motivations of Dawkings and his crew were. I would be interested in Dawkins report of the encounter. It may be quite different than Sheldrakes. I know very little about Sheldrake but I did see common ground between his 'morphic resonance' label and Dawkins's' memes' label, both in functionality and proposed final result. Do you see any connection between the two?
Overall, I am more in the Dawkins camp than Sheldrake's if Sheldrake is searching for empirical evidence that humans have inherent telephathic or telekinetic abilities and they are just 'untapped.'

I don't know what you mean by 'massless photonic energy'. Perhaps you mean the radiation (the blue line in the pic. It arguably has mass since it has momentum — noAxioms

I think we are talking past each other a little but it's just nomenclature issues I think.
My physics level is 1st-year uni plus some online courses I completed but its not even graduate standard.
Photons(photonic), massless, energy (packets), radiation, yes. Energy has a mass equivalence but it does not have mass.

It arguably has mass since it has momentum. If it goes into a black hole, it stays there and adds its energy to the black hole's mass. — noAxioms

All info in a black hole will eventually come back out via Hawking radiation so it doesn't stay there forever.

In inertial coordinates, (in Earth's inertial frame) that galaxy cannot move faster than c (per special relativity) and is moving away from us at about 0.98c. The light we see was emitted from about 6 billion light years (GLY) away, and it is currently about 13.5 GLY away.
In comoving coordinates (an expanding metric), that same galaxy is currently about 31 GLY away, is receding at about 2.3c (technically a rapidity, not a velocity), and the light that we see now was emitted only about 2.5 GLY proper distance from here — noAxioms

I have heard of GLY as a billion light years. Its not a unit I have ever used. Parsecs and its kilo or mega multiples is more familiar. I do have some a little knowledge of 'comoving coordinates,' 'an expanding metric,' which takes the rate of expansion into account when considering the motion of an object such as a galaxy through space. Is this 2.3c motion for this 'furthest away galaxy,' not part of the 'eternal inflation' idea? I am probably not using the correct terminology here but I am more interested in getting the basic proposals correct without worrying too much about terminology/nomenclature.

Yeah. GO J-Webb and the re-start of the LHC! Exciting times!

Germany was very cruel to Belgium citizens and mistreated or murdered many. — Ken Edwards

I hope you will forgive my small correction Ken. Feel free to call me bad names if you want as I feel I am being a bit cheeky in correcting a 97-year-old on a relatively unimportant contextual/spelling issue, when what is important, is the historical example you are using to illustrate your point.
Anyway It should read 'very cruel to Belgian citizens'. People from Belgium are called Belgians not Belgiums. I hope you will forgive my impudence!

Many have delusions, periodically, not constantly. So it makes sense to suggest a person may be delusional if they only have periodic 'Joan of Arc.' type experiences.
Some may call the different types of multiverse proposed by Mark Tegmark, delusional but at least its based on some actual physics.
An individual might only think they are indestructible when they are totally drunk or on LSD etc.
You might only see angels when you eat the mushrooms of magic or when the planets Jupiter and Saturn are in alignment.
My father had 5 years of mental decline before he died. He saw many things that were not there because of multiple brain infarctions (brain lesions in which a cluster of brain cells die when they don't get enough blood.) Otherwise, he mainly appeared and acted quite normally.
Some humans will even roleplay delusional states if it suits their purpose. For example, a person who can communicate with the dead if you pay them enough.
I think the reality of 'delusions' are much more nuanced than your OP suggests.