Re: Has science discovered the supernatural?

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2005-09-21, Wall of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe
>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml
>>
>>These links are for those who say there is no evidence of a supernatural
>>world. It turns out that the much pursued "theory of everything" only
>>works if there are multiple dimensions beyond what is observable (the
>>current estimates are 11 or 12 dimensions), and parallel universes (also
>>unobservable - although the effects of their existence explain many
>>unanswered questions).
>
>
> And yet, we have no actual evidence that such things exist.
>
>
>>I'd just like to point out that these universes are *by definition*
>>supernatural - since the natural laws that govern this universe may or
>>may not apply to them.
>
>
> Flesh out this argument for me: assume the laws of this universe *do*
> apply. In what sense is it then reasonable to say that these other
> universes are supernatural?
>

Well, first off, the theory is that the laws of nature don't apply or
are different in these parallel universes. Therefore, since the term
"supernatural" is applied to something that is not bound by the known
laws of nature *of this universe*, the term applies in a general sense.
Granted, these universes may have their own laws, and those laws are
"natural" within those universes, but to us, in our universe, they meet
the accepted definition of supernatural.

Did you read the articles?

.

Relevant Pages