Nomological possibility is possibility under the actual laws of nature.

Most philosophers since

David Hume have held that the laws of nature are metaphysically contingent—that there
could have been different natural laws than the ones that actually obtain. If so, then it would
not be logically or metaphysically impossible, for example, for you to travel to Alpha
Centauri in one day; it would just have to be the case that you could travel faster than the
speed of light. But of course there is an important sense in which this is not nomologically
possible; given that the laws of nature are what they are. In the philosophy of natural science,
impossibility assertions come to be widely accepted as overwhelmingly probable rather than
considered proved to the point of being unchallengeable. The basis for this strong acceptance
is a combination of extensive evidence of something not occurring, combined with an
underlying scientific theory, very successful in making predictions, whose assumptions lead
logically to the conclusion that something is impossible. While an impossibility assertion in
natural science can never be absolutely proved, it could be refuted by the observation of a
single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying
the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined. Some philosophers, such as Sydney
Shoemaker, have argued that the laws of nature are in fact necessary, not contingent; if so,
then nomological possibility is equivalent to metaphysical possibility.[9][10][11]

The term supernatural is often used interchangeably with paranormal or preternatural—the

latter typically limited to an adjective for describing abilities which appear to exceed what is
possible within the boundaries of the laws of physics.[12] Epistemologically, the relationship
between the supernatural and the natural is indistinct in terms of natural phenomena that, ex
hypothesi, violate the laws of nature, in so far as such laws are realistically accountable.