What is Nature?

[zippy2006]

Yes, I think that the word "supernatural" is effectively used as a synonym for "not real."

Maybe in some circles, but I would say it is more often used in the sense of being beyond common experience or the mundane, beyond the laws of nature, etc.

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe in some circles, but I would say it is more often used in the sense of being beyond common experience or the mundane, beyond the laws of nature, etc.

My concern with this definition is that it could arguably make quantum physics supernatural, since it's beyond common experience and also beyond the laws of nature as they were previously understood.

Now, I'd be pretty comfortable with the idea that our most advanced physics is slowly pointing to something beyond the natural, but no naturalist is going to be happy with that.

 

[Resha Caner]

My concern with this definition is that it could arguably make quantum physics supernatural, since it's beyond common experience and also beyond the laws of nature as they were previously understood.

Now, I'd be pretty comfortable with the idea that our most advanced physics is slowly pointing to something beyond the natural, but no naturalist is going to be happy with that.

Aye. You're near the dilemma I see for materialists with this whole "Nature" thing.

If Nature is just a synonym for everything, then by the very definition, Nature excludes the possibility of the immaterial. If that is the case, don't ask me to demonstrate something you have, by definition, excluded.

If Nature doesn't mean everything. OK. Show me an example of something that is not Nature (or tell me what you'd allow as not Nature) … and you yourself have just allowed/defined the immaterial.

 

[zippy2006]

My concern with this definition is that it could arguably make quantum physics supernatural, since it's beyond common experience and also beyond the laws of nature as they were previously understood.

Those last five words kind of undermine your argument.

Granted, quantum mechanics is often presented in a supernatural light, and also gets mixed up in a great deal of pseudo-science.

 

[jacks]

Have you ever stood outside in the woods, mountains, seashore, etc. (i.e. in "Nature".) and thought from this we have gone to the moon. From a material sense ,it boggles my mind; but everything we have ever created has come from the raw materials naturally around us. We may be full of faults, but we are clever little creatures.

Also I would say, nature is part of God. Being that nature is part of God, I don't see it as limited to the material realm. Can't nature truly be "everything" including the spiritual?

 

[Silmarien]

Aye. You're near the dilemma I see for materialists with this whole "Nature" thing.

If Nature is just a synonym for everything, then by the very definition, Nature excludes the possibility of the immaterial. If that is the case, don't ask me to demonstrate something you have, by definition, excluded.

If Nature doesn't mean everything. OK. Show me an example of something that is not Nature (or tell me what you'd allow as not Nature) … and you yourself have just allowed/defined the immaterial.

Yep. For a while I've been under the impression that naturalism is more a mood than an actual ontology--a way of looking at the world through the lens of a scientific pragmatism. I've seen very little in the way of coherent definitions of it, at least.

Those last five words kind of undermine your argument.

Oh, I don't think so. If the laws of nature are in practice a moving target, as they clearly need to be, then it's meaningless to define the supernatural as anything that is beyond the laws of nature. Either it simply hasn't been understood and demystified yet, or it doesn't exist.

 

[zippy2006]

Oh, I don't think so. If the laws of nature are in practice a moving target, as they clearly need to be, then it's meaningless to define the supernatural as anything that is beyond the laws of nature. Either it simply hasn't been understood and demystified yet, or it doesn't exist.

Cultural boundaries are also a moving target, but that doesn't make the counterculture meaningless. Besides, no one thinks the supernatural is that which is beyond the laws of nature as previously understood. I said that the supernatural is often conceived as that which is inexplicable by the laws of nature. Something that used to be inexplicable by the laws of nature but no longer is is clearly not supernatural on that definition.

 

[Silmarien]

Cultural boundaries are also a moving target, but that doesn't make the counterculture meaningless. Besides, no one thinks the supernatural is that which is beyond the laws of nature as previously understood. I said that the supernatural is often conceived as that which is inexplicable by the laws of nature. Something that used to be inexplicable by the laws of nature but no longer is is clearly not supernatural on that definition.

Yeah, but there's the caveat that anything that isn't explicable by the laws of nature will one day be understood. Cultural boundaries aren't a moving target in the same way, because people usually don't operate under the assumption that only one culture exists and anything that can't be explained in terms of that culture one day will be. Cultural boundaries are also not ontologically real in the same way that the divide between the natural and supernatural ought to be for the distinction to be meaningful--after all, if the natural is a social construct, then we're back at wondering what precisely it is.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, but there's the caveat that anything that isn't explicable by the laws of nature will one day be understood.

A caveat stipulated by who?

Cultural boundaries are also not ontologically real...

Such a definition carries with it a heavy dose of epistemology, but that's common in everyday language. Lots of people believe in miracles and supernatual entities based on the idea that these things can't be explained by the laws of nature.

 

[Silmarien]

A caveat stipulated by who?



Such a definition carries with it a heavy dose of epistemology, but that's common in everyday language. Lots of people believe in miracles and supernatual entities based on the idea that these things can't be explained by the laws of nature.

Yeah, but I'm talking about from the naturalistic perspective. The supernatural is by definition that which doesn't exist. There's no way around that when an entire epistemology is based around the idea that miracles are impossible. It makes the word meaningless. We're at the problem of magic being indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, but I'm talking about from the naturalistic perspective. The supernatural is by definition that which doesn't exist. There's no way around that when an entire epistemology is based around the idea that miracles are impossible. It makes the word meaningless. We're at the problem of magic being indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology.

I agree that the naturalist doesn't believe in the supernatural and it isn't even part of his lexicon... Yet I don't think this thread is about the meaning of words considered from a naturalistic perspective (nor would I be convinced that the naturalist defines the supernatural as that which doesn't exist).

Perhaps Merriam-Webster's approach is instructive, which restricts itself to phenomena and appearances: "2a. Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."

 

[Silmarien]

I agree that the naturalist doesn't believe in the supernatural and it isn't even part of his lexicon... Yet I don't think this thread is about the meaning of words considered from a naturalistic perspective (nor would I be convinced that the naturalist defines the supernatural as that which doesn't exist).

I suppose you could say that the naturalist defines the supernatural as that which is magical, but that gets back to the same problem. There's the underlying assumption that it's not real.

Perhaps Merriam-Webster's approach is instructive, which restricts itself to phenomena and appearances: "2a. Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."

Yeah, but then we're back to quantum physics being supernatural.

I don't find the word particularly useful. People would need to provide a coherent account of what naturalism is for me to know what it entails for something to be supernatural, and I've never seen one that makes much sense.

 

[muichimotsu]

Next up: What is Nature?

I realize there are several meanings. I had concepts related to the material world in mind for this question, but if you feel other meanings are relevant, feel free to expound.

Further, the question is open to all, even those who don't want to talk to me. I promise I won't barge into conversations where I'm not wanted.

The problem becomes how you can stretch the terms "nature" and "universe" to things like some immaterial transcendent dimension without needing to substantiate it, while I'm fine with it being the natural material world in terms of our ability to observe, without limiting abstraction from also being considered, just not in the universe in that particular metaphysical sense of reliable behaviors of things we engage with in general, versus ideas that can and do change

 

[muichimotsu]

I suppose you could say that the naturalist defines the supernatural as that which is magical, but that gets back to the same problem. There's the underlying assumption that it's not real.



Yeah, but then we're back to quantum physics being supernatural.

I don't find the word particularly useful. People would need to provide a coherent account of what naturalism is for me to know what it entails for something to be supernatural, and I've never seen one that makes much sense.

If natural is that which we can consistently observe and find improvements that don't contradict general observations in any significant fashion, supernatural effectively becomes something that doesn't follow those rules (or can't even be shown to have consistent rules at all if it's really just human fallibility in making inferences of agency behind events that merely happen in a consistent physical universe)

It's not an assumption that it isn't real, but that it's not working on scientific principles in the slightest, because the rules that apply to it if it is real seem haphazard and chaotic in whether we can reliably attribute anything to them

The lack of falsifiability for specific supernatural frameworks is the problem, since if we assumed they were all real, it'd create contradictions, practically speaking

What are the parts that aren't clear in terms of a naturalistic universe?

 

[Silmarien]

It's not an assumption that it isn't real, but that it's not working on scientific principles in the slightest, because the rules that apply to it if it is real seem haphazard and chaotic in whether we can reliably attribute anything to them

Again, this is a description that could arguably fit quantum physics. It's eerie and strange and doesn't exactly match our picture of what reality should be, and yet we consider it natural. I wonder why that is?

The term "supernatural" only applies to things that have not been demonstrated to exist. If they were shown to exist, they would not be considered supernatural, no matter how much difficulty we might have fitting it into our previously existing picture of science.

The lack of falsifiability for specific supernatural frameworks is the problem, since if we assumed they were all real, it'd create contradictions, practically speaking

No, it's not. The fact that there's no coherent definition for "natural" is the problem, since I don't even know what a supernatural framework entails without that. Two hundred years ago, modern physics would have been quite the supernatural framework.

What are the parts that aren't clear in terms of a naturalistic universe?

Insofar as naturalism is a methodology, it's quite clear. Insofar as it is more than a methodology, it's practically incoherent. Given your focus on falsifiability, I don't know what a "naturalistic universe" would be except for one where the tools of empirical science could conceivably provide a full ontological picture of reality, and it's clear that they do no such thing.

Epistemic structural realism seems to be the best way to go, but I see no way to reconcile that with a genuine naturalistic ontology (assuming one could be conceptualized).

 

[muichimotsu]

Again, this is a description that could arguably fit quantum physics. It's eerie and strange and doesn't exactly match our picture of what reality should be, and yet we consider it natural. I wonder why that is?

The term "supernatural" only applies to things that have not been demonstrated to exist. If they were shown to exist, they would not be considered supernatural, no matter how much difficulty we might have fitting it into our previously existing picture of science.



No, it's not. The fact that there's no coherent definition for "natural" is the problem, since I don't even know what a supernatural framework entails without that. Two hundred years ago, modern physics would have been quite the supernatural framework.



Insofar as naturalism is a methodology, it's quite clear. Insofar as it is more than a methodology, it's practically incoherent. Given your focus on falsifiability, I don't know what a "naturalistic universe" would be except for one where the tools of empirical science could conceivably provide a full ontological picture of reality, and it's clear that they do no such thing.

Epistemic structural realism seems to be the best way to go, but I see no way to reconcile that with a genuine naturalistic ontology (assuming one could be conceptualized).

Pretty sure quantum physics is generally noted even by experts to be hypothetical at this point, not something we can reasonably test anymore than what's beyond a black hole (I like to think it's a wormhole, but we don't know). It doesn't fit into nature in the same fashion and if it does, it would be predictable, even if the rules are going to be more stochastic than, say, gravity on a universal scale that takes into accounts the mass of various astrological objects

~~~

Just because something would seem bizarre to ancient peoples doesn't make it less true, the arguments stand on their own merit, supernatural arguments don't have merit because they're basically trying to avoid being investigated by science and falling into nature, because that would render them mundane.

Also, the supernatural is not presumed along with the natural except in concept at best, but you don't need the supernatural to make sense in the same vein as the natural, which makes sense sufficiently on its own without need to treat the supernatural as anything but conceptual

~~~~

Metaphysics doesn't necessarily require an absolute and complete assessment of reality, to say nothing of the distinctions to be made between the material and conceptual as both being real, but one having more practical reality, while the other is demonstrable as physically present and tangible.

Falsifiability doesn't assume absolute knowledge as the goal, it's self correcting in seeking out the most precise and accurate view of reality

Ontology is a subset of metaphysics, naturalism and physicalism/materialism are arguably distinct, to say nothing of having to account for things that wouldn't fit into a structure where everything is material unless they're emergent properties (minds from brains, for instance)

Naturalistic ontology is not making an absolute statement, it's saying that the best explanation is that model where the nature of things is such that it's not a system that just has utterly random miraculous events happening except in our limited understanding of them. Our understanding is always provisional, we cannot have full knowledge, particularly with an expanding universe and the scale always changing in terms of understanding things like gravity not being the same in the galaxy versus our planet or moon. Understanding nature as a consistent system that we can understand even if sometimes it doesn't seem like it is being both intellectually honest and humble

If I narrowly avoid getting struck by lightning, someone could say that's supernatural intervention, but that assumes something we don't have a basis for beyond speculation without substance. Anything supernatural tends to boil down to a credulous attempt to account for things we're ignorant of and would generally change if evidence shows it, unless it's such a thing that's unfalsifiable by nature (God in particular)

 

[Silmarien]

Pretty sure quantum physics is generally noted even by experts to be hypothetical at this point, not something we can reasonably test anymore than what's beyond a black hole (I like to think it's a wormhole, but we don't know). It doesn't fit into nature in the same fashion and if it does, it would be predictable, even if the rules are going to be more stochastic than, say, gravity on a universal scale that takes into accounts the mass of various astrological objects

I don't think any physicist would consider quantum mechanics to be hypothetical. You may be confusing it with string theory, since given technology like particle accelerators, quantum mechanics is testable.

String theory would be an even more interesting case study, though, since it's hypothetical, unfalsifiable, and eminently strange. If you would declare it supernatural, then you might have a coherent definition, but I don't think anyone else would agree with you.

Just because something would seem bizarre to ancient peoples doesn't make it less true, the arguments stand on their own merit, supernatural arguments don't have merit because they're basically trying to avoid being investigated by science and falling into nature, because that would render them mundane.

I agree that just because something seems bizarre, that doesn't mean it's not true. String theory might ultimately be true, even if it cannot be investigated empirically. I think your claim that people avoid investigating supernatural arguments is false, though--there are definitely people out there who are interested in trying to demonstrate paranormal phenomena scientifically. Should they succeed, the paranormal would become the normal, which is the root of my frustration with the terms being used.

Metaphysics doesn't necessarily require an absolute and complete assessment of reality, to say nothing of the distinctions to be made between the material and conceptual as both being real, but one having more practical reality, while the other is demonstrable as physically present and tangible.

Falsifiability doesn't assume absolute knowledge as the goal, it's self correcting in seeking out the most precise and accurate view of reality

Ontology is a subset of metaphysics, naturalism and physicalism/materialism are arguably distinct, to say nothing of having to account for things that wouldn't fit into a structure where everything is material unless they're emergent properties (minds from brains, for instance)

Naturalistic ontology is not making an absolute statement, it's saying that the best explanation is that model where the nature of things is such that it's not a system that just has utterly random miraculous events happening except in our limited understanding of them. Our understanding is always provisional, we cannot have full knowledge, particularly with an expanding universe and the scale always changing in terms of understanding things like gravity not being the same in the galaxy versus our planet or moon. Understanding nature as a consistent system that we can understand even if sometimes it doesn't seem like it is being both intellectually honest and humble

If I narrowly avoid getting struck by lightning, someone could say that's supernatural intervention, but that assumes something we don't have a basis for beyond speculation without substance. Anything supernatural tends to boil down to a credulous attempt to account for things we're ignorant of and would generally change if evidence shows it, unless it's such a thing that's unfalsifiable by nature (God in particular)

Nothing that you have said is exclusive to naturalism. If you are defining naturalism as the belief that the universe is ordered and its physical phenomena are best explored through the vehicle of empirical science, then I am a naturalist, simply on account of having certain Aristotelian tendencies.

Of course, the problem with that is that I'm the absolute opposite of a naturalist.

 

[dlamberth]

Next up: What is Nature?

For me, it's real simple. God is the Life Force of everything. What else could God Be but the Life Force of everything?

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't think any physicist would consider quantum mechanics to be hypothetical. You may be confusing it with string theory, since given technology like particle accelerators, quantum mechanics is testable.

String theory would be an even more interesting case study, though, since it's hypothetical, unfalsifiable, and eminently strange. If you would declare it supernatural, then you might have a coherent definition, but I don't think anyone else would agree with you.



I agree that just because something seems bizarre, that doesn't mean it's not true. String theory might ultimately be true, even if it cannot be investigated empirically. I think your claim that people avoid investigating supernatural arguments is false, though--there are definitely people out there who are interested in trying to demonstrate paranormal phenomena scientifically. Should they succeed, the paranormal would become the normal, which is the root of my frustration with the terms being used.



Nothing that you have said is exclusive to naturalism. If you are defining naturalism as the belief that the universe is ordered and its physical phenomena are best explored through the vehicle of empirical science, then I am a naturalist, simply on account of having certain Aristotelian tendencies.

Of course, the problem with that is that I'm the absolute opposite of a naturalist.

Testable is one thing, but consistency in some measure is what would render it natural and cogent, methinks, not just that we can try to test it and think it must be the case (like prayer or such)

Paranormal and supernatural are not really that synonymous, though, they're also phrased in different ways: "normal" and "natural" as the bases of consensus.

Supernatural arguments are using "reason" to deduce and induce the conclusion of something, empiricism going with the idea that we should be able to measure and test a claim, going back to falsifiability as a principle.

Something being true in spite of not being able to be tested empirically only works in contexts where the idea is self evident and more innate in concept (numbers, logical principles, etc), not something that necessarily entails a universe that we can otherwise observe

You're the opposite of particular types of naturalism, but the term, like humanist, can apply to theistic worldviews given a particular iteration of its usage, while others are antithetical in most forms

 

[Ophiolite]

Next up: What is Nature?

Anything covered in a documentary with such passion, empathy, sensitivity and accuracy by Sir David Attenborough.