What makes nature comply to laws?
Immanuel Kant presents us with a surprising and seemingly absurd alternative: we ourselves are the source of physical laws. Seemingly absurd, because we cannot influence the laws of nature. — Pez
I don't interpret Kant as implying that human observers create the laws of nature. What we do is to mathematically define the apparent necessities*1 of Nature. We observe "regularities" of cause & effect, then describe the process as-if it was imposed on nature by the Initial Influencer : The Prime Mover or The Impetus*2. So, humans are indeed the "source" of the formal & mathematical definitions, that we then use to predict statistically certain future outcomes of accurately formalized current conditions.
The knowledge of Necessity is not a physical empirical fact, but a metaphysical rational inference, just as all philosophical universals, a priori principles, are extrapolations from a few observations to a generalization. Yet, pace Hume*3, as far as we know, these "rules" are a priori & absolute, not contingent. So, it's not "absurd" to think of them as-if Divine Laws, even though we have no divine revelation to confirm our best guesses. Those "laws" are like Mathematics in general, taken to be true until an exception is observed.
Therefore, "what makes nature comply" with laws of our own defining? The implicit Impetus or First Cause of the ongoing sequence of Cause & Effect is the enforcer of Necessity. If the "laws" were not essential to the workings of the world, then the Source, or LOGOS, or Lawmaker would be superfluous. Is there any better answer to the implicit OP question : why is the world not totally Chaotic?
PS___ Galileo said, "The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics."
Physicist Eugene Wigner wrote : "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Logical patterns in nature would be unreasonable only if its processes were totally random, instead of mostly predictable. Is that why Plato postulated an ab original LOGOS?
Wigner : https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf
*1. Kant on the Laws of Nature :
Appearances may well offer cases from which a rule is possible in accordance with which something usually happens, but never a rule in accordance with which the succession is necessary… The strict universality of the rule is therefore not any property of empirical rules…
Wigner : https://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/jkreines/laws.htm
Note --- Hence, the universality & necessity of natural laws could only be mandated by a sovereign Ruler. Ouch!
*2. The Impetus :
In the latter work Philoponus became one of the earliest thinkers to reject Aristotle's dynamics and propose the "theory of impetus": i.e., an object moves and continues to move because of an energy imparted in it by the mover and ceases the movement when that energy is exhausted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philoponus
Note --- "impetus is something that impels, a stimulating factor while momentum is (physics of a body in motion) the product of its mass and velocity.” https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... d-momentum
*3. Hume Causality :
(1) The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time. (2) The cause must be prior to the effect. (3) There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect. [...] (4) The same cause always produces the same effect, and the same effect never arises but from the same cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humean_de ... _causality
Note --- If this logic holds, we can rationally back-track causation to the original Prior : the First Cause, the Prime Necessity.
As-If : We use "as if" and "as though" to talk about an imaginary situation or a situation that may not be true but that is likely or possible.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/gra ... -as-though
TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
Does this mean that transcendental idealism is in the end unavoidable and there is no realistic alternative to this world-view? And is the possibility and success of science proof, that Kant was rightfully claiming that we can never attain to a knowledge of things surrounding us per se i.e. independent of us? — Pez
I'm not a Kant scholar. But my understanding of his Transcendental Idealism*1 is that it's merely an admonition to idea-mongering philosophers, not to confuse our artificial worldviews with absolute Reality. This is not exactly claiming, like Berkeley, that our perception of the world sees only "appearances" that represent the Ideal world as-if objects (ding an sich) ultimately exist in the mind of God. But merely to note that humans see only superficial Properties, that are meaningful to our space-time physical needs, instead of essential eternal Qualities.
Quantum Physics (QP) is another reminder that our 5 senses are attuned only to appearances, and our mental images represent only a fraction of reality. Heisenberg even echoed Kant to say that the "appearances" we call Reality, don't exist until observed. So, the quantum pioneers developed a new (non-mechanical) statistical worldview, to artificially sharpen the fuzziness of sub-atomic reality into a practical alternative to unrealistic Platonic Idealism.
In other words, QP is an attempt to make such abstract digital mathematical information useful to us coarse concrete analog organisms. As you suggested, the "success" of Quantum Physics, so alien to Classical Physics, allows us to adapt our way of dealing with the "transcendental" aspects of the world to a novel counter-intuitive "knowledge of things" that are not really things, such as non-local waves that can also behave like particles .
Whatever the Real World is, it is much more than our limited senses can cope with. So, we condense the incomprehensible behaviors of the Cosmos into mathematical symbols, and call them "natural laws". But Nature doesn't "comply" with our definitions ; instead, our formal laws are attempts to conform with Nature's regularities, symmetries, harmonies & proportions.
Transcendental Idealism :
In Kant’s view, human cognition is limited to objects that somehow depend on our minds (namely, appearances), whereas the mind-independent world (things in themselves) lies beyond the limits of our experience and cognition.
https://iep.utm.edu/kant-transcendental-idealism/
QUANTUM REALITY makes no sense to our senses
79494-ggdmpugplg-1516284022.jpg
I'm not a Kant scholar. But my understanding of his Transcendental Idealism*1 is that it's merely an admonition to idea-mongering philosophers, not to confuse our artificial worldviews with absolute Reality. This is not exactly claiming, like Berkeley, that our perception of the world sees only "appearances" that represent the Ideal world as-if objects (ding an sich) ultimately exist in the mind of God. But merely to note that humans see only superficial Properties, that are meaningful to our space-time physical needs, instead of essential eternal Qualities.
Quantum Physics (QP) is another reminder that our 5 senses are attuned only to appearances, and our mental images represent only a fraction of reality. Heisenberg even echoed Kant to say that the "appearances" we call Reality, don't exist until observed. So, the quantum pioneers developed a new (non-mechanical) statistical worldview, to artificially sharpen the fuzziness of sub-atomic reality into a practical alternative to unrealistic Platonic Idealism.
In other words, QP is an attempt to make such abstract digital mathematical information useful to us coarse concrete analog organisms. As you suggested, the "success" of Quantum Physics, so alien to Classical Physics, allows us to adapt our way of dealing with the "transcendental" aspects of the world to a novel counter-intuitive "knowledge of things" that are not really things, such as non-local waves that can also behave like particles .
Whatever the Real World is, it is much more than our limited senses can cope with. So, we condense the incomprehensible behaviors of the Cosmos into mathematical symbols, and call them "natural laws". But Nature doesn't "comply" with our definitions ; instead, our formal laws are attempts to conform with Nature's regularities, symmetries, harmonies & proportions.
Transcendental Idealism :
In Kant’s view, human cognition is limited to objects that somehow depend on our minds (namely, appearances), whereas the mind-independent world (things in themselves) lies beyond the limits of our experience and cognition.
https://iep.utm.edu/kant-transcendental-idealism/
QUANTUM REALITY makes no sense to our senses
79494-ggdmpugplg-1516284022.jpg
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
The term "transcendental idealism" should be thought of as a name rather than a description, as the Champs-Élysées is a name and not a description.
In fact, he proposed renaming his transcendental idealism with the more informative name of "formal" or "critical idealism," (Introduction to Critique of Pure Reason) — RussellA
I'm not a Kant scholar, and have never read any of his works. But, "Transcendence" is inherently a debatable term, since it is based on subjective imagination instead of objective observation. Some critics seem to assume that Kant's "transcendental" referred to a religious heavenly realm of perfection isolated from the imperfect physical world. But others, such as the 19th century Transcendentalists, apparently believed in a parallel "spiritual" realm within this world, perceivable via intuition. For example, as depicted in movies : innocent children, guided by feelings instead of reason, can "see" dead people, or demons, or disguised alien monsters.
Yet I'm getting the impression that Kant may have been merely making a pragmatic philosophical distinction between concrete physical Reality (actuality) and abstract mental Ideality (possibility), as a way to discuss metal phenomena (i.e. noumena), without the baggage of habitual physical preconceptions. But his choice of "Transcendence" as a label may sound absurd to those of a Materialist worldview, in which nothing could possibly transcend the apparent reality of the 5 senses --- as confirmed by empirical science. Unfortunately, his support for Christian doctrine would make his objectivity suspect.
How do you interpret his usage of "transcendence"? Specifically, in his view, what limits are being surpassed? Was he denigrating mythical Pure Reason in favor of mundane non-magical Practical Intuition?
Practical Intuition :
Practical Intuition provides the tools you need to develop your intuitive potential to its fullest.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1242635
Non-Magical Intuition :
Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basic
In fact, he proposed renaming his transcendental idealism with the more informative name of "formal" or "critical idealism," (Introduction to Critique of Pure Reason) — RussellA
I'm not a Kant scholar, and have never read any of his works. But, "Transcendence" is inherently a debatable term, since it is based on subjective imagination instead of objective observation. Some critics seem to assume that Kant's "transcendental" referred to a religious heavenly realm of perfection isolated from the imperfect physical world. But others, such as the 19th century Transcendentalists, apparently believed in a parallel "spiritual" realm within this world, perceivable via intuition. For example, as depicted in movies : innocent children, guided by feelings instead of reason, can "see" dead people, or demons, or disguised alien monsters.
Yet I'm getting the impression that Kant may have been merely making a pragmatic philosophical distinction between concrete physical Reality (actuality) and abstract mental Ideality (possibility), as a way to discuss metal phenomena (i.e. noumena), without the baggage of habitual physical preconceptions. But his choice of "Transcendence" as a label may sound absurd to those of a Materialist worldview, in which nothing could possibly transcend the apparent reality of the 5 senses --- as confirmed by empirical science. Unfortunately, his support for Christian doctrine would make his objectivity suspect.
How do you interpret his usage of "transcendence"? Specifically, in his view, what limits are being surpassed? Was he denigrating mythical Pure Reason in favor of mundane non-magical Practical Intuition?
Practical Intuition :
Practical Intuition provides the tools you need to develop your intuitive potential to its fullest.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1242635
Non-Magical Intuition :
Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basic
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
Note that it is ""Transcendental Idealism" not "Transcendent Idealism". The CPR is not about "Transcendent Idealism", as this would lie beyond what the human can cognitively grasp and would move into the realm of the unknowable. Not only beyond human experience but also beyond human reason, because beyond the scope of empirical investigation. Included would be such concepts as God and the soul. — RussellA
That's what I suspected. But some critics seem to think Kant was talking about a supernatural Heavenly Realm, instead of a Hypothetical or Metaphorical state of perfection. Philosophical conjectures are often "beyond the scope of empirical investigation", but seldom beyond the range of rational analysis. Sadly, Philosophical Metaphors are all-too-often taken literally by those opposed to any preternatural implications.
On this forum, "transcendence" seems to be a taboo trigger-word for fully-invested Immanentists --- one in particular --- to get on their high-horse. Ironically, in a practical sense, I could be pigeon-holed into an Immanentism (reality vs ideality) slot. But when theorizing, I feel free to go beyond the current state of empirical knowledge, and to speculate into the unknown. Yet some would dismiss that philosophical freedom as a religious commitment to a supernatural faith.
Immanence and Transcendence :
Both what we can know by reason (immanence) and what we can know only by revelation (transcendence) are reflections of the very being of God. By contrast, immanence would signify that human reason is the highest norm for our knowledge of ethical and religious practices.
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/ ... m=fulltext
The CPR is not about religion or the spiritual realism, but is about what we can practically know about the world using reason and observation. — RussellA
Thanks for the quote. As I indicated above, I assumed that Kant was writing as a reality-exploring philosopher --- searching for the boundaries of Epistemology --- not as a Christian apologist. However, some on TPF reject anything he says as-if it was religious propaganda. Yet he seems to rely on mundane reasoning, not on divine revelation, for his conclusion that there are some "things" (ding an sich) that are not accessible to "empirical investigation". And it's exactly those known-unknowns that intrigue me.
Kant uses such a Transcendental Argument in his Refutation of Idealism in B275 against the Idealism of Berkeley in order not to prove that things exist independently of the mind, but only the possibility that things exist independently of the mind. — RussellA
Obviously, it would be impossible to prove anything beyond empirical evidence or the reach of reason. But what difference does it make to assert the "possibility" of such ding an sich? I'm guessing that he was responding to some aspect of Berkeley's Idealism. Ironically, Kant's own philosophy has the label "Idealism" pinned on it. So, he's not rejecting the general concept of Meta-Physical Reality, but some particular detail of Berkeley's formulation. Yes?
"Transcendental Idealism" uses the Transcendental Argument to make sense of the world given our sensory experiences. — RussellA
Thanks again. That makes sense to me. Although it obviously doesn't compute for some Kant bashers. Taken literally, the title "Transcendental Idealism" seems to be directly opposite to "Immanent Realism". Was that effrontery intentional?
PS___ The OP seems to be questioning the possibility of a First Cause or Lawmaker to force Nature into compliance with somewhat arbitrary top-down "laws", as opposed to innate regularities emerging bottom-up, due to the constraints of random interactions. Top-down Laws would be Transcendent, while bottom-up Regularities would be Immanent. Hence, the thread's side-track into questioning Kant's notion of things & forces "beyond our sensory experience" or our "cognitive grasp".
That's what I suspected. But some critics seem to think Kant was talking about a supernatural Heavenly Realm, instead of a Hypothetical or Metaphorical state of perfection. Philosophical conjectures are often "beyond the scope of empirical investigation", but seldom beyond the range of rational analysis. Sadly, Philosophical Metaphors are all-too-often taken literally by those opposed to any preternatural implications.
On this forum, "transcendence" seems to be a taboo trigger-word for fully-invested Immanentists --- one in particular --- to get on their high-horse. Ironically, in a practical sense, I could be pigeon-holed into an Immanentism (reality vs ideality) slot. But when theorizing, I feel free to go beyond the current state of empirical knowledge, and to speculate into the unknown. Yet some would dismiss that philosophical freedom as a religious commitment to a supernatural faith.
Immanence and Transcendence :
Both what we can know by reason (immanence) and what we can know only by revelation (transcendence) are reflections of the very being of God. By contrast, immanence would signify that human reason is the highest norm for our knowledge of ethical and religious practices.
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/ ... m=fulltext
The CPR is not about religion or the spiritual realism, but is about what we can practically know about the world using reason and observation. — RussellA
Thanks for the quote. As I indicated above, I assumed that Kant was writing as a reality-exploring philosopher --- searching for the boundaries of Epistemology --- not as a Christian apologist. However, some on TPF reject anything he says as-if it was religious propaganda. Yet he seems to rely on mundane reasoning, not on divine revelation, for his conclusion that there are some "things" (ding an sich) that are not accessible to "empirical investigation". And it's exactly those known-unknowns that intrigue me.
Kant uses such a Transcendental Argument in his Refutation of Idealism in B275 against the Idealism of Berkeley in order not to prove that things exist independently of the mind, but only the possibility that things exist independently of the mind. — RussellA
Obviously, it would be impossible to prove anything beyond empirical evidence or the reach of reason. But what difference does it make to assert the "possibility" of such ding an sich? I'm guessing that he was responding to some aspect of Berkeley's Idealism. Ironically, Kant's own philosophy has the label "Idealism" pinned on it. So, he's not rejecting the general concept of Meta-Physical Reality, but some particular detail of Berkeley's formulation. Yes?
"Transcendental Idealism" uses the Transcendental Argument to make sense of the world given our sensory experiences. — RussellA
Thanks again. That makes sense to me. Although it obviously doesn't compute for some Kant bashers. Taken literally, the title "Transcendental Idealism" seems to be directly opposite to "Immanent Realism". Was that effrontery intentional?
PS___ The OP seems to be questioning the possibility of a First Cause or Lawmaker to force Nature into compliance with somewhat arbitrary top-down "laws", as opposed to innate regularities emerging bottom-up, due to the constraints of random interactions. Top-down Laws would be Transcendent, while bottom-up Regularities would be Immanent. Hence, the thread's side-track into questioning Kant's notion of things & forces "beyond our sensory experience" or our "cognitive grasp".
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
I think it's called "regression to the mean". If you toss a coin twice you might get heads twice, tails twice or one of each ht or one of each th. If you toss a coin a million times, you are almost certain to get within a hundred or so equal numbers of heads and tails, because 'chances are'. — unenlightened
I just Googled Bertrand Russell's statistical argument*1 to explain Nature's regularities, without recourse to a supernatural lawmaker. At first it seems to make empirical sense. But with afterthought, Nature still shows evidence of top-down statistical "laws"*2, begging the question of a Lawmaker or Regulator of Nature's "program", to direct its meandering median path, perhaps toward some future state.
For example, why would a random, non-designed, process (e.g. Evolution or coin flipping) have a tendency to average out extreme states? Is there a mathematical "gravitational" force pulling events toward some middle course? To suggest that Nature tends toward moderation also raises Why questions. Physical Science has postulated dozens of hypothetical "Forces" to explain consistent physical behavior ; four of them deemed "fundamental" to physics. Even Aristotle described four Causes in nature.
Yet again, why would such mysterious invisible causal pulls & pushes, with power over tangible matter, emerge within a non-directional randomized system?*3 Even "Chance" and "Chaos" are found to be lawful*4, and subject to arbitrary tugs toward the statistical median. So, Russell's argument merely redirects the question, pointing to the empirical predictable regularities of mathematics, instead of the hypothetical Great Mathematician*5, who defines what is Normal.
*1. The Natural Law Argument :
The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. . . .
if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God Himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You have really a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because He is not the ultimate law-giver.
https://www.mit.edu/activities/mitmsa/N ... node3.html
Note --- this just kicks the Lawmaker question farther back down the road toward an "ultimate" Reason-maker. Perhaps, Plato's LOGOS?
*2. Empirical statistical laws :
An empirical statistical law or (in popular terminology) a law of statistics represents a type of behaviour that has been found across a number of datasets and, indeed, across a range of types of data sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical ... tical_laws
*3. Is God a Mathematician? :
Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner once wondered about “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in the formulation of the laws of nature. Is God a Mathematician? investigates why mathematics is as powerful as it is. ___Mario Livio, astrophysicist
https://www.amazon.com/God-Mathematicia ... 0743294068
*4. Laws of Chaos :
Chaos theory has been developed from the recognition that apparently simple physical systems which obey deterministic laws may nevertheless behave unpredictably.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ea ... aos-theory
*5. Who says God is a mathematician? :
Michio Kaku explains why he believes in an intelligent creator and describes God as a “mathematician” and his mind as “cosmic music.” “The final resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. ___ Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist
https://bigthink.com/the-well/mathematics/
I just Googled Bertrand Russell's statistical argument*1 to explain Nature's regularities, without recourse to a supernatural lawmaker. At first it seems to make empirical sense. But with afterthought, Nature still shows evidence of top-down statistical "laws"*2, begging the question of a Lawmaker or Regulator of Nature's "program", to direct its meandering median path, perhaps toward some future state.
For example, why would a random, non-designed, process (e.g. Evolution or coin flipping) have a tendency to average out extreme states? Is there a mathematical "gravitational" force pulling events toward some middle course? To suggest that Nature tends toward moderation also raises Why questions. Physical Science has postulated dozens of hypothetical "Forces" to explain consistent physical behavior ; four of them deemed "fundamental" to physics. Even Aristotle described four Causes in nature.
Yet again, why would such mysterious invisible causal pulls & pushes, with power over tangible matter, emerge within a non-directional randomized system?*3 Even "Chance" and "Chaos" are found to be lawful*4, and subject to arbitrary tugs toward the statistical median. So, Russell's argument merely redirects the question, pointing to the empirical predictable regularities of mathematics, instead of the hypothetical Great Mathematician*5, who defines what is Normal.
*1. The Natural Law Argument :
The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. . . .
if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God Himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You have really a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because He is not the ultimate law-giver.
https://www.mit.edu/activities/mitmsa/N ... node3.html
Note --- this just kicks the Lawmaker question farther back down the road toward an "ultimate" Reason-maker. Perhaps, Plato's LOGOS?
*2. Empirical statistical laws :
An empirical statistical law or (in popular terminology) a law of statistics represents a type of behaviour that has been found across a number of datasets and, indeed, across a range of types of data sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical ... tical_laws
*3. Is God a Mathematician? :
Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner once wondered about “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in the formulation of the laws of nature. Is God a Mathematician? investigates why mathematics is as powerful as it is. ___Mario Livio, astrophysicist
https://www.amazon.com/God-Mathematicia ... 0743294068
*4. Laws of Chaos :
Chaos theory has been developed from the recognition that apparently simple physical systems which obey deterministic laws may nevertheless behave unpredictably.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ea ... aos-theory
*5. Who says God is a mathematician? :
Michio Kaku explains why he believes in an intelligent creator and describes God as a “mathematician” and his mind as “cosmic music.” “The final resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. ___ Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist
https://bigthink.com/the-well/mathematics/
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
If one begins with maximal simplicity, there is nowhere to go but towards complexity. However, once complexity has evolved, it can devolve into more simple forms, and there are many examples, — unenlightened
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. My post referred to "Russell's statistical argument to explain Nature's regularities". Then I asked a philosophical (non-scientific) question : not how, but "why would a random, non-designed, process (e.g. Evolution or coin flipping) have a tendency to average-out extreme states into a law-like & predictable moderate position?".
Here's a physical example : The behavior of gas-in-a-box (Maxwell's Demon) illustrates --- without explaining --- that natural-but-inexplicable trait of averaging the pressure, by moving particles from a demon-caused condensed state toward a more natural diffuse state : order to disorder, or energy to entropy. In between those extreme states the gases were free to move forward and backward. Even biological evolution allows change to move back & forth*1. Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. If so, the topical question could be rephrased as : why do physical systems tend to follow a middle-of-the-road course, toward more & more order, as they evolve? Moreover, why is the cosmos now in a moderate state of Entropy, which allows Life & Mind to emerge?
Scientists have not been able to empirically determine an “underlying reason” for that “law-like behavior”, or for the simple to complex direction of natural Evolution. But some philosophers have speculated beyond the physical boundaries of Science --- to postulate a First Cause or Logos --- hoping to explain the Impetus and Intention behind such regularities in a universe that could otherwise be totally random and directionless. Even some professional scientists, Terrence Deacon, Paul Davies, Max Planck, Norbert Wiener, etc, have used the term “teleology”, not to explain, but to describe the lawful & directional forms of natural processes. So, isn't it reasonable for even fun-loving amateur philosophers like us to push the boundaries toward a Theoretical and Metaphysical answer to those Why questions.
Regarding "maximal simplicity", I must suppose that would equate to minimum organization and max Entropy, as in the heat death (big freeze) of the universe. Which is the opposite of the Big Bang"s demonic (hot & dense) low Entropy*2 beginning. The article below, by physicist Ethan Siegel*2, implies that Evolution began in an almost perfectly ordered (superdense) state*3 like a Black Hole, from which there was "nowhere to go", but toward more internal freedom to change, and to organize into more complex systems. But, why not take the easy path, directly to complete Entropy, without the eons-long detour of incremental steps toward more & more organization? Instead, the BB theory describes the original state as a hot-dense Plasma, which is like a gas-in-a-box situation. For some unknown reason, a metaphorical Demon (Inflation???) moved all the particles into one side of the box, then opened the door to allow it evolve eventually & naturally into stars & galaxies & us. Hence today, we find "particles" of matter organized into upright bipedal creatures with big brains, who ask dumb Why? questions.
Here's one amateur philosophical (non-scientific) speculation of a possible answer to the OP question of "what makes nature comply with its own inherent laws of nature" {my added bold}. Entropy alone would never even get to the original plasma state. So, is it reasonable that some countervailing inherent "force" or "law"*4 is responsible for enforcing the "regulations" of evolutionary organization?
PS___Sorry to unload on you. I had a lot of momentum.
*1. Can Species Evolve Backwards? ;
Thus, penguins didn't "devolve," they simply adapted to their new environment, and in that particular case, that meant losing a feature that had previously been beneficial.
https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happe ... devolution
*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... o-entropy/
*3. Zero Entropy :
No entropy means no random motion in molecular level that means zero temperature that means zero heat energy that means zero possiblity for energy conversion that means "heat death of the universe" that means freeze of entire universe including all atoms and photons everything.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen ... e-universe
*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
a. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
b. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
MAXWELL'S DEMON COSMOLOGY : low entropy initial state ; high entropy final state
0*W3B7yn50vDpdITq0.jpeg
COSMOLOGY : What Demon placed the BB at the top of the energy/entropy curve?
Natural evolution has a law-like gravity ride downhill from the demonic Normal position
Big%20Bang%20Curve.jpg
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. My post referred to "Russell's statistical argument to explain Nature's regularities". Then I asked a philosophical (non-scientific) question : not how, but "why would a random, non-designed, process (e.g. Evolution or coin flipping) have a tendency to average-out extreme states into a law-like & predictable moderate position?".
Here's a physical example : The behavior of gas-in-a-box (Maxwell's Demon) illustrates --- without explaining --- that natural-but-inexplicable trait of averaging the pressure, by moving particles from a demon-caused condensed state toward a more natural diffuse state : order to disorder, or energy to entropy. In between those extreme states the gases were free to move forward and backward. Even biological evolution allows change to move back & forth*1. Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. If so, the topical question could be rephrased as : why do physical systems tend to follow a middle-of-the-road course, toward more & more order, as they evolve? Moreover, why is the cosmos now in a moderate state of Entropy, which allows Life & Mind to emerge?
Scientists have not been able to empirically determine an “underlying reason” for that “law-like behavior”, or for the simple to complex direction of natural Evolution. But some philosophers have speculated beyond the physical boundaries of Science --- to postulate a First Cause or Logos --- hoping to explain the Impetus and Intention behind such regularities in a universe that could otherwise be totally random and directionless. Even some professional scientists, Terrence Deacon, Paul Davies, Max Planck, Norbert Wiener, etc, have used the term “teleology”, not to explain, but to describe the lawful & directional forms of natural processes. So, isn't it reasonable for even fun-loving amateur philosophers like us to push the boundaries toward a Theoretical and Metaphysical answer to those Why questions.
Regarding "maximal simplicity", I must suppose that would equate to minimum organization and max Entropy, as in the heat death (big freeze) of the universe. Which is the opposite of the Big Bang"s demonic (hot & dense) low Entropy*2 beginning. The article below, by physicist Ethan Siegel*2, implies that Evolution began in an almost perfectly ordered (superdense) state*3 like a Black Hole, from which there was "nowhere to go", but toward more internal freedom to change, and to organize into more complex systems. But, why not take the easy path, directly to complete Entropy, without the eons-long detour of incremental steps toward more & more organization? Instead, the BB theory describes the original state as a hot-dense Plasma, which is like a gas-in-a-box situation. For some unknown reason, a metaphorical Demon (Inflation???) moved all the particles into one side of the box, then opened the door to allow it evolve eventually & naturally into stars & galaxies & us. Hence today, we find "particles" of matter organized into upright bipedal creatures with big brains, who ask dumb Why? questions.
Here's one amateur philosophical (non-scientific) speculation of a possible answer to the OP question of "what makes nature comply with its own inherent laws of nature" {my added bold}. Entropy alone would never even get to the original plasma state. So, is it reasonable that some countervailing inherent "force" or "law"*4 is responsible for enforcing the "regulations" of evolutionary organization?
PS___Sorry to unload on you. I had a lot of momentum.
*1. Can Species Evolve Backwards? ;
Thus, penguins didn't "devolve," they simply adapted to their new environment, and in that particular case, that meant losing a feature that had previously been beneficial.
https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happe ... devolution
*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... o-entropy/
*3. Zero Entropy :
No entropy means no random motion in molecular level that means zero temperature that means zero heat energy that means zero possiblity for energy conversion that means "heat death of the universe" that means freeze of entire universe including all atoms and photons everything.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen ... e-universe
*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
a. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
b. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
MAXWELL'S DEMON COSMOLOGY : low entropy initial state ; high entropy final state
0*W3B7yn50vDpdITq0.jpeg
COSMOLOGY : What Demon placed the BB at the top of the energy/entropy curve?
Natural evolution has a law-like gravity ride downhill from the demonic Normal position
Big%20Bang%20Curve.jpg
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
I think the scientific presumption is that demons do not exist. If they did exist, they would be just the entities to impose laws on particles like political economists such that wealth/energy would accumulate rather than dissipate. — unenlightened
Obviously, the "demon" was a metaphor that Maxwell used to illustrate a physical phenomenon --- work without a worker --- that had no better explanation. It remains a puzzle for both scientists and philosophers*1. But the metaphor is still used, not to explain but to illustrate, various anomalies in science. For example, physicist Paul Davies' The Demon in the Machine, in which he identifies the "demon" with Causal Information. Could that be the mysterious "entity to impose laws"?
*1. Maxwell's Demon is a way of demonstrating that the laws of mechanics are compatible with microstates and Hamiltonians that lead to an evolution which violates the Second Law of thermodynamics by transferring heat from a cold gas to a hot one without investing work. . . .
Maxwell’s Demon is a thought experiment devised by J. C. Maxwell in 1867 in order to show that the Second Law of thermodynamics is not universal, since it has a counter-example. Since the Second Law is taken by many to provide an arrow of time, the threat to its universality threatens the account of temporal directionality as well. Various attempts to “exorcise” the Demon, by proving that it is impossible for one reason or another, have been made throughout the years, but none of them were successful.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... ing%20work.
But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened
So, you think Entropy is a causal force, instead of merely a degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system, as defined by physicist Rudolph Clausius?*2 In a similar metaphorical sense, I called my own coinage of "Enformy" a counter-force to Entropy. That's not yet a scientific fact, but it's a useful way for philosophers to think about the "general trend" of the universe to go downhill, while in local pockets of organization, like planet Earth, the thermodynamic trend has been "violated" ; reversed toward Life and Order.
*2. Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder. . . .
the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy
This is Hegel's "geist", disguised in pseudoscientific language. — unenlightened
That's a good analogy. But I object to the "pseudoscientific" characterization. "Holism" was originally a scientific term to describe how Evolution works its natural "magic". But the term was adopted by New Agers, and rendered contaminated by its association with supernatural beliefs. Similarly, the term "Metaphysics" was originally a useful philosophical term to describe topics, such as Mind, that are not understandable from a reductive physical perspective. Today, scientists use the term "Systems Theory" as a disguise for their holistic research*3.
Systems Theory & Holism :
Systems have common defining properties, such as hierarchical ordering, coupling, permeability, holism, emergence, equifinality, and homeostasis. Representing the broader systems perspective are several specific theories and perspectives, such as Weick's theory of organizing, communication network perspectives, ecological and evolutionary perspectives, and self-organizing systems theory. Systems theory has been extensively applied in research areas ranging from communication design and adoption of technology use in organizational operations to professional communication, health campaigns, and public relations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ems_theory
Obviously, the "demon" was a metaphor that Maxwell used to illustrate a physical phenomenon --- work without a worker --- that had no better explanation. It remains a puzzle for both scientists and philosophers*1. But the metaphor is still used, not to explain but to illustrate, various anomalies in science. For example, physicist Paul Davies' The Demon in the Machine, in which he identifies the "demon" with Causal Information. Could that be the mysterious "entity to impose laws"?
*1. Maxwell's Demon is a way of demonstrating that the laws of mechanics are compatible with microstates and Hamiltonians that lead to an evolution which violates the Second Law of thermodynamics by transferring heat from a cold gas to a hot one without investing work. . . .
Maxwell’s Demon is a thought experiment devised by J. C. Maxwell in 1867 in order to show that the Second Law of thermodynamics is not universal, since it has a counter-example. Since the Second Law is taken by many to provide an arrow of time, the threat to its universality threatens the account of temporal directionality as well. Various attempts to “exorcise” the Demon, by proving that it is impossible for one reason or another, have been made throughout the years, but none of them were successful.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... ing%20work.
But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened
So, you think Entropy is a causal force, instead of merely a degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system, as defined by physicist Rudolph Clausius?*2 In a similar metaphorical sense, I called my own coinage of "Enformy" a counter-force to Entropy. That's not yet a scientific fact, but it's a useful way for philosophers to think about the "general trend" of the universe to go downhill, while in local pockets of organization, like planet Earth, the thermodynamic trend has been "violated" ; reversed toward Life and Order.
*2. Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder. . . .
the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy
This is Hegel's "geist", disguised in pseudoscientific language. — unenlightened
That's a good analogy. But I object to the "pseudoscientific" characterization. "Holism" was originally a scientific term to describe how Evolution works its natural "magic". But the term was adopted by New Agers, and rendered contaminated by its association with supernatural beliefs. Similarly, the term "Metaphysics" was originally a useful philosophical term to describe topics, such as Mind, that are not understandable from a reductive physical perspective. Today, scientists use the term "Systems Theory" as a disguise for their holistic research*3.
Systems Theory & Holism :
Systems have common defining properties, such as hierarchical ordering, coupling, permeability, holism, emergence, equifinality, and homeostasis. Representing the broader systems perspective are several specific theories and perspectives, such as Weick's theory of organizing, communication network perspectives, ecological and evolutionary perspectives, and self-organizing systems theory. Systems theory has been extensively applied in research areas ranging from communication design and adoption of technology use in organizational operations to professional communication, health campaigns, and public relations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ems_theory
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
Quotes from this thread above :
Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. — Gnomon
But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened
No. "because" not "by cause". An explanation is not a cause of anything except, occasionally, understanding. — unenlightened
OK. But, if your reply above is not a "causal" explanation, how does it explain --- increase understanding of --- how local complexity could increase, in apparent violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? My footnote *2, describes a possible explanation --- given certain conjectures --- of how high-density stars could form even-though (despite) the uphill pull against the inexorable cosmic expansion trend toward lower overall density of matter*3. Ironically, it uses the counter-intuitive statistical notion of "Entropy Density"*4. Perhaps, instead of striking out "despite" in favor of "because", your explanation should insert "probably" or "possibly".
The Second Law is usually taken to be inviolable, with the possible exception of a highly unprovable & improbable First Cause scenario, as postulated in Cosmic Inflation theory, when presumably lax pre-bang physics also allowed a violation of the speed limit of light*5. Technically, that mathematical creation story took place before our Universe existed ; so it's not about Physics, but Meta-Physics : Voila! instant universe from nothing ; indistinguishable from magic. It's not a physical causal explanation, because it assumes a mysterious Cause that no longer exists in the real world.
PS___ Again, I apologize for pushing this esoteric Causation enigma, but it's a hobby-horse of mine.
*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... o-entropy/
*3. Entropy vs Density :
When we think about the Universe in the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang, we’re imagining all the matter and radiation that we have today — currently spread out across a sphere some ~92 billion light-years in diameter — packed into a volume about the size of the world’s largest pumpkin. The Universe back at that stage was incredibly hot and dense, . . .
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... o-entropy/
*4. What is the relationship between entropy and density?
Density measures how closely the atoms are packed, whereas entropy measures the disorder or randomness. . . .
The law of entropy ( the law which says, entropy always increases) is better read as “there is a high probability that entropy always increases”. It’s not physics, but probability that governs this.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difer ... ropy-basic
*5. Is cosmic inflation faster than light?
Around 13.8 billion years ago, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light for a fraction of a second, a period called cosmic inflation. Scientists aren't sure what came before inflation or what powered it. It's possible that energy during this period was just part of the fabric of space-time.
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/
Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. — Gnomon
But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened
No. "because" not "by cause". An explanation is not a cause of anything except, occasionally, understanding. — unenlightened
OK. But, if your reply above is not a "causal" explanation, how does it explain --- increase understanding of --- how local complexity could increase, in apparent violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? My footnote *2, describes a possible explanation --- given certain conjectures --- of how high-density stars could form even-though (despite) the uphill pull against the inexorable cosmic expansion trend toward lower overall density of matter*3. Ironically, it uses the counter-intuitive statistical notion of "Entropy Density"*4. Perhaps, instead of striking out "despite" in favor of "because", your explanation should insert "probably" or "possibly".
The Second Law is usually taken to be inviolable, with the possible exception of a highly unprovable & improbable First Cause scenario, as postulated in Cosmic Inflation theory, when presumably lax pre-bang physics also allowed a violation of the speed limit of light*5. Technically, that mathematical creation story took place before our Universe existed ; so it's not about Physics, but Meta-Physics : Voila! instant universe from nothing ; indistinguishable from magic. It's not a physical causal explanation, because it assumes a mysterious Cause that no longer exists in the real world.
PS___ Again, I apologize for pushing this esoteric Causation enigma, but it's a hobby-horse of mine.
*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... o-entropy/
*3. Entropy vs Density :
When we think about the Universe in the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang, we’re imagining all the matter and radiation that we have today — currently spread out across a sphere some ~92 billion light-years in diameter — packed into a volume about the size of the world’s largest pumpkin. The Universe back at that stage was incredibly hot and dense, . . .
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... o-entropy/
*4. What is the relationship between entropy and density?
Density measures how closely the atoms are packed, whereas entropy measures the disorder or randomness. . . .
The law of entropy ( the law which says, entropy always increases) is better read as “there is a high probability that entropy always increases”. It’s not physics, but probability that governs this.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difer ... ropy-basic
*5. Is cosmic inflation faster than light?
Around 13.8 billion years ago, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light for a fraction of a second, a period called cosmic inflation. Scientists aren't sure what came before inflation or what powered it. It's possible that energy during this period was just part of the fabric of space-time.
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/
Re: TPF : Nature's Regularities vs Human Laws
Perhaps it would be helpful to turn things around for a moment and ask, 'what would have to occur for nature to disobey laws?' — unenlightened
That's a good question. From our perspective as subjects to the Law, the physical regularities of Nature are Necessities*1 --- "gravity always wins". Also, since Nature has physical Forces to enforce those laws, the consequence is what we call Causation. Which raises the contentious question : is the lawful order & predictability of Nature due to top-down Causality (Lawmaker), or to fortuitous Accident (Chance)?
A slight alteration of the OP might ask : why are these particular Necessities needed for the workings of Nature? If the mechanics of the universe was completely random, no physical path would be favored, and Evolution would not need to be Selective, and Statistics would never vary from a central norm. Obviously, the world we live in is mostly non-random, except perhaps on the quantum level, where spontaneity happens just enough to call it "Uncertainty". On the macro scale though, most processes are directional and predictable --- hence the "effectiveness" of Science. So, it seems that a bit of fundamental randomness is Necessary, only to allow degrees of freedom (flexibility) in the otherwise deterministic path of Evolution*2. The general direction, at least on Earth, is toward more complexity & organization, with just enough plasticity to allow for novelty along the way*3.
Therefore, the universe --- or agents within --- could "disobey" natural Laws only if they were Un-necessary, or optional. But, as far as empirical Science can tell, the law-like limits on Physics are universal*4. And the only exceptions are found on the Quantum scale*5, which seem to serve only to dilute the mechanical rigidity of absolute Cause & Effect. So, only more Randomness, and less Lawfulness (i.e. Magic), would allow Nature to vary from it's legitimate path of orderly Causation & Evolution.
*1. What does necessary mean in philosophy?
In philosophy, necessity and sufficiency are two attributes that together constitute causality. A cause is necessary and sufficient to generate the effect. It being necessary is the negation or falsification: the effect cannot occur without the cause, so the cause is necessary for the effect to occur.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-expla ... philosophy
*2. When being flexible matters :
In this debate, it has been argued that our view of evolutionary causation should be rethought by including more seriously developmental causes and causes of the individual acting organism. . . . to reflect on the causal role of agency, individuality, and the environment in evolution.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32285230/
*3. Evolutionary Causation :
Most scientific explanations are causal. This is certainly the case in evolutionary biology, which seeks to explain the diversity of life and the adaptive fit between organisms and their surroundings. The nature of causation in evolutionary biology, however, is contentious.
https://philpapers.org/rec/ULLECB
*4. Is natural law a law in the true sense? :
Laws of nature are the only real laws based on principle and truth. Natural laws are universal, eternal, and immutable,
Nature doesn’t “have” laws, since natural laws aren’t like man-made laws that tell people how they should behave. Instead, natural laws are merely our best descriptions of how we have observed that things behave within nature and how we think, by extension, things behave elsewhere within nature.
https://www.quora.com/Is-natural-law-a- ... true-sense
*5. Quantum Magic :
Some quantum scale behaviors (e.g. tunneling) might seem magical, but they are never found on the macro level of reality.
That's a good question. From our perspective as subjects to the Law, the physical regularities of Nature are Necessities*1 --- "gravity always wins". Also, since Nature has physical Forces to enforce those laws, the consequence is what we call Causation. Which raises the contentious question : is the lawful order & predictability of Nature due to top-down Causality (Lawmaker), or to fortuitous Accident (Chance)?
A slight alteration of the OP might ask : why are these particular Necessities needed for the workings of Nature? If the mechanics of the universe was completely random, no physical path would be favored, and Evolution would not need to be Selective, and Statistics would never vary from a central norm. Obviously, the world we live in is mostly non-random, except perhaps on the quantum level, where spontaneity happens just enough to call it "Uncertainty". On the macro scale though, most processes are directional and predictable --- hence the "effectiveness" of Science. So, it seems that a bit of fundamental randomness is Necessary, only to allow degrees of freedom (flexibility) in the otherwise deterministic path of Evolution*2. The general direction, at least on Earth, is toward more complexity & organization, with just enough plasticity to allow for novelty along the way*3.
Therefore, the universe --- or agents within --- could "disobey" natural Laws only if they were Un-necessary, or optional. But, as far as empirical Science can tell, the law-like limits on Physics are universal*4. And the only exceptions are found on the Quantum scale*5, which seem to serve only to dilute the mechanical rigidity of absolute Cause & Effect. So, only more Randomness, and less Lawfulness (i.e. Magic), would allow Nature to vary from it's legitimate path of orderly Causation & Evolution.
*1. What does necessary mean in philosophy?
In philosophy, necessity and sufficiency are two attributes that together constitute causality. A cause is necessary and sufficient to generate the effect. It being necessary is the negation or falsification: the effect cannot occur without the cause, so the cause is necessary for the effect to occur.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-expla ... philosophy
*2. When being flexible matters :
In this debate, it has been argued that our view of evolutionary causation should be rethought by including more seriously developmental causes and causes of the individual acting organism. . . . to reflect on the causal role of agency, individuality, and the environment in evolution.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32285230/
*3. Evolutionary Causation :
Most scientific explanations are causal. This is certainly the case in evolutionary biology, which seeks to explain the diversity of life and the adaptive fit between organisms and their surroundings. The nature of causation in evolutionary biology, however, is contentious.
https://philpapers.org/rec/ULLECB
*4. Is natural law a law in the true sense? :
Laws of nature are the only real laws based on principle and truth. Natural laws are universal, eternal, and immutable,
Nature doesn’t “have” laws, since natural laws aren’t like man-made laws that tell people how they should behave. Instead, natural laws are merely our best descriptions of how we have observed that things behave within nature and how we think, by extension, things behave elsewhere within nature.
https://www.quora.com/Is-natural-law-a- ... true-sense
*5. Quantum Magic :
Some quantum scale behaviors (e.g. tunneling) might seem magical, but they are never found on the macro level of reality.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 36 guests