Forums | MacLife

All that stuff on Buffy.

"Supernatural" = above nature.  Not governed by the forces that govern the natural world.

Also known as hoaxes, weather balloons, mass hysteria, etc.

NO WAI

Blood?  I transmogrified my body into ether while astrally projecting under my crystal pyramid!

I think "supernatural" is really an unintelligible word that easilly becomes either misunderstood or nonsensical.

I believe in a creator, right? So, in that case, is the universe a natural product or a work of God? If a work of God, then is it really proper to make a distinction between the natural and the supernatural? Isnt all of the natural, "supernatural?"

I think the baggage carried over from Platonism and Catersian dualism weighs heavy, but I have never really thought that sort of distinction plausible. For instance, in the case of the soul and the body- my body IS my soul- and the same way I dont imagine that when I die and I dont have a stomach anymore I will still eat pizza and drink beer, I also dont think that when my brain stops working and my neurons stop firing and decay that I will have thoughts or feelings.

The way I think "supernatural" makes the most sense is to imagine reality as a wavelength of reality outside our range of experience.

StaticAge wrote:

The way I think "supernatural" makes the most sense is to imagine reality as a wavelength of reality outside our range of experience.

This does not help much.

What do you mean by "our range of experience." Are electrons, for example, within our range of experience?

We cannot see or touch or smell or hear electrons, even though we can infer their existence from our experience. The fact that there is a causal connection between the properties of electrons and our perceptions means that we can study them and learn about them.

What would then be the difference in this sense between natural electrons and a super natural entity? If that entity can cause natural events then we can potentially infer its existence and learn about it just like we do about electrons and, therefore, it would not be "supernatural".

Now, if you define "supernatural" as that domain which is at "a wavelength beyond those we can perceive through experience" then you mean that the supernatural is causally disconnected from the natural and consequently from us. Of course, this wouldn't include a god that can cause miracles and interfere with nature, which is something that some of the religious heads on this board would like to include in the "supernatural."

MacMonkey wrote:

The "supernatural" as I understand it does not exist. It's just a word to describe the workings of something of which we do not yet understand. At one point in time the rising and setting of the sun was considered supernatural.
Name something we consider supernatural today. I guarantee you that there is a set of natural laws governing laws. If we observe something breaking the laws of nature as we understand them, it must be following a higher law that we do not yet comprehend.
Not much else to it.

I agree, I believe that's the most accurate definition, but I am sure the religious people to which I asked this question believe there is something more to it, something mystical and divine perhaps.

soulcrusher wrote:

MacMonkey wrote:

The "supernatural" as I understand it does not exist. It's just a word to describe the workings of something of which we do not yet understand. At one point in time the rising and setting of the sun was considered supernatural.
Name something we consider supernatural today. I guarantee you that there is a set of natural laws governing laws. If we observe something breaking the laws of nature as we understand them, it must be following a higher law that we do not yet comprehend.
Not much else to it.

I agree, I believe that's the most accurate definition, but I am sure the religious people to which I asked this question believe there is something more to it, something mystical and divine perhaps.

Existence itself seems supernatural to me.

StaticAge wrote:

soulcrusher wrote:

MacMonkey wrote:

The "supernatural" as I understand it does not exist. It's just a word to describe the workings of something of which we do not yet understand. At one point in time the rising and setting of the sun was considered supernatural.
Name something we consider supernatural today. I guarantee you that there is a set of natural laws governing laws. If we observe something breaking the laws of nature as we understand them, it must be following a higher law that we do not yet comprehend.
Not much else to it.

I agree, I believe that's the most accurate definition, but I am sure the religious people to which I asked this question believe there is something more to it, something mystical and divine perhaps.

Existence itself seems supernatural to me.

The question of why we exist, or how existence started, yes. The mechanics of existence, no.

StaticAge wrote:

ut I do mean beyond just a "why are we here" sort of thing and more a sort of the phenomenological metaphysics of everyday life and the "mechanics" of how it all hangs together. Absolutely.

The absurdity of it does make you hope there is an afterlife, so that you can find the answer. It's depressing to think that we might die and never know, since death is just death.

But i've never seen or heard a description of an afterlife that wasn't illogical. The only thing that would make sense is if it's just like earth, except we're all superman, but even that would have its own set of questions.

But, I think supernatural means something that could never be tested, not even theoretically.

By the parameters the Bible lays out for God, in that we can't test him, by definition that would be supernatural.

As to what is the nature of thought, since there are theoretical ways we could test it, thought itself is not supernatural.

Another way to think about it -

e^iθ = cos θ + isin θ

when θ=kπ where k is an odd integer, the result is -1 - a real number.

So when you ask what the natural log of -1 is - using math that is confined to the real number system, it is not possible. But you allow a bigger number system including imaginary numbers, you can can answers to that question, a "super natural" miracle from the perspective of real numbers.

Last edited by resedit (2008-01-21 11:50 pm)

imaginary numbers are merely a construct of man to help us solve certain problems. Hence the name.

resedit wrote:

The super natural includes that which can not be done purely with the natural laws that science studies, just like the there is math that can not be done purely with real numbers.

Pretty much all the math you use imaginary numbers for, you can do with real numbers. How do you think Euler devised Euler's identity? It wasn't ordained to him. He looked at patterns using strictly the real set of equations, and figured using "i" you could simplify them without adding new operations.

It's just a condensing of vectors with regular arithmetic.