Saint Teresa

[floo]

Many of the things we take for granted today would have been thought supernatural at one time.

[wigginhall]

But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.

I think it's worth analysing whether the conclusion of popular science at least I.e. A spontaneous regrow th probably due to an extreme manifestation of the placebo effect is in fact scientific?

I'm curious how you would establish that an event is unique.   This connects with the issue of induction, as NS mentioned.   For example, if I saw a tree take off vertically, and ascend into space, I wouldn't know that this was unique, and in fact, I have no way of establishing that.   OK, I could look for similar stories, but for all I know, a tree is doing this right now in a remote part of Siberia. 

As others have said, in any case, unusual events do not equate to the supernatural. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I'm curious how you would establish that an event is unique.   This connects with the issue of induction, as NS mentioned.   For example, if I saw a tree take off vertically, and ascend into space, I wouldn't know that this was unique, and in fact, I have no way of establishing that.   OK, I could look for similar stories, but for all I know, a tree is doing this right now in a remote part of Siberia. 

As others have said, in any case, unusual events do not equate to the supernatural.

Just to add that, even if you had magic cctv that covered every part of the universe and that could do so retrospectively too, you'd still have no way of knowing that another tree wouldn't do that tomorrow. The best you could hope for would be "unique so far", though in any case uniqueness says nothing whatever about supposed supernaturalism.

[ProfessorDavey]

But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.

No this is faulty thinking on two levels.

First as wiggs notes (and I've mentioned elsewhere) the uniqueness of an event is very difficult to ascertain, particularly over time - so that involves being sure firstly that it has never happened before (good luck with that), or that although it may be unique today it might not be tomorrow or next week or next year. So this may be the first of many occurrences for very sound reasons. So a good example might be the complete loss of ice cover during the summer in a particular location. It may be unique right now (i.e. it has never happened before), but if it is due to increase in global temperature you can be pretty sure that it is will happen regularly in future years, maybe even ever year from then on.

And using that discussion for a completely natural phenomenon leads to my second point. That is that uniqueness or ubiquity has nothing whatsoever to do with 'supernatural' or otherwise. To be supernatural surely the only criteria (albeit a big ask) is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws. And while in a way you allude to that in your post you get it wrong again - it is not that something hasn't been explained which makes it supernatural, it is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

To be supernatural surely the only criteria (albeit a big ask) is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws. And while in a way you allude to that in your post you get it wrong again - it is not that something hasn't been explained which makes it supernatural, it is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws.

It's actually worse than that. It's not only "by reference to natural physical laws" but rather "by reference to natural physical laws assuming we have a complete and definitive understanding of what those laws are".

Now that would be a big claim!   

[floo]

'Supernatural' is a only term for something which we can't at present explain in natural terms. However as human knowledge increases we will continue to make new discoveries so  eventually the term may become redundant.

[Sriram]

Could well be, but the people who make supernatural claims aren't trying to say something was extraordinary. After all Adam Peaty's swim in the Olympic games is in that sense extraordinary. If you want to say to people that claim miracles are simply describing something like Peaty's swim to justify their beliefs, then you are telling them they are talking mince.

What I am saying is that reality exists at various levels and of various kinds.....most of which we probably cannot  even imagine.  As Eddington said...'The universe is not only stranger than we imagine...it is stranger than we can imagine'.

As an example...we normally think of the universe in three different scales. The subatomic world...the Newtonian world..and the cosmic world.  The subatomic world has quantum effects such as entanglement and superposition that we  don't see in the 'normal' Newtonian world. Similarly the Cosmic world has Relativity and gravitational waves and Dark Energy, event horizons etc. which are equally strange. 

We find that our normal day to day world does not show signs of any quantum effects or cosmic effects. And QM and Relativity cannot be reconciled.

This gives the impression that we have three distinct and different worlds.....which is actually nonsense.  There aren't three worlds. Its all the same one world. Each of the worlds merges into the other and forms a part of it. Cosmic world is composed if the 'normal' world and the normal world is  composed of the quantum world.  Within each of us are elementary particles for which quantum behaviour is normal.  So...how can we separate out the three worlds?  Which is 'natural' and which is supernatural?

All of them are natural...but we don't understand most of the things that are beyond our capacity to investigate.  That is all.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

It's actually worse than that. It's not only "by reference to natural physical laws" but rather "by reference to natural physical laws assuming we have a complete and definitive understanding of what those laws are".

Now that would be a big claim!

You are right it is a very big claim.

But to claim otherwise (in other words supernatural means unexplained rather than unexplainable) means that we would have to accept that some phenomena change from being supernatural to being not supernatural as our knowledge and understanding increases. So lightning was never supernatural, even when we didn't understand it - nope it was always natural but we didn't used to understand its completely natural mechanism.

[BashfulAnthony]

My old chestnut still applies, and always will: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[wigginhall]

Prof,

It's actually worse than that. It's not only "by reference to natural physical laws" but rather "by reference to natural physical laws assuming we have a complete and definitive understanding of what those laws are".

Now that would be a big claim!

Yes, I think black holes and quasars were pretty baffling at first, or 'exotic'.   O mighty quasar, who shineth day and night, send us this day our daily quantum of gamma rays, and forgive me for stealing the lunch money. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What I am saying is that reality exists at various levels and of various kinds.....most of which we probably cannot  even imagine.  As Eddington said...'The universe is not only stranger than we imagine...it is stranger than we can imagine'.

As an example...we normally think of the universe in three different scales. The subatomic world...the Newtonian world..and the cosmic world.  The subatomic world has quantum effects such as entanglement and superposition that we  don't see in the 'normal' Newtonian world. Similarly the Cosmic world has Relativity and gravitational waves and Dark Energy, event horizons etc. which are equally strange. 

We find that our normal day to day world does not show signs of any quantum effects or cosmic effects. And QM and Relativity cannot be reconciled.

This gives the impression that we have three distinct and different worlds.....which is actually nonsense.  There aren't three worlds. Its all the same one world. Each of the worlds merges into the other and forms a part of it. Cosmic world is composed if the 'normal' world and the normal world is  composed of the quantum world.  Within each of us are elementary particles for which quantum behaviour is normal.  So...how can we separate out the three worlds?  Which is 'natural' and which is supernatural?

All of them are natural...but we don't understand most of the things that are beyond our capacity to investigate.  That is all.

But these phenomena are all naturalistic in character. The issue here is that some people claim something they call "supernatural" - ie, outside or above the natural. Leaving aside the definitional problems with that, how would such a person distinguish "supernatural" from "natural but without a naturalistic explanation to hand"? 

[Sriram]

Sriram,

But these phenomena are all naturalistic in character. The issue here is that some people claim something they call "supernatural" - ie, outside or above the natural. Leaving aside the definitional problems with that, how would such a person distinguish "supernatural" from "natural but without a naturalistic explanation to hand"?

And that's the point. Everything that exists is natural. It may of course contain phenomena that don't fit into our understanding of the world. That doesn't mean its not natural.  As I have said about the quantum effects that may seem bizarre....but are natural. 

The 'supernatural idea is a dualistic idea. One world here (natural)...and the other world out there (supernatural). It is born of the biblical idea.

Much water has flown and today we know that the world is a wide spectrum.....from the quantum world to the normal world to the cosmic world ....and perhaps extending further on both sides into a sub sub atomic world and a super cosmic world.  So the idea of just two worlds is outdated.

Out of this wide spectrum, we can measure and analyse only a small section.....which we call the natural world.  Everything beyond that is  also natural but beyond our scope of study.

Its all about labeling and nomenclature.  The idea of a supernatural world is a human construct just as the idea of a natural world. The reality is that it is a spectrum out of which whatever we don't understand we have been labeling as supernatural. We don't need to do that any more.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

And that's the point. Everything that exists is natural. It may of course contain phenomena that don't fit into our understanding of the world. That doesn't mean its not natural.  As I have said about the quantum effects that may seem bizarre....but are natural. 

The 'supernatural idea is a dualistic idea. One world here (natural)...and the other world out there (supernatural). It is born of the biblical idea.

Much water has flown and today we know that the world is a wide spectrum.....from the quantum world to the normal world to the cosmic world ....and perhaps extending further on both sides into a sub sub atomic world and a super cosmic world.  So the idea of just two worlds is outdated.

Out of this wide spectrum, we can measure and analyse only a small section.....which we call the natural world.  Everything beyond that is  also natural but beyond our scope of study.

Its all about labeling and nomenclature.  The idea of a supernatural world is a human construct just as the idea of a natural world. The reality is that it is a spectrum out of which whatever we don't understand we have been labeling as supernatural. We don't need to do that any more.

But the problem for those who believe in something they call "God" is that, as I understand the claim, they do think "He's" "supernatural" - ie, not bound by laws and forces that constitute what's meant by "natural". No matter what those things are, "He" can we're told do something else entirely whenever "He" feels like it. That's why for them asserting the supernatural is so important - without it, where would such a god be?

[Sriram]

Sriram,

But the problem for those who believe in something they call "God" is that, as I understand the claim, they do think "He's" "supernatural" - ie, not bound by laws and forces that constitute what's meant by "natural". No matter what those things are, "He" can we're told do something else entirely whenever "He" feels like it. That's why for them asserting the supernatural is so important - without it, where would such a god be?

But we have seen from  quantum mechanics and cosmology that laws could be very different in different scales. What applies in the 'normal'  world need not  apply in the quantum or the cosmic scale.   Different parallel universes could have different laws that govern them.  So..there is nothing sacrosanct about our laws of physics. They need not be universal (across universes I mean).

People living in parallel universes could have different laws. They could perhaps influence our world. They could do things that may seem magical to us. Is this natural or supernatural?!! Its how you want to perceive it.

So....maybe there are people in other universes who are not bound by the laws of physics in our world. Call them gods or whatever.....how does that matter?

'Supernatural' is just about unusual happenings and about being unbound by normal terrestrial restrictions.  We now know that unusual happenings are everywhere in QM. They are happening within us all the time.  Merely because we are able to study some of it...we label it as 'natural'. 

As I have said...its about perception and labeling.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

But we have seen from  quantum mechanics and cosmology that laws could be very different in different scales.

etc

Yes, but they are still laws - presumably that apply consistently and that bind the people/aliens/whatever that are subject to them. You're just describing here different flavours of natural. The "God" claim on the other hand is that "He" is unbounded, not governed by laws or by anything else, supernatural. That's what the omnis would entail.

Possible different laws would still be laws nonetheless - whereas the god of the omnis would be outside of them. It's a free-for-all in other words, Wild West territory, anything goes (except oddly a god who's omni-beneficent would presumably be bound by "His" own character of not being horrible). 

[Sriram]

Sriram,
 etc

Yes, but they are still laws - presumably that apply consistently and that bind the people/aliens/whatever that are subject to them. You're just describing here different flavours of natural. The "God" claim on the other hand is that "He" is unbounded, not governed by laws or by anything else, supernatural. That's what the omnis would entail.

Possible different laws would still be laws nonetheless - whereas the god of the omnis would be outside of them. It's a free-for-all in other words, Wild West territory, anything goes (except oddly a god who's omni-beneficent would presumably be bound by "His" own character of not being horrible).

I am not trying to accommodate biblical beliefs into my understanding of the world.  I am only pointing out that what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time could now be considered as natural because our understanding of the world has expanded.

Having said that, the world is a wide spectrum and there will always be something that is outside the scope of our understanding...regardless of whether one wants to label it as natural or supernatural.

Goodnight!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I am not trying to accommodate biblical beliefs into my understanding of the world.  I am only pointing out that what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time could now be considered as natural because our understanding of the world has expanded.

Having said that, the world is a wide spectrum and there will always be something that is outside the scope of our understanding...regardless of whether one wants to label it as natural or supernatural.

Well, "supernaturalist" beliefs in general perhaps but you're pushing at an open door for those who don't have them. Other though do have them, albeit grounded in fallacious reasoning (cf Vlad, Alan Burns et al). 

[ProfessorDavey]

I am only pointing out that what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time could now be considered as natural because our understanding of the world has expanded.

But just because we once didn't understand something doesn't mean it used to be supernatural.

Lightning and earthquakes are natural (and now we understand them) - but they were still natural before humans understood them, and were still natural before humans (or even life) arose. If you take your argument to its extreme it would mean that everything was supernatural prior to the evolution of life with sufficient cognition and curiosity to start to try to understand the world around them.

Things don't change from being supernatural to natural on the basis that we actually understand them. Our actual understanding is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether they are understandable according to natural physical laws - that is an entirely different thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

But just because we once didn't understand something doesn't mean it used to be supernatural.

Lightning and earthquakes are natural (and now we understand them) - but they were still natural before humans understood them, and were still natural before humans (or even life) arose. If you take your argument to its extreme it would mean that everything was supernatural prior to the evolution of life with sufficient cognition and curiosity to start to try to understand the world around them.

Things don't change from being supernatural to natural on the basis that we actually understand them. Our actual understanding is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether they are understandable according to natural physical laws - that is an entirely different thing.

To be fair what Sriram said was, "what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time" (my emphasis). He didn't imply that he thought these things actually were supernatural and later ceased to be. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

To be fair what Sriram said was, "what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time". He didn't imply that he thought these things actually were supernatural and later ceased to be.

Fair enough

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm curious how you would establish that an event is unique.   This connects with the issue of induction, as NS mentioned.   For example, if I saw a tree take off vertically, and ascend into space, I wouldn't know that this was unique, and in fact, I have no way of establishing that.   OK, I could look for similar stories, but for all I know, a tree is doing this right now in a remote part of Siberia. 

As others have said, in any case, unusual events do not equate to the supernatural.

Good points although I am not talking about unusual events at all.
I'm heartened that now all of the problem with induction crew will now leap onto the cases of colleagues who insist that ''These things never happen and never will happen (Pigs ready for take off?)

What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.

That is just plain old pornographic scientism.......centrefold.....legs akimbo.

Crikey I suppose that makes a certain person the Paul Raymond of scientism.

[Gordon]

What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.

Not yet explained by science: do you have an alternative method for explaining stuff?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not yet explained by science: do you have an alternative method for explaining stuff?

Non sequitur and to be frank an example of using words shamanically.
Can you say for sure that everything will be answered by science?

[Gordon]

Non sequitur.
Can you say for sure that everything will be answered by science?

Careful with all that straw, Vlad: I made no claims but simply commented on your gripe, asking if you had an approach to explaining stuff that wasn't science.

So, do you?

[ProfessorDavey]

Good points although I am not talking about unusual events at all.
I'm heartened that now all of the problem with induction crew will now leap onto the cases of colleagues who insist that ''These things never happen and never will happen (Pigs ready for take off?)

What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.

That is just plain old pornographic scientism.......centrefold.....legs akimbo.

Crikey I suppose that makes a certain person the Paul Raymond of scientism.

Oh get off your rather predictable high horse.

I'm not sure I even mentioned science.

What I said is that for something to have a sustainable claim to be supernatural it must not be explainable by reference to natural physical laws. And further I have (quite reasonably) said that suggesting that there is a sustainable claim for supernatural where a phenomenon is merely not explained rather than not explainable is deeply faulty thinking.