Is the supernatural unobservable by definition?

[chriswl]

Well, I wouldn't use the subjective word "simple";

Simple vs complex is not a subjective matter. There are many ways of measuring complexity but it doesn't matter which we use - supernatural entities are always obviously vastly more complex than natural ones.

Think of how we describe the behaviour of an agent. Something like a large computer program would be required, detailing exactly what it does in all possible situations. Now think of the "program" to describe a peice of physical matter - just a few laws of physics that could easily fit on a page.

The relative length of the "programs" for these entities is a rough indication of the relative complexity. Supernaturalism maintains that there are agents that are not merely aggregates of many simple-to-explain physical components but are primitive elements in the world whose behaviour cannot be broken down and explained in terms of anything simpler. So the world supposedly natively contains "agents" just as it contains quarks.

The naturalist hypothesis says that this is not the case and the world is inherently simple. But we can't prove this.

Surely not "debunked". If we discovered actual ghosts, then they would be observable and explainable. Would they then become part of what we consider "natural", though?

Yes, if we could discover a scientific explanation of them in terms of simple primitive elemets, like atoms. Then they would be debunked. But if we discovered that the phenomena were real but could not be explained in simpler terms then they could be supernatural (though this judgement will always be provisional as we could later discover a scientific explanation).

There's stuff we don't know now. Is it okay to call it "supernatural" even if there's a possibility that it will be observable/explainable in the future?

Probably not. But we can't rule out the possibility that it actually is supernatural, i.e. that there really is no scientific explanation. It is not meaningless to believe that something is supernatural.

 

[sphenisc]

So, then, how does it get resolved?

Is "supernatural" a word, like sphenisc's use of the word "lost", that only temporarily applies to things we haven't figured out yet? In other words, it's an adjective describing the state of information about a thing, rather than describing the thing itself, such as the words "tall" or "noisy" do? If so, how can we rule out the possibility of... well, of anything? Just because no one's observed the invisible pink dragon in your garage yet, doesn't mean no one ever will...

There are a whole heap of things that have been lost:

my keys
my virginity¹Troy
Atlantis

Some of them are 'findable' again, some are theoretically 'findable', but are for all intents and purposes, never going to happen, and some are by definition totally unrecoverable.
We can distinguish between them on the basis of previous experience, using Occam's razor to access whether what I've found is a match for what I'd lost, and by checking definitions to see if the lost thing is ever findable again.

Some times an analogy can be pushed just too far.


¹ This not presented as evidence of miracles.

 

[JayT]

This Is A Job For Supernaturalman

... But we can't rule out the possibility that it actually is supernatural, i.e. that there really is no scientific explanation. It is not meaningless to believe that something is supernatural.

I have a problem with that reasoning.

Although we cannot rule out the supernatural, what qualifies including that possibility in attempting to solve a natural mystery?

This problem of supernatural vs. natural has always been related to a threshold effect, in my opinion.

Here is why:

At what point or threshold do we conclude that a supernatural explanation is better than a scientific explanation for a particular phenomena? Although science cannot eliminate the supernatural, what justifies a supernatural conclusion as an explanation for anything in the first place?

Obviously, lacking a scientific explanation is an insufficient cause or we would still believe that angry gods are the cause of thunder and lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc.. But then again, maybe they are, but why believe this on the scientific basis of what we know now about thunder and lightning and earthquakes?

In this modern age, we simply can't use ignorance and fear as a proper justification for supernatural beliefs.

Have we learned nothing from the observed beliefs of the primitives and why they hold such beliefs? If we believe in supernatural things on the same grounds as the primitives, how have we advanced?

The fundamental problem with proving the supernatural is that no natural observation can prove anything supernatural, by definition. The supernatural is beyond nature and no natural laws apply. However, being unable to explain something offers nothing in the way of proof that a supernatural explanation is justified.

So why do people conclude a supernatural explanation is indicated?

For primitive people, I can understand it. For modern humanity, It's not so easy to accept.

People should study anthropology more. When they see the reasons why primitive "savages" believe in their deities, then they will finally see why many "modern" people believe in the same things, but have far less justification for it today than ever before.

 

[chriswl]

I was answering Beleth's point that "natural" and "observable" were synonymous and that therefore the "supernatural" was impossible by definition and it was meaningless to even imagine that something might be supernatural.

I think "supernatural" is meaningful but I agree with you that there is nothing to be gained from assuming that something actually is supernatural.

 

[The Grave]

You see?

It goes beyond 'what is supernatural?' though, because even things agreed upon as 'natural' cannot be observed or detected. For example strings (from string theory) and multiverses come to mind.

So are they supernatural or natural?

That's why people ignore you...

Oh. You have a mind?

Oh.

 

[Robin]

If someone claims there is a supernatural then they obviously know of some distinction that can be made, so it is up to them to decide what meaning of "natural" they are using when claiming there is a "supernatural".

It should not be up to people who are not making this claim to guess at what they mean.

But if there is a supernatural, a realm that does not operate according to the underlying order of our physical universe, then either it is completely orderless, or it operates according to some "other" order.

In other words there would be some mathematics that describes it. So really it is just an alternate "nature".

Physicists don't even blink when contemplating that there might be other universes with other kinds of physics - even ones which might impact our own.

So I can't see any reason whatsoever why the "supernatural" should be beyond science, unless it is completely distinct from our universe and has no impact on it.

 

[drkitten]

So I can't see any reason whatsoever why the "supernatural" should be beyond science, unless it is completely distinct from our universe and has no impact on it.

Ah, yes. Argument by personal incredulity. A long-standing favorite among people with no evidence to contribute.

Unfortunately inappropriate here. The word "supernatural" has some rather specific meanings that you can't just wave away via linguistic casuistry.

Angels, for example, are by definition supernatural. If you wish to claim that angels are a different order of being, that's fine (medival theologians went so far as to claim they were seven different orders of being, I think) -- but that doesn't make them "natural." Instead, if angels existed, they would be proof that there were orders of beings that were supernatural.

Since people claim to have observed angels, this again implies that if those reports were correct, one can observe the supernatural.

The supernatural may be inobservable. It may even be nonexistent. But not "by definition."

 

[Robin]

Ah, yes. Argument by personal incredulity. A long-standing favorite among people with no evidence to contribute.

You obviously don't understand the subject of fallacies very well do you?

It is only a fallacy if I am making a positive claim. If I am disputing a claim I am entitled to ask for reasons.

The word "supernatural" has some rather specific meanings that you can't just wave away via linguistic casuistry.

How can I be waving away meanings when I am clearly *asking* for meanings? You are not making sense.

So come on - give me at least one of these meanings.

Angels, for example, are by definition supernatural.

By what definition? You didn't give any of those "rather specific meanings" you claimed existed.

If you wish to claim that angels are a different order of being, that's fine (medival theologians went so far as to claim they were seven different orders of being, I think)

Nine actually - and the tradition of orders of angels dates from well before the medieval period, at least according to the endnotes of my copy of "Paradise".

Irrelevant in any case since that is clearly *not* the sense in which I used the word "order", since I had just talked about the underlying order of the universe.

-- but that doesn't make them "natural."

Again, in what sense are you using the word "natural"?

Instead, if angels existed, they would be proof that there were orders of beings that were supernatural.

If, as I said, someone were to finally to come out and state just what it is you mean by natural and supernatural.

The supernatural may be inobservable. It may even be nonexistent. But not "by definition."

Does this paragraph relate in any way whatsoever to anything I have said or even remotely implied? Really I want to know.

I did not say that the supernatural was non-existent by definition. I didn't even use the phrase you put in quotes.

For someone ready to make arrogant accusations of logical fallacies you are are rather too quick to misrepresent my argument.

 

[Robin]

The word "supernatural" has some rather specific meanings that you can't just wave away via linguistic casuistry.

Still waiting for you to supply just one of those "rather specific meanings". I have looked through the entire thread and you have stated what the supernatural did not mean and suggested one or to candidate referents but have not suggested any definition of your own.

 

[drkitten]

Still waiting for you to supply just one of those "rather specific meanings".

I don't need to, and I'm not going to. If you have enough fluency in English to engage in this casuisity, then you already know them. Especially since I've already given you one.

Are you really foolish enough to believe that the meanings of words are exclusively found in dictionaries?

 

[Robin]

The fundamental problem with proving the supernatural is that no natural observation can prove anything supernatural, by definition. The supernatural is beyond nature and no natural laws apply. However, being unable to explain something offers nothing in the way of proof that a supernatural explanation is justified.

I think it is also a fundamental problem in defining the supernatural. We just don't know all the natural laws. We can't define something according to our current scientific knowledge.

If no natural laws apply, does that mean no laws apply? Or do some other set of laws apply? Presumably the behaviour of the supernatural is not arbitrary. So are there 'supernatural laws'?

If there were supernatural laws, could these be potentially understood?

That is also problem with 'observable' and 'natural'. If there was any phenomenon that could not even indirectly be sensed then it would effectively not exist.

Strings, if they are real, can obviously be indirectly sensed because if they are real they account for all physical properties.

Multiverses, if they are real, will account for some property that can be sensed (our universe for example).

Every supernatural claim involves something that can be sensed, at least indirectly. And of course supernatural entities are not regarded as being arbitrary.

So if there is some non-arbitrary phenomenon that can be at least indirectly sensed, then it is at least potentially observable.

 

[Robin]

I don't need to, and I'm not going to.

You accused me of "waving away" those "rather specific meanings". Now here you are waving them away like mosquitos.

If you have enough fluency in English to engage in this casuisity, then you already know them.

And to cap that, you engage in another round of name calling!

Am I supposed to guess at what you mean by the word?

Especially since I've already given you one.

No you haven't.

An example is not a definition. You said "angels". A bit like defining the word "natural" by saying "bears".

Are you really foolish enough to believe that the meanings of words are exclusively found in dictionaries?

Since I have not said, nor have I implied this or anything remotely like this then obviously, no. Why on earth would you think so?

What desperate trouble your position is in that you feel obliged to repeatedly engage in this stupid tactic.

And rather amusing that you continually accuse me of fallacious argument and then put words in my mouth!

I suppose I was foolish in thinking that somebody uses a word and then claims to have "rather specific meanings" to it would be able to simply state at least one of those meanings instead of making up half-arsed excuses not to.

 

[robinson]

...
What desperate trouble your position is in that you feel obliged to repeatedly engage in this stupid tactic.

And rather amusing that you continually accuse me of fallacious argument and then put words in my mouth!

I can't tell you how many times I have wondered the exact same thing.

 

[linusrichard]

I think PixyMisa's focus on consistency is appropriate and helpful.

If an observed event is proved to be not consistent with what we believe to be the consistent laws of an allegedly consistent universe, then the possibilities are:
1. Our understanding of the laws of the universe is wrong, and needs to be changed.
2. Our understanding of the laws of the universe is correct, but we have a case of something acting inconsistently with that understanding.

If #2 is the case (and I would assert that it never has been and never will be the case), then I think it would be a reasonable use of the word "supernatural" to describe the event in question.

So, I would say that it is conceivable that someone could observe a supernatural occurrence (in the way I would use the term), but no one ever will, because even if it seems like #2, it's really going to be #1, and you just don't realize it yet.

 

[Complexity]

Yes.

The "supernatural" does not exist and, therefore, can not be observed.

There is nothing apart from nature.

 

[Robin]

I think PixyMisa's focus on consistency is appropriate and helpful.

If an observed event is proved to be not consistent with what we believe to be the consistent laws of an allegedly consistent universe, then the possibilities are:
1. Our understanding of the laws of the universe is wrong, and needs to be changed.
2. Our understanding of the laws of the universe is correct, but we have a case of something acting inconsistently with that understanding.

But again I have to point out that if it is not acting consistently with the laws of our universe then it is either arbitrary or it is acting according to some other set of laws. Since God and angels or even ghosts are not considered arbitrary, then they are acting consistently with some other laws.

Is it then not theoretically possible that we could understand those laws and therefore study them?

What would be the difference to the case where we detected some property in our universe that was due to some other universe with different physical laws?

 

[Robin]

Yes.

The "supernatural" does not exist and, therefore, can not be observed.

There is nothing apart from nature.

I will ask you what I would ask anybody that made the opposite claim.

How do you know and what is your definition of "nature"?

 

[linusrichard]

But again I have to point out that if it is not acting consistently with the laws of our universe then it is either arbitrary or it is acting according to some other set of laws.

This is a good point. It has made me aware of a couple of assumptions I didn't realize I was making. I was assuming that everything observable by us, in our universe, must necessarily be in and of our universe. I don't really care about the idea of "other universes," so I don't really know how people who do think of other universes think that they might or might not work. I don't know, I have real trouble thinking that we could possibly observe anything that isn't in our universe. I was also assuming that there is exactly one set of laws in our universe, so that everything in our universe that acts consistently with a set of laws acts consistently with that set of laws, and everything in our universe that does not act consistently with that set of laws does not act consistently with any set of laws.

Since God and angels or even ghosts are not considered arbitrary,

Let me stop you there. The fact that God and angels and ghosts are not "considered arbitrary" (by whom?) isn't important.

then they are acting consistently with some other laws.

Let's just leave it at maybe it's arbitrary, and maybe it's according to another set of laws. Since: (1) I'm not talking specifically about God, angels, or ghosts, but generally about an observed event inconsistent with our understanding of the universe, (2) the most reasonable thing is to believe that God, angels, and ghosts don't exist, and therefore there's no reason to presume that they have or lack any particular property, and (3) even if God, angels, or ghosts do exist, there's no reason to believe that any human being has any knowledge of them, and therefore a property they are "considered" to have by humans is evidence of nothing - this particular comment doesn't really change the equation at all.

Is it then not theoretically possible that we could understand those laws and therefore study them?

Sure, of course.

What would be the difference to the case where we detected some property in our universe that was due to some other universe with different physical laws?

Hmm. I'm going to stick with the idea that anything we observe in our universe is in and of our universe. So I can't really speak to this question at all. But you bring up a good point, so I'm going to alter my dichotomy thus:

If an observed event is proved to be not consistent with what we believe to be the consistent laws of an allegedly consistent universe, then the possibilities are:
1. Our understanding of the laws of the universe is wrong, and needs to be changed.
2a. Our understanding of the laws of the universe is correct, but we have a case of something acting inconsistently with that understanding, and inconsistently with any set of laws.
2b. Our understanding of one set of laws of the universe is correct, but we have a case of something acting inconsistently with that understanding, and consistently with another set of laws.

I think 2a would be "supernatural" for sure (ETA: that is, I think it would be reasonable to call it supernatural. I also think there's something to the idea that nothing can exist that is not natural. But to define "natural" and "supernatural" in this way makes it so that nothing "supernatural" could ever exist, even hypothetically. I don't like defining a word in such a way that it is, by definition, unable to describe anything.) I think it might also make sense to call 2b "supernatural." Not sure...

I will reiterate that I don't think there's any such thing as 2a or 2b - my posts are just an attempt to hash out what would be supernatural, if there were any such thing as the supernatural.

 

[Robin]

I will reiterate that I don't think there's any such thing as 2a or 2b - my posts are just an attempt to hash out what would be supernatural, if there were any such thing as the supernatural.

You make some very good points in this post, unfortunately I am not able to devote more time to this for the next couple of days.

I largely agree with what you are saying.