Should Quantum Randomness be called Supernatural?

[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!

 

[wuliheron]

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.

What rubbish. The kind of mindless rambling I would expect from someone strung out on drugs and yet another attempt to derail the thread. What will you do next, attempt to justify Freudian psychology as pertinent to Indeterminacy?

 

[cosmographer]

Mindless rambling, thanks. You could easily get clarification as every single sentence in that post pertains to established notions in a range of academic field, but you assume that it is the result of someone "strung out on drugs". We are talking about a single word that might gain a new technical companion. We both wish to be pragmatic, but differ massively in our understanding of what the pragmata are.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

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.

Thanks for the response, I find the topic interesting.
And, thanks for the fixed link, cosmographer.

 

[wuliheron]

Mindless rambling, thanks. You could easily get clarification as every single sentence in that post pertains to established notions in a range of academic field, but you assume that it is the result of someone "strung out on drugs". We are talking about a single word that might gain a new technical companion. We both wish to be pragmatic, but differ massively in our understanding of what the pragmata are.

Spouting techo-babble and metaphysics is certainly not my idea of pragmatism! There are plenty of well respected linguistic theories and if you wish to avoid rambling aimlessly I suggest you use one.

 

[cosmographer]

I suggest rereading James and Dewey if you feel pragmatism is not about metaphysical considerations. But thanks for your patience along the ride. Hope you get some more answers that will feel productive to you.

 

[wuliheron]

I suggest rereading James and Dewey if you feel pragmatism is not about metaphysical considerations. But thanks for your patience along the ride. Hope you get some more answers that will feel productive to you.

Arcane nineteenth century philosophy has nothing to do with quantum mechanics either. I suggest you read up on their successors.

 

[cosmographer]

Arcane philosophy! cries the Taoist. It might not have anything to do with quantum mechanics, but it sure has some interesting thought to offer when you need to choose a technical language. A word that should complement the word nature, that weirdest of all things arcane philosophy has given us to inherit (and pragmatism incidentally took prominent issue with)! I should not enjoy this. Have a good one.

 

[wuliheron]

Arcane philosophy! cries the Taoist. It might not have anything to do with quantum mechanics, but it sure has some interesting thought to offer when you need to choose a technical language. A word that should complement the word nature, that weirdest of all things arcane philosophy has given us to inherit (and pragmatism incidentally took prominent issue with)! I should not enjoy this. Have a good one.

It has little to say of any relevance to modern linguistic theory either. They are potbelly stoves in a world of jet engines and rockets.

 

[cosmographer]

I was really not going to post any more, but somehow I'm relieved that you drew that analogy. It enabled me to see more clearly one of the things that is going wrong here. You do indeed seem like a thinker that has thoroughly internalized the modern Western sense of progress: "Make haste we have to escape the past (without looking around much and even less ahead!)". I would argue in another discussion that our very misunderstanding here is a result of one of us wanting to move fast and smoothly ahead, while the other wants to move slower for every decision and collect what might be at stake.

The moderns were never good at taking care of the abstractions (yes, the very words this thread deals with) that they allow to make them think. Sure you'll say this is irrelevant to the problem of naming a domain of the world in technical terms, but precisely my problematisation of the issue changes what kind of considerations may be relevant. If they become relevant is another story. Cue hare-tortoise story outro. Curtain.

 

[wuliheron]

I was really not going to post any more, but somehow I'm relieved that you drew that analogy. It enabled me to see more clearly one of the things that is going wrong here. You do indeed seem like a thinker that has thoroughly internalized the modern Western sense of progress: "Make haste we have to escape the past (without looking around much and even less ahead!)". I would argue in another discussion that our very misunderstanding here is a result of one of us wanting to move fast and smoothly ahead, while the other wants to move slower for every decision and collect what might be at stake.

The moderns were never good at taking care of the abstractions (yes, the very words this thread deals with) that they allow to make them think. Sure you'll say this is irrelevant to the problem of naming a domain of the world in technical terms, but precisely my problematisation of the issue changes what kind of considerations may be relevant. If they become relevant is another story. Cue hare-tortoise story outro. Curtain.

Delusions of grandeur now. Why I am not surprised?

 

[cosmographer]

(The cast reappears!) Always, but also just really fond of playing

 

[Willowz]

wuliheron, I think you made the mistake of trying to describe QI in terms of natural every day language. Doing so obviously leads you to using words such as "supernatural". Pragmatically speaking QI is best descried in it's own framework and trying to describe it in another framework leads to word salads and gibberish.

 

[wuliheron]

wuliheron, I think you made the mistake of trying to describe QI in terms of natural every day language. Doing so obviously leads you to using words such as "supernatural". Pragmatically speaking QI is best descried in it's own framework and trying to describe it in another framework leads to word salads and gibberish.

I suppose then physicists just happen to love word salad and gibberish.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed temporarily pending Moderation and cleanup...