Studying the supernatural

Wouldn't parallel universes have to be considered conceivable, rather than perceivable?And if they should exist, so that our universe and some other are part of a larger multiverse, wouldn't it all still be natural?It seems to me our common notion of the supernatural involves some power or entity impacting our world by some means other than material causality. Even if parallel universes operate under different natural laws, surely they would be consistent with the matter and energy states of that universe.While we might find those laws bizarre, we will probably never find them at all other than through the inferences of physics or mathematics. If they cannot impinge on our universe, they don't satisfy our most basic concept of the supernatural.

It seems to me that there are two essential properties of what we consider to be supernatural.The first is that the supernatural represents a sentient entity: we do not speak of supernatural phenomena that are equivalent to the fall of an apple or the oxidation of iron. All supernatural concepts or claims that I am aware of involve a being, a creature, an intelligence...Secondly, we expect the supernatural to operate outside the framework of our natural laws. We don't look for supernatural explanations for falling apples or rusting iron: we look for, essentially, the miraculous, for phenomena for which there is no natural explanation.As has been noted by others, phenomena have historically moved across conceptual boundaries as we discover natural explanations; but that is an historical, cultural and semantic shift. And the movement has been completely in one direction.The essence of the supernatural, as it is commonly understood, is an entity that effects change in our natural world via mechanisms that are not the mechanisms of natural phenomena, mechanisms we can neither detect nor predict.So, sure, we can speculate that there are parallel universes where our natural laws do not apply--we have reached that understanding via an increasingly profound understanding of the contingency of our own laws. If those laws were to operate sporadically in our universe, the effects might indeed appear supernatural; if we were able to visit a parallel universe while remaining in a bubble of our own, events there might appear supernatural.But we have no reason to suppose that the different natural laws of another universe have ever or could ever operate here; we have good reasons to suppose that parallel universes do not impact each other in that way.It appears that the only way we can investigate the supernatural is to investigate claims for supernatural causation; if we confirm necessary and sufficient natural causes, we have refuted the supernatural claim. Once we have a long chain of such refutations, induction tells us that supernatural beings that operate outside of natural laws are extremely unlikely. And since we have yet to find phenomena that long confound our search for their natural causes, we have no reason to look to parallel universes to explain them: there is nothing to explain.I agree that the notion of parallel universes is strangely exciting, even exhilirating in the scope by which it expands our already unimaginably vast universe. But as long as we can find natural reasons for apples to fall, we have no evidence at all for the supernatural, let alone any reason to turn to parallel universes to explain it.We don't have a burning bush; there's no reason to speculate that the arsonist is hiding in the 9th dimension.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Speculation is fun, especially if you are looking for a place to park your deity. Find me a bush that burns yet is not consumed, and we'll talk.

Don't get me wrong, GDR--I appreciate the, uh, spirit of your inquiry though I disagree that we are left with only speculation in the face of supernatural claims.I simply see nothing in the world that requires or suggests a supernatural explanation, while I see a long history of supernatural claims debunked with natural explanations.But I share and appreciate your sense of wonder.

Nope. That road leads to the super-supernatural, ad infinitum.Don't go there.

Well, I can't speak to the math.But I don't think anyone has managed to "bring together the math of relativity and the math of QM" just yet.Aside from that, I'm good with infinity. It no more needs a supernatural explanation than finiteness does.

I don't see how.

Sauce for the God is sauce for the Garden: If an infinite prime mover doesn't require a creator, then neither does an infinite world.

I kinda like the turtles.