Studying the supernatural

Edited by Zen Deist, : Content hidden per Percy request

Your call Percy.I don't see the response to Rahvin going there, but I'm okay with it.I expect consistency, of course.The problem I see is more with counter-productive and disruptive behavior on the Scientific Knowledge thread, than here with a reasonable exchange of views here.I don't have a lot of time free for a while, so my posting will likely be reduced in any event.Enjoy.

This all becomes a little difficult because there is no clear understanding of what is supernatural. I'll go back to the Greene quote. (3rd time)

quote:

---

What matters, what's at the heart of the subject, is whether there exist realms that challenge conventions by suggesting that what we've long thought to be the universe is only one component of a far grander, perhaps far stranger, and mostly hidden, reality.

---

If we are able to discover that we are part of a much greater reality that we have been unable to perceive and come to the realization that we are an emergent property of this greater reality is that supernatural?It seems to me that if we through particle accelerators, or any future device, are able to learn about this normally unperceivable reality we are studying the supernatural. Would you agree?

It seems to me that there are two essential properties of what we consider to be supernatural.The first is that the supernatural represents a sentient entity: we do not speak of supernatural phenomena that are equivalent to the fall of an apple or the oxidation of iron. All supernatural concepts or claims that I am aware of involve a being, a creature, an intelligence...Secondly, we expect the supernatural to operate outside the framework of our natural laws. We don't look for supernatural explanations for falling apples or rusting iron: we look for, essentially, the miraculous, for phenomena for which there is no natural explanation.As has been noted by others, phenomena have historically moved across conceptual boundaries as we discover natural explanations; but that is an historical, cultural and semantic shift. And the movement has been completely in one direction.The essence of the supernatural, as it is commonly understood, is an entity that effects change in our natural world via mechanisms that are not the mechanisms of natural phenomena, mechanisms we can neither detect nor predict.So, sure, we can speculate that there are parallel universes where our natural laws do not apply--we have reached that understanding via an increasingly profound understanding of the contingency of our own laws. If those laws were to operate sporadically in our universe, the effects might indeed appear supernatural; if we were able to visit a parallel universe while remaining in a bubble of our own, events there might appear supernatural.But we have no reason to suppose that the different natural laws of another universe have ever or could ever operate here; we have good reasons to suppose that parallel universes do not impact each other in that way.It appears that the only way we can investigate the supernatural is to investigate claims for supernatural causation; if we confirm necessary and sufficient natural causes, we have refuted the supernatural claim. Once we have a long chain of such refutations, induction tells us that supernatural beings that operate outside of natural laws are extremely unlikely. And since we have yet to find phenomena that long confound our search for their natural causes, we have no reason to look to parallel universes to explain them: there is nothing to explain.I agree that the notion of parallel universes is strangely exciting, even exhilirating in the scope by which it expands our already unimaginably vast universe. But as long as we can find natural reasons for apples to fall, we have no evidence at all for the supernatural, let alone any reason to turn to parallel universes to explain it.We don't have a burning bush; there's no reason to speculate that the arsonist is hiding in the 9th dimension.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

I think we've been explaining "supernatural" phenomenon for centuries. The actual explanations are often even more amazing than the speculation that came before. The reality of lightning, for example, is significantly more impressive than a guy with a hammer!But when we have an actual explanation for a phenomenon, something that actually makes us feel as though we truly understand at least the basic mechanism at work...we lose that sense of mystery. Curiosity is self-annihilating, after all - once you find the answer, you are no longer curious.I think that, once we have explored a phenomenon sufficiently that we're able to make accurate, testable predictions, we just...stop using the "supernatural" label.Lightning used to be considered supernatural. Volcanoes, tornadoes, even everyday things like the rising of the Sun, the cycles of the Moon...You do know that ancient priests in some cultures would use their ability to mathematically predict lunar eclipses as a way to impress worshippers, right?Today, we think nothing of the regular cycles of the Moon. Eclipses are still rare and impressive, and everybody stops to watch (hopefully with appropriate tools, not the naked eye...), but we don't think an eclipse is "a warning from {insert deity here}" any more. We know that at a certain place on Earth at a certain date and time, an eclipse will happen, whether a deity wants to warn us or not, or even exists or not.It's not mysterious to us any more. It's still impressive, but we don't think of it as "supernatural" any more. Not really, Chuck. I think I already know the reason.If we discovered solid evidence that spirits do actually exist (it doesn;t matter what the actual explanation is - nonphysical remains of human consciousness, sentient alien intelligences from a nonbaryonic parallel Universe formed from the emotional psychic bleedover from the sentient beings in our own Universe called the Warp, whatever), within a few generations we wouldn't be thinking of them as "magic." We'd study them, find out why they can disappear and reappear seemingly at will; why they seem to show up to certain people in certain places; why they can pass through walls; etc.We'd incorporate that knowledge into our understanding of what actually exists. We'd lose our sense of mystery surrounding spirits.And our grandchildren wouldn't even think of them as "supernatural" any more.Have you heard the famous Arthur C Clarke quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?"The reverse is also true: any sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from technology.You could say that we've already proven that the "supernatural" exists: we've proven that lightning exists, and that the Moon really does block out the Sun periodically, and so on. We just don't think of them mysteriously any more...and so now we don't usually think of them as "supernatural."

Well put. I agree with all that. The point then is that, as Rahvin says in the post after yours (125), that once we have come up with an explanation for anything considered supernatural it becomes natural.The problem I see with that though is that everything that we have explained away has been a part of the world that we are able to perceive with our 5 senses such as lightning and eclipses. It seems to me that a universe(s) that is interwoven with our own that is part of our reality is not the same thing as anything else we have come up against. I would agree that just because we discover an interwoven universe would not mean that there is sentient life in it but it certainly opens up the possibility. Presumably this interwoven universe or greater reality would have its own set of natural laws which in all likelihood would be different than our own, so even though we might be able to learn about it, I don't think it could be considered natural in the way we normally understand it. I don't know, QM is pretty strange. There are all sorts of ideas out there that I suppose are possible. I read one scientist that suggested that our minds were part of another universe but we experienced physical life through our 4d universe.

QM is completely normal. We're strange.

Some more so than others.......

Humanity is still sitting in Plato's cave poking at shadows.
It is confounding that as much as our scientist are discovering it is causing a cascade of other ever more perplexing questions. How did the universe inflate? did it? Dark Matter/energy, gravatons, Higgs,entanglement, on and on science strips the layers off reality to reveal a even more bizzare foundation. It is almost as if the very properties that make up our reality are elusive because there is no final orgin. No ultimate reality to grasp. like a fractal it is a ever replicating pattern of increasing perplexity. Werner Heisenberg I once read, after experiments confirmed what he called "the uncertainty principal." Walked around in the middle of the night muttering, "reality can not possibly be this strange."
What if reality ends up being a 1st person reality game for super intelligent beings. If this is the case how would we ever be able to know.

Indeed.Nature defines what "normal" is. To assume that we, with our tiny fragment of knowledge of nature, get to decide what is normal and what is aberrant or unusual is merely hubris.

Speculation is fun, especially if you are looking for a place to park your deity. Find me a bush that burns yet is not consumed, and we'll talk.

Hi 1.61803, I am reminded of the quote:

quote:

---

J. B. S. Haldane - Wikiquote
I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
- Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286

---

When you look at the fine print of the universe (QM level) you see constant shifting and rebuilding. Everything changes from micromoment to micromoment yet appears to stay the same.Enjoy.

You've got a point but seeing as how this is a thread where we are talking about studying the supernatural, at this point speculation is about all we have available to us.As I have said numerous times I view science as a natural theology and that if we have our science right and our theology right they would obviously be congruent.It has been my view for some time that my chosen deity does not exist in some vague spiritual sense or in some location up there — somewhere, but in another form of existence co-located with our own. As a result I'm bound to find it interesting when I pick up my copy of Scientific American with the headline that I quoted earlier on it.It's not likely to happen in my life time but I would love for science to be able to sort some of these issues one way or the other. In the final analysis all of us are just trying to sort out the truth of things. Sometimes it appears that truth is elusive. Cheers

Don't get me wrong, GDR--I appreciate the, uh, spirit of your inquiry though I disagree that we are left with only speculation in the face of supernatural claims.I simply see nothing in the world that requires or suggests a supernatural explanation, while I see a long history of supernatural claims debunked with natural explanations.But I share and appreciate your sense of wonder.

I don't see it as finding natural solutions to supernatural claims. I see it more of figuring out what to make of the findings of science. I would think of an interwoven universe that interacts with our own, and that we are unable with normal senses to perceive, could constitute a supernatural world.In the future it may not be speculation but right now it is don't ya think? How about the very existence of the Natural?