What is supernatural?

[Zor]

the set of all non-causal deterministic relationships that are found in the actaul world. i.e. the complement of natural

Hmm. These are the definitions I considered, but a lot of people I discussed this with disagreed with me, so I had to pose this question on the internet. But, there are some things which are weird with these definitions of "supernatural" and "natural", which led me to question it further.

What would we call Quantum Mechanics? Natural or supernatural? If the natural world is deterministic, then Quantum Mechanics is just simplification of variables that we don't know about yet or will never know (I believe in determinism). Strangely enough, QM is partially caused and uncaused. Particles are considered to be affected by one another, but they are given proabilities for their future actions (this is one reason why I think that there are more variables that we don't yet know).

But, for people who don't accept that QM's claim, that things are fundamentally random with parameters, is false, then are they justified in calling it supernatural?

Furthermore, is this dichotomy of "supernatural" and "natural" the same as "indeterminism" and "determinism"?

 

[nadroj1985]

So now the question is: what the distinction between natural and supernatural propositions, in your view?

Oh, well I think that follows pretty clearly from what I've already said. A natural proposition is one which explains an event without recourse to incomprehensible agents or events. A supernatural proposition explains the same event with recourse to incomprehensible agents or events. Pretty clear, although I'm sure it could be made problematic in a few ways -- i.e. what could I mean by "incomprehensible," and how is it different from "hard to understand," and so forth.

But I like the weaker thesis; I don't see any reason to bring falsifiability into the issue, unless you could make the claim that we can only understand falsifiable claims. That would be an interesting claim.

 

[JonF]

What would we call Quantum Mechanics? Natural or supernatural? If the natural world is deterministic, then Quantum Mechanics is just simplification of variables that we don't know about yet or will never know (I believe in determinism). Strangely enough, QM is partially caused and uncaused. Particles are considered to be affected by one another, but they are given proabilities for their future actions (this is one reason why I think that there are more variables that we don't yet know).

But, for people who don't accept that QM's claim, that things are fundamentally random with parameters, is false, then are they justified in calling it supernatural?"?

QM doesn't claim that the universe isn't causally deterministic, it claims that the causality is unknowable in a non-probabilistic sense

Furthermore, is this dichotomy of "supernatural" and "natural" the same as "indeterminism" and "determinism

You missed the most important word in my definition, cause - science assumes causal determinism, hence assumes the natural.

 

[funyun]

Oh, well I think that follows pretty clearly from what I've already said. A natural proposition is one which explains an event without recourse to incomprehensible agents or events. A supernatural proposition explains the same event with recourse to incomprehensible agents or events. Pretty clear, although I'm sure it could be made problematic in a few ways -- i.e. what could I mean by "incomprehensible," and how is it different from "hard to understand," and so forth.

Hmm...it sounds like you're talking about these "explanations" as being ontic, which is interesting, if I'm interpreting you correctly, because I had pretty much the same idea.

"Comprehensible" = justified belief, perhaps?

But I like the weaker thesis; I don't see any reason to bring falsifiability into the issue, unless you could make the claim that we can only understand falsifiable claims. That would be an interesting claim.

No, I'm not a positivist so I wouldn't make that claim, unless you're defining "understanding" in some exotic sense. But I don't equate falsifiability with knowledge so I'd argue my definition doesn't collapse into that anyway.

 

[uberd00b]

I tend to view supernatural as synonymous with non-existant. Things that exist are natural, the universe for example is natural. If anything exists then surely it is natural?

the set of all non-causal deterministic relationships that are found in the actaul world. i.e. the complement of natural

What is found in the actual world that you would class as supernatural?

 

[nadroj1985]

Hmm...it sounds like you're talking about these "explanations" as being ontic, which is interesting, if I'm interpreting you correctly, because I had pretty much the same idea.

"Comprehensible" = justified belief, perhaps?

Either I'm not up on my terminology, or you're speaking Heideggerian. What do you mean by ontic?

 

[funyun]

Either I'm not up on my terminology, or you're speaking Heideggerian. What do you mean by ontic?

Ontic means "what exists" without referring to the properties of those things. So you were referring to "agents" and "events" specifically, and my question is, are you referring to them in an ontic sense when you say they are comprehensible or incomprehensible? (What is incomprehensible about them is not their properties, but rather the actual proposition "X exists.")

Note: the details of my epistemology are sort of in flux at the moment so some of the things I say are most likely notions, not actual beliefs.

 

[Zor]

I tend to view supernatural as synonymous with non-existant. Things that exist are natural, the universe for example is natural. If anything exists then surely it is natural?

I think that this is wrong, and that JonF is right. Calling something supernatural as opposed to natural is saying that the supernatural thing is the first cause (acausal). For example, the concept "soul" is supernatural, because it is defined as a thing that is fundamentally acausal, hence it being unnatural. Conversely, anything which is acted upon is considered natural.

Simply put, something supernatural is that which is immune from the ebb and flow of nature.

What is found in the actual world that you would class as supernatural?

Nothing, for me. That is why I think naturalism is the most evidenced metaphysical world view thus far. Though, you could always say that the things which haven't been figured out yet are supernatural. But we must keep in mind that, so far, many of the things held to be supernatural have been shown to have been caused (natural). As a principle, I think it would be best to assume that everything is natural, and the stuff we haven't studied yet is probably natural, but we don't know for sure until it is studied further.

But this goes back to the your first thing you said, about calling something supernatural as being the same as calling it non-existent. This is just a secondary effect of most supernatural concepts, but not defining them as being supernatural. That is because the things which people propose to be supernatural must be defined as not be detectable themselves so that they can explain the lack of observations of them. This tactic, which is important for the survival of the belief in the supernatural, leads to their supernatural concepts to not exist by their own definition of not being observable.

That's what I think.

 

[nadroj1985]

Ontic means "what exists" without referring to the properties of those things. So you were referring to "agents" and "events" specifically, and my question is, are you referring to them in an ontic sense when you say they are comprehensible or incomprehensible? (What is incomprehensible about them is not their properties, but rather the actual proposition "X exists.")

Ah, OK. Umm... I don't see why we have to restrict it to ontic propositions. I'm also not really sure that the distinction between ontic propositions and "property propositions" (for lack of a better term) is a useful one here.

Take God, for example. One certainly might say that God as a being is incomprehensible, and hence non-natural. But why is God incomprehensible? It seems to me that some of the easiest ways to show that involve showing how one or more of his properties contradict one or more of his other properties. For example, the problem of evil seems to claim that given the existence of evil, God's omnibenevolence is inconsistent with his omnipotence. In this sort of case, the ontic proposition would imply a lot of property propositions, and insofar as we want to declare something to be incomprehensible, that distinction doesn't really do much work for us.

Make sense?

 

[funyun]

Ah, OK. Umm... I don't see why we have to restrict it to ontic propositions. I'm also not really sure that the distinction between ontic propositions and "property propositions" (for lack of a better term) is a useful one here.

Take God, for example. One certainly might say that God as a being is incomprehensible, and hence non-natural. But why is God incomprehensible? It seems to me that some of the easiest ways to show that involve showing how one or more of his properties contradict one or more of his other properties. For example, the problem of evil seems to claim that given the existence of evil, God's omnibenevolence is inconsistent with his omnipotence. In this sort of case, the ontic proposition would imply a lot of property propositions, and insofar as we want to declare something to be incomprehensible, that distinction doesn't really do much work for us.

Make sense?

Yeah, but it could be argued that's a purely analytic or logical contradiction based on how one defines "God." For example the problem of evil is really only a problem given a classic theistic (maybe even Abrahamic) conception of God. But for say, deism, it just doesn't apply because deists don't really talk about God in ways where that would apply. So would a deist's conception of God be incomprehensible? A pantheist's, etc.?

Personally, I would consider analytic or logical propositions "natural," and certainly comprehensible, even if they deal with incomprehensible subjects.

But I would also say "incomprehensible" applies to more than just illogical or definitively contradictory terms of properties.

Anyway, with regards to the "ontic" thing, don't worry about it-- in order to make any kind of sense whatsoever it would take more explaining than I care to really do at the moment about my epistemological framework. And, in any case, like I said it was a notion...one which I had in passing but I'm thinking is wrong now.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

Supernatural is something that exists outside of natural, earth laws: the spirit world, angels, God, etc. What this means is they are apart from Nature, or above it, and therefore are supernatural. If your spirit left your body, say, during astral travel, it would be called supernatural because it would be above the laws of physics.

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

I read a few people link Supernatural with Metaphysical, I think we need to be careful here.

Metaphysical does involve supernatural, but it also involves other things that are beyond nature, such as human concepts and infinity.

Supernatural in my opinion, is directly referring to an event which can be seen with the senses.

 

[peterrobin]

Supernatural is something that exists outside of natural, earth laws: the spirit world, angels, God, etc. What this means is they are apart from Nature, or above it, and therefore are supernatural. If your spirit left your body, say, during astral travel, it would be called supernatural because it would be above the laws of physics.

And yet clearly not in a random, disordered or arbitrary environment.

So if something did not act according to the underlying order of our universe then clearly it is acting according to some other underlying order.

So the question is whether this conjectured other set of laws could be studied and understood the way we do with the laws of our universe.

And if so, then by what criteria are they distinguished from the laws of physics?

If there were such a thing as a multiverse, would it qualify as supernatural?