universe/laws?

@dpmartin,

Quote:

Or was law first, that sets things in order in the mist of chaos.

But what example of totally unregulated chaos do we have for such a scenario -- that such chaos is even possible, especially when existence and change would have already entered the picture as applicable concepts? Chaotic systems in the natural order that we're familiar with are just that: Systemic, unpredictable in the long run yet still deterministically shackled to the initial starting conditions (no actual random elements).

Quote:

Simple does and object fall to the earth because it is, and the earth is or because both the earth and the object obey the law without question. And if so, then does life question or obey the law?

There's no "choice" insofar as escaping the regularities of the natural order, apart from appealing to a scheme (like Kant's critical idealism) that can subsume the empirical world without affecting science and its results. Biological organisms are either adhering to their own deterministic tendencies that laws may describe and predict (nominalism POV), or actually obeying the laws of whatever applicable level (nomological realist / Platonic POV).

Quote:

I do appreciate your candor and clarification of “Big Bang”, but that is not what is believed about the Big Bang theory in the general public’s mind, is it? They believe it science’s explanation of how the universe began. Whether that is true or not, doesn’t really matter, and what it means to science or the general public is not on topic. The question is was there chaos first then order “law”.

You would then seem to be referring to the dawn of a purely imaginary or hypothetical universe, instead of ours. That's a bit like asking a philosophy forum what paragraph a speculative fiction writer would open his next novel with.

Laws are general principles. If the author is a nominalist, then cosmic laws only describe regularities and serve as a predictive tool. If the author is a Platonist, then cosmic laws would be forms existing prior to the universe in some intelligible realm, with the "concrete" universe therefore actually conforming to them.

A Kantian revision of the latter would have such general principles being responsible for producing the very locations for any "things / events" to be real, in the first place. Ergo, cosmic laws would be potencies (sources of instructive influence) rather than literal abstract objects existing in another realm that was prior to the "concrete" one they create. (Spatial and temporal dimensions are absent from the purely figurative "world" attached after Kant's "noumenal" -- that is, Kant's version of an intelligible domain is hardly a "place" for even generalizations and Platonic forms to find existence as "objects".)

1 Reply

@G H,

GH
thanks for the reply

The will to act on a law, or the enact a law, is the evidence of life. Of which time energy space and matter has not. Yet life is in the mist of time energy space and matter. Therefore where is the source of the will to act in respect to the fulfillment of law, to get a result, come from?

(Sorry about all the typos, its 4:30 in the morning here when I post, that's my excuse, and I’m sticking to it)

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

...a Law is either descriptive or prescriptive regarding cause/effect relation...I don´t have the slightest idea on what you mean with a term like "will" place in this context...maybe hopefully you just mean that there must be a conformity between both and that reason when aware will lead to the acknowledgement of such conformity...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...if you are implying to ask why the law is the law, or why nature is what it is then your question falls out of the domain of time and space, and the only foreseeable answer I can give you is that you still don´t have a complete picture in your mind on what Law means...regarding rules people can re-establish or prologue the question from one universe to many, or from one set to several sets of rules, but the same problem persists anyway, that being, why on earth what is possible to exist is possible in the place of something else...to where I stand the real problem in this question is to assume in this "something else" an open system without good reason to believe in it other then our relative referent as observers...we always use, and are used to, a temporally open approach on this kind of issues, mainly because in the process of analysing our own life we are confronted with the strong experience, the sensation, of a temporally open process of learning regarding the workings and developments of nature mainly due to our very short term capability of accounting for it...and yet we permanently fail to understand that such openness is itself completely contrary to the very spirit of law !

...the same could be said regarding infinity´s...you cannot have them without finity´s existing for them in the first place...
...LAW´S ARE THE FINITE IN THE INFINITE !
...in a loop motion is itself a relative phenomena...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

edited:

Quote:

...the same could be said regarding infinity´s...you cannot have them without finity´s existing for them in the first place...
...LAW´S ARE THE FINITE IN THE INFINITE !
... just as in a loop motion is itself a relative phenomena...
WHAT IT IS IT IS WHAT IS ! SIMPLE !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque
thanks for the reply

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...a Law is either descriptive or prescriptive regarding cause/effect relation...I don´t have the slightest idea on what you mean with a term like "will" place in this context...

The will required to chose to do in one’s own presence. Or even the will to chose what to do, but don’t think its necessary to go there.

Quote:

maybe hopefully you just mean that there must be a conformity between both and that reason when aware will lead to the acknowledgement of such conformity...

Well what your saying here may apply in the consideration of an action, such as, I want to move my arm, therefore conformity to the laws required to be fulfilled in the expectation of moving the arm, or, you could go to, I want to go to the moon, and the same would apply. Fulfillment of law is required in the doing, which is choice to do, and the will to chose to do in one’s own presence

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

I am saying more then that...that the very choice itself is in conformity with the law´s output...therefore that such choice is a necessary choice.
Law in here is understood as what is the case and not on the assumption on what the case could be if it could...
..I could have chosen to do allot of things this morning that I did n´t chose to do...the fact that I did not chosen them requires a perfectly accountable explanation on why I chose to do what I did chose and not something else instead...The process of willing is a very complex system normally poorly explained when it comes to determine what degree of freedom if any to be present regarding the nature of agency in the "I" or the "self" as a volitional causal factor to determine action...on this regard I am of the opinion that the causal chain of law itself conditions to the full the very process in which I wilfully chose anything in such a powerful way that hardly I can ever be aware of a perfectly clear distinction between the external elements that determinately precede my choosing, and the acknowledged internal circumstances in which such choice itself arises conscientiously...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...same is to say that the very internal factors from which I chose are themselves dependent on external extrinsic causes that condition they emergence in the "I" and its subsequent volitional process...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I am saying more then that...that the very choice itself is in conformity with the law´s output...therefore that such choice is a necessary choice.
Law in here is understood as what is the case and not on the assumption on what the case could be if it could...
..I could have chosen to do allot of things this morning that I did n´t chose to do...the fact that I did not chosen them requires a perfectly accountable explanation on why I chose to do what I did chose and not something else instead...The process of willing is a very complex system normally poorly explained when it comes to determine what degree of freedom if any to be present regarding the nature of agency in the "I" or the "self" as a volitional causal factor to determine action...on this regard I am of the opinion that the causal chain of law itself conditions to the full the very process in which I wilfully chose anything in such a powerful way that hardly I can ever be aware of a perfectly clear distinction between the external elements that determinately precede my choosing, and the acknowledged internal circumstances in which such choice itself arises conscientiously...

Fil Albuquerque
thanks for the reply

Mankind did not make himself, or “self” be, or exist; therefore, the will to chose is not of himself, or “self” or “I”. And if man’s origins are of the universe, then where is it, that the will to chose is, in the universe, of the universe?

In other words, an object can fall to the ground by cause and effect, certainly not of any will of chose that the object has, but you can pick that object and make it fall to the ground again and again, which is of will to chose to make it happen again.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

...you are begging the question there...your very own volition is conditioned for external factors out of the scope of what you call "self"...that is the issue.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...since choosing your nature is a contradiction in terms, once you cannot to chose to be you before you are you, it sounds reasonable to reckon that whatever you do you do it out of an obligation that transcends your control...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...in fact "you" can be treated as an ongoing emergent property/effect born out of the relation feedback in between the world with a "nod" of progressing information set in X discrete space/time...such feedback, observing observation, which is dependent on both ends brings up the "you" in you...your choices, actions, behaviour etc, are perception relative constructs (functions) emergent upon the working of a system were the "you" makes no sense at all...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...cognitively speaking either the "world" or the "nod" alone make no sense...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Nice try.

It is you who brought up the issue of “self” as a source of will to chose. Not me. And I did not define “self” or “you” or ”I”. That seems to be your preconceived notions. The concept of will being of self was your idea, not mine, so how is it you accuse me of your own definitions, and preconceived notions?

By the way, is there some reason why you keep replying to your own postings, are you caring on your own conversation with yourself?

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Quote:

In other words, an object can fall to the ground by cause and effect, certainly not of any will of chose that the object has, but YOU can pick that object and make it fall to the ground again and again, which is of will to chose to make it happen again.

...you are an idiot and I will treat you as such from now on...goodbye !

0 Replies

universe/laws?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know