[Philosophy Warning] - Can the Supernatural Logically Exist?

[Woodchuck2000]

A couple of posts over in The New Fundamentalists got me thinking and I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on the subject.

Logically, can anything supernatural exist?

This first requires definition of the word natural. If, for a moment, we define natural as our intuitively-understood four-dimensional everyday existence than the answer is obviously yes. If however, we see something 'supernatural' is it actually supernatural or is it simply outside of our accepted definition of nature?

Should we look to re-evaluate our definition of nature to encompass supernatural phenomena where possible and if so, can there exist anything that cannot be explained within a natural framework?

Finally, drawing a mathematical parallel, would a natural framework (as the set of all existent entities) be subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem which would by definition require the existence of the supernatural?

The question is making my brain hurt, any thoughts appreciated...

[herulach]

A couple of posts over in The New Fundamentalists got me thinking and I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on the subject.

Logically, can anything supernatural exist?

This first requires definition of the word natural. If, for a moment, we define natural as our intuitively-understood four-dimensional everyday existence than the answer is obviously yes. If however, we see something 'supernatural' is it actually supernatural or is it simply outside of our accepted definition of nature?

Should we look to re-evaluate our definition of nature to encompass supernatural phenomena where possible and if so, can there exist anything that cannot be explained within a natural framework?

Finally, drawing a mathematical parallel, would a natural framework (as the set of all existent entities) be subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem which would by definition require the existence of the supernatural?

The question is making my brain hurt, any thoughts appreciated...

by definition, the supernatural cant exist in any physical theory, because they describe natural events. Thatdoesnt preclude the modification of such theories of course, but id be pretty impresseed if someone got funding to apply quantum mechanics to ghosts for example.

[Galant]

I think this is a matter of semantics - removing the issue by changing the definition.

By simply saying that the natural is that which we understand then we make the supernatural that which we do not understand and therefore, the supernatural can be eliminated by increasing understanding. But then it hasn't really been eliminated, just included.

I think the best definition of natural is the physical, empirically testable, regular world in which we live. The supernatural is that which exists not as a part of that empirically testable world but which can affect it.

CS Lewis in his book 'Miracles' gave the example of a snooker table. The behaviour of the balls as the players strike them can be observed and then understood and predicted. He said that if a player consistently strikes the balls in the same manner then the same results can be observed. However, if, just when a player went to strike the balls, some unknown individual rolled another ball in the way, that action would interfere with the predictions.

If one were only looking at the balls then such an occurrence would be a strange phenomenon. The behaviour of the balls can always be predicted, however, the behaviour of that individual cannot. His thoughts and motives cannot be known.

Thus, Lewis, being a Christian and therefore associating the supernatural with the concept of God, said that God is a spiritual force that cannot be measured of predicted or considered in the way that one considers the physical or natural world, however, though He is different, He is still able to affect the physical world much in the same way as that individual can affect the snooker balls. There are observable results/physical effects, but because the cause is beyond the physical the pattern is not predictable.

Thus the supernatural can logically exist.

Hope that made sense.

[herulach]

All well and good, but surely the very definition of the physical realm is that which can be observed, either directly or indirectly using measuring equipment, be they multimeters or snooker balls.

Random events have a place in physical theorys (statistical, quantum mechanics, molecular dynamics) something being unpredictable does not make it unphysical.

I think this is a matter of semantics - removing the issue by changing the definition.

By simply saying that the natural is that which we understand then we make the supernatural that which we do not understand and therefore, the supernatural can be eliminated by increasing understanding. But then it hasn't really been eliminated, just included.

I think the best definition of natural is the physical, empirically testable, regular world in which we live. The supernatural is that which exists not as a part of that empirically testable world but which can affect it.

CS Lewis in his book 'Miracles' gave the example of a snooker table. The behaviour of the balls as the players strike them can be observed and then understood and predicted. He said that if a player consistently strikes the balls in the same manner then the same results can be observed. However, if, just when a player went to strike the balls, some unknown individual rolled another ball in the way, that action would interfere with the predictions.

If one were only looking at the balls then such an occurrence would be a strange phenomenon. The behaviour of the balls can always be predicted, however, the behaviour of that individual cannot. His thoughts and motives cannot be known.

Thus, Lewis, being a Christian and therefore associating the supernatural with the concept of God, said that God is a spiritual force that cannot be measured of predicted or considered in the way that one considers the physical or natural world, however, though He is different, He is still able to affect the physical world much in the same way as that individual can affect the snooker balls. There are observable results/physical effects, but because the cause is beyond the physical the pattern is not predictable.

Thus the supernatural can logically exist.

Hope that made sense.

[TeePee]

No.

Because the question is, can it LOGICALLY exist. Logic and the supernatural are a contradiction. If something is logical, it is explainable, and therefore natural. Logic is a formal science, and the very concept of science itself does not allow room for the supernatural.

[Nick]

BY that case then, yes, it can exist. Just 'cos you can't logically explain something, doesn't mean that there isn't a logical explanation... So until we reach a level of knowledge and understanding allowing us to explain what we at this time call 'supernatural' then we have to have it as an unknown.

For example, would colours not exist if we didn't understand how we percieve colour, how it is the product of radiation and absoprtion etc etc?

My point is that even though CURRENT logic might suggest supernatural things are impossible, it could very well be that the principles that logic is based on are flawed.

Take the edge of the universe as another example. Logic would suggest that there must be one, but what's beyond the edge? If the answer is that the universe is folded in on itself, then logic stumbles on the principle of all things having a definable edge... So although my logic is correct, it's foundation is flawed.

The same applies with the logic and supernatural. Just becuase we assume there are boundaries and unbreakable laws of physics and maths it doesn;t mean we are actually right... we just haven't tested the theory fully. If we had, we'd be able to explain the supernatural perhaps... and then it wouldn't be 'super'natural anymore....

Sometimes I soooooo wish I hadn't given up the Absinthe....

[Lee H]

Just because it "logically" doesn't seem plausable, does that mean 100% that supernatural things do not happen ?

Of course not, take quantum physics for example, they guess about particles such as the Higgs boson - a hypothetical particle, predicted to exist by the standard model, but who's to say it adheres to "rules" they have guessed about, for all intent and purpose it could be the absolute opposite of what they have predicted.

Same applies to the supernatural in my mind. There is very little we know about this area and most people are sceptical to say the least about ghost and ghoulies.

Take all the so called evidence out there such as tape recordings of voices when played back, yet when recording the persons involved heard nothing, images captured of whispy shadows or figures which we're not there at the time and even items moving on their own accord? As always there will be people who fake these things looking to get a quick buck, but images like The Brown Lady and The Tulip Staircase were taken when images could not be easily editted and are some of the most famous "ghost capture" images to date.

Who's to say that there's not an alternative dimension where the dead all ship off to when the kick the bucket, but some are stuck between the 2 realms as they believe they are not dead or have unfinished business and manifest themselves occasionally as visions, move things and such forth.

[TeePee]

Just because we don't have a logical explanation for something, doesn't mean there isn't one. Anything which has, or CAN have a logical explanation, is natural. Supernatural events are those events which, not only can we not explain, but which are unexplainable.

From a scientific point of view, there are only natural events. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there is no explanation and the very object of science is the search for that explanation.

[herulach]

Take the edge of the universe as another example. Logic would suggest that there must be one, but what's beyond the edge? If the answer is that the universe is folded in on itself, then logic stumbles on the principle of all things having a definable edge... So although my logic is correct, it's foundation is flawed.

Exactly my point, although your edge of the universe assertion is slightly flawed, where would yo udefine the 'edge' of a sphere to be? (assuming youre some little dude living in a 2d world on its surface) Same argument applies (but in anywhere between 4 and 11 dimensions depending who you belive) to the universe, it doesnt have to have an edge.

[Galant]

If I might jump in again. Admittedly my last point wasn't directly relevant. It was simply trying to show how phenomena in the physical could be explained by the supernatural and not necessarily need a solely physical explanation. It did not prove that the supernatural is logically necessary.

I suppose one could always look to the old argument from contingency.

What I wanted to interject though was a different example - people. One can say that the behaviour of people can be logical, yet most would not want to reduce the decisions and behaviour of individuals down to a physical reaction or process. That is, I think most people would hold that there is something more to human beings than the mere physical element. True, our bodies contain chemicals that do have an effect upon our feelings and perception, however, do we really want to say that we are simple chemical machines acting out some regular and predictable pattern, and that there isn't something more to life or our will?

Any thoughts?

[TeePee]

If you look at pure Newtonian physics. Everything in existence is made up of particles moving about and interacting. You might have studied a similar effect in school with microscopes and smoke.. Well, if you knew where each particle was and which direction it was moving in, you could then calculate how it woiuld interact with other particles, and therefore calculate where every other particle would be at a point in the future. Obviously that kind of thing is a huge calculation way beyond anything computers today are capable of, but the theory is there, right?

Well no. Newtonian physics just isn't good enough anymore, we have quantum physics which goes way beyongd my understanding, but I'm sure Heisenburgs uncertainty principle would have something to say about this...

My point, is to say that the neurons, neurotransmitters etc, in our brains make up who we are is like saying all existence can be summed up as interacting particles. It's kind of right, but it's not all the way there yet. Sciences such as psychology may not have a complete explanation as to what makes us who we are, just as quantum physics might not have a complete explanation for existence. But what is sure is that such things have a natural explanation, we may never find it, but it is there.

[iranu]

I would say that we are complex chemical machines. Our brains are so complex we don't understand much about them, all though it always fascinates me that the brain is effectively analysing itself and it's entirely possible that it's impossible for it to fully understand itself.

There may well come a time when we understand so much and have the computing power to fully similate the human brain to the extent where we live on after physical death.

(Read Alistair Reynold's sci-fi books, Revelation Space, Chasm City where this is a concept)

There certainly is more to human beings than simply the physical. Sentience is what allows us to analyse, explore and progress. I believe that any sentient race must be a scientific one because it must ask the fundamental questions.

The supernatural can certainly exist logically. Infact I would argue that the supernatural must exist logically. The only being for whom it wouldn't would be God, if God knows everything. We will always strive to learn more and more and I would say that it's a never ending process (especially if the universe is infinite in space and in time) and hence there will always be things which we do not understand yet appear to us physically. Life would be pretty pointless if everyone knew everything. It would be nice to find out next weeks lottery numbers but seeing as everyone else bought exactly the same ticket you would only ever get your money back! Much better that only I know everything and leave you poor suckers in the dark muhahahahahaaaaa.

[Byatt]

In fact I would argue that the supernatural must exist logically.

Yes! I like this - works a treat so long as we assume that the set of everything that can be known is infinite, also means we don't have to open the can of worms that incompleteness theorem is (oh the headaches).

Good work, that man.

[yamangman]

BY that case then, yes, it can exist. Just 'cos you can't logically explain something, doesn't mean that there isn't a logical explanation... So until we reach a level of knowledge and understanding allowing us to explain what we at this time call 'supernatural' then we have to have it as an unknown.

For example, would colours not exist if we didn't understand how we percieve colour, how it is the product of radiation and absoprtion etc etc?

My point is that even though CURRENT logic might suggest supernatural things are impossible, it could very well be that the principles that logic is based on are flawed.

Take the edge of the universe as another example. Logic would suggest that there must be one, but what's beyond the edge? If the answer is that the universe is folded in on itself, then logic stumbles on the principle of all things having a definable edge... So although my logic is correct, it's foundation is flawed.

The same applies with the logic and supernatural. Just becuase we assume there are boundaries and unbreakable laws of physics and maths it doesn;t mean we are actually right... we just haven't tested the theory fully. If we had, we'd be able to explain the supernatural perhaps... and then it wouldn't be 'super'natural anymore....

Sometimes I soooooo wish I hadn't given up the Absinthe....

Still say it's utter bollocks every time someone claims they've seen a ghost however.

[Rhyth]

The supernatural to me shouldnt neccaserily be subject to explanation according to natural laws, of which we dont fully understand; although the theory regarding huanted houses that seemed reasonably logical with me is one of the magnetic field properties in the fabric of a building acting very much like a magnetic tape in a cassette, recording the energy and events of times past which can somehow be "replayed" or percieved in some manner under certain circmstances...or something like that anyway

Off topic: Infact magnetism is a rather underated natural law/phenomena in itself, one that all things must posses and a very interesting thing to reserch on a windy sunday afternoon....maybe not

[hitman67]

<Brain Overload. System Crash>

Error 4453535365B: Too many big, long and complex posts.

[ Restart ] [ Shutdown ] [ Go Elsewhere ]