Defining Metaphysics and Supernatural: A Scientific Perspective

[Loren Booda]

Their etymology seems similar, but how would you differentiate between their meanings? Is their disparity that the former applies mostly to philosophy, and the latter mostly to religion?

 

[Rade]

IMO, the metaphysical derives from laws of nature, the supernatural derives from outside laws of nature. Thus, for example, one cannot use gravity or electromagnetic fields or strong force to study the attributes of the supernatural. The metaphysical examines "what exists", the physical "how it exists", the supernatural "what exists outside existence". I do not see this as a dualism between philosophy vs religion but between existence vs nonexistence.

 

[Mickey]

Metaphysics is open to critical examination, whereas supernatural ideas are not, and that seems to be because of their relation to philosophy and religion respectively.

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Someone explain how supernatural was ever conceived to be a conception of merit. All things that exist in this universe are natural. Things that don't exist, don't exist!

 

[Mickey]

Someone explain how supernatural was ever conceived to be a conception of merit.

Sure. Take the notions of dreams and death. It is entirely likely that people will dream of loved ones after they have passed away. Losing them was already a powerful emotional experience so seeing them in a dream is also powerful. One could be tempted to think that they are still alive in a "supernatural" state, meaning a state that cannot be observed in nature, but only in dreams.

This is just one example, but it's the most plausible one I can think of for the introduction of shamanism. It follows that if people survive death and can be observed in dreams, then all of us have a seemingly supernatural attribute that not only allows us to communicate with the dead but also to survive death ourselves. And perhaps other beings observed in dreams are of a similar nature, and can influence our bodies and our health the way our own supernatural attribute does.

It has a very simple logic to it. The notion of empirical science really does not exist if you consider that dreams are legitimate means for observing reality, because anything is possible in dreams.

I am actually more puzzled why scientists do not consider dreams another means of observing nature. Sure, dreams may a "different nature," highly attached to the self, but nature nonetheless, right?

Perhaps they just don't have very many interesting dreams. That would also seem to work against their making discoveries in dreams, like the lucid dreaming state. Lucid dreams clearly show that dreams are worthy of personal investigation.

 

[Loren Booda]

Do you think the traditional name for a physical scientist, "natural philosopher," has any bearing on the possible similarity of the definitions for metaphysical and supernatural?

 

[Mickey]

Do you think the traditional name for a physical scientist, "natural philosopher," has any bearing on the possible similarity of the definitions for metaphysical and supernatural?

Yeah, definitely. Metaphysical objects seem to be in a class of unobservables and supernatural phenomena seem to be in a class of unreasonables. The natural philosopher combines both observation and reason. Perhaps this is where confusion on the two terms originates!

 

[Loren Booda]

Fantastic observation and reasoning, Mickey!

 

[Masayasu]

My thought on the subject is this. Supernatural phenomena is merely metephysical phenomena that currently remains outside of our cumulative understanding of the universe, as human beings. In reaction, a witness to new or uncommon phenomena, whether the instance valid or hallucinatory, spreads a deteriorating account of the event and becomes a negative agent impeding our progress in the discovering and understanding of the particles or strands that weave together the fabric of our existence. Well, simply put, even though there may be things that exist outside of our current understanding, we may not yet want to identify them as supernatural. Our world, and understanding are still considerably elementary, and we have a fairly slow learning curve. 75%+ of ones life is spent just trying to figure out ones self, let alone the nature of the universe.

 

[Royce]

There is not and cannot be "supernatural" if we take the term to mean outside of nature. Everything that exists is natural, even that which is man made is made of natural materials and made by a natural entity using natural processes and the laws of nature. If we take the term to mean more natural than nature it becomes meaningless. If we use the term to mean that part of nature that is in a higher state than material or objective nature then it may have some meaning and purpose.

Metaphysics simply means beyond physics or beyond science and would include "supernatural" and every thing else that cannot be explained nor addressed by science, at least yet.

 

[Loren Booda]

Please give some examples, Royce.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A little remark here. Just as meta-physics and super-natural have pretty much the same meaning with Greek and Latin roots, so sci-ent-ist and wiz-ard have similar meanings with Latin and Germanic roots. Sci = Wit: knowledge, ist=ard: person characterized by or engaged in.

 

[Masayasu]

selfAdjoint:

Well noted. Science must have seemed like wizardry to those who lived in times when the old languages were also alive. Perhaps those that couldn't part with concept of supernatural existence ultimately defined the character of the wizard as it is seen to day, a conqueror of magical or spiritual elements. I suppose those that finally accepted the exploration of metaphysical or supernatural phenomena as science would then call the wizard a scientist. A very interesting connection.

 

[selfAdjoint]

selfAdjoint:

Well noted. Science must have seemed like wizardry to those who lived in times when the old languages were also alive. Perhaps those that couldn't part with concept of supernatural existence ultimately defined the character of the wizard as it is seen to day, a conqueror of magical or spiritual elements. I suppose those that finally accepted the exploration of metaphysical or supernatural phenomena as science would then call the wizard a scientist. A very interesting connection.

During a middle period, like the 16th and 17th century in England, it could be dangerous to be a knowledge worker. Arithmatician and geometer meant sorcerer, and sorcery was a capital offense.

 

[Royce]

Please give some examples, Royce.

The most obvious are religion and spirituality. Others, in my opinion, include life, consciousness, the mind, inner knowledge or knowledge itself.

In one way of thinking, even though they are different branches of philosophy, ethics, morals, logic, mathematics are all beyond physics and or science and therefore part of metaphysics, but they are not usually thought of as such.

 

[octelcogopod]

I agree with Royce, but it might be a bit too general of a definition.
Take ghosts, a typical ghost is a soul that has arisen from the grave and is now floating around in some astral plane of the world.

Technically, we cannot prove that this is false, at least yet, we may be able to prove that we are unable to prove it, but nothing else.
Thus it doesn't become strictly metaphysical, nor supernatural because it can still be a part of the universe only we can't reach or see that "plane."

What this means to me is that there may exist things that are possible simply because of lack of knowledge, aka the imaginative things.

 

[Masayasu]

I don't know much about cosmology or atoms, etc.., but I am under the impression that we are all made of of several different kinds of atoms. I wonder if ghosts are made up of atoms as well, and how they would be tied to the original host. I'm reaching, I know, and probably way off, but there must be some explanation for this phenomena.

When I was in indonesia recently I experienced something strange in a room I was staying in. The first night, nothing happened, except that I woke up around 3:00 am. The next night I had trouble sleeping. I kept feeling like I was being watched the whole time. I tried to close my eyes, but kept feeling something wierd. My wife was with me too. She felt the same thing. She finally fell asleep though, and I stayed awake for awhile until sleep overtook me as well. We then both woke up at 3:00 again. I couldn't get back to sleep after that. The next day again, no sleep, my wife fell a sleep, and the I was finally so tired that I had too. Note that all the lights were on. I was having weird dreams, very weird and disturbing. All of a sudden I woke up, and guess what time it was. So, at the same time, my wife woke up too. I asked her, did she turn off all of the lights. There was the bathroom light, and two others. As sat up for a moment and put my foot on the floor, all of the lights just flickered on. The next day, I asked if there was some kind of motion sensor or something, and there was not. We switched rooms. I slept just fine after that, and through the night as well. How does one explain it.

 

[Canute]

I prefer to think that metaphysics is concerned with first principles, not with supernatural phenomena, even if there are such things. Thus metaphysics would be before physics and not just beyond it, whereas the supernatural would be beyond physics but not before it. (Where 'before' means something like epistemilogically prior).

 

[Loren Booda]

A simple, perhaps mathematical definition, Canute. (Was not King Canute a founder of wave theory?):rofl:

 

[Royce]

I prefer to think that metaphysics is concerned with first principles, not with supernatural phenomena, even if there are such things. Thus metaphysics would be before physics and not just beyond it, whereas the supernatural would be beyond physics but not before it. (Where 'before' means something like epistemologically prior).

Historically, long before physics, even long before before natural philosophy, supernatural phenomena and spirituality as well as religion were known and contemplated. Some, including myself, would say that these studies are the essence of first principles.

I'm not sure what you mean by "epistemologically prior." If you are referring to epistemology theory in that prior would mean more basic or a prerequisite, I know so little about it that I can't comment on it. ( yes, there are some thing that I don't feel qualified to hold and opinion on much less comment on it.) However, wouldn't virtually all other knowledge and learning be prior to physics as it is studied today?

 

[moving finger]

I don't know much about cosmology or atoms, etc.., but I am under the impression that we are all made of of several different kinds of atoms. I wonder if ghosts are made up of atoms as well, and how they would be tied to the original host. I'm reaching, I know, and probably way off, but there must be some explanation for this phenomena.

When I was in indonesia recently I experienced something strange in a room I was staying in. The first night, nothing happened, except that I woke up around 3:00 am. The next night I had trouble sleeping. I kept feeling like I was being watched the whole time. I tried to close my eyes, but kept feeling something wierd. My wife was with me too. She felt the same thing. She finally fell asleep though, and I stayed awake for awhile until sleep overtook me as well. We then both woke up at 3:00 again. I couldn't get back to sleep after that. The next day again, no sleep, my wife fell a sleep, and the I was finally so tired that I had too. Note that all the lights were on. I was having weird dreams, very weird and disturbing. All of a sudden I woke up, and guess what time it was. So, at the same time, my wife woke up too. I asked her, did she turn off all of the lights. There was the bathroom light, and two others. As sat up for a moment and put my foot on the floor, all of the lights just flickered on. The next day, I asked if there was some kind of motion sensor or something, and there was not. We switched rooms. I slept just fine after that, and through the night as well. How does one explain it.

Tokoloshes

Best Regards

 

[Galahad]

Yeah, definitely. Metaphysical objects seem to be in a class of unobservables and supernatural phenomena seem to be in a class of unreasonables. The natural philosopher combines both observation and reason. Perhaps this is where confusion on the two terms originates!

There is not and cannot be "supernatural" if we take the term to mean outside of nature.

Sorry to walk into this discussion late, but could we not consider "supernatural" to mean anything real that cannot be described with mathematics? If something cannot be quantified or reduced to mathematics, does that mean it must be considered unreasonable or impossible?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sorry to walk into this discussion late, but could we not consider "supernatural" to mean anything real that cannot be described with mathematics? If something cannot be quantified or reduced to mathematics, does that mean it must be considered unreasonable or impossible?

I don't think mathematical description is a good test. It is more or less a historical accident (driven by Galilieo, Descartes and Newton) that physics came to be identified with mathematical description, and physicists have come up with things that eluded mathematical description for a while (e.g. the Dirac Delta "function"). I'd say beyond objective checkable empirical study.

 

[Galahad]

I don't think mathematical description is a good test. It is more or less a historical accident (driven by Galilieo, Descartes and Newton) that physics came to be identified with mathematical description, and physicists have come up with things that eluded mathematical description for a while (e.g. the Dirac Delta "function").

What if we were to say that something is supernatural if it cannot be mathematically represented in principle, as opposed to something that cannot be mathematically represented yet?

I'd say beyond objective checkable empirical study.

I can't think of a reason to object to that. It seems to be largely compatible with my proposal. Afterall, empirical study requires measurement, and objective measurement needs to be reducible to numeric representation.

 

[aristarkos]

How about this...

Metaphysical: Beyond the physical by reason

Supernatural: Beyond the physical by faith

 

[Evo]

No one has posted in this thread for 4 years and the majority of them are no longer here.

 

[Upisoft]

No one has posted in this thread for 4 years and the majority of them are no longer here.

He maybe is making attempt to have metaphysical or supernatural connection with them.
We have to look at his attempt objectively. What are the chances that any of them will lurk here again and answer?

 

[aristarkos]

...or maybe he hoped that one of them had been traveling near the speed of light.

 

[Upisoft]

...or maybe he hoped that one of them had been traveling near the speed of light.

Now that made me think. I have metaphysical question. Why we say "traveling near the speed of light"? If something is not traveling at speed of light there is a frame of reference in which this object is in rest. (Well that frame can change if the object is accelerating or worse)

So either an object is traveling at speed of light (and therefore has rest mass 0) or it is at rest (with something).

 

[disregardthat]

Now that made me think. I have metaphysical question. Why we say "traveling near the speed of light"? If something is not traveling at speed of light there is a frame of reference in which this object is in rest. (Well that frame can change if the object is accelerating or worse)

So either an object is traveling at speed of light (and therefore has rest mass 0) or it is at rest (with something).

Does not a photon have a frame of reference?

 

[aristarkos]

Now that made me think. I have metaphysical question. Why we say "traveling near the speed of light"? If something is not traveling at speed of light there is a frame of reference in which this object is in rest. (Well that frame can change if the object is accelerating or worse)

So either an object is traveling at speed of light (and therefore has rest mass 0) or it is at rest (with something).

I said NEAR the speed of light because the average forum participant would have to go on a major diet to go c ... assuming he/she is human and not a metaphysical photon collective.