A common objection to the idea of any sort of transcendent domain is that, if that domain can affect the physical domain, then it is simply an extension of the physical domain and therefore not transcendent. As such, truly transcendent domains do not exist.

When discussing supernatural claims in particular, this argument is often used to assert that there is no such thing as the supernatural because if it can affect the natural, then it is simply a part of nature. Similarly, this argument is used to disprove mind-brain dualism since, if the mind can affect the world (specifically, the brain), then the mind cannot be immaterial because it is interacting with the material.

This objection makes sense at some level, but also seems to miss the mark when it comes to explaining the phenomena that people refer to when invoking transcendent domains like the supernatural or the mind. Even if the assertion is logically valid, it has no explanatory power and adds no detail to support exploration, model creation, testing, or any other sort of careful thinking.

Even when domains are fundamentally similar in some way, understanding is usually improved by articulating persistent differences and the nature of any boundaries and interactions.

For example, the complete system of American commerce may include all entities that trade with any American citizens, but we still generally want to differentiate between international and national economies. Simply ignoring any boundaries and asserting that it should be thought of as a single domain obscures many important details.

It seems that those who oppose both dualism and the supernatural (and by implication other transcendent domains) are reluctant to engage with the ideas that lead to those proposals, using the argument to stop discussion entirely rather than explore other possible models.

Similarly, some Christians don’t like this sort of comparison, perhaps because it seems to demean aspects of the faith that they take seriously. They want to believe there is something special or “holy” about this other domain such that any sort of close association with the natural diminishes it.

In like manner, dualists may not like this sort of thinking because it trivializes what seems to be a uniquely human personal experience.

In these cases, dogmatism seems to be the rule rather than exploration.

Of course, there are probably exceptions to these sweeping generalities, people who engage thoughtfully with these things, but they seem to be uncommon outside perhaps some dedicated philosophers. It seems rare to find a balanced perspective on these topics that acknowledges the uncertainties in our knowledge of the nature of reality and seeks to explore the various options that could exist.

Despite not yet knowing of any existing cogent perspectives, I’m drawn to forming my own picture that is at least consistent with the expert perspectives of which I’m aware so far. This picture may be overly simplistic, but seems to address the problems that seem interesting to me. It begins by considering an aspect of existence that, although it does interact with the material, is also separate and different enough in important ways that it’s reasonable to consider it a different domain, in like manner but complimentary to the domain of mathematics.

In more detail, it’s helpful to first recognize what we think of as the physical, or natural, domain. One way we might categorize it is as that domain over which science seems to work. In other words, we can influence it and observe it directly (even if through instruments), form models that represent our understanding of the way things work in it, and test those models.

Of course, science has not yet explained everything in what we think of as the natural world. However, most of our experiences with the natural world are similar enough to what is well understood by science that it is reasonable to expect science to continue working with regard to those experiences, especially when extensions to current understanding are easily imagined. In other words, we may not know all the answers, but the forms of the answers are clear.

However, these well-explained things are not what cause us to think about dualism or the supernatural. Some human experiences, such as our experience of the mind, do not fit current scientific models and even the form of such models are not known. (Of course, there are both scientific and philosophical researchers who claim to have identified such, but there is no consensus at all among subject matter experts about this.)

So perhaps one way to think of a domain that does interact with the physical and yet would be better thought of as transcendent, is to ask what else besides interaction is necessary for scientific engagement. Obviously, things like consistency and reproducibility are necessary for the construction of coherent and testable models. Of course, it’s possible for this consistency to be statistical in nature such that interactions may seem random, but the random process can be characterized by a knowable distribution (eg, quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics).

So what would happen if a domain was able to interact with the physical domain, but those interactions were not explicable and obeyed no consistent behavior even in a statistical sense? This might include the possibility that the physical domain could influence this transcendent domain, but we are unable to detect correlations between the two directions. We might observe patterns in the effects on the physical domain, but they are not predictable, triggerable, or in any other way amenable to scientific inquiry.

Furthermore, suppose the effects the transcendent domain has on the physical domain uses mechanisms that seem to exist nowhere else in the physical domain. It seems like this would also make it impossible to investigate the nature of these interactions scientifically.

Given these thoughts, it might be logical in some sense to say that this other domain is still a part of the physical domain, perhaps just loosely coupled, but it seems that such a statement has little utility.

One way to think of this transcendent domain is as a compliment to the domain of mathematics. In the case of math, we have a domain that cannot affect the physical domain – there is no causal link. However, there does seem to be a link through things like information and meaning. This epistemic link is not well understood; the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” is a well-known mystery, even though math is widely agreed to be effective.

Perhaps the hypothetical transcendent domain described earlier could be thought of as one that couples to the physical domain in a causal manner, but not epistemically. At least from the physical side, there is no way to “interact” with the transcendent domain through things like information and meaning.

So while mathematics couples to the physical domain epistemically, it does not interact causally. The hypothetical transcendent domain interacts causally with the physical domain, but does not couple epistemically.

If we think about minds, and agents in general, an interesting observation is that this transcendent domain could be the place of agents being hosted. It could also be related to the domain in which physical reality was created. It would truly be transcendent in the sense that the physical domain somehow originated there.

This is really just speculation on my part, but then these topics are deep in the realm of things not understood, so it seems reasonable for even a lay person to ponder them. To me, it often seems possible explanations are often ignored by people who nevertheless state their opinions with certainty, asserting one’s ideology as a brute fact.

While I like this approach, it needs more testing, especially around mind dualism, given the growing interest in these activities. Hopefully I’ll have a chance to explore this more in future posts.

(updated 7/12/2024)