Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the 
> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point, 
> it's a semantic argument.

  As I said, if this hypothetical being is bound to the physical laws of
the hypothesized superuniverse rather than the ones of our universe, this
being would be, by definition, "supernatural" (because "natural" would be
anything bound to the laws of *this* universe).

  Of course one could argue that if the existence and nature of the
superuniverse becomes well-known, the definition of "natural" would then
be expanded to cover that as well.

  (It's also possible that if such a superuniverse exists, it's so different
from our "sub-universe" that humans have no way of comprehending it nor
expressing the laws that govern it. Maybe by its nature its very existence
is completely equivalent to a paradox or impossibility to us. Maybe the
laws of our universe are not a "subset" at all, but a set of completely
different and random physical laws which formed inside this "bubble" that
is our universe, and which are completely separate and independent from
the superuniverse where this "bubble" appeared.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message