Philosophy Now Forum

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:54 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:22 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:16 pm

this is an interesting question!
This can be discussed in a separate topic.

While we can say that there is no scientific opinion that something does not obey the laws of nature.
In my opinion, there is one common regularity of nature, and the formulated laws of nature are approximate, limited views on the one law of nature. That is, the laws of nature are not independent, but united in the one law of nature.

The "one law of nature"? Can you explain what you're thinking there?

for example, the laws of electricity, gravity and others are related to each other. This can be seen from the general theory of relativity.
Thus, all laws are united in one common regularity of nature. The "formula" of this one law cannot be determined, but it is obvious that this one law exists.

A grand unified theory in other words?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:50 pm Views can't be objective.

I assume your speaking for yourself, and, if you say so, I'll certainly take your word for it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:25 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:50 pm Views can't be objective.

I assume your speaking for yourself, and, if you say so, I'll certainly take your word for it.

No one can have an objective view. The very idea of that is a category error.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:48 pm You can be a physicalist and also be an anti-realist on laws of nature.

How is that difficult to understand?

Go on....show how that's possible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:33 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:48 pm You can be a physicalist and also be an anti-realist on laws of nature.

How is that difficult to understand?

Go on....show how that's possible.

(1) One believes that the world is comprised solely of physical things.
(2) One doesn't believe that there are any real natural laws.

What's the difficulty in reconciling the two in your view? In your view it's impossible to hold both (1) and (2) because?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:42 am (1) One believes that the world is comprised solely of physical things.
(2) One doesn't believe that there are any real natural laws.

So...you're suggesting a Physicalist can believe that the world's "substances," if we can use that word, are physical. And you use the word "solely," which means there's nothing at all excluded from that characterization of things. Right?

But you think a Physicalist doesn't have to believe that the dynamics or "laws" governing these substances are real or "physical"?

I'm going to need some clarification on that.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:49 pm \Or -- better yet -- just leave me out of your conversations with others. Argue your points and leave your lil misinterpretations of mine out of it.

Should I say, "yes sir," and salute?

I really don't understand what has your panties in a wad. I wasn't calling you names. You do believe in a deity, or at least a, "Creator of reality," after all, which is usually regarded as, "supernatural." If you regard it as otherwise, fine, but you can understand why I assumed you believed in the supernatural.

As for, "intuition," I was pulling your chain a little, because you claimed it as the way you know about your, "Creator," and, "morality." As far as I am concerned, "intuition," is just another name for all varieties of, "magic knowledge," one just has, without evidence or reason, like "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," and, "gut feelings." I don't believe there is any such magic knowledge.

I know most people do.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:42 am (1) One believes that the world is comprised solely of physical things.
(2) One doesn't believe that there are any real natural laws.

What exactly is it that science discovers?

Should I say, "yes sir," and salute?

Yes, please.


As for, "intuition...

I never claimed intuition was the whole schmear. In fact, in my writings here in-forum on moral fact, intuition is absent. I adopted the notion from VA cuz it was/is descriptive of, for example, a man knowing he's his own without reasoning it out.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:49 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:54 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:22 pm

The "one law of nature"? Can you explain what you're thinking there?

for example, the laws of electricity, gravity and others are related to each other. This can be seen from the general theory of relativity.
Thus, all laws are united in one common regularity of nature. The "formula" of this one law cannot be determined, but it is obvious that this one law exists.

A grand unified theory in other words?

Maybe

Do you think it makes sense?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:51 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:42 am (1) One believes that the world is comprised solely of physical things.
(2) One doesn't believe that there are any real natural laws.

So...you're suggesting a Physicalist can believe that the world's "substances," if we can use that word, are physical. And you use the word "solely," which means there's nothing at all excluded from that characterization of things. Right?

But you think a Physicalist doesn't have to believe that the dynamics or "laws" governing these substances are real or "physical"?

I'm going to need some clarification on that.

They can believe that there isn't anything "governing" matter.

"The world is solely comprised of physical things" doesn't imply "There is something governing (what) the world (is solely comprised of)."

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:44 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:49 pm

Janoah wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:54 pm

for example, the laws of electricity, gravity and others are related to each other. This can be seen from the general theory of relativity.
Thus, all laws are united in one common regularity of nature. The "formula" of this one law cannot be determined, but it is obvious that this one law exists.

A grand unified theory in other words?

Maybe

Do you think it makes sense?

I can understand why folks believe in it more or less and at least desire for there to be a GUT. I don't think that the notion of real laws of nature really makes sense though, especially because it would require real abstracts that would essentially be akin to platonic universals.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:14 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:42 am (1) One believes that the world is comprised solely of physical things.
(2) One doesn't believe that there are any real natural laws.

What exactly is it that science discovers?

Ideally what there is (and isn't) and for the former, how it "behaves" or what it's like/what its characteristics are, what its "nature" is/how it works, which is also what philosophy ideally does, with science being differentiated by an emphasis on an experimental methodology. What science actually spends far too much time doing, however, is reifying mathematics and doing bad philosophy. (Not that philosophers don't also do a lot of bad philosophy, unfortunately.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:31 am

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:44 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:49 pm

A grand unified theory in other words?

Maybe

Do you think it makes sense?

I can understand why folks believe in it more or less and at least desire for there to be a GUT. I don't think that the notion of real laws of nature really makes sense though, especially because it would require real abstracts that would essentially be akin to platonic universals.

First of all, the existence of a law of nature is a fact, stated,
'Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world'

Can be seen here a parallel and with the Platonic universals.

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:55 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:31 am

Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:44 am

Maybe

Do you think it makes sense?

I can understand why folks believe in it more or less and at least desire for there to be a GUT. I don't think that the notion of real laws of nature really makes sense though, especially because it would require real abstracts that would essentially be akin to platonic universals.

First of all, the existence of a law of nature is a fact, stated,
'Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world'

Can be seen here a parallel and with the Platonic universals.

Do you not believe that there are antirealists on laws of nature or that there can be antirealists on laws of nature?