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

[PixyMisa]

Why is it logically impossible to have two totally disconnected things that "exist"? Can you explain the details of your argument?

Because if they are totally disconnected, they do not exist relative to one another. By definition.

Furthermore, this viewpoint suggests that existence is dependent upon interaction with other things.

That's what the word means.

(This is intriguing, since it resembles certain Eastern philosophies. Is that what you're using here?)

Nope. This is scientific naturalism.

In that case, with what does the material universe interact with, to make it exist?

That's not a meaningful question. The Universe is the sum of all interactions.

Or is it self-existent? If so, what stops there from being a second instantiation of self-existence, a fully disconnected, independent second entity like the universe? In other words, why can only one self-existent entity exist?

You have no apples. I give you one apple.

Then I take another apple and shove it through a nuclear furnace so that it is reduced to a cloud of ions.

How many apples do you have?

 

[SusanB-M1]

I think it is so interesting that the more Science investigates the capabilities of the brain and provides evidence of why people think they see ghosts, etc, the more enjoyable and fascinating it is to read about and imagine supposedy 'supernatural' things. To know that the mind can start on a 'what if' thought and see what follows enormously certainly enhances my life. And I've learnt so much from JREF - in discussions such as this for example. I have heardoften said - as soon as there is evidence for something, then faith is no longer necessary, which just makes life more exciting day by day!

 

[JJM 777]

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.

This is a bit like saying that no force or material exists whose properties we, currently cannot determine. Well that theory would change many times along the history of mankind.

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

 

[PixyMisa]

This is a bit like saying that no force or material exists whose properties we, currently cannot determine. Well that theory would change many times along the history of mankind.

No.

There's a fundamental, definitional difference between a hypothetical object with real but not previously observed properties, and an invisible pink unicorn.

<fail level=abject>

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

</fail>

 

[mike3]

Because if they are totally disconnected, they do not exist relative to one another. By definition.

But how does this mean that they cannot "truly" exist in "actual" reality, i.e. the "real way things really are" reality that is independent of our knowledge, senses, capabilities, and so forth?

That's not a meaningful question. The Universe is the sum of all interactions.

Why can't we consider this overall system of interactions as a single entity?

You have no apples. I give you one apple.

Then I take another apple and shove it through a nuclear furnace so that it is reduced to a cloud of ions.

How many apples do you have?

I still have one apple. But I'm not sure what the point of the analogy here is. Nothing is getting blown up in the example I give. Though I suppose it shows that the 'existence' or lack thereof of the one is of no bearing on the other... but um, isn't that already 'known' here? And isn't that something that I already accept? Hasn't it been accepted from the beginning of this discussion?

 

[mike3]

ADDENDUM: I think I get the idea behind requiring "interaction" for "existence". Because in an empirical-based view of the world, only thoes things which are detactable (in theory, which is really no different than saying they interact since in theory every interaction can be deteced) are worth considering, thus it is simplest in such a view to consider them as the only things that exist.

However, this doesn't "seem" right with the intuitive notion I have about "existence" from a metaphysical point of view (because to me it seems more sensible to treat the above as having to do with "reality of our knowledge-sphere" as opposed to "true reality", which may be larger than the former. But then we need definitions of those terms that are firm...), and it seems to convey a little too much certainty in an endeavor that prides itself on uncertainty. But I do not know, at least at present, of a way to give a solid, rigorous definition of "existence" from this intuition, or to give a hard explanation of why it seems to convey certainty. Thus, unless and until I can do that, I'd think this discussion will end up doing nothing but running around in circles, and so I think the best thing to do now is just quit it and put this away. Without such a formulation, no further discussion is possible in any meaningful, useful, or enjoyable way. Running in circles also just wastes time that could be better spent elsewhere, on all sides involved, especially my own. I would prefer to concentrate on discussing topics that are more fruitful, more interesting, and more fun than trying to flesh out half-baked (or even only a little baked, maybe even not baked at all and just dough) metaphysical speculation.

 

[dlorde]

The same applies for all supernatural claims. They all have some sort of physical manifestation.

Well, apart from useless ineffables such as a God that doesn't 'interfere', e.g. one who sets the universe running and f***s off.

Otherwise, I agree with your analysis - the problem is with the word 'supernatural'. Anything that affects the physical world must have a physical component and therefore must be part of nature - and, in principle, amenable to scientific examination and explanation. If it doesn't affect the physical world in any way, it doesn't physically exist, and we have good explanations for the non-physical in terms of the mind - abstract ideas and concepts.

If we redefine 'supernatural' to mean natural but beyond our current knowledge, we run into the evidence problem. The other side of the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' coin is that all the evidence we do have suggests that claimed supernatural phenomena either have an explanation that fits our existing models of how the universe behaves, or don't physically exist at all. This is what we find whenever we investigate or experiment carefully.

There is also the issue that we know enough about nature, particularly physics, to say that the majority of claimed supernatural phenomena cannot physically exist because, to behave as claimed, they would violate the most fundamental natural 'laws' - i.e. if these phenomena were possible, physics would be very different, the world would not be the way it is and we probably wouldn't be here at all - at the very least, the technology we have that relies on these laws wouldn't function as it does.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

are you saying that they would not accept the "naturalism" because there's the 0.0000000000000001% odds, shrinking every day, that it is _not_ right? That these people who "need" that certainty would be disturbed by the tiny chance that supernatural _does_ exist, that there's a little chance that, for example, maybe, just maybe, God really does exist?

When the stakes are high, people don't think rationally. The probability of your winning the lottery is so small that you really shouldn't waste your money on a ticket, but every week somebody wins ten million dollars!

Which of these assertions is more appealing?

1: We find no evidence for God (though we can't completely eliminate the possibility that He exists). Things that happen to us are mostly random, and you will probably die before 90.

2: We are SURE that God exists, He has a PLAN for all of us, and if you just believe in Him then you WILL have Everlasting Life!

 

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa
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.

This is a bit like saying that no force or material exists whose properties we, currently cannot determine. Well that theory would change many times along the history of mankind.

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

I think Pixy's statement is clearer if you insert 'in principle' between 'we can' and 'determine'. Of course there are phenomena we currently don't have the tools to detect, but the semantics of 'supernatural' implies beyond physical knowledge in principle. Supernatural doesn't simply mean 'we haven't measured it yet' (despite some popular usage).

 

[Roger Ramjets]

the problem is with the word 'supernatural'.

No, the problem is with a misunderstanding of the word 'supernatural'. It literally means 'above nature'. It applies to phenomena which transcend natural laws, and entities capable of actions that (according to the laws of Nature) are physically impossible. You can argue that the Supernatural doesn't exist due to lack of evidence, but you can't say that it has no meaning. What if we did discover phenomena that violated the laws of Nature, in fundamental ways that cannot be reconciled with how we know the physical world works? Wouldn't we want a word for that?

Anything that affects the physical world must have a physical component and therefore must be part of nature - and, in principle, amenable to scientific examination and explanation. If it doesn't affect the physical world in any way, it doesn't physically exist

But the supernatural doesn't necessarily have to 'exist' in the physical world in order to affect it. Consider once again the 'Matrix' analogy (universe as computer simulation). The programmer is completely outside of the simulation, yet he is still able to 'interact' with it.

 

[Oualawouzou]

But the supernatural doesn't necessarily have to 'exist' in the physical world in order to affect it. Consider once again the 'Matrix' analogy (universe as computer simulation). The programmer is completely outside of the simulation, yet he is still able to 'interact' with it.

The virtual universe the Matrix characters live in is simply data stored in computers. The "programmer" and the characters are part of the same universe. The Matrix "virtual reality" isn't a reality, it is an illusion.

 

[dlorde]

You can argue that the Supernatural doesn't exist due to lack of evidence, but you can't say that it has no meaning.

I didn't. I argued that its meaning was problematic in terms of physical reality.

What if we did discover phenomena that violated the laws of Nature, in fundamental ways that cannot be reconciled with how we know the physical world works? Wouldn't we want a word for that?

How could we do that? All our tools depend on the properties of physical reality to operate, including our senses. Physical reality must behave in a consistent way to be detectable. 'What if's?' are all very well, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

But the supernatural doesn't necessarily have to 'exist' in the physical world in order to affect it. Consider once again the 'Matrix' analogy (universe as computer simulation). The programmer is completely outside of the simulation, yet he is still able to 'interact' with it.

If that were the case, then the physical world would not be what we experience. This interpretation is a version of solipsism, where nothing apparently real has physical existence. Ultimately, it goes nowhere - if the world we experience is purely imaginary, all bets are off, anything can happen, and we can rely on nothing. Each of us inhabits a potentially unique simulated universe, and what is natural or supernatural becomes moot, as none of it is externally, objectively real.

 

[Pup]

Quote:
What if we did discover phenomena that violated the laws of Nature, in fundamental ways that cannot be reconciled with how we know the physical world works? Wouldn't we want a word for that?

How could we do that? All our tools depend on the properties of physical reality to operate, including our senses. Physical reality must behave in a consistent way to be detectable. 'What if's?' are all very well, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

Additionally, this goes back to the point that y2bggggs made in post #4. If we discovered unassailable evidence of something that violated our current understanding of the laws of nature, we'd then refine the laws of nature to include it. You can't really stop people from doing that.

For example, the human race as a whole didn't just shrug and say that lightning was unexplainable and supernatural, period, even though some cultures did. After a few millennia working on the problem, now we know it's not caused by an angry god throwing thunderbolts.

Today, people aren't just shrugging and saying that quantum entanglement is supernatural and unexplainable; they're working to revise the laws of nature to include it.

 

[fuelair]

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

To make this short, there is math that allows for other universes to be possible. There is no other evidence of such, just math that says it is possible. Those who wish to see this as support for their beliefs/wishes being true in another universe sitting on top of, rotatated 45 degrees from,insinuated through (etc.) ours are free to assume those things - they may well even be true. But, as I recall the basics of that math, it also implies they do not enter "our" physical space and we do not enter theirs - and you would not enjoy the results (or anything else) shortly after they did.

Hope this helps!!

 

[fuelair]

Heinlein wrote one of the best (my standards anyway) SF novels about 30 years ago with this as the basis: The Number of the Beast. (In this, the Universes the travellers mostly hit are those based on books they read in the past - fortunately, I was familiar with their reading lists as they overlapped parts of mine nicely.)

 

[JJM 777]

Q1: Can we be "certain" whether or not supernatural realities exist or do not exist?

We could be certain that they exist if we had sufficient evidence, but lack of evidence cannot make everyone certain that they do not exist.

---

Q2: Can we be "certain" whether or not the official, authoritative definition of the word "supernatural" can include the official, authoritative definition of the word "exist"?

Who cares really? Is the grammar a Bible or what?

 

[qayak]

I haven't read the thread, I am just responding to the OP.

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?

The idea that we can't detect miracles, or supernatural entities, seems ridiculous. Saying that such a being would omnipotent enough to hide their activity seems absurd as well. The only way a being could do that is to not perform miracles. Any miracle, by definition, would be detectable. It is the suspension of natural laws, does he think we wouldn't notice?

The reason there is no way to refure the idea, at this time, is because we cannot see all corners of the universe. So, a supernatural being might be cowering in a distant corner but we know there are none in our own little corner or as far as we can see . . . which is strange because he was supposed to have set this all up for us alone. You'd think he'd hang out with us once in awhile.

So, am I certain? Well, if certain means that I am able to live my life without worrying about it, yes. If certain means, as certain as I am that if you take away a square on a chess board, you will not be able to cover it with an even number of dominoes, yes. I am as certain about supernatiral beings and miracles not existing as I am about the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. As certain as I am that stepping out of an airplane at 5000 ft and surviving is more to do with the parachute than with a make believe god.

And yet, I have more doubt than any believer who tries to base their belief on the fact that one can never know for sure. Those same people have no doubt. They will believe that god created the universe 6000 years ago. That a young woman was actually a virgin and gave birth to a messiah who was then tortured and killed by his father's own creatures and chosen people. And they will believe that is a good thing. Not much doubt in these people.

I am as certain there is no god as I am that the garbage people teach as their religious beliefs is just so much ********, designed to control people, terrorize children, and justify horrific crimes against humanity.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[charles brough]

If something can never be detected or sensed, it is of no importance or significance to us! To be even thinking about is a useless waste. There is so much more that is really important.

Such as improving our understanding of what IS understandable, improving our understanding of ourselves, the world and the universe. Not only that, but we should be resisting the ancient and now obsolete old religious ideologies that now divide the world and make it impossible to solve its problems.

And it does have big problems. We are reproducing like rabbits and over-crowding our planet. No wonder we are running out of resources and polluting our environment. Yet, we go blindly on continuing to do it. Were it not for all those old religions dividing up the world, we could cooperate as one and solve the problems.

Anyone interested in what it will take to eventually replace the old religions? I've been working on that subject and have a good lead on it . . .

 

[Oualawouzou]

Were it not for all those old religions dividing up the world, we could cooperate as one and solve the problems.

Humans don't need religions to be divided.

 

[PixyMisa]

ADDENDUM: I think I get the idea behind requiring "interaction" for "existence". Because in an empirical-based view of the world, only thoes things which are detactable (in theory, which is really no different than saying they interact since in theory every interaction can be deteced) are worth considering, thus it is simplest in such a view to consider them as the only things that exist.

However, this doesn't "seem" right with the intuitive notion I have about "existence" from a metaphysical point of view (because to me it seems more sensible to treat the above as having to do with "reality of our knowledge-sphere" as opposed to "true reality", which may be larger than the former. But then we need definitions of those terms that are firm...), and it seems to convey a little too much certainty in an endeavor that prides itself on uncertainty. But I do not know, at least at present, of a way to give a solid, rigorous definition of "existence" from this intuition, or to give a hard explanation of why it seems to convey certainty. Thus, unless and until I can do that, I'd think this discussion will end up doing nothing but running around in circles, and so I think the best thing to do now is just quit it and put this away. Without such a formulation, no further discussion is possible in any meaningful, useful, or enjoyable way. Running in circles also just wastes time that could be better spent elsewhere, on all sides involved, especially my own. I would prefer to concentrate on discussing topics that are more fruitful, more interesting, and more fun than trying to flesh out half-baked (or even only a little baked, maybe even not baked at all and just dough) metaphysical speculation.

Yes!