Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural

[-1-]

What does "infranatural" mean? Supernatural is supposed to be above nature, a force that does not obey the laws of nature and can make things happen that would not happen due to sheerly natural forces.

But what is "hyponatural"? A force that is so weak, that it has no resistance to natural laws, so it does not obey natural laws, as obedience would depend on an "action-opposite and equal reaciton" and it is incapable of doing that, due to its weakness.

So... what can be a good example of "infranatural"?

[Walker]

Such a definition of supernatural is based on the assumption that you know all the laws of nature.

Mankind does not know all the laws of nature.

So, the definition doesn’t declare much, other than a limitation in the knowledge of conditions that caused particular physical phenomena.

[Impenitent]

"laws" of nature is a misnomer

no one enforces them nor are there penalties for disobeying them

-Imp

[-1-]

Such a definition of supernatural is based on the assumption that you know all the laws of nature.

Mankind does not know all the laws of nature.

So, the definition doesn’t declare much, other than a limitation in the knowledge of conditions that caused particular physical phenomena.

I don't think my definition has failed due to neglecting to include human ignorance. It stands. Its application, yes, you're right, is not fathomed by human knowledge. For instance, if I start to hover all of a sudden, that may be an effect of the supernatural, or else, it's a natural phenomenon, explicable well by natural laws, such as I have started to hoover, not hover, in my apartment. Semi-joking, but the gist stands: supernatural is hard to pin down when observed (see magic tricks), but conceptually it can be defined, and that's what I did.

However, that was just an introduction to introduce the idea of infranatural. How does infranatural present itself, definitionally (theoretically, as defined) and how do you define it in the first place?

[-1-]

"laws" of nature is a misnomer

no one enforces them nor are there penalties for disobeying them

-Imp

Laws of nature is not a legal concept. Legal laws can be contravened, and thus need enforcement, which includes punishment for disobedience. They are man-made, to improve social interaction, or else to serve the interest of a group.

Laws of nature are not human made, but human-discovered. Laws of nature can't be disobeyed, therefore no punishment-system is necessary to enforce compliance.

Laws of nature is not a misnomer, it is simply a different use of the word "Law". There are more examples of this in the English language than words in the English language.

For instance, "table". It is not a misnomer to call to table a discussion. Or to call the arranged elements in an certain order the periodic table of elements. Or it is not a misnomer to call the list of contents a table of contents. Or a layer of water underground the water table. Or to call able Mable stable.

You can do this to virtually every word in the English language.

[Impenitent]

"laws" of nature is a misnomer

no one enforces them nor are there penalties for disobeying them

-Imp

Laws of nature is not a legal concept. Legal laws can be contravened, and thus need enforcement, which includes punishment for disobedience. They are man-made, to improve social interaction, or else to serve the interest of a group.

Laws of nature are not human made, but human-discovered. Laws of nature can't be disobeyed, therefore no punishment-system is necessary to enforce compliance.

Laws of nature is not a misnomer, it is simply a different use of the word "Law". There are more examples of this in the English language than words in the English language.

For instance, "table". It is not a misnomer to call to table a discussion. Or to call the arranged elements in an certain order the periodic table of elements. Or it is not a misnomer to call the list of contents a table of contents. Or a layer of water underground the water table. Or to call able Mable stable.

You can do this to virtually every word in the English language.

thus ludwig disavowed the tractatus...

-Imp

[-1-]

You can do this to virtually every word in the English language.

thus ludwig disavowed the tractatus...

-Imp

Your comment, Imp, almost makes me want to read Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. But I won't, because I can't.

What I know of Wittgenstein's work in this sense, is that he debunked (not by proof, but by theorem) the possibility of getting at truths by precisely defining concepts in the language; and thus he also debunked the supposed plan of the modernists. (A.K.A. creators of the Great Encyclopaedia a.k.a. the objective relativists, a.k.a. the rational obsessivists, k.a.k.a. the national socialists.)

I don't know if this was included in the Tractatus, but if it was, then Ludwig is NOT disavowing his only book-length work. It was Ludwig himself who first proposed that lingual terms are fluid and amorphous in terms of meaning. To a point, of course.

[Impenitent]

early Wittgenstein - all is language
later Wittgenstein - no it isn't

-Imp

[-1-]

early Wittgenstein - all is language
later Wittgenstein - no it isn't

-Imp

Okay, thanks, noted.

[commonsense]

Infranatural is an infraphilosophical concept.

[-1-]

Infranatural is an intraphilosophical concept.

That's what commonsense tells us, anyway.