Supernatural?

[Adler17]

However I believe in Angels. And indeed they are physical. But operating under laws mankind could not yet discover. However I wonder if they will be discovered ever...

Adler

 

[Ayatollah So]

The laws of QM were radically different from anything traditionally associated with physics back in the day. Yet, they weren't described as "supernatural" - we instead adjusted our ideas about physics.

Yes, but (A) the theory was successfully applied to objects already understood as physical (atoms, electrons, etc.), (B) many results in the old theory could be proven, or proven approximately true, using the new theory, and (C) all the laws of QM form an elegant whole. Whereas, if anything like angels and demons in the traditional conception are discovered, (A) the objects are new, (B) the new "laws" serve only to disprove some of the old laws while supporting none of them, and (C) the combined quanta+angels theory will be very inelegant, making fans of Ockham's razor positively cringe.

It's point (C) which is key to the distinction between natural and supernatural. The two domains may each be highly coherent and understandable, but the interactions between them might be far more complex than the laws governing either domain considered separately.

I think you're making this out to be harder than it really is. It's like the justice said about pornography - you might not be able to define "supernatural" precisely in advance, but you'd recognize it when you saw it.

 

[Perfection]

(A) the objects are new,

So were quarks

(B) the new "laws" serve only to disprove some of the old laws while supporting none of them,

Why can't they?

and (C) the combined quanta+angels theory will be very inelegant, making fans of Ockham's razor positively cringe.

It's point (C) which is key to the distinction between natural and supernatural. The two domains may each be highly coherent and understandable, but the interactions between them might be far more complex than the laws governing either domain considered separately.

Umm, Quantum mechanics and Relativity are both highly coherent and understandable domains but interaction between them are far more complex then either domain considered seperately. Are they supernatural?

I think you're making this out to be harder than it really is. It's like the justice said about pornography - you might not be able to define "supernatural" precisely in advance, but you'd recognize it when you saw it.

I have labeled it precisely, care to discredit it?

 

[Ayatollah So]

So were quarks [also new]

The conditions (A)-(C) are meant to apply together, not separately. Quarks were (A) new, but (B) used to support already-accepted laws about protons and neutrons and (C) fit elegantly into overall physical theory.

Why can't they?

It's not that angels and demons can't support physical laws. You could cook up a story in which angels and demons pull the hidden levers behind quarks and electrons and thus cause the familiar quark and electron behaviors. It's just that, in the usual angel/demon stories as put forth by believers, they don't have anything to do with those particles.

Umm, Quantum mechanics and Relativity are both highly coherent and understandable domains but interaction between them are far more complex then either domain considered seperately. Are they supernatural?

That's exactly why so many physicists are looking for new ways to harmonize the two domains. Having two "worlds", a quantum world and a macroscopic world, is a very ugly state of theoretical affairs. Some physicists say that QM and relativity contradict each other. If so, clearly at least one of them's gotta give.

Anyway, regardless of how "spooky" the "quantum world" may be, it still explains many of the phenomena (light, electricity, etc) traditionally belonging to physics, and still validates or approximately validates many earlier laws of physics.

 

[Perfection]

The conditions (A)-(C) are meant to apply together, not separately. Quarks were (A) new, but (B) used to support already-accepted laws about protons and neutrons and (C) fit elegantly into overall physical theory.

So if hypothetically this angel-demon-whatever theory explained some other physical law arose as a consequence of those laws or fit elegantly into overall physical theory. It would be natural to you?

It's not that angels and demons can't support physical laws. You could cook up a story in which angels and demons pull the hidden levers behind quarks and electrons and thus cause the familiar quark and electron behaviors. It's just that, in the usual angel/demon stories as put forth by believers, they don't have anything to do with those particles.

Well, we're talking about hypothecal theories not actual believers tales.

That's exactly why so many physicists are looking for new ways to harmonize the two domains. Having two "worlds", a quantum world and a macroscopic world, is a very ugly state of theoretical affairs. Some physicists say that QM and relativity contradict each other. If so, clearly at least one of them's gotta give.

So what is the big difference between let's say a unified string theory and this new angel dynamics

Anyway, regardless of how "spooky" the "quantum world" may be, it still explains many of the phenomena (light, electricity, etc) traditionally belonging to physics, and still validates or approximately validates many earlier laws of physics.

How exactly does defining the realm of physics work with defining the differences between supernatural and natural?

 

[CurtSibling]

What a world we live in when people speak of fantasy as if it is proven facts...

A theory is a theory - Be it Darwin or some shaman from Judea...

 

[Perfection]

What a world we live in when people speak of fantasy as if it is proven facts...

Science is not fantasy, it's the systematic methodology that finds explinations for real life phenomena.

A theory is a theory - Be it Darwin or some shaman from Judea...

I disagree, because experience can provide supporting or disconfirming evidence. A theory can be and is judged by the methodology of systematic observation.

 

[CurtSibling]

Science is not fantasy, it's the systematic methodology that finds explinations for real life phenomena.

Did you hallucinate the word 'science' in my post somewhere?

I disagree, because experience can provide supporting or disconfirming evidence. A theory can be and is judged by the methodology of systematic observation.

Do you mean a religious or supernatural experience?

If so, please state solid, material evidence! (which i know you have not got)

 

[IglooDame]

My sense of "supernatural" has always been anything that science could not adequately explain. Aurora Borealis was supernatural to Inuit villagers, but is natural since science has discovered why it happens. ESP, telekinesis, and all the similar disputed skills are right now supernatural, some day they might fall into either the "mythic" or "natural" categories.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yes, but (A) the theory was successfully applied to objects already understood as physical (atoms, electrons, etc.),
(B) many results in the old theory could be proven, or proven approximately true, using the new theory, and (C) all the laws of QM form an elegant whole. Whereas, if anything like angels and demons in the traditional conception are discovered, (A) the objects are new, (B) the new "laws" serve only to disprove some of the old laws while supporting none of them, and (C) the combined quanta+angels theory will be very inelegant, making fans of Ockham's razor positively cringe.

A) There never was an experimentally founded classical theory of atomical physics; QM was construced along the way as atomic and subatomic scales were probed.
B) That's a basic consistency demand of any theory that explains an already known phenomenon on a deeper level - had QM not yielded the familiar results in the classical limit, classical physics would have been formulated differently in the first place. If the "angels" somehow underlie observed quantum behaviour, they must yield QM in the appropriate limit, because that's what we currently are observing. If they, OTOH, don't, this sort of consideration doesn't come to play at all.
C) That's just 'cos it proved possible for human minds to summarize observations of the quantum world in an elegant and coherent form. Unless you don't subscribe to some extremist version of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, you must believe that quantum phenonena were equally physical before such summarization was achieved. That QM+angels would (you assume) lead to an inelegant combo is of little import - Perfection already pointed out the QM/GR analogue.

It's point (C) which is key to the distinction between natural and supernatural. The two domains may each be highly coherent and understandable, but the interactions between them might be far more complex than the laws governing either domain considered separately.

I don't see why complexity, as such, should be afforded any special, domain-delinating importance. At any rate, physics as we know them today has more complexity than we can handle.

I think you're making this out to be harder than it really is. It's like the justice said about pornography - you might not be able to define "supernatural" precisely in advance, but you'd recognize it when you saw it.

I doubt that.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Do you mean a religious or supernatural experience?

Religious experience in favour of Darwinism? I doubt even Perfection can provide that.

 

[The Last Conformist]

My sense of "supernatural" has always been anything that science could not adequately explain. Aurora Borealis was supernatural to Inuit villagers, but is natural since science has discovered why it happens. ESP, telekinesis, and all the similar disputed skills are right now supernatural, some day they might fall into either the "mythic" or "natural" categories.

Taken at face value, this means that solid matter was supernatural well into the last century.

 

[CurtSibling]

Religious experience in favour of Darwinism? I doubt even Perfection can provide that.

Isn't pointless repetition fun?

A theory is a theory.

However, I find Darwin's ideas more sane than the alternative path - Of fables and fairytales.

...

 

[Perfection]

Did you hallucinate the word 'science' in my post somewhere?

It's pretty much implied when you mentioned Darwin.

Do you mean a religious or supernatural experience?

That indeed is included, however I do not believe such exists.

If so, please state solid, material evidence! (which i know you have not got)

Indeed, as evidence points to those observations being from natural causes.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

For everything supernatural, see www.randi.org
Debunked.

 

[Ayatollah So]

So if hypothetically this angel-demon-whatever theory explained some other physical law arose as a consequence of those laws or fit elegantly into overall physical theory. It would be natural to you?

Yes - at least, yes if it met one of those criteria well (explaining laws, or fitting elegantly), and did not do too badly on the other.

Well, we're talking about hypothecal theories not actual believers tales.

OK, but one of those hypothetical theories could be in strong agreement with actual believers' tales. And given the opening post of this thread, I think that's exactly what we're supposed to be talking about:

That said, what exactly does it mean when someone believes in something "supernatural"? What exactly is this "natural" world that something can be outside of*, and why isn't this supernatural thing considered part of the natural world?

How exactly does defining the realm of physics work with defining the differences between supernatural and natural?

My idea on that score is that the "natural world" is whatever is studied by the natural sciences: biology, physics, chemistry. I think it was The Last Conformist, though, who switched from talking about "natural" to talking about "physical" - but I went along with it because I think it ultimately comes to the same. Laws of biology and chemistry ultimately have physical explanations, I think.

So what is the big difference between let's say a unified string theory and this new angel dynamics?

The unified string theory would explain the laws of QM and relativity as being true at least in limiting cases. The unified string theory would fit elegantly: it would actually make physics more elegant by healing the divide, so to speak, between the quantum and macroscopic "worlds". Whereas, in the "angel/demon" discoveries I imagined, the new entities only explain exceptions to the accepted physical laws. The resulting theory is inelegant because it just adds complexity, a whole new realm of objects and properties with little connection to the already-known.

 

[Ayatollah So]

A) There never was an experimentally founded classical theory of atomical physics; QM was construced along the way as atomic and subatomic scales were probed.
B) That's a basic consistency demand of any theory that explains an already known phenomenon on a deeper level - had QM not yielded the familiar results in the classical limit, classical physics would have been formulated differently in the first place. If the "angels" somehow underlie observed quantum behaviour, they must yield QM in the appropriate limit, because that's what we currently are observing. If they, OTOH, don't, this sort of consideration doesn't come to play at all.
C) That's just 'cos it proved possible for human minds to summarize observations of the quantum world in an elegant and coherent form. Unless you don't [do? -A.S.] subscribe to some extremist version of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, you must believe that quantum phenonena were equally physical before such summarization was achieved. That QM+angels would (you assume) lead to an inelegant combo is of little import - Perfection already pointed out the QM/GR analogue.

I don't see why complexity, as such, should be afforded any special, domain-delinating importance. At any rate, physics as we know them today has more complexity than we can handle.

On point (A), just move up a level to molecules, then.

On (B), sure, if "angels" are posited to explain accepted laws of familiar physical objects, then we are well on our way to "angels" as physical things. But you overlook the logical possibility that angels neither explain accepted laws nor show that they're generally wrong, but do imply that they are occasionally inadequate to explain the phenomena. Just watch "It's a Wonderful Life" for example. Why does George Bailey think he hears certain things when no sound waves hit his ears, he is not crazy, etc etc.? Because the angel Clarence is talking to him.

On (C), I'm not sure I understand your point. Let me just say that as long as quantum phenomena are elegantly describable and integrable with earlier-known physical phenomena, it doesn't matter whether they are described and integrated yet.

Maybe simplicity/complexity is not the only key to domain division - maybe coherence is a separate dimension. But the reason why humans use different words for various areas surely must relate to some such considerations.

 

[Quasar1011]

The unified string theory would explain the laws of QM and relativity as being true at least in limiting cases. The unified string theory would fit elegantly: it would actually make physics more elegant by healing the divide, so to speak, between the quantum and macroscopic "worlds". Whereas, in the "angel/demon" discoveries I imagined, the new entities only explain exceptions to the accepted physical laws. The resulting theory is inelegant because it just adds complexity, a whole new realm of objects and properties with little connection to the already-known.

Yes, but the unified string theory suggests that the universe underwent a dimensional "split" at 10-43 seconds after its beginning(T = 0). Its 10 dimensions split into a 4-dimensional piece, and a 6-dimensional piece. The 6-dimensional piece stopped growing, while the other 4 dimensions continue to expand to this day, forming the universe in which we reside. However, the other 6 dimensions remain tightly curled up around our 4-dimensional universe (this is not possible to properly depict on a 2-dimensional computer screen, or even in 3D). Key here is that the other 6 dimensions never produced matter; whereas, after T= 10-43 seconds, our 4D universe began converting energy into matter.

This shows us that angels and demons are not material beings: they are from that part of the 10-dimensional universe that formed no matter. Since we cannot measure what actually does comprise existence in that part of the universe, we are left to draw conclusions based on eyewitness accounts. Once again, we are back at my original assertation: that such beings are real, but not physical.

Moreover, they're humonguously small - Planck-length or so. Stuffing in Heaven or Hell there would get rather cramped, even disregarding all the usual mundane stuff swishing thru all the time. Nor could they have a different set of physical laws; they're introduced as explanations of the ones we have!

Again, this area is hard to depict or imagine. The other 6 dimensions are curled up around ours, and occupy the same space- at dimensional right angles. As far as physical laws are concerned, the other dimensions would certainly have the same mathematical laws. But physical laws without physicality? Again, since there is no physical matter in these 6 dimensions,
such places would be governed by different sets of laws. We just don't know, and cannot ascertain, what these laws are, except perhaps by eyewitness accounts.

How exactly does defining the realm of physics work with defining the differences between supernatural and natural?

The 4-dimensional part of the universe is material and natural. The 6-dimensional part is spiritual and supernatural. I can't state it any more plainly than that.