Natrual vs supernatural, grey areas

[drhex]

Religious people often accuse scientists of inappropriately excluding supernatural explanations for various phenomena. The scientists, on the other hand, think that they are doing so for good reasons. I've been thinking about where to draw the line between natural and supernatural and come to the conclusion that there are interesting shades of grey here. I propose classifying phenomena in these four categories:

1) Things that act according to fixed fundamental rules that we know about.
2) Things that act according to fixed fundamental rules that we don't currently know about, but are able to figure out with more research.
3) Things that act according to fixed fundamental rules but where we cannot ever find out what the rules are because of some principle akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation.
4) Things that do not act according to fixed rules.

I think it's safe to say that 1) and 2) are "natural" and can be used as explanations, whereas something from 4) is supernatural and would not be useful as an explanation even if true.

But what to do about 3)? Since stuff here follow fixed rules, it can be said to be "natural", yet we can't use it in explanations if can't be tested. Is this where the gods are hiding?

Should we be open to some other way than traditional research of gaining knowledge hoping it might lead us to insights about things in 3) or should we group 3) with 4) as "supernatural" and assume that everything we don't currently understand resides in 2) to ensure that we aren't tempted to give up and terminate our research just before the breakthrough?

[ImaginalDisc]

If it acts on the material world in any way, it's measurable and natural.

For something to be supernatural, it must not act on the universe, and be unmeasurable - which is indistinguishable from not existing.

Ergo, there is only the natural, however predictable or unpredictable.

[cj.23]

If it acts on the material world in any way, it's measurable and natural.

For something to be supernatural, it must not act on the universe, and be unmeasurable - which is indistinguishable from not existing.



Not so: an entity can be supernatural, as in existing beyond Nature (the Universe) yet still interact. For instance certain forms of cosmology postulate "shared" forces in a multiverse?

cj x

[ImaginalDisc]

Not so: an entity can be supernatural, as in existing beyond Nature (the Universe) yet still interact. For instance certain forms of cosmology postulate "shared" forces in a multiverse?

cj x

I have no idea what you're referring to.

[phantomb]

3) Things that act according to fixed fundamental rules but where we cannot ever find out what the rules are because of some principle akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation.

What do you mean by rules that we cannot ever find out? If something acts according to rules that we do not know, we can study it until we have a working theory of what the rules may be. If something is impossible to study in this way then how can you ever know anything about its rules at all?

Should we be open to some other way than traditional research of gaining knowledge hoping it might lead us to insights about things in 3)

Again, my question is what other way? What's the alternative to rigorous scientific investigation?

I hear this thrown around way too much, especially by advocates of intelligent design who seem to think that the scientific method is just one of many equally valid tools for investigating the universe. How do you propose we study something if not by the scientific method?

Among other things, a useful scientific hypothesis fits previous observations, is testable/falsifiable, is simple, and enables predictions. Which of these would you throw out?

[Egg]

Religious people often accuse scientists of inappropriately excluding supernatural explanations for various phenomena. The scientists, on the other hand, think that they are doing so for good reasons. I've been thinking about where to draw the line between natural and supernatural and come to the conclusion that there are interesting shades of grey here. I propose classifying phenomena in these four categories:

1) Things that act according to fixed fundamental rules that we know about.
2) Things that act according to fixed fundamental rules that we don't currently know about, but are able to figure out with more research.
3) Things that act according to fixed fundamental rules but where we cannot ever find out what the rules are because of some principle akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation.
4) Things that do not act according to fixed rules.

I think it's safe to say that 1) and 2) are "natural" and can be used as explanations, whereas something from 4) is supernatural and would not be useful as an explanation even if true.

But what to do about 3)? Since stuff here follow fixed rules, it can be said to be "natural", yet we can't use it in explanations if can't be tested. Is this where the gods are hiding?

Should we be open to some other way than traditional research of gaining knowledge hoping it might lead us to insights about things in 3) or should we group 3) with 4) as "supernatural" and assume that everything we don't currently understand resides in 2) to ensure that we aren't tempted to give up and terminate our research just before the breakthrough?

Hi drhex and welcome to the forums!

Interesting subject.

I'm not sure there's a good reason to assume that just because the scientific method is the best we've got for discovering about how the universe works and that it has be shown time and again to have great uses in advancing our technology, that the scientific method is (a) the only method we should ever use for everything or (b) capable of allowing us to discover everything in existence. We should be careful that we're not trawling the seas with a fishing net with 2 inch holes and concluding from our catch that nothing smaller than 2 inches lives in the sea.

There are a couple of things I would point out about your 4 options.
Firstly, if there's something not acting to fixed rules we know about, how are we to know if we can ever discover what those rules are unless we discover what the rules actually are? In some cases we might be able to estimate that in principle it would be possible, but right now we can't, but in others we might not even know what that principle might be. Likewise we might believe that in principle we couldn't know, but have overlooked something only for some breakthrough we'd not thought about to reveal. This could maybe blur 2 and 3 into one category.
Secondly, there is no category for things which may or may not be acting to fixed rules - I suppose we could call that unknown/uncategorised? Could there be something that followed fixed rules only some of the time maybe?

[CFLarsen]

The supernatural is defined as that which transcends the natural world: It exists (or, rather, is claimed to exist), but cannot be explained by natural means.

[yy2bggggs]

Not so: an entity can be supernatural, as in existing beyond Nature (the Universe)
Suppose there are two universes--Universe A, our universe, and Universe 1. Are you then saying Universe 1's rules are supernatural? E.g., suppose in Universe 1, F=Gmn/r2 is a law of gravity (coincidentally, the same as ours). Would a planet in Universe 1 rotating around a planetary body be supernatural? (Furthermore, if there were a Universe Alpha, would its rules be supernatural? Would our Universe A's rules be considered supernatural to Universe 1 denizens?)

In cosmological multiverse theory, the term "universe" takes on a distinct meaning--sort of a realm of existence--but there's still a sense in which you can talk about the entire thing (Universe A union Universe 1 union Universe Alpha--pun severely intended, the Universe of all possible universes) as the universe, and whatever collective rules describe possible universes and their rules as natural.

The only thing I've been able to conjure up that fits the spirit of things consistently called "supernatural" is a set of, for lack of better terms, "special conditions" under which beings can use mind and will to influence reality without the aid of physical devices.

[fls]

Not so: an entity can be supernatural, as in existing beyond Nature (the Universe) yet still interact. For instance certain forms of cosmology postulate "shared" forces in a multiverse?

cj x

I don't think that would be classified as supernatural.

Linda

[fls]

I think it is reasonable to proceed as though everything is potentially knowable. We don't yet have proof that it isn't. And the discoveries made from that assumption are far more interesting, bizarre, and laughable* (Lorentz invariance, entanglement, evolution) than what we come up with when we assume that some things are unknowable (somewhat human-like beings who behave capriciously).

Linda

*keeping in mind that I laugh at stuff that isn't funny

[fls]

As far as I can tell, 'supernatural' is an excuse rather than a description of a coherent idea.

Linda

[Pardalis]

Should we be open to some other way than traditional research of gaining knowledge hoping it might lead us to insights about things in 3) or should we group 3) with 4) as "supernatural" and assume that everything we don't currently understand resides in 2) to ensure that we aren't tempted to give up and terminate our research just before the breakthrough?

I agree with 2, 3 and 4 for to me are completely unecessary, and unscientific. Our knowledge of how things work is constantly stretching itself to include the new knowledge that arises about how the universe works. For new laws to be accepted they have to be tested out, they have to work and be predicted. If things happen that go against known rules or physics, then we assume our knowledge is incomplete, because the ultimate assumption is that everything works together in a coherent system. If we find out that it doesn't necessarily make sense, that the universe is run by nonsense, or allows for it, then that will become the rule, and everything "supernatural" will become part of that natural world. But that would be the end of science, because science is about observation and predicitons.

But if you really think about it, the term "supernatural" has always been coined by people who have a vested interest in things not being coherent, of things not quite working out because they know they advance ideas that really can't be proven. That is based on ideology, not honest inquiry. The term "supernatural" is a cop-out, it's a way for people to maintain their ideas even though they can't be proven, and often have been disproved. It's a way to legitimize the unprovable and the nonsense. When one is dishonest, it's because one has something to gain for themselves, it's about being right whatever the case may be. Science on the other hand wants to be proven right, or wrong. What it wants is proof. The only thing science wants to gain is knowledge for everybody, not vindication for itself. Maybe there are things we will never understand, our knowledge will probably be never complete, but that's no reason not to try and keep going at it.

[drhex]

What do you mean by rules that we cannot ever find out? If something acts according to rules that we do not know, we can study it until we have a working theory of what the rules may be. If something is impossible to study in this way then how can you ever know anything about its rules at all?

Well, that would take a new way to find out about the way the universe works. I'm not claiming to know of any better way than "rigorous scientific investigation", but I am fascinated by how many (religious) people there are who seem to think there is such a way, and was hoping for them to pitch in and explain why it is useful and how we could possibly tell it apart from mere guesswork.


Secondly, there is no category for things which may or may not be acting to fixed rules - I suppose we could call that unknown/uncategorised? Could there be something that followed fixed rules only some of the time maybe?

Well, then there might also be more fundamental rules that control when the less fundamental rules change, so there'd be fixed rules anyway...

[Foster Zygote]

Suppose there are two universes--Universe A, our universe, and Universe 1. Are you then saying Universe 1's rules are supernatural? E.g., suppose in Universe 1, F=Gmn/r2 is a law of gravity (coincidentally, the same as ours). Would a planet in Universe 1 rotating around a planetary body be supernatural? (Furthermore, if there were a Universe Alpha, would its rules be supernatural? Would our Universe A's rules be considered supernatural to Universe 1 denizens?)

In cosmological multiverse theory, the term "universe" takes on a distinct meaning--sort of a realm of existence--but there's still a sense in which you can talk about the entire thing (Universe A union Universe 1 union Universe Alpha--pun severely intended, the Universe of all possible universes) as the universe, and whatever collective rules describe possible universes and their rules as natural.

The only thing I've been able to conjure up that fits the spirit of things consistently called "supernatural" is a set of, for lack of better terms, "special conditions" under which beings can use mind and will to influence reality without the aid of physical devices.

And if it turns out that there is a Universe A and a Universe 1 (still kind of feels like a "B" to me) then there is nothing "supernatural" about that at all. The Milky Way was once thought to be the whole of the universe. Discovering that it was but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies merely expanded our understanding of "the universe". If we find that what we call the universe is but one of a vast number of like things existing in a greater natural realm then we have simply come to understand nature on a new level. It is no more justified for those in Universe A to call Universe 1 "supernatural" than for us to call M31 "supernatural".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think the problem may simply disappear once we come up with a coherent definition of supernatural. That is because the definition will lead us what Imaginal said in post #2 and what Yahzi put so elegantly:

If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist.


~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

The thing about the supernatural is that it is claimed to exist, and that it cannot (yet) be explained. That's all there is to it.

It isn't a question of whether we can distinguish between the existence of X and the nonexistence of X. The point is that, when it comes to the supernatural, we haven't gotten as far as having enough information to allow us to be able to come up with natural explanations.

Think about religious miracles - one of the most popular supernatural events: They seem supernatural - right until we get a chance to actually examine them. Then, we come up with either natural explanations, or that we just don't have enough information.

Something being supernatural is an interim explanation.

[Soapy Sam]

The supernatural is defined as that which transcends the natural world: It exists (or, rather, is claimed to exist), but cannot be explained by natural means.

I can't see much point in any such definition.
Some things are real.
Some things are imaginary.
That's it, really.

[CFLarsen]

We can only come to a provisional conclusion if something exists or not after we have examined the evidence.

We can't decide that beforehand.

[yy2bggggs]

I guess another way to phrase what I'm trying to say is that, yeah, supernatural would be some sort of 3. My basis for saying this is more in trying to divine what it is about things called "supernatural" that makes people call it that.

4 looks tempting, but doesn't actually fit anything I know of that is claimed to be supernatural. As an odd example, suppose there's a vandal that telekinetically bends all of my silverware (the bastard!)... then said vandal exercised a power. I can't telekinetically unbend them because I'm just a normal guy. So there's a rule--only people with telekinetic powers can telekinetically bend spoons. Furthermore, the mere fact that we attribute the bending to the vandal ipso facto betrays that there's a causal relation between the vandal's intent and the action--again, the causal link is akin to a law of some sort. So that's not good enough for a 4--it's really more a 3.

Now, suppose it turned out my bent spoons can't be blamed on a vandal--that there isn't a vandal. Instead, sometimes, spoons simply bend themselves. This sounds eerily similar to quantum randomness, which we don't chock up to the supernatural. But that's how I envision 4 at the moment.

And if we had our universe be somehow nested inside the rules of a "higher universe", we could entertain this using a brain in a vat viewpoint--the higher universe's rules then aren't really supernatural per se, but rather are natural; the simulated universes rules ("our" universe), likewise, aren't really the natural laws, but rather, are more like illusions.
Think about religious miracles - one of the most popular supernatural events: They seem supernatural - right until we get a chance to actually examine them. Then, we come up with either natural explanations, or that we just don't have enough information.But if it were the case that the most boiled down explanation possible is that God made it happen by willing it (and having the power to, etc--i.e., the rules have it that God can will things into being without using physical devices), that would be something I would entertain worthy of the term "supernatural". Though it perfectly fits the bill of a natural law (you can, under certain conditions, simply will things to happen without the aid of physical devices), it also fully meets the spirit, as I see it, behind labeling the event supernatural. Until this loophole is tied, I'm not willing to discard the term as useless.

[AkuManiMani]

Not so: an entity can be supernatural, as in existing beyond Nature (the Universe) yet still interact. For instance certain forms of cosmology postulate "shared" forces in a multiverse?

cj x

As soon as we figure out how 'verses in the multiverse interract, it would no longer be considered "supernatural".

[I Ratant]

I think it is reasonable to proceed as though everything is potentially knowable. We don't yet have proof that it isn't. And the discoveries made from that assumption are far more interesting, bizarre, and laughable* (Lorentz invariance, entanglement, evolution) than what we come up with when we assume that some things are unknowable (somewhat human-like beings who behave capriciously).

Linda

*keeping in mind that I laugh at stuff that isn't funny
.
I too feel that man has no limits on what he can winkle out of the universe.
The supernatural stuff, though, which by definition is not of the universe, I guess will remain the realm of dreamers and fiction.

[hgc]

Secondly, there is no category for things which may or may not be acting to fixed rules - I suppose we could call that unknown/uncategorised? Could there be something that followed fixed rules only some of the time maybe?


Theology is one such thing. Some would also say so is love.

[cj.23]

Right, probably not vclear how i am using supernatural. For me, supernatural = anything "outside" our universe. The number 7 f'rr instance might count, as would other universes in a multiverse, the quantum fluctuations that gave rise to this little place of ours, and the parts of strings shared with other universes in some really weird comsomological speculations f'rinstance.

Let's start with a little history of the term, from my mate Beast Rabban, simply because we spent the day together chatting


Even the nature of the supernatural as a category is questionable. It has been observed that tribal religions regard themselves and their gods as part of nature, not above or outside it. Similarly the gods of ancient Greece, although worshipped as superior beings endowed with power over the elements and humanity, were not necessarily supernatural. They were considered to be like humans, except that they were more rarified and celestial in nature than mortals. Instead of blood, for example, they had ichor. A similar, materialistic conception of God informed Stoic pantheism. ‘The Stoics were materialists, denying fully existence to anything without a body. They believed that the world is a living intelligent Being.’ God, the rational, active cause in the universe, acted on matter through ‘artistic fire’ or intelligent pneuma, a mixture of air and fire. The presence of this fire in certain ratios caused the presence of growth in plants, and soul in humans. The term used for this ratio, phusis, means ‘growth’ and is the root of the English word ‘physics’. The Romans translated the term ‘natura’, hence the English word ‘nature’. Thus Stoic pantheism conceived God as quintessential natural. In the 9th century, the Irish theologian John Scotus Eriugena similarly defined God as ‘nature uncreated and creating’. Thus God was considered to be natural, even perhaps superlatively natural, as the author of the rest of nature, rather than supernatural.

I've dropped Dave's footnotes. They etymology is from the Medieval Latin supernaturalis, and the term was used until the 18th century to denote ""above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," , as opposed to the modern usage where it is usually seens as a synonym for "paranormal" I think. Yet supernatural is actually a technical term, and refers to that class of entities of phenomena "EXTERNAL" to nature.

Does not get us far, if we define nature in the limited modern sense (green stuff and brown stuff and wet stuff etc.) Human Culture might then appear supernatural. (Actually i regard human culture as entirely part of nature with a small n and Nature with a large N but that is irrelevant here...) No, I'm using nature in the sense of natura, the world and it's contents, which by the middle ages included all of time/space, and by the 18th century the universe.

So supernatural is any force that is external to the universe - transcendant. If such a force or entity was to intervene in nature, that intervention by occurring in time/space would be natural. This leads to a paradox in that it can not be empirically shown to be based upon supernatural causation: such can only be deduced. In shorti pretty much agree with CF Larsen here -I however believe such forces can be rationally deduced - as for example is the case with our multiverse speculations.

So I'm using the term in the strict historical meaning thereof, employed in theology, but not the popular sense. As I type something like this about once every couple of weeks I thought this oddity of mine was well known, but I apologise. I am fully awar words change their meanings and that there is no reason to privilege my reading ovcer the popular usage -- I should have defined clearly how I was employing the term.:o

cj x

[fls]

So I'm using the term in the strict historical meaning thereof, employed in theology, but not the popular sense. As I type something like this about once every couple of weeks I thought this oddity of mine was well known, but I apologise. I am fully awar words change their meanings and that there is no reason to privilege my reading ovcer the popular usage -- I should have defined clearly how I was employing the term.:o

cj x

I appreciate that the word was used to refer to those things that are now the purview of science (and have been for at least a hundred years) and you wish to continue the tradition. ;) I merely meant that your example of the 'supernatural' falls under first and second category in the OP, both of which were to be considered 'natural' for the purposes of this discussion.

It seems to me that the supernatural is clearly of a capricious nature, while that of the multiverse is clearly lawful (else how can such forces be rationally deduced?). I think the key distinction in any use of the word is not where these forces reside (whether inside or outside of nature), but rather whether or not they are lawful.

I admit that I miss out on many interesting threads and ideas by not reading all the posts here. It's a trade-off I have to accept. :)

Linda

[yy2bggggs]

No, I'm using nature in the sense of natura, the world and it's contents, which by the middle ages included all of time/space, and by the 18th century the universe.
I think your interpretation of the technical definition of supernatural is anachronistic and fuzzy, and the quoted part is where I believe you start to diverge from the original sense.

Supernatural originally dealt with a religious sense, until the 18th century, at which time it began having associations with the paranormal. Your conclusions don't align with this, primarily because you're trying to mix together a modern concept of the universe, and the possibility of there being other of these things, with the ancient notion of there being a "physical world" and a higher "spiritual realm" that is either more fundamental or sovereign over it.

Your interpretation gets even fuzzier when you interpret "super" as meaning above or transcendent, yet conclude that it can refer to any peer relation (such as two universes in a multiverse). That's not what "above"/"transcendent" mean.

I don't buy your etymology (in its entirety anyway--a lot of the individual pieces check out), and don't think your technical definition traces to history. It could perhaps trace to some branch of theology, but your particular explanation seems insufficient to establish it.