Can we be "certain" whether or not supernatural realities exist or do not exist?

[mike3]

Can we be "certain" whether or not supernatural realities exist or do not exist?

Hi.

I saw this post:

Living with uncertainty, bias, hypocrisy, emotional need, and a host of other human conditions -- and discovering these same things in oneself -- is an admirable measure of maturity that I fear many die without obtaining.

But do you live with "uncertainty" about whether or not there exist supernatural realities, that is, realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality, non-physical modes of existence? Note that these realities need not be anything mentioned in any religions. That last bit is important.

To me, it seems that there is no way to prove or refute the possibility, because we would have no idea as to how to even begin to detect it, or if that would even be possible. We can't even say it is unlikely, or likely, through observation. We just don't know... In this case, absence of evidence is truly neither evidence of absence nor evidence of presence. How would we, when we would have no idea what we were even looking for? How would we know it could even be detected or tested?

 

[Trent Wray]

One thing that seems to be a popular trend right now, is the multiverse and MWI, etc and so forth. I've seen a couple of authors interviewed lately on popular TV shows, for example, as well as radio broadcasts concerning the topic.

The media claim is continually trending towards "alternate realities and multiple universes are now accepted as truth", so on and so forth.

How realistic is this? Is there enough evidence to claim finally that there are alternate realities existing "alongside" our own? I wouldn't know where to begin in order to use proper jargon, so forgive my armchair terminology

 

[Oualawouzou]

Hi.

I saw this post:



But do you live with "uncertainty" about whether or not there exist supernatural realities, that is, realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality, non-physical modes of existence? Note that these realities need not be anything mentioned in any religions. That last bit is important.

To me, it seems that there is no way to prove or refute the possibility, because we would have no idea as to how to even begin to detect it, or if that would even be possible. We can't even say it is unlikely, or likely, through observation. We just don't know... In this case, absence of evidence is truly neither evidence of absence nor evidence of presence. How would we, when we would have no idea what we were even looking for? How would we know it could even be detected or tested?

Start with what we know and understand: a natural world, governed by natural laws. That much we know.

Now, as long as we don't come across "realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality", we have absolutely no reason to believe such things exist. Why should the default position be "we don't know", instead of "no, they don't exist"?

I can lift a fully grown elephant with one hand, but that only works when nobody is looking. Would your default position be "I don't know if it's true since I can't gather evidence about that particular feat", or would it be "You're full of it according to everything we know about human physiology, so put up or shut up"?

ETA: I'm heading to bed right now, and re-reading the OP, I think I may be slightly off-topic, or maybe not... I apologize if I am.

 

[yy2bggggs]

But do you live with "uncertainty" about whether or not there exist supernatural realities, that is, realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality, non-physical modes of existence? Note that these realities need not be anything mentioned in any religions. That last bit is important.

Questions often have assumptions in them. In this particular case, the assumptions the question makes need to be addressed before the question, because there is a real concern that the question may not have meaning; or if it does, that its meaning needs to be made explicit.

The question assumes that there are such things as "physical laws", and asks if there are such things as "supernatural realities" that are not bound to those "physical laws". Things are not quite that simple, though.

Many people generally presume that there are probably "physical laws", but we don't know what they are exactly. All we can do is observe the universe. Certain patterns emerge in our observations... some such patterns are never violated. Others are. The most consistent of such observations lead to a suspicion that there's a general immutable pattern about the universe. That established pattern convinces us that we have found one of the "physical laws", and we carefully postulate that some particular pattern is a physical law.

For example, we could note that every physical process is time symmetric; that is, everything acts the exact same way forward and backwards in time (T symmetry). We might postulate that this is a physical law. Likewise, we could note that no matter how things move, if we add up all of the angular momentum, we always get the same number--and we can postulate that this is a physical law.

Now you're talking about entities that violate one of these physical laws. Well, as it turns out, we found an entity that violates CP symmetry, which suggests a violation of T symmetry. This leads to a dilemma: Was our entity supernatural, or were we simply mistaken about T symmetry being a physical law?

So let's suppose we find something else that is able to violate the conservation of angular momentum. Would that be supernatural?

Do you see the problem? Given that X violates principle Y, where we think Y is a physical law, then how can you tell the difference between X being "supernatural" in that it is not subject to law Y, and our being mistaken that Y is a physical law? Or suppose that we find that everything we think is a physical law can be broken--then how can we tell the difference between particular entities that can break it, and there simply being no physical laws in the first place? Furthermore, if only particular kinds of entities can "break" these laws, would it be a physical law that only they can?

Basically, there's a semantic mess that needs to be mopped up before we have a question that has a clear meaning.

 

[PixyMisa]

But do you live with "uncertainty" about whether or not there exist supernatural realities, that is, realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality, non-physical modes of existence? Note that these realities need not be anything mentioned in any religions. That last bit is important.

Easy. I say, "Evidence?"

To me, it seems that there is no way to prove or refute the possibility, because we would have no idea as to how to even begin to detect it, or if that would even be possible. We can't even say it is unlikely, or likely, through observation. We just don't know... In this case, absence of evidence is truly neither evidence of absence nor evidence of presence. How would we, when we would have no idea what we were even looking for? How would we know it could even be detected or tested?

This is why such ideas are worthless and are rejected by all rational people.

 

[mike3]

Questions often have assumptions in them. In this particular case, the assumptions the question makes need to be addressed before the question, because there is a real concern that the question may not have meaning; or if it does, that its meaning needs to be made explicit.

The question assumes that there are such things as "physical laws", and asks if there are such things as "supernatural realities" that are not bound to those "physical laws". Things are not quite that simple, though.

Many people generally presume that there are probably "physical laws", but we don't know what they are exactly. All we can do is observe the universe. Certain patterns emerge in our observations... some such patterns are never violated. Others are. The most consistent of such observations lead to a suspicion that there's a general immutable pattern about the universe. That established pattern convinces us that we have found one of the "physical laws", and we carefully postulate that some particular pattern is a physical law.

For example, we could note that every physical process is time symmetric; that is, everything acts the exact same way forward and backwards in time (T symmetry). We might postulate that this is a physical law. Likewise, we could note that no matter how things move, if we add up all of the angular momentum, we always get the same number--and we can postulate that this is a physical law.

Now you're talking about entities that violate one of these physical laws. Well, as it turns out, we found an entity that violates CP symmetry, which suggests a violation of T symmetry. This leads to a dilemma: Was our entity supernatural, or were we simply mistaken about T symmetry being a physical law?

So let's suppose we find something else that is able to violate the conservation of angular momentum. Would that be supernatural?

Do you see the problem? Given that X violates principle Y, where we think Y is a physical law, then how can you tell the difference between X being "supernatural" in that it is not subject to law Y, and our being mistaken that Y is a physical law? Or suppose that we find that everything we think is a physical law can be broken--then how can we tell the difference between particular entities that can break it, and there simply being no physical laws in the first place? Furthermore, if only particular kinds of entities can "break" these laws, would it be a physical law that only they can?

Basically, there's a semantic mess that needs to be mopped up before we have a question that has a clear meaning.

However, this would seem to suggest the "natural" vs "super-natural" distinction is vacuous, baseless, or unfounded, no? In which case, would it not be more productive to simply drop these terms altogether from discourse? (And thus this question would, as you say, be vacuous.)

But nonetheless, let's try and take a whack at it. Why not first define "natural", then we could call as "supernatural" anything outside of that? So, what do you consider the term "natural" to mean?

 

[mike3]

Easy. I say, "Evidence?"

So if there's zero evidence, that means it doesn't exist, as opposed to merely that we cannot know if it exists. But how does that follow? In order for it to follow, you would have to first know that its existence would necessarily produce evidence, when that is not at all clear, since evidence would imply we could interact with it somehow. Yet what law says that the majority of possible "other" realities must interact with this one? That would be an interesting law, and I'd be curious as to how it was derived.

Finally, even if we did have some evidence, how would we know it really was such? As someone mentioned, how could we tease apart the difference between a "supernatural" and "unknown natural" phenomenon? Which of course would render all this moot, anyway.

This is why such ideas are worthless and are rejected by all rational people.

But the "rejection" amkes it sound like saying "it can't exist" -- which seems like a leap, sounds like dogma. Better to say it's an unknown unknowable than to make dogmatic conclusions, no? I thought that "rational" things were the antithesis of dogmatism. What's so bad about that? Sounds like someone wants certainty. Unless that is what you mean by "rejection": that it can't be known, so why bother doing anything with it? In which case, there is no more discussion on this point... hmm...

 

[yy2bggggs]

However, this would seem to suggest the "natural" vs "super-natural" distinction is vacuous, baseless, or unfounded, no?

Possibly, unless some meaning can be scavenged for it.

But nonetheless, let's try and take a whack at it. Why not first define "natural", then we could call as "supernatural" anything outside of that? So, what do you consider the term "natural" to mean?

It won't help much, because what I consider to be natural is open. Everything we know about the world and how it works would be included as natural; but so would other things that we don't know about; in fact, I know of particular things I would consider to be natural--such as the properties of the things constituting dark matter--even though I don't know what those things nor those properties are.

But this still leaves you with a problem of defining supernatural as something outside of natural; you're still left with the task of drawing a line somewhere outside of this area of the map we call the known; where on this side you can say things are natural, and on that side supernatural. I don't know how to draw this line for your question; frankly, this should be your job anyway because it's your question.

 

[AdMan]

So if there's zero evidence, that means it doesn't exist, as opposed to merely that we cannot know if it exists. But how does that follow? In order for it to follow, you would have to first know that its existence would necessarily produce evidence, when that is not at all clear, since evidence would imply we could interact with it somehow. Yet what law says that the majority of possible "other" realities must interact with this one? That would be an interesting law, and I'd be curious as to how it was derived.

I think you're confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence, and I don't think anyone is claiming the latter in this thread. If there is zero evidence, that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, just that there is no evidence for it.

Seems to me you haven't thought this thoroughly, to be honest.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Before we get sidetracked, let's see what the word 'supernatural' actually means:-

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
2b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)​

Gods, ghosts, spirits and 'super powers' are what most people think of when the word 'supernatural' is used - not 'physical laws which have not yet been discovered'. If scientists were to somehow come up with a 'law' describing God, that wouldn't stop Him from being Supernatural.

Can we ever be completely sure, one way or the other, whether any of these supernatural entities exist? No, but so far they are looking very, very unlikely. As scientific knowledge increases, I think the evidence for them will get even less, to the point where 'supernatural' will become synonymous with 'imaginary'.

 

[mike3]

Can we ever be completely sure, one way or the other, whether any of these supernatural entities exist? No, but so far they are looking very, very unlikely. As scientific knowledge increases, I think the evidence for them will get even less, to the point where 'supernatural' will become synonymous with 'imaginary'.

In other words, still, certainty, or dang close to it (so close as to practically be certainty even if by strict hairsplit it isn't technically so.). So then what's with all the crap about religion's appeal being that it offers "certainty" on some matters, when this suggests that something damn close to certainty is also offered by secularized belief systems? Is it because that 0.0000000000000001% hair away from true certainty that dang important to a great many people?

Also, does "Roger Ramjets" have something to do with to "Rramjet"?

 

[mike3]

I think you're confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence, and I don't think anyone is claiming the latter in this thread. If there is zero evidence, that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, just that there is no evidence for it.

Seems to me you haven't thought this thoroughly, to be honest.

Hmm. But someone here said that with no evidence, they would believe it does not exist, thus absence of evidence = evidence of absence to them, or if not, then they're asserting a dogmatic position in the absence of evidence (namely absence of evidence of absence since absence of evidence of presence does not in the given case equal evidence of absence, sheesh, what a tonguetwister). That is the kind of thing I was going after, and I've heard it elsewhere.

 

[PixyMisa]

So if there's zero evidence, that means it doesn't exist, as opposed to merely that we cannot know if it exists.

If no evidence is possible, that does mean it doesn't exist.

Finally, even if we did have some evidence, how would we know it really was such? As someone mentioned, how could we tease apart the difference between a "supernatural" and "unknown natural" phenomenon?

Form hypotheses and test them, same as always.

But the "rejection" amkes it sound like saying "it can't exist" -- which seems like a leap, sounds like dogma. Better to say it's an unknown unknowable than to make dogmatic conclusions, no?

No.

If something has no properties by which we can determine whether it exists or not, then it doesn't interact with the Universe. Things that don't interact with the Universe don't exist - by definition. That's what it means to exist.

 

[JJM 777]

Welcome to agnosticism.

Supernaturals would probably be aware of what we can detect and what we cannot, so it would be their decision to do something what we can detect, or refrain from doing anything what we can detect.

 

[PixyMisa]

Welcome to ignosticism. You are building a house of cards out of arguments from ignorance. Stop it.

 

[randman]

One thing that seems to be a popular trend right now, is the multiverse and MWI, etc and so forth. I've seen a couple of authors interviewed lately on popular TV shows, for example, as well as radio broadcasts concerning the topic.

The media claim is continually trending towards "alternate realities and multiple universes are now accepted as truth", so on and so forth.

How realistic is this? Is there enough evidence to claim finally that there are alternate realities existing "alongside" our own? I wouldn't know where to begin in order to use proper jargon, so forgive my armchair terminology

Maybe that's because it's either the Multiverse did it, or God did it?

 

[randman]

Start with what we know and understand: a natural world, governed by natural laws. That much we know.

Now, as long as we don't come across "realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality", we have absolutely no reason to believe such things exist. Why should the default position be "we don't know", instead of "no, they don't exist"?

I can lift a fully grown elephant with one hand, but that only works when nobody is looking. Would your default position be "I don't know if it's true since I can't gather evidence about that particular feat", or would it be "You're full of it according to everything we know about human physiology, so put up or shut up"?

ETA: I'm heading to bed right now, and re-reading the OP, I think I may be slightly off-topic, or maybe not... I apologize if I am.

2 problems

1. We likely do not know what the laws of the physical world are considering modern science is still in it's infancy in a lot of ways. I mean who would have predicted 110 years ago that such a basic concept and law of time would be revised?

2. It's not really scientific to talk about "nature" or "the laws of nature" since by definition anything that is real is "nature." The whole concept is outdated. Let's take something that might be extreme for some, the concept of God, the Creator. If God is real, He is by definition part of the laws of nature as He exists and so is part of reality.

If you are trying to distinquish between "nature" and other things that may or may not be real, you are just drawing an artificial and unscientific stand.

Science is limited by technology. We inferred gravity but could not directly observe it in the sense of explaining it's mechanism, and we still don't know for sure why it works.

 

[randman]

Questions often have assumptions in them. In this particular case, the assumptions the question makes need to be addressed before the question, because there is a real concern that the question may not have meaning; or if it does, that its meaning needs to be made explicit.

The question assumes that there are such things as "physical laws", and asks if there are such things as "supernatural realities" that are not bound to those "physical laws". Things are not quite that simple, though.

Many people generally presume that there are probably "physical laws", but we don't know what they are exactly. All we can do is observe the universe. Certain patterns emerge in our observations... some such patterns are never violated. Others are. The most consistent of such observations lead to a suspicion that there's a general immutable pattern about the universe. That established pattern convinces us that we have found one of the "physical laws", and we carefully postulate that some particular pattern is a physical law.

For example, we could note that every physical process is time symmetric; that is, everything acts the exact same way forward and backwards in time (T symmetry). We might postulate that this is a physical law. Likewise, we could note that no matter how things move, if we add up all of the angular momentum, we always get the same number--and we can postulate that this is a physical law.

Now you're talking about entities that violate one of these physical laws. Well, as it turns out, we found an entity that violates CP symmetry, which suggests a violation of T symmetry. This leads to a dilemma: Was our entity supernatural, or were we simply mistaken about T symmetry being a physical law?

So let's suppose we find something else that is able to violate the conservation of angular momentum. Would that be supernatural?

Do you see the problem? Given that X violates principle Y, where we think Y is a physical law, then how can you tell the difference between X being "supernatural" in that it is not subject to law Y, and our being mistaken that Y is a physical law? Or suppose that we find that everything we think is a physical law can be broken--then how can we tell the difference between particular entities that can break it, and there simply being no physical laws in the first place? Furthermore, if only particular kinds of entities can "break" these laws, would it be a physical law that only they can?

Basically, there's a semantic mess that needs to be mopped up before we have a question that has a clear meaning.

Great post.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So then what's with all the crap about religion's appeal being that it offers "certainty"

It's a failure of the human mind. People want facts and certainty in their lives, but science only offers theories and probabilities. Religion does offer certainty, so many people think it's better. They just don't seem to realize that being certain doesn't mean that you are right!

Also, does "Roger Ramjets" have something to do with to "Rramjet"?

That poseur! Trying to steal my good reputation by choosing a similar username! But don't worry, soon I will get my revenge!!1!

Only 3 more posts to go...

 

[randman]

If something has no properties by which we can determine whether it exists or not, then it doesn't interact with the Universe. Things that don't interact with the Universe don't exist - by definition.

So if we have evidence of say, God, interacting with the universe, does that mean we have scientific evidence God exists?

So science could potentially confirm or suggest that God exists?

That's what it means to exist.

Not really. Things can exist whether we have evidence or not.