How can you discern between the natural and the supernatural?

[talquin]

How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.

 

[TillICollapse]

This is why I dislike the term "supernatural", because it's misleading.

If something happens in the natural world, it is by definition "natural". Even if it's from an extraordinary, as yet unexplained source that SEEMS to defy aspects of physics or is beyond our understanding as of yet, it's still "natural".

I have many examples from my own life of experiences I've had which are lazily termed "supernatural", however I believe they have natural explanations, even though ultimately some may deduce they may come from extraordinary sources not yet fully understood.

 

[variant]

How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.

I don't think this follows.

Something that happened within the universe needn't be "part" of it aside from it's natural after effect.

The event itself could be theoretically impossible to happen in the natural world without some intervening circumstance, which would make it supernatural.

 

[TillICollapse]

I don't think this follows.

Something that happened within the universe needn't be "part" of it aside from it's natural after effect.

The event itself could be theoretically impossible to happen in the natural world without some intervening circumstance, which would make it supernatural.

This sounds something akin to a physics deus ex machina, at least in the way I am envisioning what you are describing.

Can you give an example (which I'm assuming will be a hypothetical) of what you are describing in terms of the bolded part ?

The first part of your statement (unbolded) seems like a contradiction causally speaking. If something happens within our universe, but is somehow from "another universe" (for example) or has an origin outside our known universe, once it interacts with something within our universe it is now part of our causality regardless of it's effect. It is the "happening" part which links it to our universe and makes it part of it, so to speak. Thus, causally speaking, it is part of our universe ... otherwise it would not have been able to interact within our universe. So to say it was not part of our universe is a contradiction in terms, even if you're looking at the origin point of our recognizing it's appearance in our causal chain.

Am I missing something ?

Personally, I think the term paranormal is more fitting for what most people describe as "supernatural", imo.

 

[variant]

This sounds something akin to a physics deus ex machina, at least in the way I am envisioning what you are describing.

Well I'm not a big believer in "supernatural" things, but the way people who do believe in such things describe it, it does translate to a sort of deus ex machina, which are only really problematic in the "literary cliche" sense.

Can you give an example (which I'm assuming will be a hypothetical) of what you are describing in terms of the bolded part ?

Supernatural thing interacts with universe to cause previously impossible (within the natural universe unaltered) event X is about as specific as I was going to get.

The first part of your statement (unbolded) seems like a contradiction causally speaking. If something happens within our universe, but is somehow from "another universe" (for example) or has an origin outside our known universe, once it interacts with something within our universe it is now part of our causality regardless of it's effect. It is the "happening" part which links it to our universe and makes it part of it, so to speak.

I can't really say that things from other universes don't cause things to happen in ours but are nominally in separate universes in general.

What you are saying though is that causing things to happen within the natural universe ultimately makes something a part of the natural universe, and I disagree so long as that thing doesn't obey the usual natural laws of the universe but instead introduces a different set of laws of a markedly different (if theoretically compatible) set.

I don't think that those new "laws" would be continually "part" of the universe either. What I mean is that I take to mean "universe" is the laws that govern the actions within it.

Then you would have laws that aren't always laws, (which sounds contradictory to me).

Am I missing something ?

Personally, I think the term paranormal is more fitting for what most people describe as "supernatural", imo.

Possibly, I don't think we know enough to examine the possibilities.

 

[AionPhanes]

Good question. At the very least the line between supernatural and natural occurrences can be fuzzy. Some might go so far as to drop the word completely in regard to "physical happenings" even when they appear to have God as their final cause. Not sure I would go THAT far but I understand the thinking. If someone can figure it out and explain it to me I would give them a cookie for sure.

 

[TillICollapse]

Well I'm not a big believer in "supernatural" things, but the way people who do believe in such things describe it, it does translate to a sort of deus ex machina, which are only really problematic in the "literary cliche" sense.

Supernatural thing interacts with universe to cause previously impossible (within the natural universe unaltered) event X is about as specific as I was going to get.

I can't really say that things from other universes don't cause things to happen in ours but are nominally in separate universes in general.

What you are saying though is that causing things to happen within the natural universe ultimately makes something a part of the natural universe, and I disagree so long as that thing doesn't obey the usual natural laws of the universe but instead introduces a different set of laws of a markedly different (if theoretically compatible) set.

I don't think that those new "laws" would be continually "part" of the universe either. What I mean is that I take to mean "universe" is the laws that govern the actions within it.

Then you would have laws that aren't always laws, (which sounds contradictory to me).

Possibly, I don't think we know enough to examine the possibilities.

Okay I think the bolded part in this response is touching upon what is confusing me about your statements. So I'll focus on one thing in particular you said:

Let's say some thing appears in our universe that doesn't seem to obey the usual natural laws but instead introduces a new set.

What would make us conclusively be able to say "These are new laws, they are not natural to our universe ?" At what point, IOW, would we think our knowledge was so complete concerning the laws that apply to our physical universe that we could say, without a doubt, that some new thing was from some other universe and was introducing something "new" ? Why wouldn't we just assume it was something we didn't understand yet ?

The oft quoted Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law seems to apply, and I'll change it's wording to fit this context: Just because something is beyond our understanding, doesn't make it supernatural or "disobeying our natural laws". For all we know, those laws are natural, we just don't understand their workings yet. I mean, look at quantum entanglement. Spooky action at a distance ... it's no longer spooky because we understand a bit more about it. But at first, it's "spooky". Because it goes against classical physics, doesn't mean there isn't a lot of principles at work we have yet to understand.

If we had a GTOE that could be understood conclusively, then perhaps we could say whether or not something was "violating our natural laws" so to speak. But so long as our knowledge is incomplete, I don't see why we would be content to call something "magic" so to speak.

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at. I mean, if I ask for another example, can you give an example of something that would violate our natural laws and introduce new laws into our universe and NOT be considered part of the laws of our universe ? That sounds contradictory to me too lol.

 

[TillICollapse]

Good question. At the very least the line between supernatural and natural occurrences can be fuzzy. Some might go so far as to drop the word completely in regard to "physical happenings" even when they appear to have God as their final cause. Not sure I would go THAT far but I understand the thinking. If someone can figure it out and explain it to me I would give them a cookie for sure.

Have you ever experienced something you attributed to "God" and it had physical effects ? If not, even the scriptures are replete with examples of God and other entities having a physical effect on people and their environment.

I would call this "natural", personally.

 

[variant]

What would make us conclusively be able to say "These are new laws, they are not natural to our universe ?" At what point, IOW, would we think our knowledge was so complete concerning the laws that apply to our physical universe that we could say, without a doubt, that some new thing was from some other universe and was introducing something "new" ? Why wouldn't we just assume it was something we didn't understand yet ?

You would have to show that the causation of the event were not possible from within the natural universe as it exists.

This would require that you have complete natural control of the space you are observing.

The oft quoted Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law seems to apply, and I'll change it's wording to fit this context: Just because something is beyond our understanding, doesn't make it supernatural or "disobeying our natural laws". For all we know, those laws are natural, we just don't understand their workings yet. I mean, look at quantum entanglement. Spooky action at a distance ... it's no longer spooky because we understand a bit more about it. But at first, it's "spooky". Because it goes against classical physics, doesn't mean there isn't a lot of principles at work we have yet to understand.

Direct contradictions to natural laws (by different natural laws) will also have reasons, which will be capable of being worked out (since they will also obey laws). A direct enough, and persistent enough contradiction that has no way to be explained would give us reason to think the laws we are working with are not stationary.

In short if you keep doing the exact same experiment and getting different results you've found some insanity.

 

[Davian]

How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.

What is a "supernatural thing", and how would you know it?

Was magnetism a "supernatural thing" until we understood it better?

 

[AionPhanes]

TillICollapse: Have you ever experienced something you attributed to "God" and it had physical effects ? If not, even the scriptures are replete with examples of God and other entities having a physical effect on people and their environment.

I, like many others, have experienced events that would fall under the label of "synchronicities" in the Jungian meaning of the term. I have such experiences rather often including dreams that seem (to me at least) to have predicted events that would take place later in the day. Such things are rather common really but people simply don't talk about them a lot for fear of being labeled crazy or maybe vainglorious like they are trying to draw attention to themselves. I would think some folks might worry that such occurrences are demonic in nature and don't want to draw attention to them too. Those are legitimate concerns so I can understand why people might be reluctant.

More "drastically" I have also heard about certain healings that appear** to have took place in some of the local Churches here in connection with the reverencing (or even viewing) of a specific Icon of the Virgin Mary. Beautiful icon I have a copy of it on wall actually.

Re: Synchronicity:

Synchronicity is the occurrence of two or more events that appear to be meaningfully related but not causally related...

Jung variously defined synchronicity as an "acausal connecting (togetherness) principle," "meaningful coincidence," and "acausal parallelism." He introduced the concept as early as the 1920s but gave a full statement of it only in 1951 in an Eranos lecture... "

synchronicity, the view that the structure of reality includes a principle of acausal connection which manifests itself most conspicuously in the form of meaningful coincidences.[3]​

** They were obviously sick, often with cancer, and then got better at least.

I would call this "natural", personally.

At the end of the day I'm not sure the word used is the major thing. If one recognizes the reality the word is merely secondary.

 

[True Scotsman]

How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.

by an objective method of knowledge. A method which uses facts and is in accordance with the way the Human mind works.

How can anyone arrive at the concept of the supernatural objectively?

How can one infer the supernatural by observing the natural?

What train of logic can lead one to the conclusion that there is such a realm?

 

[TillICollapse]

You would have to show that the causation of the event were not possible from within the natural universe as it exists.

I think I (may) understand what you're getting at now, and it still doesn't agree with me lol. Because I don't see how a person can show (in this context, prove) that an event within our causality originated outside of it lol. I don't see how that's possible, given our place in causality (i.e. not at the beginning of it).

It is to me the equivalent of demonstrating undetectable invisible pink unicorns exist. Once they become detectable, they are no longer undetectable. They may still be "invisible", but no longer "undetectable". Maybe it's semantics, but I can't get around the "natural" and "supernatural" wording, as well as the causal implications of an event taking place within the known universe, if nothing else.

This would require that you have complete natural control of the space you are observing.

Direct contradictions to natural laws (by different natural laws) will also have reasons, which will be capable of being worked out (since they will also obey laws). A direct enough, and persistent enough contradiction that has no way to be explained would give us reason to think the laws we are working with are not stationary.

In short if you keep doing the exact same experiment and getting different results you've found some insanity.

Okay this last line ... apply it to the double slit experiment, at different parts of the experiment. Was that insanity, or just something we didn't yet understand ? Some of the ramifications, at first glance, seem to violate classical physics on so many levels as to give one pause to consider their own level of delusion. This is essentially my point. The quantum environment is not "unnatural", even though it's principles are very different from the classical and the mechanism which separates the two environments is not fully understood.

Does this render the quantum environment "supernatural" ? Or does it present a different set of laws that are markedly different from the known universe ?

 

[TillICollapse]

I, like many others, have experienced events that would fall under the label of "synchronicities" in the Jungian meaning of the term. I have such experiences rather often including dreams that seem (to me at least) to have predicted events that would take place later in the day. Such things are rather common really but people simply don't talk about them a lot for fear of being labeled crazy or maybe vainglorious like they are trying to draw attention to themselves. I would think some folks might worry that such occurrences are demonic in nature and don't want to draw attention to them too. Those are legitimate concerns so I can understand why people might be reluctant.

More "drastically" I have also heard about certain healings that appear** to have took place in some of the local Churches here in connection with the reverencing (or even viewing) of a specific Icon of the Virgin Mary. Beautiful icon I have a copy of it on wall actually.

Re: Synchronicity:

Synchronicity is the occurrence of two or more events that appear to be meaningfully related but not causally related...

Jung variously defined synchronicity as an "acausal connecting (togetherness) principle," "meaningful coincidence," and "acausal parallelism." He introduced the concept as early as the 1920s but gave a full statement of it only in 1951 in an Eranos lecture... "

synchronicity, the view that the structure of reality includes a principle of acausal connection which manifests itself most conspicuously in the form of meaningful coincidences.[3]​

** They were obviously sick, often with cancer, and then got better at least.




At the end of the day I'm not sure the word used is the major thing. If one recognizes the reality the word is merely secondary.

My response here isn't critiquing anything you've said, rather I'm using the examples you raised, to explore ...

I'm aware of the concept of synchronicities, etc. At the most basic level, the Occam's Razor explanation is that they will always just be "coincidences", or instance of a person attempting to assign meaning to events and find patterns amongst the events. Since they may involve nothing more than a person's mind and reasoning, they are essentially and collectively easily dismissed by many as products of imagination. Thus: natural, but not in an extraordinary sense. This doesn't mean that there isn't something to them, just, at the most basic Occam's Razor explanation, they are typically not extraordinary. There would need to be signifficant enough events as to almost defy coincidence or chance.

Prophetic or precognitive dreams are a bit more interesting, depending on factors. The more detailed they are, the more extraordinary they are, etc ... the more they may show *something* at work between how humans are able to make sense of events in the natural world extraordinary ways. But conversely, if they are riddled with too much symbolism and not enough detail, or are vague, then they are easily passed off as well as being nothing more than the imagination. However, the more extraordinary examples may show an interesting relationship between the way humans perceive information and events that unfold in the environment. Still natural, but if it's a legitimate phenomenon, the mechanism by which it works does not "stand out" apart from a human being as being the conduit, so to speak.

Physical healings are obviously more extraordinary, depending on context. But it's still taking place in the "natural", although the origin of the mechanism at work may point to something else, it's still reflected in the "natural". However if the healing isn't that remarkable (i.e. "My headache got better," or "My cancer got better over time,") ... then the Occam's Razor explanation would be more mundane causes behind the healing. If a limb were to grow back in the space of a minute (or perhaps even in the space of a couple of days) then that is obviously more extraordinary, but still ... it's taking place in the natural. Whatever the origin is, it's reflecting in the natural world.

IMO, if we consider the idea that extraordinary examples of each of those phenomena are legitimate and actually point to a mechanism at work that involves some "behind the scenes" entity or agency which most people would call "supernatural", I still don't see why it's necessary to make that leap. Because even if all those examples WERE legitimate (and not just imagination, or other more mundane explanations), and we simply couldn't explain fully the mechanisms behind them, I still don't see why the jump needs to be made to "it's outside of natural physics !" etc and so forth.

Personally ... and I'm somewhat assuming a lot of things here about you (hopefully I'm not overstepping) ... but I'd bet that if you experienced more extraordinary phenomena that involved events that took place separate from your "mind" so to speak ... like stigmata (effects the body in a dramatic way), or meeting a person whom looked like a human being but was able to do things that defied physics as you knew it (i.e. translocate, or make cars appear and disappear in an instant, vanish, etc), then you *may* see a more direct link to the natural world and things ascribed to the "supernatural". The line between the two may lead one to conclude there is no line. Synchronicity, dreams ... still essentially deal with the mind. Which can lead one to conclude, "I'm either making this all up in my head, or I'm onto something," ... while things physically effecting your body, or happening to the environment around you apart from your mind ... are more extraordinary and may have a different effect on one's conclusions. Just a guess.

 

[AionPhanes]

My response here isn't critiquing anything you've said, rather I'm using the examples you raised, to explore ...

I'm aware of the concept of synchronicities, etc. At the most basic level, the Occam's Razor explanation is that they will always just be "coincidences", or instance of a person attempting to assign meaning to events and find patterns amongst the events. Since they may involve nothing more than a person's mind and reasoning, they are essentially and collectively easily dismissed by many as products of imagination. Thus: natural, but not in an extraordinary sense. This doesn't mean that there isn't something to them, just, at the most basic Occam's Razor explanation, they are typically not extraordinary. There would need to be signifficant enough events as to almost defy coincidence or chance.

Prophetic or precognitive dreams are a bit more interesting, depending on factors. The more detailed they are, the more extraordinary they are, etc ... the more they may show *something* at work between how humans are able to make sense of events in the natural world extraordinary ways. But conversely, if they are riddled with too much symbolism and not enough detail, or are vague, then they are easily passed off as well as being nothing more than the imagination. However, the more extraordinary examples may show an interesting relationship between the way humans perceive information and events that unfold in the environment. Still natural, but if it's a legitimate phenomenon, the mechanism by which it works does not "stand out" apart from a human being as being the conduit, so to speak.

Physical healings are obviously more extraordinary, depending on context. But it's still taking place in the "natural", although the origin of the mechanism at work may point to something else, it's still reflected in the "natural". However if the healing isn't that remarkable (i.e. "My headache got better," or "My cancer got better over time,") ... then the Occam's Razor explanation would be more mundane causes behind the healing. If a limb were to grow back in the space of a minute (or perhaps even in the space of a couple of days) then that is obviously more extraordinary, but still ... it's taking place in the natural. Whatever the origin is, it's reflecting in the natural world.

IMO, if we consider the idea that extraordinary examples of each of those phenomena are legitimate and actually point to a mechanism at work that involves some "behind the scenes" entity or agency which most people would call "supernatural", I still don't see why it's necessary to make that leap. Because even if all those examples WERE legitimate (and not just imagination, or other more mundane explanations), and we simply couldn't explain fully the mechanisms behind them, I still don't see why the jump needs to be made to "it's outside of natural physics !" etc and so forth.

Personally ... and I'm somewhat assuming a lot of things here about you (hopefully I'm not overstepping) ... but I'd bet that if you experienced more extraordinary phenomena that involved events that took place separate from your "mind" so to speak ... like stigmata (effects the body in a dramatic way), or meeting a person whom looked like a human being but was able to do things that defied physics as you knew it (i.e. translocate, or make cars appear and disappear in an instant, vanish, etc), then you *may* see a more direct link to the natural world and things ascribed to the "supernatural". The line between the two may lead one to conclude there is no line. Synchronicity, dreams ... still essentially deal with the mind. Which can lead one to conclude, "I'm either making this all up in my head, or I'm onto something," ... while things physically effecting your body, or happening to the environment around you apart from your mind ... are more extraordinary and may have a different effect on one's conclusions. Just a guess.

I really enjoyed reading your response. I wish I had more time to keep the discussion going tonight but I didn't mean to come back here, was merely on the computer to buy books, and what do you know before I know it I'm back here on CF. I'm trying to cut back my computer time. I will try to come back and offer a more in depth reply later.

 

[variant]

I think I (may) understand what you're getting at now, and it still doesn't agree with me lol. Because I don't see how a person can show (in this context, prove) that an event within our causality originated outside of it lol. I don't see how that's possible, given our place in causality (i.e. not at the beginning of it).

It is to me the equivalent of demonstrating undetectable invisible pink unicorns exist. Once they become detectable, they are no longer undetectable. They may still be "invisible", but no longer "undetectable". Maybe it's semantics, but I can't get around the "natural" and "supernatural" wording, as well as the causal implications of an event taking place within the known universe, if nothing else.

Yes well I'm not proposing undetectable events, rather, detectable ones that we can show shouldn't have happened.

Okay this last line ... apply it to the double slit experiment, at different parts of the experiment. Was that insanity, or just something we didn't yet understand ? Some of the ramifications, at first glance, seem to violate classical physics on so many levels as to give one pause to consider their own level of delusion. This is essentially my point. The quantum environment is not "unnatural", even though it's principles are very different from the classical and the mechanism which separates the two environments is not fully understood.

Does this render the quantum environment "supernatural" ? Or does it present a different set of laws that are markedly different from the known universe ?

Even with unknown (unexplained) causes, If an event follows the same "laws" as the rest of the universe it is not supernatural so when you can apply the findings of one thing elsewhere you can disregard it.

Experiments are reproducible even if unexplainable, we would need to find things that were consistently non-reproducible but we could verify that they do in fact happen.

The double slit experiment happens every time, and thus we find an explanation for the natural phenomena.

Quantum phenomena are markedly regular (statistical) if containing an element of randomness when looked at one at a time, and they also seem to be very regular from experiment to experiment.

 

[TillICollapse]

I really enjoyed reading your response. I wish I had more time to keep the discussion going tonight but I didn't mean to come back here, was merely on the computer to buy books, and what do you know before I know it I'm back here on CF. I'm trying to cut back my computer time. I will try to come back and offer a more in depth reply later.

Hey glad you enjoyed it Thanks for your kind words ... no worries on replying

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes well I'm not proposing undetectable events, rather, detectable ones that we can show shouldn't have happened.

I shouldn't have said, "It's the equivalent of," rather I should have said it was "similar to". I knew you weren't proposing undetectable events, I was trying to be analogous. But it's cool, we may be talking around each other at this point.

Even with unknown (unexplained) causes, If an event follows the same "laws" as the rest of the universe it is not supernatural so when you can apply the findings of one thing elsewhere you can disregard it.

Experiments are reproducible even if unexplainable, we would need to find things that were consistently non-reproducible but we could verify that they do in fact happen.

The double slit experiment happens every time, and thus we find an explanation for the natural phenomena.

Quantum phenomena are markedly regular (statistical) if containing an element of randomness when looked at one at a time, and they also seem to be very regular from experiment to experiment.

My bringing up the double slit experiment was in the framework of when it was FIRST conducted, so to speak, and the observations that would have been made the first time around, when such things were newly "discovered". In hindsight, we now view behavior in the quantum arena as "natural" however in the beginning when Thomas Young was first a proponent of wave theory, he was opposed, some of the results were considered absurd (for example by Poisson), etc. So what is "natural" now was far from it, until it could be demonstrated and understood.

I brought up that as an example not to discuss the example itself per se, but to point out where I was still finding flaw in your own argument at certain points. But like I said, I think we're kind of talking around each other at this point, so it's cool

 

[variant]

My bringing up the double slit experiment was in the framework of when it was FIRST conducted, so to speak, and the observations that would have been made the first time around, when such things were newly "discovered". In hindsight, we now view behavior in the quantum arena as "natural" however in the beginning when Thomas Young was first a proponent of wave theory, he was opposed, some of the results were considered absurd (for example by Poisson), etc. So what is "natural" now was far from it, until it could be demonstrated and understood.

I brought up that as an example not to discuss the example itself per se, but to point out where I was still finding flaw in your own argument at certain points. But like I said, I think we're kind of talking around each other at this point, so it's cool

Well I don't believe in the supernatural because I don't have evidence like what I am suggesting, what I am saying is that I don't think all supernatural claims would necessarily be unfalsifiable ones, if they are in fact events that happen, they should be observable.

Observable means we can hold it to objective standards.

To observe (and confirm the observation of) the supernatural what we would get would be a very stubbornly unpredictable and unexplainable event that we both knew was happening and thought was impossible.

As with the double slit experiment, if there is no good reason to abandon materialist solutions we should not, they are simply simpler (parsimonious) and we have a better history with them. And, they have a much better (read infinitely better) track record for actually explaining events.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'll worry about it when something supernatural actually happens.