Whether the concept of the supernatural is useful depends on how it's defined, and I think it's one of those words that people conceptualize in different ways. I think both "natural" and "supernatural" are inelegant family resemblance concepts that can't be distilled down to a set of necessary and sufficient sufficient conditions. Maybe "natural" could, if we had a final theory of physics, but for the time being it has to do our current understanding of fundamental physics, the expectation that entropy will continue to obtain in future theories, and that things like agent causation and retro-causality won't.
I think the concept of the supernatural is useful, but only because humans seem to start out with tendencies for irrational patterns of thought, like promiscuous teleology. It's helpful to label ways of modeling the world that don't correspond to anything real.
I think the concept of the supernatural is useful, but only because humans seem to start out with tendencies for irrational patterns of thought, like promiscuous teleology. It's helpful to label ways of modeling the world that don't correspond to anything real.
A Gemma is forever.
