Should Quantum Randomness be called Supernatural?

[wuliheron]

It was you that introduced the matter of superstition in one of your posts. In my above post you may substitute "agnostic" with "in a state of belief suspended" if that makes it more palatable to you. The point remains.

As to why preter-natural might be better suited to "describe as accurately and completely as possible" the domain of behavior not at the moment intelligible as lawful, please refer to my previous post. I would appreciate it if you engaged with the actual argument I am trying to develop. After all precise terminology is your professed concern.

I brought it up merely as a concern people had expressed, not as a topic for discussion. Again, stop trying to derail the thread with your personal metaphysical and theological concerns that have nothing to do with the original post.

 

[cosmographer]

First: I have no idea why you keep referring to a "personal metaphysics" or "theological concerns" I'm supposedly trying to peddle. You are trying to find a good word for a domain of reality - it does not get more classically metaphysical than that. Pasteur, Planck, Franklin, Crick and Watson were all eminently doing metaphysics (as every scientist and human being). I don't know why you seem to think that doing metaphysics is a) a choice and b) unscientific. Rather it is the prerequisite for doing any science, as you demonstrate so well by your very concern.

But to the point: this is a forum, so surely you have to be ready for comments? You phrased the thread itself as a question and proceeded to try to explain your reasoning. I see a substantial problem with your reasoning. Post 32 articulates that problem most clearly:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3334741&postcount=32

Why go through the trouble of opening the thread if you're unwilling to engage on the level of content? I'm OK with simply thinking a bit in public, but next time you might want to announce in the first post that you don't intend to reply to challenges.

 

[wuliheron]

First: I have no idea why you keep referring to a "personal metaphysics" or "theological concerns" I'm supposedly trying to peddle. You are trying to find a good word for a domain of reality - it does not get more classically metaphysical than that. Pasteur, Planck, Franklin, Crick and Watson were all eminently doing metaphysics (as every scientist and human being). I don't know why you seem to think that doing metaphysics is a) a choice and b) unscientific. Rather it is the prerequisite for doing any science, as you demonstrate so well by your very concern.

Dictionary.com:
Science
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Nope. Nothing about metaphysics. If you wish to argue that science requires metaphysics you'll just have to start your own thread. It is off topic.

But to the point: this is a forum, so surely you have to be ready for comments? You phrased the thread itself as a question and proceeded to try to explain your reasoning. I see a substantial problem with your reasoning. Post 32 articulates that problem most clearly:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3334741&postcount=32

Why go through the trouble of opening the thread if you're unwilling to engage on the level of content? I'm OK with simply thinking a bit in public, but next time you might want to announce in the first post that you don't intend to reply to challenges.

Why indeed ever bother to discuss physics without referring to metaphysics and theology? Again, stop trying to derail the thread to promote your personal metaphysics and theology. Start your own thread if that is what you want. The issues on the table here are what do we observe and what is the most complete and accurate linguistic designation. No amount of hand waving, smoke, and mirrors will turn your sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It was you that introduced the matter of superstition in one of your posts. In my above post you may substitute "agnostic" with "in a state of belief suspended" if that makes it more palatable to you. The point remains.

Gnosticism is nothing to do with belief, its about knowledge (from the Greek "gnōsis" meaning knowledge) and is commonly used to refer to knowledge of the existence of a god or gods.

An agnostic is somebody who has no knowledge either way concerning the existence of a god or gods. Belief in the existence of a god or gods is theism. Hence someone could claim to be;

A gnostic theist
An agnostic theist
A gnostic atheist
An agnostic atheist

On the subject of supernatural, natural and preternatural I don't see how quantum randomness doesn't obey laws. You seem to imply that it doesn't

 

[wuliheron]

Gnosticism is nothing to do with belief, its about knowledge (from the Greek "gnōsis" meaning knowledge) and is commonly used to refer to knowledge of the existence of a god or gods.

An agnostic is somebody who has no knowledge either way concerning the existence of a god or gods. Belief in the existence of a god or gods is theism. Hence someone could claim to be;

A gnostic theist
An agnostic theist
A gnostic atheist
An agnostic atheist

On the subject of supernatural, natural and preternatural I don't see how quantum randomness doesn't obey laws. You seem to imply that it doesn't

Please start your own thread! This thread is not about metaphysics or theology. Either provide empirical evidence that quantum randomness obeys laws or take it elsewhere! Preferably to the World Weekly News.

 

[cosmographer]

(For the sake of clearing up a misunderstanding: We might as well assume that it is immediately obvious that science is comprised as much of empirical observation as it is of linguistic coding of such observations. These codings do not arise by themselves. There is talk, reasoning and naming. There is no reason to deny or be uncomfortable about this simple fact. Any definition of science that negates this basic observation must be taken as incomplete at best. QED)

However be aware that this is not the thrust of my argument, nor did I wish to make this a matter of discussion. Like you I was compelled by this

The issues on the table here are what do we observe and what is the most complete and accurate linguistic designation.

Thus I proposed an alternative for your preferred choice of wording "supernatural", which in turn you did not choose to comment on.

No amount of hand waving, smoke, and mirrors will turn your sow's ear into a silk purse.

I must say that this is a fantastic insinuation coming from someone who has in this thread repeatedly attempted to denounce posts as "unscientific" or "theological", while not once pointing out any evidence and justification for those judgments. That habit is to my understanding utterly out of step with the scientific ethos. It systematically undercuts any collective development of argument.

 

[cosmographer]

Gnosticism is nothing to do with belief, its about knowledge (from the Greek "gnōsis" meaning knowledge) and is commonly used to refer to knowledge of the existence of a god or gods.

I used "agnostic" in a loose way because I assumed the intended meaning here to be obvious from the context. I still think my clarification above made that reasonably clear.

 

[wuliheron]

(For the sake of clearing up a misunderstanding: We might as well assume that it is immediately obvious that science is comprised as much of empirical observation as it is of linguistic coding of such observations. These codings do not arise by themselves. There is talk, reasoning and naming. There is no reason to deny or be uncomfortable about this simple fact. Any definition of science that negates this basic observation must be taken as incomplete at best. QED)

However be aware that this is not the thrust of my argument, nor did I wish to make this a matter of discussion. Like you I was compelled by this

Thus I proposed an alternative for your preferred choice of wording "supernatural", which in turn you did not choose to comment on.

I must say that this is a fantastic insinuation coming from someone who has in this thread repeatedly attempted to denounce posts as "unscientific" or "theological", while not once pointing out any evidence and justification for those judgments. That habit is to my understanding utterly out of step with the scientific ethos. It systematically undercuts any collective development of argument.

More contradictions, hand waving, smoke, and mirrors. I have been the only one thus far to present any empirical evidence whatsoever! Where are the moderators when you actually need them?

 

[cosmographer]

Should Quantum Randomness be called Supernatural?

I've recently been having a discussion with someone about whether it is accurate and meaningful to describe the random behavior of quanta as "supernatural". The origin of the word comes from "supra-natural" meaning above and beyond the laws of nature which certainly fits the description of the random behavior of quanta. In addition quanta exhibit behavior such as teleportation that traditionally has been ascribed to the supernatural. Stripped of its religious, superstitious, and metaphysical connotations it seems supernatural is a more accurate term then merely describing them as "random" and if science is to distinguish what is natural then it must use the same criteria for what is supernatural if it is promote objectivity.

I'm reminded of Aristotle banning infinity from academia with a flimsy argument for how it was impossible in the real world. After a hundred years of quantum randomness it seems pretty clear the issue is not likely to conveniently disappear anytime soon and perhaps dealing with it directly is the only way forward. Who knows, perhaps like paradoxes and infinities we might even find more real world applications for the concept and, in so doing, lesson the strangle hold of archaic ideas and superstitions.

vs.

(...) What reasons do we have to prefer supernatural over preternatural in the case of quantum weirdness? How do they direct attention differently?

Super-natural takes lawfulness as a given and makes unlawfulness the exception. Unruly quantum behavior is beyond law. But what happens when some of these phenomena become explainable by laws? The term supernatural here fails to accommodate the movement of science. Do phenomena then cease to be supernatural and become natural?

Reversing the imaginary is IMO more descriptive of the movement of scientific explanation, the history of scientific discoveries, and especially the very function of the concept of nature as a rhetorical device and not a description of any specific phenomenon (!). There is no content in nature, so to speak, so saying something is beyond it takes an undue solidity of nature for granted.

Preter-natural is not committed to laws as a given before instrument, theories and models appear to extract regularities from the flux of cosmic process. After the proper work is done to stabilize some regularities it is precisely those regularities that will from then on count as natural - as if they had always already been there. Preternatural makes it possible to account for that move, should the quantum phenomena you mention become naturalisable.

I've taken the liberty to make the two different justifications directly contrastable. Now why your post qualifies as "offering empirical evidence" while mine doesn't is not apparent to me. I am discussing the word "supernatural" in the sense you used it. Then I contrast it with "preternatural". This word has the merit of respecting both the movement of scientific discovery as well as highlighting "random behavior of quanta". It allows for the possibility that quantum randomness will one day become describable as "rule-bound", while for now acknowledging that their behavior by present knowledge appears "unnatural". I find this view thoroughly secular and in no way differently metaphysical from yours. It simply argues another case.

 

[wuliheron]

Dictionary.com
Empirical
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Go ahead, check all of my dictionary definitions for yourself. That is scientific empirical evidence. An experiment anyone with an internet connection can test the validity of. Now explain to me how your post has anything that can be tested or confirmed in anyway whatsoever!

 

[cosmographer]

You are confusing the issue: nothing about the quantum phenomena that trouble you imposes directly the use of "super-natural" to denote their domain as different from the "merely natural". It is simply a choice you made and that you arguably don't account for very well.

I take the same evidence as you for granted, but simply attach a different prefix to the word. I am looking forward to hearing how, in your view, one prefix is more directly mandated by empirical evidence than the other. Again: my take is that "preternatural" is more true to the empirical: a) the unruliness of the quantum domain as discernible now and b) the potential empirical process by which it might become discernible as lawful.

 

[wuliheron]

You are confusing the issue: nothing about the quantum phenomena that trouble you imposes directly the use of "super-natural" to denote their domain as different from the "merely natural". It is simply a choice you made and that you arguably don't account for very well.

I take the same evidence as you for granted, but simply attach a different prefix to the word. I am looking forward to hearing how, in your view, one prefix is more directly mandated by empirical evidence than the other. Again: my take is that "preternatural" is more true to the empirical: a) the unruliness of the quantum domain as discernible now and b) the potential empirical process by which it might become discernible as lawful.

Still harping away at your metaphysical arguments and now accusing me of confusing the issue, while blithely ignoring even my responses to your previous nonsensical accusations against me. Have you no shame?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Please start your own thread! This thread is not about metaphysics or theology. Either provide empirical evidence that quantum randomness obeys laws or take it elsewhere! Preferably to the World Weekly News.

I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't suggesting that quantum effects are determinate, merely that they fall within a set of laws we can define.

 

[wuliheron]

I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't suggesting that quantum effects are determinate, merely that they fall within a set of laws we can define.

Then please be more precise with your statements. There is no other possible way I can think of to interpret such statements as "I don't see how quantum randomness doesn't obey laws." I would also suggest you read the previous posts in which I have made it abundantly clear this is not about Quantum Mechanics, but about Indeterminacy. If you wish to debate quantum mechanics start your own thread.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then please be more precise with your statements. I would also suggest you read the previous posts in which I have made it abundantly clear this is not about Quantum Mechanics, but about Indeterminacy. If you wish to debate quantum mechanics start your own thread.

w.e, enjoy your argument fellas

 

[cosmographer]

Still harping away at your metaphysical arguments and now accusing me of confusing the issue, while blithely ignoring even my responses to your previous nonsensical accusations against me. Have you no shame?

Wow, just wow. Basically I can do nothing but refer you to this post

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3335056&postcount=44

Everything else has been a further elaborated attempt at eliciting any kind of argument from you. I have told you twice how your dictionary definitions failed to support your argument (for the entries "empirical" and "science" respectively) because they neglected the specific context of our problem.

Perhaps one last try: It is possible that we might be working with conflicting background assumptions. Maybe we can rule out some misunderstandings and sticking points by clarifying them.

For instance: Is it problematic for you that in my understanding the corpus of what counts as nature is gradually "composed" by scientific discovery? I take this to be self-evident, but perhaps this is not a common idea.

I also take the word nature to be a place-holder for the imagined totality of all laws that science at some point considers as comprising true knowledge. What counts as natural in the specifics are the empirical domains and the laws describing them.

And there is really no need for a condescending tone. I won't retaliate in that style. At worst you'll see me abandoning the thread

 

[wuliheron]

Perhaps one last try: It is possible that we might be working with conflicting background assumptions. Maybe we can rule out some misunderstandings and sticking points by clarifying them.

For instance: Is it problematic for you that in my understanding the corpus of what counts as nature is gradually "composed" by scientific discovery? I take this to be self-evident, but perhaps this is not a common idea.

This is so much meaningless word salad. Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Scientists don't write dictionaries and don't dictate to the public how to define words.

I also take the word nature to be a place-holder for the imagined totality of all laws that science at some point considers as comprising true knowledge. What counts as natural in the specifics are the empirical domains and the laws describing them.

Now you are attempting to define "natural" for all the sciences so it fits your worldview. Sorry, but making up private languages was never my thing nor is speaking gibberish with people who all want to push their private languages on everyone else. You can split semantic hairs until and the crows fly home and attempt to create your own little private language all you want, but that is NOT THE TOPIC ON THE TABLE!

And there is really no need for a condescending tone. I won't retaliate in that style. At worst you'll see me abandoning the thread

One can always hope.

 

[cosmographer]

You see I get that you think considerations of meaning should not enter into this, but then I just cannot make sense of how you prefer your word over mine. In my understanding of due scientific process that would demand encountering my justification, which is present in several different wordings in this thread.

Last question, I promise: Can you state reasons for preferring supernatural over preternatural?

 

[wuliheron]

You see I get that you think considerations of meaning should not enter into this, but then I just cannot make sense of how you prefer your word over mine. In my understanding of due scientific process that would demand encountering my justification, which is present in several different wordings in this thread.

Last question, I promise: Can you state reasons for preferring supernatural over preternatural?

I have already stated my reasons. Go back and read them if you didn't bother the first time!

 

[cosmographer]

I cannot seem to find your post that explicitly acknowledges the comparison and gives reasons for a choice. In fact it looks more like you assume supernatural as the somehow self-evident candidate without treating the other possibility. Should you find that I am mistaken I would be thankful if you could direct me to your respective posts.

If I'm right on the other hand, then this thread has so far, beside my own considerations, seen no active discussion of the definition linked to by apeiron:

The preternatural or praeternatural is that which appears outside or beyond (Latin præter) the natural. In contrast to the supernatural, preternatural phenomena are presumed to have rational explanations as yet unknown.

The term is often used to distinguish from the divine (supernatural) while maintaining a distinction from understood nature in a given culture and time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preternatural

 

[wuliheron]

I cannot seem to find your post that explicitly acknowledges the comparison and gives reasons for a choice. In fact it looks more like you assume supernatural as the somehow self-evident candidate without treating the other possibility. Should you find that I am mistaken I would be thankful if you could direct me to your respective posts.

If I'm right on the other hand, then this thread has so far, beside my own considerations, seen no active discussion of the definition linked to by apeiron:

I don't have time to look through all the posts. The important distinction is that the preternatural suggests a rational explanation is possible. This is a unsubstantiated metaphysical stance that is not appropriate to an objective description of Indeterminacy. Not only does it suggest a rational explanation exists, but also that it is humanly possible to conceptualize and neither supposition is the purview of physics. Also, the teleportation and other types of behavior made possible by Indeterminacy fit the classical ideas about the supernatural better then the term preternatural.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't have time to look through all the posts. The important distinction is that the preternatural suggests a rational explanation is possible. This is a unsubstantiated metaphysical stance that is not appropriate to an objective description of Indeterminacy. Not only does it suggest a rational explanation exists, but also that it is humanly possible to conceptualize and neither supposition is the purview of physics. Also, the teleportation and other types of behavior made possible by Indeterminacy fit the classical ideas about the supernatural better then the term preternatural.

So, if I understand you, if an event appears to be without a known cause (indeterminate), it should be regarded as 'supernatural'. This would be against the view that events that appear to be indeterminate would be better described as 'preternatural'. Is this a correct understanding of your view?

Is this only your personal view as far as you know, or can you cite a reference where this view of the supernatural is supported?

 

[wuliheron]

So, if I understand you, if an event appears to be without a known cause (indeterminate), it should be regarded as 'supernatural'. The would be against the view that events that appear to be indeterminate would be better described as 'preternatural'. Is this a correct understanding of your view?

Is this only your personal view as far as you know, or can you cite a reference where this view of the supernatural is supported?

There are all kinds of mysteries we don't call supernatural. Indeterminacy is an unusual case in point that has defied the best minds and trillions of dollars in research for 85 years and looks to be more conclusively indeterminate then ever before. We now have experimental evidence that even entanglement is subject to Indeterminacy, that quanta are contextual, and that naive realism is false. In addition, as I already pointed out the behavior of quanta quite often is exactly what people have traditionally thought of as supernatural.

As for references, the number of supernatural theories concerning quantum mechanics is extensive, but it depends on how you define supernatural. In this case I'm suggesting something that defies the local laws of nature is supernatural. Thus a parallel universe with different physical laws could be considered supernatural, something acausal could be considered supernatural, etc. In which case such famous physicists as John Wheeler with theories on consensual reality can also be included as suggestive of the supernatural.

Again, the idea is not to suggest ghosts and demons and whatnot, but to use the one word which is most descriptive of what we observe and create a new technical term.

 

[Willowz]

Contextually, words like 'rational' don't make much sense in Quantum Indeterminacy. Is that what you are saying wuliheron? If so, what justifies you using "supernatural" in this context? Or what lead you to that word phrase?

 

[Willowz]

Thread remids me of a Witty aphorism:

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent.

 

[wuliheron]

Thread remids me of a Witty aphorism:

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent.

Contextually, words like 'rational' don't make much sense in Quantum Indeterminacy. Is that what you are saying wuliheron? If so, what justifies you using "supernatural" in this context? Or what lead you to that word phrase?

Exactly. The evidence strongly suggests quantum mechanics is contextual and, therefore, the best way to talk about the subject is contextually. Unfortunately the English language evolved for a dualistic culture making it more difficult. In fact, when quantum mechanics was first discovered Asians made several important contributions to the field immediately because their more holistic languages made such conclusions obvious to them.

For me the idea that a parallel universe with different laws of physics could be called "supernatural" is just obvious. Not because I believe in ghosts or any such nonsense, in fact I tend to be a rather strong skeptic about such things. It is obvious to me because what else would you call it?

Logically you could break it down this way. If there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite variety of physical laws then what possible meaning could it have to say they are all "natural laws"? None whatsoever. Its just another meaningless infinity that indicates a problem with our thinking. However, if we assume that "natural laws" is contextual then it is just another relative designation like up and down or front and back. What we need is its opposite and that happens to be supernatural.

For Taoists like myself the words and concepts in and of themselves are just so much gibberish. Just more variables like A and B to be played with at will. If you are willing to allow yourself the child-like freedom to play with them. What they describe is ultimately beyond words and concepts.

 

[cosmographer]

Interesting, now you are willing to explain yourself

What I guess my most immediate argument for preternatural is is that it necessitates only a non-scientistic baggage. Supernatural already shoulders the baggage of nature. Preternatural defers the shouldering of nature to those scientists that might, always contextually, discover something they will use the word "natural" for. It is just more true to the actual practice of science as scientists witness it.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

That is interesting about holistic languages. What sort of contribution did this allow, for example?

It might also be interesting that according to this link, the anthropologist, Edmund Leach, regarding systems of categorisation wrote, “the recognition of a distinction natural/supernatural (real imaginary) is a basic marker of humanity.” (Leach 1982) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...e&q=edmund leach supernatural natural&f=false

 

[cosmographer]

Interesting, however I believe the matter to be more complex. More recent anthropology has opened more nuanced ways of thinking about nature/nonnature. In fact this cultural settlement seems to only describe one of four possible modes of figuring ontological imaginations. The divide might not be along the lines of imaginary/real, but rather on different distributions of the real. The real/imaginary divide in this view demands a mono-nature.

http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2011/01/10/on-animism-multinaturalism-cosmopolitics/]These[/URL] variables combine to create four options, or what Descola calls four “ontological routes”:

Either most existing entities are supposed to share a similar interiority whilst being different in body, and we have animism, as found among peoples of the Amazonian basin, the Northern reaches of North America and Siberia and some parts of Southern Asia and Melanesia. Or humans alone experience the privilege of interiority whilst being connected to the non-human continuum by their materiality and we have naturalism – Europe from the classical age. Or some humans and non-humans share, within a given framework, the same physical and moral properties generated by a prototype, whilst being wholly distinguishable from other classes of the same type and we have totemism – chiefly to be found among Australia’s Aborigines. Or all the world’s elements are ontologically distinct from one another, thence the necessity to find stable correspondences between them and we have analogism –China, Renaissance Europe, West Africa, the indigenous peoples of the Andes and Central-America [6]. ["Who owns nature," 2008 - http://www.booksandideas.net/IMG/pdf/20080121_descola_en.pdf

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, cosmographer!
(I wasn't able to follow the link)

 

[cosmographer]

Oops, fixed. Not doing metaphysics, on oft made demand in this thread, could from that anthropological vantage indicate more than just the demand to "not to metaphysics", but the deeper demand to stay within the bounds of the unacknowledged (?) "metaphysics of mono-nature" we are native to. The imaginary that there might be more than two domains of the cosmos tickles us quite uncomfortably. Think multinaturalism, a quite challenging enterprise.

 

[wuliheron]

That is interesting about holistic languages. What sort of contribution did this allow, for example?

It might also be interesting that according to this link, the anthropologist, Edmund Leach, regarding systems of categorisation wrote, “the recognition of a distinction natural/supernatural (real imaginary) is a basic marker of humanity.” (Leach 1982)

I'm not sure what specific contributions Asians made to quantum mechanics; it was something I read about somewhere and supposedly it was just over a short period of a few years. They certainly aren't supermen or from Mars so I don't expect there to be an endless number of insights a different natural language can facilitate.

I'd say mathematics is what tends to lead the way with natural languages usually struggling to keep up or even hobbling progress in no small part due to all the taboos and cultural conventions. The difficulty people still have expressing quantum mechanics in natural language a century after its discovery therefore comes as no surprise. Its not simply because quanta defy common sense or our experience, but because natural language is more personal and culture specific and just comes with a lot more baggage in general.

I don't know if the distinction between the natural and supernatural is somehow innate and it really doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that it is a fundamental concept and one that has been used and abused for far too long in both the name of both science and superstition. It is quite likely another hurdle to be overcome if we are to continue making progress in quantum mechanics. Probably for better and for worse science will be forced to deal with concept itself and transform it in the process.

 

[wuliheron]

Interesting, now you are willing to explain yourself

What I guess my most immediate argument for preternatural is is that it necessitates only a non-scientistic baggage. Supernatural already shoulders the baggage of nature. Preternatural defers the shouldering of nature to those scientists that might, always contextually, discover something they will use the word "natural" for. It is just more true to the actual practice of science as scientists witness it.

Avoiding baggage can be useful, but it can also be a serious handicap. There are times when there is little choice but to throw out the old and replace it with something new. Otherwise we'd still be living under the illusion the world is flat. As for explaining myself, I'm not a mind reader. I've been saying the same thing in as many ways as I can think of and it seems one finally made sense to you.

 

[cosmographer]

Avoiding baggage can be useful, but it can also be a serious handicap. There are times when there is little choice but to throw out the old and replace it with something new. Otherwise we'd still be living under the illusion the world is flat. As for explaining myself, I'm not a mind reader. I've been saying the same thing in as many ways as I can think of and it seems one finally made sense to you.

You should entertain the possibility that the reverse might be happening. Unabashedly continuing to do metaphysics of a technical term (): You wish to introduce a new technical term. This term will redefine the field, it will change the meaning of the natural which becomes demarcated in a new way. If one is already willing to make that step, then I would argue that this choice is a possibility to consider if one is still content with the nuances of the old meaning.

As far as I can tell preternatural does everything that supernatural does, except establishing nature as a given. At this point of history we might benefit from that slight shift in technical meaning. It would allow science to finally perceive itself - to see itself as an active maker of the natural. With supernatural we keep the blind spot. But who am I kidding, the myth that words don't matter and that technicalities are not politics is much too strong.

 

[wuliheron]

Oops, fixed. Not doing metaphysics, on oft made demand in this thread, could from that anthropological vantage indicate more than just the demand to "not to metaphysics", but the deeper demand to stay within the bounds of the unacknowledged (?) "metaphysics of mono-nature" we are native to. The imaginary that there might be more than two domains of the cosmos tickles us quite uncomfortably. Think multinaturalism, a quite challenging enterprise.

Do you never tire of these endless speculations and insinuations? Would it really kill you to just admit you don't understand something and ask a simple a question about what confuses you? Must you take this thread off on yet another tangent almost wholly unrelated to the subject? Must you continue to insist to use this as an opportunity to promote your personal metaphysical beliefs?

My demand for no metaphysics was simply a pragmatic choice, just as my request that you please stop going off onto tangents is a pragmatic choice. This isn't a chat room!