Do the Laws of Nature Exist Independent of the Human Mind?

[Storm]

Well, keep in mind where this speculation comes from; it starts with the premise that everything we perceive comes only from our minds.

A premise which I absolutely reject, and which has yet to be justified. Sorry, but I've never been a fan of solipsism, I find it narcissistic.

We are limited (or limitless?) by our senses and ability to interpret and analyze them. Our reason is even limited by them.

Yes, but it does not follow that reality is so limited.

Even "arrogance" is nothing but a construct. Constructs, however, are still a part of reality..

Uncontested.

Thus, though the "laws of nature" are only mental associations with the patterns that we perceive, they are the only laws of nature we know.

Ah, we have miscommunication. By "laws of nature," I'm not referring to the patterns we perceive or what we think we know about them, but rather the reality we are exploring.

In fact, it is possible that we create the very patterns by picking them from "chaos" (the void).

It is inevitable that we influence the patterns, being part of them, but it still does not follow that we are their sole source.

 

[Sunstone]

But, it's so obvious the universe does abide by natural laws.

On the contrary, it's not obvious at all. Although you've continued to assert that natural laws cause events to happen, you have not presented one shred of evidence or any necessary reason for your claim. Yet, you assert it's obvious. Why, pray tell, do you think it's obvious? If it is obvious, shouldn't there be at least some evidence for it or at least some line of logical reasoning that necessitates it?

Sorry, what you're saying is the equivalent of, "if I don't say so, tomorrow the sun won't rise."

Wrong. That in no way logically follows from what I've been saying.

A question....what does your frame of reference hope to point out? Of what use is it if you don't mind me asking? If all inventors had the mystic bent....we'd never discover anything.

What has this to do with mysticism? So far as I've known, the things I'm arguing here are most likely to be encountered in a history of science course, a philosophy of science course, a logic course, or even a course in epistemology. What is it about them that makes you think of mysticism? I'm very curious.

 

[Sunstone]

Note: that was supposed to read "I find the speculation to be arrogant."

That said, Phil, do you find the theological idea that we are the center and pinnacle of God's Creation to be arrogant? Because the idea that the laws of nature are dependent on our pitifully inadequate understanding of them is doing exactly the same thing: setting humans up in a place of supreme importance. I just don't think we're that special.

Whether asserting the laws of nature are human constructs sets up humans in a place of special importance is logically irrelevant to issue of whether or not the laws of nature are human constructs.

 

[Buttercup]

On the contrary, it's not obvious at all. Although you've continued to assert that natural laws cause events to happen, you have not presented one shred of evidence or any necessary reason for your claim.

And you have provided evidence for your side?

I'm trying to keep my side simple. How would you describe gravity? What is it?

 

[Sunstone]

And you have provided evidence for your side?

You want evidence for the notion that the laws of nature exist in the mind? That is indeed obvious, isn't it? I mean, if the laws of nature are not something that humans sometimes think about, then how, for instance, could we possibly be thinking about them now? How can there be any more solid evidence than that?

I'm trying to keep my side simple. How would you describe gravity? What is it?

Gravity is one thing. The laws of gravity are another. Gravity is the terrain. The laws of gravity are the map we have created of the terrain.

If you want to get more specific, then "gravity" is a name we give to a huge set of events (the terrain) that we in some way or another either observe or deduce the necessity of. We have discovered that those events seem to be organized into discernible patterns. We describe those patterns as laws, thus "mapping" them, so to speak.

All that is fact. But it is speculation to look at those facts and make the leap that the "laws of gravity" actually cause the events that we either observe or deduce the logical necessity for.

 

[s2a]

Sunstone asked:

Do the laws of nature exist independent of the human mind? Are they real things that exist in themselves, or are they only human constructs? What do you think? Why?

Hmmm.

I suppose I would ask you to define/detail what constitute any exacting "laws of nature", first and foremost. Are there boundaries of any accounting here?

What declarative "laws" does "nature" present for prospective falsification?

Your inquiry strikes me as akin to the most favored sort of supposed philosophical conundrum...

..."If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it fall...does it still make a sound"?

The answer is...YES.

"Nature" existed long before mankind happened along, and will persist far after our species has gone the way of the dodo.

Some folks like to think in terms of "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am").

Descartes sought to validate human consciousness in this way...

...a rather tawdry and self-serving view, if I dare say so....

...as if "existence" were rendered immaterial or otherwise moot in the complete absence of human consciousness.

I prefer to engage my contemporary existence in this vein...

"Sum Ergo Cogito"

"I am, therefore...I think."

If I am not in a Brazilian rain forest when an old growth tree is felled, it still makes a thunderous sound upon impact.

*boom*

My capacity to think about that event, and imagine it's own phenomenal result; is not affected by my own personalized rationales of any especially "thoughtful" (or conscious) existence.

Continents, glaciers, and the stellar heavens go about their inexorable movements whether I "think" about them or not.

 

[Buttercup]

You want evidence for the notion that the laws of nature exist in the mind? That is indeed obvious, isn't it? I mean, if the laws of nature are not something that humans sometimes think about, then how, for instance, could we possibly be thinking about them now? How can there be any more solid evidence than that?

I'm asking for evidence that the laws of nature exist only in the minds of men. Is that not the assertional premise of the OP?

All that is fact. But it is speculation to look at those facts and make the leap that the "laws of gravity" actually cause the events that we either observe or deduce the logical necessity for.

You consider Einstein's theory of relativity to be speculation?

 

[Sunstone]

I suppose I would ask you to define/detail what constitute any exacting "laws of nature", first and foremost.

I'm under the impression that we're discussing "scientific laws" here.

Your inquiry strikes me as akin to the most favored sort of supposed philosophical conundrum...

..."If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it fall...does it still make a sound"?

The answer is...YES.

"Nature" existed long before mankind happened along, and will persist far after our species has gone the way of the dodo.

Some folks like to think in terms of "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am").

Descartes sought to validate human consciousness in this way...

...a rather tawdry and self-serving view, if I dare say so....

...as if "existence" were rendered immaterial or otherwise moot in the complete absence of human consciousness.

I prefer to engage my contemporary existence in this vein...

"Sum Ergo Cogito"

"I am, therefore...I think."

If I am not in a Brazilian rain forest when an old growth tree is felled, it still makes a thunderous sound upon impact.

*boom*

My capacity to think about that event, and imagine it's own phenomenal result; is not affected by my own personalized rationales of any especially "thoughtful" (or conscious) existence.

Continents, glaciers, and the stellar heavens go about their inexorable movements whether I "think" about them or not.

At issue is whether the laws of nature exist apart from the human mind -- not whether nature exists apart from the human mind.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm asking for evidence that the laws of nature exist only in the minds of men. Is that not the assertional premise of the OP?

Here's the OP:

Do the laws of nature exist independent of the human mind? Are they real things that exist in themselves, or are they only human constructs? What do you think? Why?

I don't believe the OP asserts that the laws of nature exist only in the mind. Instead it merely questions whether one thinks they do or not.

You consider Einstein's theory of relativity to be speculation?

Einstein's theories are remarkably useful for accurately predicting certain events. I don't find that, so far as it goes, speculative at all.

 

[Buttercup]

I don't believe the OP asserts that the laws of nature exist only in the mind. Instead it merely questions whether one thinks they do or not.

Ok, I can end my input right here.

No, I do not think the laws of nature exist only in the mind.

 

[Sunstone]

No, I do not think the laws of nature exist only in the mind.

Thank you for an interesting conversation. We'll have to agree to disagree though. So far as I can see, there is neither compelling evidence nor necessary reason to claim the laws of nature exist apart from the human mind.

 

[s2a]

I'm under the impression that we're discussing "scientific laws" here.

At issue is whether the laws of nature exist apart from the human mind -- not whether nature exists apart from the human mind.

I believe I addressed that "issue".

"I am, therefore I think".

Your lacking provision of any "nature's laws" does not alter my lent conclusion.

In effect, whatever "laws of nature" may or may not "exist" (as understood/perceived by human consciousness), such "laws" operate (or "exist", if you please) "apart from the human mind".

I don't believe that the cardinals that visit my backyard feeder are only existent within my own mind. If I die tomorrow, I can pretty much guarantee (subject to your own observations) that they will return to finish off any remaining seed I placed there the day before.

If the laws of nature" were utterly subjective, then no two individuals would come to agree upon what might be accounted as a revisiting cardinal. Introducing an utter ignoramus to argue against such a sighting, would not diminish or invalidate observing said cardinal...but it would serve to fairly doubt the capacities of relevant and topical observation resident within such a moron.

"Disbelief" of gravity will not spare such a "mindful" moron the consequential effects of a 1500 foot fall. Neither abject ignorance, nor lacking faculties of comprehension, serve to "best" define objectively observed aspects of "nature".

If a "human mind" perceives no threat from a slightly submerged and hungry alligator, that failing aspect of a particularly personalized view presents no differentiating impact upon that cruising crocodilian.

Ain't it cool?

"Nature" couldn't care less about human perceptions, ideals, or motivations.

Humans routinely qualify as ripe prey themselves...even as many humans tribes/groups hunt meat for their own sustenance and sated satisfaction...

...by law...;-)?

 

[Sunstone]

I believe I addressed that "issue".

No you haven't. And you still fail to address it in your poetic post below:

"I am, therefore I think

".

Your lacking provision of any "nature's laws" does not alter my lent conclusion.

In effect, whatever "laws of nature" may or may not "exist" (as understood/perceived by human consciousness), such "laws" operate (or "exist", if you please) "apart from the human mind".

I don't believe that the cardinals that visit my backyard feeder are only existent within my own mind. If I die tomorrow, I can pretty much guarantee (subject to your own observations) that they will return to finish off any remaining seed I placed there the day before.

If the laws of nature" were utterly subjective, then no two individuals would come to agree upon what might be accounted as a revisiting cardinal. Introducing an utter ignoramus to argue against such a sighting, would not diminish or invalidate observing said cardinal...but it would serve to fairly doubt the capacities of relevant and topical observation resident within such a moron.

"Disbelief" of gravity will not spare such a "mindful" moron the consequential effects of a 1500 foot fall. Neither abject ignorance, nor lacking faculties of comprehension, serve to "best" define objectively observed aspects of "nature".

If a "human mind" perceives no threat from a slightly submerged and hungry alligator, that failing aspect of a particularly personalized view presents no differentiating impact upon that cruising crocodilian.

Ain't it cool?

"Nature" couldn't care less about human perceptions, ideals, or motivations.

Humans routinely qualify as ripe prey themselves...even as many humans tribes/groups hunt meat for their own sustenance and sated satisfaction...

...by law...;-)?

The issue of whether nature exists apart from the human mind has nothing necessarily to do with the issue of whether the laws of nature exist apart from the human mind. If you believe the two issues are necessarily related, please reveal why they are necessarily related. Otherwise, please address the latter and leave the former to a different thread -- as it seems off-topic in this one.

 

[Buttercup]

Phil, what is the purpose of arguing the laws of nature do not exist apart from the human mind? Personally, I don't find that position useful. Could you enlighten me?

 

[Sunstone]

Phil, what is the purpose of arguing the laws of nature do not exist apart from the human mind? Personally, I don't find that position useful. Could you enlighten me?

I don't know of any brief way to answer your question Rhonda. The issue ties into several other issues, but I would have to write at considerable length to show how it ties into those issues. So far in this thread, I've limited myself to simply advocating the position that it is speculation to assert the laws of nature exist apart from the human mind. I have not that I recall advocated the position you seem to ascribe to me -- that the laws of nature do not exist apart from the human mind.

 

[Buttercup]

I don't know of any brief way to answer your question Rhonda. The issue ties into several other issues, but I would have to write at considerable length to show how it ties into those issues. So far in this thread, I've limited myself to simply advocating the position that it is speculation to assert the laws of nature exist apart from the human mind. I have not that I recall advocated the position you seem to ascribe to me -- that the laws of nature do not exist apart from the human mind.

I'm really confused now. I wonder if anyone else is?

Cal seems to have taken the same road I have. Perhaps both he and I can hide behind a tree, jump you as you walk by and, using the laws of nature, beat the tar out of you. hehehehe

 

[Sunstone]

I'm really confused now. I wonder if anyone else is?

It's simpler than it might look. In a way, saying we cannot prove the ontological existence of the laws of nature is the same as saying we cannot prove the ontological existence of deity.

Cal seems to have taken the same road I have. Perhaps both he and I can hide behind a tree, jump you as you walk by and, using the laws of nature, beat the tar out of you. hehehehe

Good luck with that!

 

[Buttercup]

It's simpler than it might look. In a way, saying we cannot prove the ontological existence of the laws of nature is the same as saying we cannot prove the ontological existence of deity.

I understand that much. However, I'm not sure that's true. We need a scientist to intervene in this thread. And, once again....I'm not sure how useful your argument is to anyone. I don't mean disrespect by that.

 

[Sunstone]

I understand that much. However, I'm not sure that's true. We need a scientist to intervene in this thread. And, once again....I'm not sure how useful your argument is to anyone. I don't mean disrespect by that.

Hmmm.... If we start judging arguments by how useful they are, we'll probably have to delete a good chunk of the Forum.

 

[Buttercup]

Hmmm.... If we start judging arguments by how useful they are, we'll probably have to delete a good chunk of the Forum.

I agree. And, most of the posts will be mine I'm afraid.