I was referring to the position that the supernatural, being outside the universe that is defined by all that exists, therefore does not exist by definition. I agree with you in rejecting this position as not being very interesting. However, if the supernatural was so far outside the universe that it did not affect the universe in any observable way, we could consider it to effectively not exist.
If you accept that no effects of the supernatural have been observed, or ever will be, we cannot decide between the positions that the supernatural does not exist and that it exists outside the universe, not impinging on our universe.
But I’m far more interested in discussing the case where the supernatural does impact our universe.
When I was a senior in college Ed Fredkin came to talk to my architecture class, and mentioned his hypothesis that the universe was a simulation. In his view (which was that the creators of the simulation could be fallible) early miracles were bugs in the program.
In this and your scenario, the real universe is the one containing the computer running the simulation, so while things may look supernatural, there is nothing supernatural going on.
But can’t science examine the projection of the supernatural on the “real” world? After all, we can’t see the Big Bang, but we can examine its remains.
If God supernaturally caused the flood, we could examine the impact of the flood on the rocks and the fossil record.
The flood is another example, actually. “Scientific” creationists try to find natural mechanisms for the Noachian flood, and wind up violating all sorts of physical laws, and in general make a total muddle of it. The contention that God made the flood miraculously is much cleaner. But then they wouldn’t claim it is of equal validity to real science, of course.
Evidence of a Biblical flood would be another case where a supernatural explanation is simpler than a physical one.
To my knowledge, there is no good evidence for the supernatural. But you’re denying even the possibility of such evidence. I for one intend to ask those who believe for the evidence, and to not hold my breath waiting for it.
I agree there is nothing supernatural going on in the greater universe, but in our world it would be “supernatural” because no being in our world could do those things.
Only beings “not of this world” (i.e. beings from the real universe containing the computer running the simulation) would be able to perform “supernatural” acts.
If something interacts with the physical world it can be studied, if only indirectly. After all, any hypothetical “supernatural” force must have some sort of innate structure/stability/predictability, or it would just vanish due to it’s own random nature. That stability will produce patterns, regularities in it’s interactions with the world that can be analysed.
No: I’m defining the word differently. Asking for evidence of the supernatural is like asking for evidence of the nonexistent: if someone can give you evidence of it, it’s by definition not nonexistent.
God may exist; I’m not denying the possibility of evidence for the existence of God. I’m saying that, the way I’m using the word supernatural, God is only supernatural if it doesn’t exist.
I can see the point in defining the word the way you are; the problem I have with it is that we can never conclusively call something supernatural, and yet there are certainly things that we’d now classify as supernatural that won’t be called that in fifty years (e.g., certain animal behaviors).
Yes I realise that. The problem with all supernatural claims is that there is no evidence for them. (Perhaps this is ‘natural’!)
If there was evidence, they’d be natural.
You can say that, but it doesn’t mean a lot.
Nope. We just know more about the natural world.
It is also sadly true that laboratories, testing and the supernatural never go together.
I would argue that if we have evidence of something, then we know it exists, and it becmes natural. We don’t have an ‘explanation’ of gravity - but we know how it works.
Let’s try this analogy. You’re in Flatland. Unknown to you, a sphere is hovering in a space unreachable by you. Unlike in Abbott’s book, the sphere cannot pass through Flatland (without ripping the hell out of it.)
However, the sphere can cast a shadow on Flatland. Perhaps the Flatlanders have sensitive instruments that can measure the 2d components of the gravitational pull of the sphere. (they can’t measure the third dimensional component.)
The sphere does not exist in their 2 d universe, but the effects of the sphere do. That there are 2d effects does not make the sphere 2d. That the sphere does not exist in the plane does not mean it does not exist.
Of course, if the Flatlanders never saw a shadow, and never measured the force exerted by the sphere, they could provisionally conclude that there is nothing inexplicable in 2d. But what if they did.
I know that we might be able to measure 5d effects, and that these are not supernatural, but I hope the analogy helps understand my point about the projection of the supernatural on the natural.
The Flatland LHOD says that if there if the sphere has a 2d impact it really is a circle. The Flatland Lib says that the sphere exists but nothing about it can be inferred in the 2d world, no matter what. The Flatland glee says that there is some unknown 2d principle with impact that looks just like a sphere, but isn’t. And the Flatland Voyager believes three impossible 3d things before breakfast.
I can see the point in defining the word the way you are; the problem I have with it is that we can never conclusively call something supernatural, and yet there are certainly things that we’d now classify as supernatural that won’t be called that in fifty years (e.g., certain animal behaviors).
Of course. But a supernaturally caused Flood would have left physical traces. The lack of them is evidence it never happened. And the Big Bang cannot be directly observed (just like the hypothetical supernatural entities) but can be studied by its results.
I’m not sure I accept the notion that the sphere is in a separate universe, unfortunately: if it’s having an effect on the flatlanders, I’d say it’s a natural phenomenon and part of their natural cosmos.
I also wouldn’t say that it’s a circle, as you suggest, but I would say that the flatlanders might currently only be able to understand it as a circle. Eventually, some of their theoretical physicists might posit the idea of a sphere, which will make about as much sense to most flatlanders as quantum mechanics makes to me. But Flatlander LHOD won’t call the sphere hypothesis a supernatural hypothesis, any more than I call quantum mechanics supernatural.
Remember it is just an analogy. The sphere is not supernatural, and the closest real model in our universe is the potential to find higher dimensions predicted by string theory by their effects on gravity.
Is the sphere in a different universe? Not in our higher dimensional thinking, but for the FlatLanders the sphere is unreachable, even in principle. Is something beyond our event horizon part of our natural cosmos?
The Flatlanders will never see the sphere as a circle, since it will impact the plane only as a point. It would move from one place to another on the plane without moving through intervening space, which would seem miraculous. They could detect the gravitational impact of something that is “not there” to their perception. It is not supernatural to you, since you know the context, but it would seem supernatural to them - or at least outside their realm of experience.
The point is that their scientists might be able to reason about the true nature of the sphere, thanks to its impact on their 2d world. If the supernatural did exist, and did impact on our “natural” world, we would be able to reason about it. The reasoning does not make the sphere 2d, and might not make the supernatural natural, but at least some things about it could be deduced.
That is why I disagree that science can’t study the supernatural. That’s why I’d be willing to consider the supernatural as a hypothesis, if there ever was evidence for it - which at the moment, there is not. It would be a last hypothesis, only considered when there was very strong reasons to reject natural hypotheses, but there nonetheless.
Scientists, however, can do quite a bit in the way of examining claims of supernatural events or examining phenomena believed to be supernatural in cause.
I’m not sure what you mean by “event horizon” here; can you elaborate?
At any rate, it does seem to me that scientists do sometimes detect a phenomenon for which they have no explanation; what science does in such cases is to feverishly work on the problem until you’ve got an explanation. In some cases, these explanations seem perfectly bizarre: if you think about it, the whole time-slows-down-as-you-approach-the-speed-of-light is wholly beyond human experience, as is much of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Science studies the natural world. If something occurs in the natural world, science looks for an explanation of it.
If science doesn’t currently have an explanation for it, I think it’s unwise to call the phenomenon “supernatural.” Instead, the best thing to do is to look for an explanation.
If that explanation requires positing extradimensional forces or whatever, that’s fine, as long as we can build some math, or (better yet) some experiments that demonstrate the plausibility of that explanation. I don’t like calling those extradimensional forces “supernatural.”
