Let’s say that it’s scientifically proven that ghosts exist. Would they then stop being supernatural and become natural, thus making it impossible to ever have proof of the supernatural?
You must log in or register to comment.
Pretty much. Same as mythological creatures. If you discovered and recorded proof of a dragon, mermaid, wendigo, etc they’d no longer be considered mythological. At that point they’re simply creatures.
I quite like cryptozoology, looking for proof of animals that don’t officially exist. Loads of the animals over the decades have been found and proven and then they just go over to zoology and people still think of cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, it’s really weird.
Oh my god, why are people so dumb. Like do you think everything is Magic in the world or something? Don’t you feel like an asshole for not trying to learn anything? The more small things you know, the more you can find out by yourself through contacts. So no they wouldn’t suddenly become a different type of energy or whatever, I’ll become natural like you said. They would just describe it differently. And say hey this is a being composed of such and such matter or whatever and that’s it. And then we call that thing a ghost. You know you can think these things out in your mind right? Like you ask a question and then in your head you know you feel well what would I need to know to figure that out, and you know use your fucking head
It would simply move the concept of “ghost” from the realm of unproven and unexplained phenomena into the realm of proven but unexplained phenomena, joining the ranks of other proven but unexplained phenomena like gravity or particle-wave duality. In all of those cases, it would be possible to observe, quantify, model, and predict the effects of the phenomena in our natural environment, even if we don’t have a complete grasp of the mechanism by which they work.
Ghosts wouldn’t he supernatural anymore, just natural and observable.
And then humans will try to figure out how to turn them into gasoline, and/or have sex with them.
It seems I am out of the loop about gravity. How is it “unexplained”? Seems pretty straight forward (or “downward”) to me.
We know two masses attract each other across space, and have characterized a model that accurately predicts the magnitude of the force of the attraction over distance and time. What we don’t know is exactly why those two bodies are attracted, and how the force actually operates.
For other fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces and light, we have a reasonably good handle for how they operate in the quantum and relativistic physical frameworks, and we can reconcile their behavior between the two systems. We can’t say the same for gravitational force, and it’s causing problems for our understanding of how the Universe came to be, and how it is evolving. We have only recently in the last 20 years successfully detected gravitational waves with LIGO, and are currently searching for proof of a cosmic background gravitational field. We have but yet identified a quantum particle responsible for “transmitting” gravitational waves. Likewise, we cannot reconcile our observations of Universal expansion with the amount of mass we can account for across the cosmos-- that whole thing about dark matter that interacts with other masses gravitationally, but seemingly not with the other fundamental forces.
I probably butchered that explanation badly and made some actual physicists scream with the frustration (and if so, i apologize. please weigh in and educate us!), but my point is yes, we know a lot about gravity but we just don’t know why or how gravity works.
My understanding as to why entities are attracted by gravity is that the spacetime gets curved around them. Curved in such a way that a path “straight forward” in time gets curved so that it’s actually “toward the other one”.
Now why the spacetime gets curved is anyone’s guess. But the fact it’s attractive has to do with bending the road underneath the car. A car with its wheels pointed straight can be turned if you curve the road in the right way. It would look like the car is “steering without steering”.
I’d try ghost sex. 👻
Settle down Beverly
I think this makes gravity supernatural, we believe it but don’t understand it, it’s above (super) our understaning of nature. I’m not sure if this it what am axiom refers to, building all our theories on an unknown foundation. So I think ghosts could remain supernatural, we know they exsist, but their exitense is above our natural understanding. I mean, if I define supernatual as meaning above nature.
Supernatural means things that are beyond nature (I.e. don’t obey our known understand of nature).
If ghosts are proven to exist in nature, then they become part of nature, thus are no longer supernatural.
We might not have a definitive explanation for gravity, but it is definitively within our understanding of nature - we can observe it, test it, and predict its effects far into the future.
Super- means above, like superimposed. Our lack of understanding means we don’t know why it exists. It’s above our understanding, even if we know it exists.
Supermatural IS things beyond our understanding of nature, phenomena that cannot be explained by science.
If we could scientifically prove ghosts exist, the phenomena associated with them are no longer inexplicable to science, they would no longer beyond our understanding of nature, ergo they’d no longer be supernatural - just natural
I’ll compare to the concept of human culture being called superorganic, which is an old cultural anthropology concept which can provide a model for critical thinking. We don’t understand culture, yet we define it, record it, measure it. Hard to predict, I’ll admit. Refering to it as superorganic implies it exists at a higher complexity than we understand. Gravity and many other observational phenomena also exist at a higher compexity than we understand. Thus although you may not like to refer to such things as supernatural, it’s not wrong, it’s an opinion.
Last I was aware, the idea of human culture being “superorganic” referred to the idea of our culture itself acting as an organism above the individuals that compose it, i.e. a superorganism.
The concept being based on emergent behaviour observed in colony forming insects (I.e. ants, bees, etc.) to act as an apparent single larger organism.
That isn’t the same as the concept of the supernatural, where it refers to things beyond our understanding of nature.
Not knowing the exact cause of a natural phenomena doesn’t mean that we don’t understand how it fits into nature - if it exists, then it can be understood, ergo not supernatural.
It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that you give such a vague definition as to what qualifies as supernatural that damn near anything you feel like could qualify.
https://anthropology.iresearchnet.com/superorganic/
There’s no referal to superorganism, not sure where you picked that up, just the superorganic. Many people believe different things about what is supernatural, it’s inherently vague. Many people believe ghosts are real but they are still refered to as the supernatural.
Gravity can be scientifically proven to exist though, unlike ghosts (so far, at least). We can do repeatable experiments to show that gravity has a predicable effect time after time, even if we don’t know why or how
Assuming ghosts have been proven to exist, like op stated, but without knowing why, like gravity. Above our understanding of nature, supernatural, given the prefix super- means above.
To answer your title, no.
To answer your post, yes, pretty much (imo).
Why do your post and title have different (almost opposite) questions? Lol
They’re not different questions in my head (I guess because I have all the context of what I’m thinking and just expressed myself badly).
I’m coming at this entirely from a philosophical point of view. I’m not asking if it’s technically possible to build a machine to prove the existence of the supernatural, but whether such a machine would change our categorisation of the now-proven thing
If you can prove it then it’s natural. So no.
For a moment you would have proof of the supernatural, then it would turn into regular proof of the natural.
Only in a sense. Only if they are “supernatural” in the sense of going beyond one’s current conception of “natural”.
For example, someone photographing a nuclear explosion would be “proving the existence of a supernatural entity” if they showed that photograph to someone whose physics hadn’t yet gotten to the point of understanding nuclear fission yet.
Nuclear fission is supernatural to previous-generation physics.
It’s not supernatural to Real Physics but Real Physics is an ideal that will always elude us.
Exactly. The supernatural is things beyond nature - if you can prove something supernatural is part of nature, then it’s not supernatural, so it would now be natural.
It’s similar to the quote, “What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine”
This question reminds me of Tim Minchin’s observations of alternative medicine. By definition, alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work.
You know what we call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?
Medicine.
Reminds me of this ships doctor I was chitchattibg with. He said something along the lines of:
"The difference between a doctor and a witch doctor isn’t that big. The main difference is in sticking to what has been proven to work, and discarding what doesn’t
You know what we call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?
Medicine.
Sort of. You have things like willow bark which obviously work and are still considered alternative medicine. However, the pharmaceutical product synthesized from and to work like willow bark is one of the most recognizable OTC medicines in the world – aspirin.
Except what we get with the ancient records regarding willow bark were just what we’d expect with folk medicine: anecdotal claims that it treats a wide range of ailments without any proposed mechanism of action.
It wasn’t until willow extract was actually made into a pharmaceutical that it became anywhere near useful. That willow tea you’re imagining ancient people drank didn’t actually exist and if it did, they were not getting enough salicylic acid from it to equal even a single aspirin.
In short, aspirin follows the above rule: alternative medicine was proven to work, and then became medicine. But the end result is far detached from how it was used thousands of years before it was actually shown to work.
That’s why they are called “supernatural”. It actually means “beyond natural laws”.
No, because if you can prove it then it is just natural.
Exactly this. Once we advance to the point where we can detect the supernatural, we’ll also have better understanding of how the universe works.
I wrote an article about exactly this: https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/tautological-denial-of-magic-0e311ca94c2a
