Warp wrote:
> 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).

I'm not disagreeing.

>   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.

That's what the paragraph you quoted was trying to express. That's why I 
said "it's a semantic argument."  It becomes a question of whether we say 
"natural is how the simulation runs" or whether we say "natural is the laws 
of that guy's super-universe, and our simulation obeys those laws just like 
the Sims obeys the laws of physics running your PC."

>   (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.)


Agreed.  That's also possible, but much less interesting to speculate about. :-)



-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message