What does "super-natural" mean.

[Autodidact]

When we say that an explanation, event or deity is super-natural, what do we mean? How do we identify when something is supernatural?

[Mithrae]

Gravity?

Positive and negative charge causes up and down quarks to bond together forming protons and neutrons, and attracting electrons...atoms. Atoms clump together producing greater and greater mass. Mass causes gravity. Everything starts with positive and negative attraction/repulsion.

I was given to understand that the reason for mass - the hypothesised and hopefully soon-to-be-found Higgs boson particle - is expected to have no spin and no electric or color charge. But I admit that I'm rather out of my depth there.

So assuming that attraction/repulsion causes mass. Gravity occurs between objects of mass. Therefore attraction/repulsion causes gravity? Seems to be a bit of a gap in the logic there. I was under the impression that gravitation was one of the four fundamental forces, in that it can't be described in terms of other interactions.


". . . .everything that occurs naturally does so because of attaction/repulsion. Anything that occurs outside of this system would be extra-natural, or supernatural."
I'm not sure that such reductionism works particularly well.


Edit: In fact gravity also affects light, which has no mass (or charge), so unless I've missed something it seems clear that we're literally surrounded by the supernatural every day of our lives!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I was given to understand that the reason for mass - the hypothesised and hopefully soon-to-be-found Higgs boson particle - is expected to have no spin and no electric or color charge. But I admit that I'm rather out of my depth there.

Neutrons have a neutral charge, but they certainly effect mass. Quarks and therefore protons and neutrons, along with electrons, are fermions. They make up matter through the phenomenon of positive and negative attraction/repulsion. No matter, no mass, or at least not mass lumped together in such a way to cause the sort of gravity we experience in the universe as it is configured. Without attraction/repulsion there would be no variation and time itself would have no meaning. The theoretical higgs-boson is a, well, a boson. Fermions are associated with matter, while bosons are associated with force. Energy is not all one thing. It takes multiple forms, electromagnetic energy, kinetic energy, thermal energy, potential energy. The same is true of mass. How the interaction works is not entirely clear.

So assuming that attraction/repulsion causes mass. Gravity occurs between objects of mass. Therefore attraction/repulsion causes gravity? Seems to be a bit of a gap in the logic there. I was under the impression that gravitation was one of the four fundamental forces, in that it can't be described in terms of other interactions.

Gravity occurs as mass causes a depression in the fabric of space/time. The greater the mass the greater the depression and the slower times passes. Given enough mass the depression becomes so great that time all but stops inside the depression, and even light cannot escape. It's called a black hole. But this is hardly cutting edge physics anymore.

". . . .everything that occurs naturally does so because of attraction /repulsion. Anything that occurs outside of this system would be extra-natural, or supernatural."
I'm not sure that such reductionism works particularly well.

Again, what can you establish that clearly works outside of the system of attraction/repulsion?

[Crazee]

When we say that an explanation, event or deity is super-natural, what do we mean? How do we identify when something is supernatural?

What sort of events happen in the universe?
Natural events.

For something to happen in the universe, it must somehow follow natural laws. Otherwise, it would not have happened.

One attaches the word 'supernatural' to phenomena that one doesn't yet understand, or doesn't believe actually happened. True supernatural events don't exist. The word itself is paradoxically used both to credit as well as discredit new discoveries that don't agree with one's previously held beliefs about how the universe works.

[Mithrae]

So assuming that attraction/repulsion causes mass. Gravity occurs between objects of mass. Therefore attraction/repulsion causes gravity? Seems to be a bit of a gap in the logic there. I was under the impression that gravitation was one of the four fundamental forces, in that it can't be described in terms of other interactions.

Gravity occurs as mass causes a depression in the fabric of space/time. The greater the mass the greater the depression and the slower times passes. Given enough mass the depression becomes so great that time all but stops inside the depression, and even light cannot escape. It's called a black hole. But this is hardly cutting edge physics anymore.

". . . .everything that occurs naturally does so because of attraction /repulsion. Anything that occurs outside of this system would be extra-natural, or supernatural."
I'm not sure that such reductionism works particularly well.

Again, what can you establish that clearly works outside of the system of attraction/repulsion?

The fundamental interaction known as gravity is not the result of attraction/repulsion in fermions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident about that. It's called fundamental for a reason, I would guess. This answers your original question:
"What can you establish CONCLUSIVELY which clearly occurs which is not the result of positive and negative attraction/repulsion, and which would therefore be supernatural by definition?"

The effect of distortion in space-time does involve matter/mass, but that's not quite the same thing to my mind. And asking for something that works outside the system of attraction/repulsion isn't quite the same question either. If your position is that everything in the material world involves matter or attraction/repulsion, it would seem to be a truism and I'd have to agree with you. Or if your view is that everything we have directly observed in the universe involves matter and hence ultimately attraction/repulsion, again certainly true (our sensory organs and tools are material, after all).

That's not the same as saying that "everything that occurs naturally does so because of attraction/repulsion" - a reductionist assertion which I don't think you can prove.

[Autodidact]

Hey! Here is really novel idea. Why not look up the meaning of the word "supernatural" in a dikshunary? And why not do an etymological search on the origin of the word (probably Latin or Greek).

Imagine actually knowing what the word means!

Imagine not having to make erroneous speculations on what the word means!

Imagine actually using this opportunity to aquire some knowledge!

If you think that would contribute meaningfully to the discussion, feel free. I thought it would be obvious, though, that I was hoping for a more enlightening discussion about the meaning and implications of this term.

[Autodidact]

I don't think that saying "outside of the natural world," or "Beyond the laws of nature" is very helpful, because of course it begs the question, what do we mean by "natural," so you really haven't gotten very far.

I tend to always think in terms of "knowability." Or to put it philosophical terms, from our point of view, I think that ontology resolves into epistemology. So I'm exploring the idea that "supernatural" means something about not being capable of being understood, no matter how much you study it. "Natural" would mean something that, if we do science at it long enough, should be possible to learn about, use as a model, and understand to some extent. "Supernatural" would be something that, even theoretically, no matter how much we study it, we cannot understand. It is fundamentally mysterious or magic.

Does this resonate for anyone?

[Crazee]

So I'm exploring the idea that "supernatural" means something about not being capable of being understood, no matter how much you study it. "Natural" would mean something that, if we do science at it long enough, should be possible to learn about, use as a model, and understand to some extent. "Supernatural" would be something that, even theoretically, no matter how much we study it, we cannot understand. It is fundamentally mysterious or magic.

Does this resonate for anyone?

That makes sense, but I don't think it can definitively be said that there is anything humanity could never understand if we had unlimited time to study it. If we describe certain occurrences as supernatural, and use it reasoning for not studying it in more depth, than we are severely limiting the options our scientists have for branching out in their fields.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The effect of distortion in space-time does involve matter/mass, but that's not quite the same thing to my mind. And asking for something that works outside the system of attraction/repulsion isn't quite the same question either. If your position is that everything in the material world involves matter or attraction/repulsion, it would seem to be a truism and I'd have to agree with you. Or if your view is that everything we have directly observed in the universe involves matter and hence ultimately attraction/repulsion, again certainly true (our sensory organs and tools are material, after all).

It's seems you agree with me in principle at least, but you can't quite wrap your mind around it in practice. Gravity is a reaction to matter/mass. Notice that the sun and the stars undergo thermonuclear reaction and shine, flowers bloom, earthquakes occur, all weather right down to the wind in your face, muscles contract and relax, the very thoughts in our brains... all occur because of positive and negative attraction/repulsion. It is the defining condition of energy, and energy defines the universe.

That's not the same as saying that "everything that occurs naturally does so because of attraction/repulsion" - a reductionist assertion which I don't think you can prove.

Still, since you have failed to provide an example of anything which does NOT have attraction/repulsion as it's root cause, I am going to consider my point made and move on.

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

Hey! Here is really novel idea. Why not look up the meaning of the word "supernatural" in a dikshunary? And why not do an etymological search on the origin of the word (probably Latin or Greek).

Imagine actually knowing what the word means!

Imagine not having to make erroneous speculations on what the word means!

Imagine actually using this opportunity to aquire some knowledge!

This is neither a civil comment nor a contribution to the debate.
Be sure to debate the topic, not the person.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Mithrae]

That's not the same as saying that "everything that occurs naturally does so because of attraction/repulsion" - a reductionist assertion which I don't think you can prove.

Still, since you have failed to provide an example of anything which does NOT have attraction/repulsion as it's root cause, I am going to consider my point made and move on.

Without further nitpicking on scientific specifics which neither of us can claim expertise on, simple fact is that the onus is on you to support your assertions not on others to disprove them - and this particular one appears to involve denying or at best radically redefining the fundamental interaction which scientists consider gravitation to be.

This is without even beginning to raise the question of the dark matter which apparently (since we cannot directly observe it) constitutes over four-fifths of the matter in the universe and is not reducible to quarks or other fermions.

To be honest even if your assertion were valid, I'm not really sure what point you had made: That any Creators, ghosts and prophecies and the like would, if real and if we were able to study them sufficiently, be ultimately reducible to attraction/repulsion (given the validity of your fallacy of composition)?

My point, of course, is quite simple: As far as I've seen at least, such reductionism based on our extremely limited knowledge simply does not work.