The term “supernatural” comes up on this and other boards and in similar discussion forums from time to time and I have come to the conclusion that there can be no such thing. Or, at the very least, if there really is something that could be accurately labeled as supernatural, such would have to be completely beyond understanding by anything (like we humans) that is not supernatural.
As an example, I’ve been studying quantum entanglement a bit. Pretty weird phenomenon from the perspective of those of us in a non-quantum, macro dimension. Very difficult to conceptualize how certain particle states could possibly be correlated, but correlated they are. So is this correlation “supernatural”? I certainly would not define it that way and I know of no physicists who would either.
The point is, even if one really believes that something like entanglement – a repeatably verifiable and investigatible phenomenon – has a supernatural basis, what could possibly be understood about that supernatural component? How could it be verified at all and what could investigating it add to any kind of understanding about…oh…anything?
So for those of you who do believe there is something that can be classified as supernatural, I’m just curious as to what supernatural means to you and what type of event or phenomenon would indicate to you that something is supernatural.
The term “natural” comes up on this and other boards and in similar discussion forums from time to time and I have come to the conclusion that there can be no such thing.
ETA:
So for those of you who do believe there is something that can be classified as natural, I’m just curious as to what natural means to you and what type of event or phenomenon would indicate to you that something is natural as opposed to say, supernatural.
#TexasSharpshooter
Mung,
You’re always a hoot Mung, if a little too juvenile and inept. In this case, there have been several definitions of natural posted here and elsewhere. Oddly, your response makes no mention of these, nor have I seen you or any other “supernatural insistors” make any attempt to show that natural isn’t a valid concept. I realize there are folks like you who really who need the “supernatural” to exist in order to achieve orgasms or whatever, but such needs, alas, won’t make some imaginary concept or invisible friend real.
In any event, the definition of natural I had in mind for this post is:
Natural:
a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural
So my question remains unaddressed by Mung. Anyone else care to try? Any examples of something occurring not in conformity with an ordinary cause of nature? And if yes, how was the phenomenon’s non-conformity with nature determined?
The bible never uses the word supernatural. Indeed there is no such thing as anything done is natural relative to God or his universe.
Supernatural means beyond the usual natural order of things .
yet there is no difference.
Recently i have watched/read about physics stuifff and bumped into also this entanglement stuff.
i still question it. something doesn’t add up. Hmmm.
I suspect physics stuff is as poorly done as evolutionary biology claims.
Got a hunch but not yet a hypothesis.
Supernatural – ( of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
This is a definition l have found after 3 seconds of googling…
Does quantum entanglement fit into this definition? It’s up to you to decide…
As a side point, you may want to consider reading up on “the spooky action at a distance” and how Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen tried to resolve the so-called EPR paradox, where entanglement clearly appears to violate the theory of relativity by ‘sending quantum state information’ between entangled subatomic particles faster than speed of light…
Alternatively, you may want to try to imagine that ‘quantum realm’ consists of no distance, no time, no location, pretty much no nothing…
Is such a realm of “reality” beyond natural explanation?
Please tell us more, Rob… I think that this blog needs much more hunches that are not yet hypothesis…but almost… 😉
J-Mac:
No, because entanglement is predicted by quantum theory, which is obviously law-based.
There should be at least one thing one can point to and label natural, and one thing one can label supernatural, so that there is some definable difference. Mung leaves us wondering why, if everything is either natural or supernatural, we need two different words.
I personally categorize everything as either natural or imaginary. I regard “supernatural” as a subset of the imaginary.
You are right. The math does. But the theories of relativity don’t. QM originaly had no speed of light restriction, which convinced me that there is a problem with the theories of relativity…
Someone dying of natural causes seems pretty straightforward, while dying of supernatural causes would be a bit harder to prove.
I like Flint’s summary.
Yeah…I’m well aware there non-descriptive definitions of the concept. My point is if you think the definition has any actual meaning or usefulness, how would you determine that something is “supernatural”?
Actually no, it’s not up to me to decide. That’s the point. If there really is something that can be labeled “supernatural”, it ought to be discernible from the natural. If there’s some question, then what’s the point of the term “supernatural”?
Quantum entanglement is not easily understood, if it can be said to be understood at all. That said, there’s nothing from any research that indicates that the phenomenon is not the product of and does not adhere to natural laws and parameters. My question then is, what type of phenomenon can someone come up with that would be an example of something that does not conform to natural conditions. If no one can come up with anything, why does anyone use the term, let alone believe in, the concept “supernatural”?
I actually have been. Hence this post.
Except that there are no studies that indicate the quantum realm has no distance or time or location. In fact, there are many studies showing the opposite.
Well, given that smartphones work, the answer, I think, is a definitive no.
This is my perspective as well. I am just hoping that those who subscribe to the supernatural have thought about a bit more than vague navel-gazing and theistic adherence to provide a descriptive and clear conceptual description.
If you have the clearly preconceived idea that supernatural is ‘a subset of the imaginary’, just as you agreed with Flint, why waste your time writing the OP and others’ time trying to persuade otherwise, if you clearly seemed to be already determined in your assumptions?
How many times have you successfully persuaded someone to change their position on any blog-site?
I’ve had absolutely zero and that is because most of us (I’m hoping you as well) did not arrive at our current worldviews by flipping a coin.
The entire reason for such an OP, as Robin explicitly states, is to give those of a differing opinion from himself the chance to explain their position and discuss it.
The question Robin asks seems to me essentially the one asked by Alastair McKinnon in his paper on miracles, something I discussed here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/mckinnons-paper-on-miracles/
The upshot is, basically, that if scientific laws may be put in statistical as well as absolute manners, miracles (or supernatural events) are, strictly, impossible.
Exactly! So, as per your own admission, since there are studies confirming that entanglement is real and the quantum state transfer between entangled particles is faster than speed of light, maybe even instantaneous, then entanglement violates the theory of relativity… If that’s the case, then this phenomenon called by Einstein as “a spooky action at a distance” qualifies as a supernatural event, as it can’t be explained by current laws of physics…
To sum this up:
Quantum entanglement is a double-edge sword that bites materialists in the ass no matter how one looks at it… If there is no distance at the quantum mechanics level they don’t like it, because it’s spooky and drags in a supernatural into the picture…
Entanglement faster than speed of light is not good either because it violates the theory of relativity, which is supposed to be as good as a fact and nobody wants to shed even a shadow of doubt on it. Why? Because the consequences of it would be to enormous to even contemplate and supernatural can be dragged into the scenario as well…
So, neither scenario is satisfactory because scientists and materialists don’t feel comfortable with either implications…
Well, zip-a-dee-doo-dah…
Why would you or I know that?
Unfortunately, it is something you don’t want to hear… as this OP and your own comments on it clearly indicate…
Do you really believe that? Look at Robin’s comments and the OP again…
To me, this is a typical materialistic mumbo-jumbo excuse used when faced with a paradox inexplicable by materialistic “logic”:
“Well, just because science can’t explain this or that, it doesn’t mean supernatural/ID/God did it”, just like it is in case of the origins of life…
Not particularly good at picking up on rhetorical questions I see.
That is exactly correct. If every event throughout history not clearly explained by the science of the time had triggered an appeal to supernatural intervention, we would still be going to shaman instead of doctors and consulting a haruspex instead of checking the Weather Channel to plan our weekend recreation.
Everything is supernatural. It’s “natural” that is fictional and non-existent. Why do you believe in fictional things that are not real?
I meant how?
How much does a soul weigh?
And a scientific test to tell the difference, so that we don’t get entangled in mere word-lawyering.
Saying that “natural” is that which is “not supernatural” is not at all helpful. It’s funny that that which is supposedly “the real” must be defined by reference to that which is allegedly not real, fictional and imaginary.
occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural
LoL
Yes. Read McKinnon’s paper (or at least my OP on it) and you’ll see why. It’s an airtight argument.
Do you get a kick out of writing stuff like that? Is it supposed to be deep or something? Funny, maybe?
Yes. A couple of terrible definitions can be found on this thread, both of “natural” and of “supernatural.”
There are many things I marvel at. Therefore the supernatural is quite real.
Apologies. I thought that you were being trite.
I would assume that someone doing an about-face of their position on an issue during a thread would be pretty obvious.
My point is that I think that is so rare that we need not even be concerned about it. My understanding of Robin’s intent was not that he hoped to win hearts and minds by writing the OP but to (like most other OP’s here) seed a discussion between diverse viewpoints and see what each side brings to the table.
Perhaps an OP that is not so shallow and ill considered would evoke a different response.
natural:
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
This is the first definition that I came across on dictionary.com and it makes no reference to the supernatural.
I think the term NATURAL in the context used by materialists has some serious supernatural implications…i.e. the creative powers of natural processes is a perfect example of that…
Nature is the same thing as natural in the context. see my response to mung.
They are often used interchangeably as a substitute for supernatural powers etc…
Gee…why have a conversation about anything one does not understand, accept, or is aware of? Maybe because I’m interested in trying to understand a different perspective and the way people who do accept such a concept think about it. If you haven’t thought about, then fine, but if you have, I’m curious about the differences in our thought processes.
The OP presumes that one can know what is natural and what is not natural (what is supernatural) and distinguish between the two by some methodology provided by science and then turns around and denies that such is the case. It is a self-contradictory and thus incoherent rambling. Sorry if the truth hurts (not really sorry – supernaturally sorry).
Missed this Walto. Thanks!
Fair enough…
Not made or caused by humankind would include made or caused by God.
Supernatural.
Here is the intro:
“In the Alastair McKinnon paper (“Miracle” and “Paradox”) I cited in a recent comment, it is argued that miracles of a certain kind are impossible. ”
This cleary implicates that miracles of other kinds are possible…
So, we are back to square one… as I see it… You?
21 grams…apparently… 😉
Quantum soul shouldn’t weigh anything…
So “made or caused by humankind” and “made or caused by God” are mutually exclusive categories?
I think your understanding of the studies and theories concerning entanglement are limited. There’s very little support, currently, for the inference that anything – information, states, or energy – are moving faster than light. So no, there’s no currently demonstrated violation of any physical science, including General Relativity.
Be that as it may, your response misses the bigger point. Scientific understanding and theories are provisional and change with better evidence and technological scrutiny. So if better scrutiny actually shows there is a greater-than-the-speed-of-light transfer of something between entangled particles, does this somehow indicate there is something supernatural going on or that Einstein was wrong about something? I submit, the science will change long before anyone feels comfortable insisting there’s something beyond the natural going on. Why? If there are folks really comfortable with the concept of the supernatural and have a real sense of it, then positing supernatural implications should be no problem. I submit this isn’t the case because there is actually no one on any sort of firm ground with the concept supernatural.
Well, if you could actually show some studies that indicate there’s no distance between anything at the quantum level and that there actually are physicists who find such “spooky”, this might be a valid comment. As it stands, all I can respond with is “what?!?!?”
See above.
It would be nice if you could demonstrate this rather than simply projecting…
To me personally certain things are obvious, such as quantum entanglement paradox. Both options I had mentioned implicate supernatural. So, whichever scientists agree upon, there will still be implications of supernatural…i.e. instant communication of entangled particles or no distance, time or location on the quantum level… That is my view of supernatural on quantum level because I can “see” both scenarios in my imagination…
O’RLY?
I’m not going to say the same about yours because you had already admitted it…
I think your understanding of the studies and theories concerning entanglement are limited. There’s very little support, currently, for the inference that anything – information, states, or energy – are moving faster than light. So no, there’s no currently demonstrated violation of any physical science, including General Relativity.
Be that as it may, your response misses the bigger point. Scientific understanding and theories are provisional and change with better evidence and technological scrutiny. So if better scrutiny actually shows there is a greater-than-the-speed-of-light transfer of something between entangled particles, does this somehow indicate there is something supernatural going on or that Einstein was wrong about something? I submit, the science will change long before anyone feels comfortable insisting there’s something beyond the natural going on. Why? If there are folks really comfortable with the concept of the supernatural and have a real sense of it, then positing supernatural implications should be no problem. I submit this isn’t the case because there is actually no one on any sort of firm ground with the concept supernatural.
Well, if you could actually show some studies that indicate there’s no distance between anything at the quantum level and that there actually are physicists who find such “spooky”, this might be a valid comment. As it stands, all I can respond with is “what?!?!?”
See above.
It would be nice if you could demonstrate this rather than simply projecting…
Bingo! Thanks Roy.
The OP does presume the first part of your clause above, but not the second. It does not presume distinguish the two by some methodology provided by science. On the contrary, the very basis of the OP is the question: have those who hold that the supernatural exists considered how to distinguish it from the natural and what did you come up with?
So far it seems that those who profess there is a supernatural haven’t actually considered it that much at all.
1. existing in or caused by nature
NATURE
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
And I am none the wiser.
You should keep reading. The only “miracles” that are possible according to McKinnon are unlikely coincidences. Those kinds of things don’t give much comfort to people hungry for supernatural happenings.
Somehow then you know what is natural, but that knowledge is not derived from any scientific test or method. Fair enough?
So how do you know that what you call “natural” is not in fact supernatural? If science cannot provide the demarcation between the two, what can? You’re making a distinction, based on what?
Funny. I think it’s the other way around.
I think everything is supernatural and that you have no principled way to demonstrate that what I am calling supernatural is not in fact supernatural. Yet that is precisely what you are doing in your OP. Claiming to be able to do just that.
I just want to know how.
I agree that defining “natural” in terms of “nature” isn’t too helpful. For “miracles” it’s best, I think, to do as McKinnon suggested and put the definition in terms of lawlike behavior. However, if someone thinks it’s possible for supernatural occurrences to also exhibit “regular” or “predictable” behavior, another approach would have to be taken to nailing down what “supernatural” means.
My own sense is that this would be quite difficult. What’s clear is that, if “miraculous” isn’t what is meant by “supernatural,” it will be extremely important to know precisely what batch of stuff one is intending to include or exclude when suggesting necessary and sufficient conditions.