Mike D Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Since naturalism is a philosophy that states that all things are a result of the laws of physics, it would be appropriate to think that supernatural events or occurances or beings would be those in violation of the laws of physics. Any thoughts on that? Does thinking violate the laws of physics? It seems to me the imagination is the only thing that can violate the laws of physics. Unless of course there's evidence available that shows the laws of physics can be violated outside of our thoughts. Maybe us asking if the laws of physics can be violated is a violation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I would like everyone to post immediately what they believe is meant by supernatural. I hope that you do not read other peoples replies until you have posted your own so that you get as unfiltered a response as possible. I also think you should post why you use this definition. I don't believe in the supernatural. I'm not saying that I think everything has been explained or that nothing strange happens, but that what is often attributed to the supernatural either is just something of natural origins that we haven't figured out yet or is based on a faulty conclusion caused by inaccurate information or confused observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted November 19, 2006 Author Share Posted November 19, 2006 I don't see the difference between the laws of the universe (natural law, that which is subject to scientific verification given the proper knowledge and equipment) and the laws of physics. I don't see the difference either, and I wasn't trying to make a distinction in that aspect. I meant, instead of defining supernatural as "above the laws of physics", it would be better to state that they directly violate them. Are beauty or justice or love or the will to choice between good and evil, the result of the laws of physics? Yes, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Well, I think there are a lot of differing definitions of what supernatural means. It's split into three categories: 1) Unexplained by humans. 2) Above the laws of the universe. 3) Refers to fairy tale creatures and emotional ideas. I would agree with the 2nd definition, but I think that it requires more specification. Rather than above the laws of the universe, I would state that they directly violate the laws of physics. Since naturalism is a philosophy that states that all things are a result of the laws of physics, it would be appropriate to think that supernatural events or occurances or beings would be those in violation of the laws of physics. Any thoughts on that? Aren't we still figuring out the laws of physics, or the universe? What about all the fuss over quantum physics, and how some people are using it as an explaination for phenomenon usually asumed to be supernatural or metaphysical? Have Tesla's experiments all been figured out yet? If not, was Tesla connected to the supernatural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted November 19, 2006 Author Share Posted November 19, 2006 Aren't we still figuring out the laws of physics, or the universe? What about all the fuss over quantum physics, and how some people are using it as an explaination for phenomenon usually asumed to be supernatural or metaphysical? We are still in the process of determining aspects of the universe, yes, but I don't see how that relates to the discussion. If we observe something that violates the laws of physics (the current ones), that would be considered supernatural as far as I know. What about quantum physics? What phenomenon? Have Tesla's experiments all been figured out yet? If not, was Tesla connected to the supernatural? You mean Tesla's quackery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Paineful Truth Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Are beauty or justice or love or the will to chooce between good and evil, the result of the laws of physics? Yes, why not? Because we know the brain is like a computer, but we can't come up with any cogent theory as to how it bestows consciousness, or how that consciousness becomes self-aware. Even our most powerful computers don't display the first inkling of consciousness or will, whereas a fly, with almost no brain at all, has a form of primitive consciousness. It may be physics, but we've got no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Have Tesla's experiments all been figured out yet? If not, was Tesla connected to the supernatural? You mean Tesla's quackery? Could we perhaps define which of Tesla's experiments we are referring to here? Our current system of electricity, based on AC vs. DC, using 60hz, is in place primarily because of Tesla's experiments..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Aren't we still figuring out the laws of physics, or the universe? What about all the fuss over quantum physics, and how some people are using it as an explaination for phenomenon usually asumed to be supernatural or metaphysical? We are still in the process of determining aspects of the universe, yes, but I don't see how that relates to the discussion. If we observe something that violates the laws of physics (the current ones), that would be considered supernatural as far as I know. What about quantum physics? What phenomenon? Have Tesla's experiments all been figured out yet? If not, was Tesla connected to the supernatural? You mean Tesla's quackery? In reference to quantum physics, I mean how some groups that could be called "metaphysical" try to use scientific theories to back up their beliefs. Many find "proof" for the belief that something isn't true until it is observed (and until then, that thought influences events) by using (or misusing, as it may be) the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment and the double-slit experiment showing wave-particle duality. Some of Tesla's experiments also have been waylaid by people eager to give scientific approval to metaphysical theories. "In the years after, many of his innovations, theories and claims have been used, at times unsuitably and with some controversy, to support various fringe theories that are regarded as unscientific. Most of Tesla's own work conformed with the principles and methods accepted by science, but his extravagant personality and sometimes unrealistic claims, combined with his unquestionable genius, have made him a popular figure among fringe theorists and believers in conspiracies about 'hidden knowledge'. Some conspiracy theorists even in his time believed that he was actually an angelic being from Venus sent to Earth to reveal scientific knowledge to humanity". (From the Wikipedia article on Tesla. The point I am making is that what might be considered "supernatural" by the man on the street either doesn't exist at all or is something that is actually natural, but has not been explained yet by science. Because it has not been explained by science, people put it in a catagory of being "unreal" and a mystery. Ask the average person what is supernatural, and they will talk about ghosts and haunted houses. I may not be describing this very well and may be confusing you. But to me, if by supernatural someone means ghosts (in the spooky, afterlife sense) I don't believe it. But they might mean that something strange is happening and they see certain things in certain places, and that might be true but have an unknown explanation behind it. To me, that is not supernatural, just unexplained. How about this example: I believe in UFO's. That does not mean that I think aliens from 300 million light years away are invading our territory, but that objects have been seen that have not been identified. The latter is the true definition of a UFO, not the one about aliens in flying saucers. Yet I don't run around telling people that I believe in UFO's, because they think that means I believe the former definition. When you asked your original question, were you aiming to find out if people held the more metaphysical, "spooky" meaning, or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evelyn Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Okay, per your direction, I didn't read any other posts and am posting my own definition. Supernatural, to me, means something - event, behavior - that can't be explained by scientific means, at least initially. With further research, observation, etc, there probably is a scientific reason for the seemingly supernatural thing that occured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snookums Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 easypeasy...don't read too many prior posts anyway.... why I write the word supermatural? and what do I mean...? Well I write it cos its a shorthand to communicate a concept which I don't really know what it is. Super natural is a stupid word!!!! It sticks in my gullet to use it but I do - simply because everyone else is using it and my posts are weird enough let alone if I threw in a 'new' word that everyone else didn't know whatthefuck I was on about. why I find the word distasteful...... Super natural suggests that there is an undeniable reality that human beings know about but don't really know about.. that's the unknown The Unknown As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don’t know We don’t know shall I go on.......doing the Rumsfield tango I'd rather call it an illusion - delusion - fairytales and puppydogs tales eh...crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 I would have to agree with Asimov that logically, anything supernatural would violate the laws of physics. This is why I do not believe in the supernatural. Now, there are things which cannot be explained by science, but that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. Many people think some things are supernatural -- ghosts, for instance, but which have been shown to be low frequency sound waves (google this if you are interested, there are some interesting articles out there). Also, I have to wonder, can anything logically violate the laws of physics? I don't think so. However, those laws are based on human observation. Perhaps there are some laws that we haven't been able to observe with our current level of technology, but that will be discovered in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demona- Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke Basically, my idea of what "supernatural" means is that it refers to something we do not have an explanation for at this point in time... which is not to say we won't have one. Just that we don't have all the answers to every weird little thing that happens in our world/universe right now. Basically, we dub "supernatural" that which we do not understand. And, of course, once we're able to explain how something functions within the realm of physics, it's no longer a "supernatural" occurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts