What is 'supernatural'?

[ydoaPs]

This word kinda makes me giggle inside as, to me at least, it is synonymous with nonexistent. Natural, imo, is all that exists, something that is outside of the natural realm would not fall into the set of things that exist. 'Paranormal' would seem to be a better word.

 

It's the same thing when people talk about things 'existing' outside of the universe.

[JohnB]

I think it's meaning varies with the individual.

 

I have no problem with the idea of "Supernatural", but my definition of the word is that it means "outside the realm of known, natural phenomena".

 

This is not to say that "Supernatural" may not eventually become "natural" when and if it is understood better.

 

A simple example is that 300 years ago a box that heats food without a fire would class as "Supernatural" due to lack of knowledge of microwaves as "natural". We do have that knowledge now and so the "Supernatural" has become "natural".

 

Concerning the "Universe", I think that there is a confusion of terms. Many use the term to mean "absolutely everything", but what they really mean is "absolutely everything we can see with telescopes and radio telescopes". These are two very different concepts.

 

The Statement "C is the maximum velocity in this Universe" appears certainly true for the bit we can see. However, if there is a Hyper or Sub-Space, then it may not be true there. Hence the meaning is false for the "Entire Universe", but true for the "Universe we can see".

 

Which "Universe" do you mean when you use the word?

[LimbicLoser]

While the word may have had different overtones way back when, I tend to hold it as JohnB has outlined it. In today's world, the practical application of the word would best be held constant, therefore I'd always recommend such description of what 'supernatural' is--something which is not yet understood, but which is natural.

 

At the same time, the older mythological tenets which had made appeal to the supernatural, need not be thought of as yet unknown natural laws, or events, due the fact that the contextual settings in which they were found, demanded natural events which we know have failed to prove true--such as the rotation of the earth being paused so as to cause the sun to shine on a particular area of the planet for the purpose of a single battle with the enemy; so forth and so on.

[ydoaPs]

While the word may have had different overtones way back when, I tend to hold it as JohnB has outlined it. In today's world, the practical application of the word would best be held constant, therefore I'd always recommend such description of what 'supernatural' is--something which is not yet understood, but which is natural.

That's not really how it's used in common context.

[JohnB]

That's not really how it's used in common context.

 

I'm not so sure. Most people I know would use the word to describe something that is not understood by science. Only a few would add the connotation that it is impossible for science to understand it.

 

Certainly in the case of many uses of the word, the "Supernatural" event is viewed as simply a part of the processes of the natural world that are not properly understood.

 

Take "ghosts" for example. I personally surmise (and so do some Ghost Hunters I know) that they are simply a recording being replayed. We don't know the energies involved or the media they are recorded on or what triggers the playback, so in that sense they are "Supernatural". However they still very definitely part of the "natural" world and should we find the answers to the unknowns they will slot quite happily in with other "natural" phenomena.

[iNow]

In my estimation, "supernatural" is just another meaningless catch-all word like "spirituality." People toss it about to justify whatever brand of woo they happen to enjoy and think that it somehow gives that woo credence and worth.

 

It may just be where I live, but I also tend to agree with ydoaps. For things not yet understand, people call them "not yet understood." When folks invoke the word "supernatural," it's almost always to attempt to justify something like fairies, angels, leprechans, unicorns, deities, or even ghosts, in which case, it's a load of rubbish with neither utility nor descriptive capacity.

[Moontanman]

To me supernatural means being able to operate outside of or in spite of the natural laws of the universe no matter what they may be. A supernatural being can do anything, no conservation of energy laws, no speed limits no problem changing the past or the future, all knowing and all seeing, no limits what so ever!.

[ydoaPs]

It may just be where I live, but I also tend to agree with ydoaps. For things not yet understand, people call them "not yet understood." When folks invoke the word "supernatural," it's almost always to attempt to justify something like fairies, angels, leprechans, unicorns, deities, or even ghosts, in which case, it's a load of rubbish with neither utility nor descriptive capacity.

 

Definitely what I've seen.

[Sisyphus]

It definitely doesn't mean "not yet understood" in common usage. Nobody says quantum gravity is "supernatural," unless they mean that little pixies are doing it.

 

I propose the definition: in exception to deterministic or statistically deterministic physical laws.

 

That might not be quite the same as common usage, but it's not unrelated, and I think that could at least be a coherent definition, even if there are no such things in the universe.

[john5746]

supernatural = magic, but it isn't always imagination. Sometimes the observer just isn't aware that there is a logical explanation. Like crop circles in the past.

[JohnB]

'Paranormal' would seem to be a better word.

 

I missed this before. I have to agree it's the better word. (And more in line with my thinking)

 

To me supernatural means being able to operate outside of or in spite of the natural laws of the universe no matter what they may be.

 

Which "natural Laws"? The ones we know, or the ones we don't know about yet?

 

I propose the definition: in exception to deterministic or statistically deterministic physical laws.

 

Your definition presupposes a complete knowledge of physical laws. I suggest that the word "known" be added. Granted, the definition will therefore be constantly changing over the long run, but I think it's more accurate.

 

Just because we don't know or understand the laws that effect something, does not mean that it does not follow natural laws that determine it's behaviour.

 

To a great degree, I agree with iNows thoughts, simply because most people don't think very deeply about many topics. (look at the Left/Right kneejerk reactions often displayed in our "Politics" forum.) So for many it is simply a catch all phrase that allows people to pidgeon hole a concept and then not think about it any more.

 

Those that actually think about it and wonder what laws might determine it's behaviour, understand the term slightly differently.

 

Just for a bit of fun. (Suppose) I have an open topped cardboard box of nominal mass 200 grams. There is a substance inside the box that brings the mass up to 10 kilograms. The substance inside cannot be seen, touched, smelt or show up on any chemical or spectroscopic analysis. What is the substance? Is it paranormal or supernatural? Does it exist?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Just for a bit of fun. (Suppose) I have an open topped cardboard box of nominal mass 200 grams. There is a substance inside the box that brings the mass up to 10 kilograms. The substance inside cannot be seen, touched, smelt or show up on any chemical or spectroscopic analysis. What is the substance? Is it paranormal or supernatural? Does it exist?

I believe the correct answer in physics is "uh, let's call it 'dark matter'."

[Mr Skeptic]

Supernatural entities are "above" the natural laws that we normal people have to abide by, but that doesn't mean that they are above all laws. The greek gods for example, were still subject to fate.

[Moontanman]

 

Which "natural Laws"? The ones we know, or the ones we don't know about yet?

 

 

As I said, all of them no matter what they may be.

[JohnB]

I believe the correct answer in physics is "uh, let's call it 'dark matter'."

 

Which is of course exactly what I was thinking of.

 

The thing I find interesting is that it's always spoken of in the context of "out there" or "between Galaxies". To my mind such exclusivity is wrong. There must be some down here too. Maybe not a lot, but some.

 

It's some sort of amorphous form existing between the stars, but what if you had 10 kilos sitting on a table? What would it look like? What experiments could be performed on it? How do you locate it and gather 10 kilos in the first place?

 

How do you find something you can't detect? Unless you can find some, you can't perform experiments. Without experiments, how do you understand the Laws governing it's behaviour?

 

The stuff is without doubt "Paranormal", and if the "normal" laws don't apply to it, would it be "Supernatural" as well?

 

Living, thinking entities can be made from normal matter. Can this also be true for Dark matter? If such entities existed and since by definition the normal laws don't apply to them, would that make them Gods? Angels? Fairies? Ghosts? Demons? None of the above?

 

Is it possible that there are "Dark" Galaxies, with "Dark" Suns shining "Dark" light on "Dark" Planets?

 

All of the above is pure speculation of course, but they are to me logical questions to ask based on the existence of Dark Matter.

 

Or is the idea that there might be substances and energies that we can't detect and that follow their own Laws just silly?

 

As I said, all of them no matter what they may be.

But if we don't know all the Laws, how do know whether or not something is following them?

[Mr Skeptic]

The thing I find interesting is that it's always spoken of in the context of "out there" or "between Galaxies". To my mind such exclusivity is wrong. There must be some down here too. Maybe not a lot, but some.

 

It's some sort of amorphous form existing between the stars, but what if you had 10 kilos sitting on a table? What would it look like? What experiments could be performed on it? How do you locate it and gather 10 kilos in the first place?

 

There's supposed to be some right here on earth. If you gathered some together somehow and put it on a table, it would fall right through the table, since the electromagnetic interactions that keep normal matter from falling through tables don't apply to it.

 

How do you find something you can't detect? Unless you can find some, you can't perform experiments. Without experiments, how do you understand the Laws governing it's behaviour?

 

They are building some detectors, similar to the neutrino detectors, which they hope will be able to detect an occasional collision. They're also hoping to create some in a particle accelerator.

[LimbicLoser]

That's not really how it's used in common context.

 

Thanks for getting back with me on that, ydoaPs, and apologies for not getting to it sooner. Yes, I understand your point. At the same time, the input I had given is my opinion that we should make an effort to adjust the meaning of the term towards that direction, than leave it at the older, unfalsifiable definition.

 

 

I like the comments being made. I would tend to think (no fixed opinion at all yet) that if some thing operated in laws yet unknown, we would see it as fitting that 'supernatural definition . . . seeing as we simply don't know the laws. However, the likes of the imagination of the H. sapiens mind, I'd say will most largely remain internal realities . . . such as gods, angels, fairies and, yes, of course, invisible flying spaghetti monsters.

[Sisyphus]

Your definition presupposes a complete knowledge of physical laws.

 

How do you figure?

[Moontanman]

The stuff is without doubt "Paranormal", and if the "normal" laws don't apply to it, would it be "Supernatural" as well?

 

No, the prefix "super" does not imply unknown, it implies powerful as in superman.

 

Living, thinking entities can be made from normal matter. Can this also be true for Dark matter? If such entities existed and since by definition the normal laws don't apply to them, would that make them Gods? Angels? Fairies? Ghosts? Demons? None of the above?

 

None of the above, dark matter doesn't (or at least is not supposed to) interact with even it's self except through gravity, no dark matter chemicals or life forms or even stars.

 

Is it possible that there are "Dark" Galaxies, with "Dark" Suns shining "Dark" light on "Dark" Planets?

 

All of the above is pure speculation of course, but they are to me logical questions to ask based on the existence of Dark Matter.

 

It sounds like you are talking about mirror matter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter

 

Or is the idea that there might be substances and energies that we can't detect and that follow their own Laws just silly?

 

 

But if we don't know all the Laws, how do know whether or not something is following them?

 

Not being able to detect or know them does not make them supernatural, possibly paranormal but not supernatural.

 

I grew up going to some quite fundamentalist churches that took the supernatural nature of God to be literally true, no matter what laws we discover God can operate outside them and defy them with impunity. god operates totally outside any laws, no laws define him or restrain him.

 

According to them there is just one thing god does not know.

[JohnB]

How do you figure?

 

We might not have been meaning exactly the same thing, but my thinking was along the lines of;

 

If something obeys deterministic laws that we know about, then it is by that definition "Natural", however something that obeys deterministic laws that we don't know about is classed as "Supernatural". This would be incorrect, as it would be natural.

 

Unless we know all the laws that might govern it's behaviour, how can we conclude whether or not they are followed? The definition as stated doesn't actually allow us to classify things as Natural or Supernatural in a real sense.

 

I think that a time constraint is also needed. The definition would, I think be better phrased as "In exception to deterministic or statistically deterministic physical laws as understood at a given point (Time) in History"

 

This would allow for the correct historical perspective and the possibility that a "Supernatural" thing may become "Natural" once it's Laws are understood. To use the old "Microwave Oven" example. In the 10th Century, it would fall under the "Supernatural" part of the definition because the governing Laws are unknown then, it is "Natural" now because the Laws are known.

 

I add that there would have to be 2 very important qualifiers to the Definition

 

1. Not all "Supernatural" events (things, etc) are real.

2. Any "Supernatural" event (thing, etc) that is real will eventually fall into the "Natural" group as our knowledge increases.

 

Does that make sense to you? It seems reasonable to me.

[ydoaPs]

Thanks for getting back with me on that, ydoaPs, and apologies for not getting to it sooner. Yes, I understand your point. At the same time, the input I had given is my opinion that we should make an effort to adjust the meaning of the term towards that direction, than leave it at the older, unfalsifiable definition.

 

I don't see a need for changing the definition. We already have a word for 'unknown'; it's 'unknown.'

[Moontanman]

I think supernatural by definition is non falsifiable.

[JohnB]

No, the prefix "super" does not imply unknown, it implies powerful as in superman.

 

I see where you're coming from in that, my thought was more along the lines of "in excess" of known Laws. Rather than the "superior position", simply "beyond". Sort of a "beyond the horizon" type image.

 

From Wikianswers: A prefix signifying above, over, beyond, and hence often denoting in a superior position, in excess, over and above, in addition, exceedingly; as in superimpose, supersede, supernatural, superabundance.

 

Not being able to detect or know them does not make them supernatural, possibly paranormal but not supernatural.

 

Which is why I agreed with ydoap before. To me, "Supernatural" and "Paranormal" are virtually equal in meaning. But my upbringing differs from yours and gives me a different meaning for "Supernatural".

 

None of the above, dark matter doesn't (or at least is not supposed to) interact with even it's self except through gravity, no dark matter chemicals or life forms or even stars.

 

We don't know what it is. We don't know the Laws it follows. We don't know whether or not there is more than one type of DM. We don't know whether or not they interact with each other in some way. We can barely see the tip of the tail and we can decide whether it is a squirrel or a tiger, when we've never seen either?

 

Aside from anthropomorphic superiority, is there any real evidence that it doesn't interact? Only our type of matter interacts with itself? Ours is "special"? Isn't that handy? I honestly don't think that we know enough to be making assertions about how any of the (possibly) various forms of DM interact with each other.

 

As we learn more, we will be in a better potition to rule things in or out.

[FreeWill]

On 4/11/2010 at 9:41 PM, Moontanman said:

To me supernatural means being able to operate outside of or in spite of the natural laws of the universe no matter what they may be. A supernatural being can do anything, no conservation of energy laws, no speed limits no problem changing the past or the future, all knowing and all seeing, no limits what so ever!.

This is not supernatural, this is unnatural.

A supernatural entity I think would operate in Reality with (almost) all of the functions applicable within Nature.

Edited May 18, 2019 by FreeWill