Coherent definition of observable supernatural event?

[nomadreid]

I do not want to get into a religious discussion. The question is an abstract one, not directed at any belief system. With that prologue: is it theoretically possible to give a rigorous and coherent definition of "supernatural" that would allow an observable event to be supernatural, independent of humans' knowledge of physical laws? That is, if one defines the set of supernatural events as either distinct from, or a superset of, the set of natural events, then this begs the question, as one now needs a definition of natural events. (The question as to whether the set of supernatural events is the empty set or not is not the question here: one first needs a definition of supernatural before one could pose that question.) If one defines natural as all that is observable (not necessarily by humans: in the same way that the laws of relativity are posed in terms of observers, or quantum physics uses observables...) I wish to exclude the trivial definition that, for example, allows lightning to be supernatural to ancient Greeks but not to Benjamin Franklin, etc. , so the final definition need not allow humans at any point to be able to distinguish a natural from a supernatural event.

 

[fresh_42]

I claim, that the answer is NO, simply because

independent of humans' knowledge of physical laws

cannot be quantified in any meaningful way, since it makes a statement about future knowledge as well. If we restrict the condition to current knowledge, we will be back again in what is our current situation. There are many natural phenomena which we cannot fully explain yet: sprites, the walking stones, Min Mins, etc. but that doesn't make them supernatural.

Another argument: Assumed it could be done, then you will have a tool to decide the existence of God, if defined appropriately. But such a proof cannot be given. I'm not sure whether it can formally be shown to be undecidable, but the many attempts throughout history by often very smart people, is at least enough evidence for me, that it is impossible.

 

[DrClaude]

I do not want to get into a religious discussion.

Never mind religion, this is philosophy, and beyond the scope of PhysicsForums.

For more info, you can check out https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supernatural#Can_science_test_the_supernatural.3F. I like this quote by Elbert Hubbard:

To the scientist the word "supernatural" is a contradiction. Everything that is in the universe is natural; the supernatural is the natural not yet understood. And that which is called the supernatural is often the figment of a disordered, undisciplined or undeveloped imagination.

Thread closed.