supernatural events
Gene Ward Smith
>From: r...@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen):
>>>>What IS a miracle? The definition describes an event
>>>>ASSUMED to be of "supernatural" (could someone PLEASE, for the last time,
>>>>define the difference between natural and supernatural without playing
>>>>anthropocentric word games?) origin solely because WE don't understand its
>>>>nature. [ROSEN]
> Sure. Here's one possible definition: something is "supernatural"
>when it does not obey any physical law. Not just outside *known* physical
>law, mind you, but a truly lawless event.
Considering the discussion over on net.philosophy a while back (in
which Rich took part) this is not a very responsive answer, since the
distinction between physical and non-physical is assumed. Moreover, you
seem to be supposing that physical events in general are lawful. But what
is 'lawful'? The usual interpretations of QM are probabilistic, which means
that the particular events that happen are in some sense truly lawless
events, even though the probability of this or that event happening is
lawful. Moreover, statistically speaking an event which we would perceive
and label as miraculous might in fact be possible but very unlikely
when considered via *known* physical laws, like your teakettle which
freezes from reverse entropy.
If you assume there is a God who created the "natural world" (the world
with computer terminals, etc. in it) then it makes some kind of sense to
draw a distinction of category between God as being "supernatural" --
literally meaning "above nature" -- and this natural world. If we also
assume the world was created with certain laws which God sometimes violates
then calling these violation events supernatural or miraculous also seems
reasonable. I suspect it was this kind of thinking which lead to the
introduction of the concept of supernatural. What Otto called the "numinous"
(in 'The Idea of the Holy') probably also plays a part.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
This posting was made possible by a grant from the Mobil Corporation
Ken Arromdee
>miraculous. The very fact that there seems to be a universe and we seem
>to be sentient beings in it is about as supernatural as you're going
>to get. We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that just because we
>see something happen again and again it's less miraculous than a
>one shot deal. A sunset is a miraculous, beautiful part of the world.
This argument has always astonished me. If you decide that such things are
"miracles", then why aren't plagues, earthquakes, etc... also considered to be
miracles?
--
Super-villain rule 647: NEVER tell a superhero you aren't a living being.
Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_...@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa