Page 1 of 1
Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:54 am
by -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"?
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:37 am
by 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.
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:26 pm
by Impenitent
"laws" of nature is a misnomer
no one enforces them nor are there penalties for disobeying them
-Imp
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:39 am
by -1-
Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:37 am
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?
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:46 am
by -1-
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:26 pm
"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.
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:56 am
by Impenitent
-1- wrote: ↑Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:46 am
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:26 pm
"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
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:17 am
by -1-
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:56 am
-1- wrote: ↑Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:46 amYou 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.
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:37 pm
by Impenitent
early Wittgenstein - all is language
later Wittgenstein - no it isn't
-Imp
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:51 pm
by -1-
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:37 pm
early Wittgenstein - all is language
later Wittgenstein - no it isn't
-Imp
Okay, thanks, noted.
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:40 pm
by commonsense
Infranatural is an infraphilosophical concept.
Re: Infranatural or hypernatural or hyponatural
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:43 pm
by -1-
commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:40 pm
Infranatural is an intraphilosophical concept.
That's what commonsense tells us, anyway.