Mathematics of the supernatural

[ratcharmer]

@Demagog:
What I was trying to get at there was that the term "supernatural" is misleading as it implies things that break the rules, but if those things happen them clearly they can happen, therefore the rules allow them.

We just don't know what all the rules say yet.

[Demagog]

I think you have a weird definition of supernatural. Natural and supernatural do not necessarily share the same laws or "rules." In fact, there is no evidence that they do.

Basically, you're making a huge assumption with no evidence.

[ratcharmer]

I think you have a weird definition of supernatural. Natural and supernatural do not necessarily share the same laws or "rules." In fact, there is no evidence that they do.

Basically, you're making a huge assumption with no evidence.

I think I still must not be making myself clear, because I haven't assumed anything in the opening post . . .

Science defines the laws of nature as rules to define what can and cannot happen. Therefore if a new phenomena is discovered, by definition it has to fall within the laws of nature.

If something is discovered that seems to run contrary to the laws as we know them, it is not considered an "exception" to the rules; instead the scientist who discovered it revises the rules to include the new discovery.

Thus, under the traditional definition of supernatural, it is literally impossible to confirm a supernatural event, because as soon as it's confirmed by science it becomes no longer supernatural.

There have been several occasions when discussing a potential supernatural event wherein someone pointed to a scientific study related to the event and said "see, it wasn't paranormal at all".

Then I read the study, and find the data shows about exactly what I would expect it to for a genuine event.

[falconbane]

I think the scientific community dropped the term "supernatural" a decade or so ago and went with the term "natural phenomena" (then again, there are various pockets of the community >.<).  And natural/supernatural definition is just all over the place.  Natural is the basic state of things (rules, laws, whatever) whereas super-natural (super can be roughly translated to "beyond" or "above") is
"not within the basic state".  When we can accommodate "super-natural" events within the "natural" laws, the "super-natural" no longer remain so (I think this is where the misunderstanding occurred between the two of you).   

But yes, science has to accommodate all new verifiable occurrence.  Hence the search for the Unified theory  8)


Slightly off topic, I think Mathematics of the Supernatural (my translation could have been off) was a parody paper done on the Chaos Theory when it became mainstreamed enough to be discussed in the community without being laughed at.