A debate on the demarcation problem
Consider the following two definitions:
Law (of Nature) := If the sum of mass, energy and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature.
Rules (of Man) := The time-variant interactions between systems, capable of abstraction, these systems use to create rules for themselves. The collection of all these rules then comprise the Rules of Man.
The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exists no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Law of Nature.
The Rules of Man can be adhered to, changed or ignored; the Laws of Nature are sacrosanct - they can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, we can even try to ignore them; but they cannot be changed. The study of the Laws of Nature is called science and the language we humans use to study and describe these laws is called mathematics. On the other hand, the Rules of Man is brought into being by politics ... or would this be philosophy? This is how we agree among ourselves how to interact with each other and with our environment. It is also how we agree amongst each other on how we are going to increase our wealth. It is even how we decide what is right and what is wrong - what is good and what is evil and what is just.
From: How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
Law (of Nature) := If the sum of mass, energy and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature.
Rules (of Man) := The time-variant interactions between systems, capable of abstraction, these systems use to create rules for themselves. The collection of all these rules then comprise the Rules of Man.
The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exists no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Law of Nature.
The Rules of Man can be adhered to, changed or ignored; the Laws of Nature are sacrosanct - they can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, we can even try to ignore them; but they cannot be changed. The study of the Laws of Nature is called science and the language we humans use to study and describe these laws is called mathematics. On the other hand, the Rules of Man is brought into being by politics ... or would this be philosophy? This is how we agree among ourselves how to interact with each other and with our environment. It is also how we agree amongst each other on how we are going to increase our wealth. It is even how we decide what is right and what is wrong - what is good and what is evil and what is just.
From: How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
Comments (59)
Precisely, the [I]Rules of Man[/I] are the subject of Law and Philosophy of Law. Although politics can be involved, I do not see it as a part of the study of positivism. Furthermore, I think it interferes in the most negative and toxic way. Instead of studying the nature of the rule and its application, politics tend to twist it just to promote politicians' interests.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Be careful with this! don't think there is something sacrosanct at all. Even more inside philosophy or science. A few centuries ago, folks considered that the earth was the centre of the universe as "sacrosanct" until Galileo and Copernicus showed up. :wink:
I noticed that the term "Law (of Nature)" is misleading in your otherwise logically sound post. The term itself comes from 17th-century theology and jurisprudence (Descartes, Newton), when the world was seen as a divine code. But nature doesn't prescribeit occurs. The term "Law (of Nature)" seems like a linguistic artifact. A more accurate expression would be "stable regularities of the physical world" or simply "physical invariants."
This also raises the question: why does our understanding of a so-called law of nature (including mathematics) suddenly constitute that law of nature itself? I see it somewhat differently: our formulas are not a law, but the best approximation to how it happens. And if a new, more precise description is found, we will replace it (this is consistent with Popper).
Let's say this isn't a criticism, but a suggestion for clarification.
:up: :up:
That works perfectly well if you are thinking of human laws. The "rules of man" has somewhat wider scope, which complicates the issue. Non-legal rules would, presumably, not the subject of Law or Philosophy of Law.
Quoting Astorre
Perhaps. Do statistical or probabilistic laws (thermodynamics, quantum mechanics) count as stable regularities?
There's some reason to suppose that rule-governed behaviour is usually stable enough to count as a regularity. Would you count the regular behaviour of driving on the right (or left) side of the road as a law of nature?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I think you are looking in the right place to draw the distinction. But it seems to me that the difference is that the human rules can be, and are, broken without invalidating them. Laws of nature cannot be "broken".
There is an awkward distinction between the laws of nature as formulated by human beings and the actual laws of nature. I am thinking of the actual laws of nature. The human formulations of the laws of nature may come across "infringements", but when they do, they - and not the behaviour - are subject to revision or change. When human rules are broken, they do not necessarily change; often steps are taken to correct the behaviour.
In view of the fact that, in the end, what are called the laws of nature are simply descriptions of regularities in the phenomena. Sticking to that description of them avoids the problem that you are raising. In a world that believed in a creator God, who laid the laws down, the term "law" has a clear neaning. Without that support, "description" seems to cover what we need.
I was thinking precisely about that. However, I don't know what @Pieter R van Wyk was thinking when he wrote the OP yet. :smile:
Non-legal rules can also be the subject of law and philosophy of law. For example, prostitution is not regulated (at least in my country), but it involves some non-legal rules. You pay for the exchange of sexual acts. Such an arrangement holds a "rule" for both the sex worker and the consumer, and I believe it can be seen from the perspective of the philosophy of law.
You are most welcome to negate or refute my solution, but then you have to provide your solution to the problem - that is how a debate works.
Quoting javi2541997
No, law and philosophy are the subject of the Rules of Man. Politics are always involved. In any case, I do not think this negate nor refute my proposed solution.
Quoting javi2541997
I am very careful, that is why I have defined the words I am using very precisely. You are quite correct that our human understanding and interpretation of the Laws of Nature has developed over the years. But, again, this does not negate nor refute my proposed solution.
Quoting apokrisis
Please elaborate on the point you are trying to make. What, exactly has this statement to do with the demarcation problem, or my solution?
Quoting Astorre
What I call the Laws of Nature you might call "stable regularities of the physical world" or "physical invariants"... even "god's wet dream"! The question is, do you agree with my definition, if not, please how do you propose to solve the demarcation problem?
Quoting Astorre
If I remember correctly, Popper's solution to the problem is that science is whatever is discovered using the scientific method. This is a simple self-referencing statement with absolutely no utility, thus not valid. Methinks you have missed my point: Our understanding, including mathematics, does not (suddenly) constitute a law of nature itself - our understanding of the Laws of Nature is incomplete (ask any physicist) and mathematics is simply the language we humans use to try and describe our understanding of these Laws of Nature.
Quoting Ludwig V
Quite so, the Laws of Nature is time-invariant, as per definition - it is categorically implied by the conservation over space-time. The Rules of Man is, most definitely, time-variant, as per definition. So, you agree with my solution to the problem?
Quoting javi2541997.
Perhaps my thinking is more clear now? I might add the following:
"As to the philosophical question of how we humans distinguish between a Law of Nature and a Rule of Man - there is a very simple litmus test: If the rule or law can be changed by spending money, it is a Rule of Man. If it cannot, it is a Law of Nature." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
But it is a problem that politics are involved. The point is to erase them from the Rules of Man. I wanted to focus more on the philosophy of law and its consequences rather than on politics.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I am refuting your point in this case, Pieter. You claimed that the Rules of Nature are literally "sacrosanct". However, history tells us otherwise. Yes, I agree that there are some basic notions of physics and mathematics that may be sacrosanct. But the rules of nature change, as does our knowledge. For this reason, I would be careful of labelling something "sacrosanct". The term reminds me of religious dogmas or liberation theology, which we are against, Pieter. Don't we? :wink:
I believe the concept of the law of nature originated in Athens and is rooted in geometry. The philosophers back then did not use the term "laws of nature" but rather the word "logos". Logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe. Moral meant having knowledge of logos and good manners. We used to read children moral tales and then ask "What is the moral of that story. The correct answer is one of cause and effect.
God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood, it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations, it is called 'justice. Cicero
Cicero lived before Jesus, and he thought Judaism was a barbaric superstition, and that is reasonable considering they built their understanding of God on Sumerian stories, and they shared a notion of good and evil with Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism began as a pretty good philosophy, but sank into superstition and self-destructed, with few Zoroastrians continuing today.
What is "it" that happens?
What is happening, I think, is that the author of the original post is trying to fit life into logic. At this point, hes drawing a boundary between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature calling the former mutable and the latter immutable.
I must admit, I dont quite see the scientific novelty or practical applicability of this distinction, though to be fair, theres no mention of God in his original post.
As for me, I have no firm opinion regarding the metaphysical essence of being. Yet Ive never met anyone who could explain anything at all without, in some way, appealing to metaphysics or to something transcendent in the broad sense, to God.
Perhaps we should look at this disagreement with an understanding of Roman law, holding a person is innocent until proven guilty and assuring the person charged with a crime has an opportunity to defend him/her self. What is "sacrosanct" is too important to dismiss without proof that it is wrong. It is not that no one dares speak of the Earth circling the sun, but if one wants to do so, one has to prove beyond a doubt that something is or is not true. This sane way of making judgments goes to Hell when the church is fighting for its supremacy and the belief that only this religious order has God's unquestionable truths.
The problem of figuring out what is right or wrong, under Roman law, when Romans were dealing with many city-states, each having its own laws, was to take what is common between the different city-states. Christianity comes out of this Roman legal system. God's truth was what is shared in common. So when you are sorting through many myths for God's truth, the most popular story will win. Not so different from scientists concluding what is true and what is not true by consensus.
Oh, but the laws of nature are immutable! We are on our way to learning that. The pagans have always known it. If you smoke, your chances of having serious health problems increase every year you smoke. Praying to God for good health will not get the desired results. If we keep ignoring what the scientists are telling us about global warming, we will learn the hard way that the laws of nature are immutable. Believing otherwise puts a person into a superstitious frame of mind. God is not going to give us another planet to destroy.
On the other hand, I don't believe a God is rewarding and punishing us, or a Satan doing his evil thing.
I am adamant about such things because science is essential to democracy. We used to know that but replaced education for good moral judgement with education for technology so we are on the path to Hell.
Now I must run to the closest second-hand store and find some things to add to my weird clothes because the senior center is having a lunch with a Halloween theme. :grin: :fire:
Well, I think there are differences, actually. Science is not a myth; it conflicts with them. You take the principle of gravity as granted because empirical evidence and scientific research showed us so. I doubt there is no consensus on the physics of gravity. Furthermore, it is a tool that helps modern scientists to do other research. Perhaps it may be a big debate inside complex scientific debates such as quantum mechanics. But they probably agree with something: not labelling their discoveries as "sacrosanct".
However, I strongly agree that myths (Odyssey, for instance) can teach us valuable life lessons. Perhaps, Homecoming nostalgia/melancholia (Ancient Greek: ??????, nostos) is a sacrosanct pattern of conduct inherent to human psychology.
The OP is not worth commenting on, but I just want to note that to this day, the existence and the nature, as it were, of the laws of nature are debated. Humean regularity view is not universally accepted; there are also essentialist and dispositional views. Metaphysics aside, even more basic questions, such as what is lawful vs. accidental, are frustratingly hard to settle.
Does this not beg the question ..is the statement formulated in accordance with the apodeictic principles of law, or the merely hypothetical principles of rule?
Wouldnt whether or not one agrees with the statement depend entirely upon the ground of the prohibition?
If law and rule are equally human constructs, what is the commonality necessary for their determination, and from that, their distinction? And if they are not, there still remains the necessity for the justification of their relative distinction, which would be itself a human construct.
I agree there is no shared collection between law and rule, and grant time-variance, albeit tentatively, as the immediate mitigating condition, iff time does not belong to the objects of either, but only to that by which they are determined.
Interesting topic, so thanks for that.
Yes. But I think you have some issues to sort out. 1) The relationship between the ideas that human beings have about how nature works and how nature actually works. 2) Your category of the Rules of Man seems to be a rather mixed bag of different kinds of rules - not all of which are settled by politics. There are laws as such, moral rules (or laws), the rules of etiquette, the grammatical rules of language; I don't exclude the possibility that there may be others. These are all different from each other and the laws of nature. Apart from their being dependent for their existence on human beings, I don't see much in common. 3) Whether the laws of mathematics are rules of man or of some sort of nature is unclear, but in any case are distinct from both of your categories.
It would help a lot if you would get rid of "sacrosanct" from your definition. It doesn't add anything and it is distracting people from the real issues.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I'm not sure that's how all debates work. In my experience, a proposal can be refuted, and often is, without any replacement being offered.
Yes. The clearest case is whether there is a debate about whether a moral "law" should be made a law. There's also some dubious ground in the idea that there are commonalities across all legal systems - the "ius gentium" as I think it was called. But the relevant point is that what the moral laws are is not determined by Law as such. The rules of language can be made and unmade as a matter of law, but that is the exception. In the rule, they are settled by custom and usage.
Slightly awkward question - when there is a debate about what the law should be - think euthanasia as an example - is that settled by the law, or something else?I don't think the law can settle it. It's fundamentally a question of ethics or morality, isn't it?
It is a question of ethics and morality, indeed. Perhaps, in these cases, laws can be understood as tools which help us to achieve the moral/ethical case. But I understand that it is more complex than what I am posting. First, laws (in most legislative countries) are approved by the incumbent government, and sometimes they are not liked or respected by the opposition or even a large part of the people. Second, and most significantly, laws must be followed; yet, this does not always occur.
However, this is where ethics can embrace law and act together (and viceversa). We need a system where we "force" (I dont really like this word, but I can't think of anything better) the application of a law to those who don't respect it. I understand that ethics, morality, and law are very extensive, but paradoxically, using boundaries would help us get the results we want in each specific case!
Yes. I don't have a complete answer.
Quoting javi2541997
The UK and USA have laws prohibiting euthanasia. Those laws apply to those who think it moral and those who think it isn't. If some country had a law requiring euthanasia, the same would be true. I think that both laws are repressive. But a law permitting euthanasia doesn't compel anyone to act against their conscience - except, perhaps, for those medics who think it is immoral - and they can be permitted not to act in those cases, so long as they allow someone else to act.
But freedom of conscience doesn't apply in many cases. In the UK, one is required to drive on the left-hand side of the road. In the USA, one is required to drive on the right-hand side of the road. Nobody's conscience is involved in that. If anyone did have objections, it is more important that everyone follows the law, for everyone's safety. So that law is not repressive.
There are some cases where to make and enforce a law would undermine the point of the law. You can require parents to support their children, but to make a law requiring parents to love their children would undermine the possibility of loving them. When parents don't love their children (or each other), it is better to work out a system for dealing with the mess.
It all depends on the specifics of the case, so general rules are not likely to cover the situation. Case by case is the only way to approach this.
Here's another awkward question. Is there a moral obligation to obey the law, whatever it may be? That means, where the law cannot be enforced, are we obliged to obey it anyway? I think so. Again, most people think that there are cases where it is legitimate and even morally required to flout the law as a protest - civil disobedience. I think that's right, where the law is repressive. But I wouldn't want to attempt a general definition of repressive laws.
I think this is intrinsically inherent to laws. We ought to obey the law, because we want to live in a place where righteousness and order exist. However, it is not that easy, I understand. Some laws were (and are in some cases) repressive and flawed. There are countries which force their citizens to vote (Bolivia and Perú, for instance). I think their laws are repressive.
But this is not always the case, and there are laws which we ought to obey because the point is to reach a better scenario or solution for all. For example, the custom (which developed into treaties and laws) of maritime consensus. Thus, the coastline limitations, free-alongside-ship, the flag of the ship, etcetera. Most people (and countries) abide by these laws because they are beneficial and efficient.
It might be a problem that politics are involved (in the Rules of Man) but it is de facto and cannot be erased. I would like to remind you of the following:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
You are welcome to focus on whatever you want to - I am (in this thread) interested in a solution to the demarcation problem. If it is your opinion that the philosophy of law might provide an alternative solution, please share such a solution.
Quoting javi2541997
You should read my definition of a law of nature very carefully. It contains two very specific words: "... conserved over space-time ..." Perhaps sacrosanct is not a good descriptor, perhaps inviolable would be better. It is valid that our human understanding of these rules change, but by my definition the law cannot. And, yes, it has got nothing to do with any religion or theology.
Really? "The debate (that) continues after more than two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists ...", but it is not worth commenting on! How odd ... or should this be peculiar.
My solution is grounded on the assumption of the conditional truth of the existence of physical things. The condition for the truth of this assumption is a valid perception of this existence by a human, hopefully a human with the capability of abstract thought.
The reasoning from this assumption to this proposed solution is not described in this thread
"how nature actually works" is fully founded by my definition of a law of nature. Our human understanding of these laws is incomplete, but the learned physicists are working on it. Mathematics is the language we use to understand and describe these laws. The conservation laws we have (mass-energy, momentum, etc) is used in all our human effort in understanding science.
The Rules of Man indeed seemed to be a "mixed bag". But that does not negate the founding definition:
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I agree that "sacrosanct" is perhaps a poor descriptor, perhaps inviolable is a better word. But whenever in doubt - refer to the definition.
If you do not have a replacement to offer, fine; by all means, try to refute my proposal.
Pieter, I do not want to share a solution. Honestly, I do not think it is actually possible. I want to express that important issues, such as "what is right and wrong" or "good and evil", have varying interpretations. Perhaps by using abstraction, we can reach a common understanding, but not necessarily a solution. Yes, I still believe that we can erase politics because it fails to facilitate debate. Right and wrong are intrinsically human, and it depends on the notion we all have of ethics and justice. I wish we all had an objective vision of ethics and justice, but because these concepts are universal, politics tends to interfere with our understanding of them.
I'm not interested in refuting your definitions. I'm trying to understand them. Then I'll be able to to evaluate them. But I doubt my verdict would be a simple agree or disagree.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
So neither the laws of nature nor the rules of man can be changed?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Are those time-invariant reactions created by the systems or not? If they are, they can be changed. If they are not, they seem to be at least very like the laws of nature.
Is the "we" here the same as the systems that are said to create the rules? Is that process of creation what you are referring to when you refer to politics? You seem to have a somewhat broader definition of politics than the usual one.
For example, there are often situations where we do not agree amongst ourselves. Sometimes we just go our separate ways, sometimes we resort to fighting. So is war just a form of .politics? What is clear, however, is that the outcome of war is the result of one side accepting what the victor dictates. It is not what is usually called "reaching an agreement". It is, most often, just a question of force. That's the point of it.
Your broad brush category leads you to ignore significant differences among them. For example, you seem to have in mind situations where we explicitly come to an agreement, like the supposed social contract. But most of our agreements are not based on any kind of contract (partly because there cannot be a contract or an agreement until after the rules for contracts and agreements have been agreed.)
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
"Inviolable" is not much improvement, if any. You don't need either.
"The Laws of Nature [s]are sacrosanct - they[/s] can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, we can even try to ignore them; but they cannot be changed." does all the work. However, there is a problem here. "cannot be changed" would describe a situation where a change may be desirable but it politically or financially or legally not possible. The point about the laws of nature is that it is not even possible to change or break them.
This is hard to express clearly. I suggest a better way is to say that when an apparent violation or change of a law of nature appears, we modify our formulation of the law - the law itself has not changed. We conform our formulation of the law to the phenomena. Normally, when a human law is broken, we try to conform people's behaviout to the law.
The proof .not merely the assumption of a conditional truth .for the existence of physical things relative to human perception, preceded you by about 250 years.
Even so, I dont find a connection between the assumed conditional truth of the existence of things, and the prohibition of the collection of natural laws from mingling with the collection of human-based rules.
Perhaps a synopsis of the reasoning for this assumption to your proposed solution, is in order. I already agree with the conclusion, but from a rather different set of majors and minors, Im sure. So ..for me, a simple matter of procedural interest.
Let me then explain some more (hopefully better):
The solution to the demarcation problem requires demarcation between science and non-science. It does not require, per se, a demarcation between philosophy, politics ... or any other human endeavour or understanding thereof or any sub-category of these things.
I have defined, categorically and unambiguously, my understanding of a Law of Nature. You might call this understanding by a different name if you so wish but the understanding stands and it is conserved over space-time. Examples of this understanding exist and is used very effectively in the study of science. It is used for the understanding of super conductivity to quasars and much more. It is my thesis that the study of these laws of nature (as per my definition) is what constitute science. It is also de facto that mathematics is the language that is used to study and understand these laws of nature.
I must also mention that what I have put forward here and previously in this thread (and the other two threads that I have started) is only extracts from a larger understanding. For example, I have defined, exactly, what I understand by a conserved property and by the term space-time.
By this understanding then, non-science is what is not a law of nature (as per my definition), therefore is not conserved over space-time - thus, time-variant.
In an effort to gain a more complete thesis, I have defined the Rules of Man in order to gain a better understanding of non-science. It is de facto that these Rules of Man contains philosophy, politics, ethics, morality, aesthetics, ... perhaps much more. All understanding of these things are de facto time-variant. Arguments and debates on these Rules of Man should have utility and might even be consistent but that does not refute nor negate my proposed solution to this demarcation problem.
This demarcation then boils down to things that are time-invariant (the Laws of Nature) and those that are time-variant (the Rules of Man).
But...
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
This is where I still disagree with you. I don't attempt to force you to think like me, not at all. It is just that I cannot see why laws of nature are time-invariant. Perhaps a big number of them are, but there are also others which are not. Furthermore, laws of nature are a set of statements that predict a natural phenomenon. I see why you would think they are time-invariant. However, I would say that they are symmetric, because the existence of homogeneities of both space and time.
A very clever lady with the name Emmy Noether has already proved in 1918 that every continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law. A mathematical proof that has not been refuted yet.
Methinks that those laws of nature that is perceived as time-variant is not properly understood yet or the link between them and my definition has not been found yet.
But I must confess, this seems to be outside my understanding (I am only an engineer). However, I maintain that these time-variant laws of nature will eventually by found a misunderstanding or will be found compliant with the requirements of my definition.
Quoting javi2541997
Is this not how science progress, These predictions are updated with a better understanding of the describing mathematics or as better measurements comes to light.
In any case, I thank you for your contribution.
:up: :up:
I also appreciate the exchange we had on this topic. I learnt a lot from you, Pieter. Until next time!
I see that you have changed your text. So I guess there was a typo. Don't worry. Everybody does that from time to time.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Could you explain?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Perhaps they do. But I think that the more important distinction is between the laws and rules that we can make and change and the laws and rules that we cannot change. So I wouldn't accept that boiling down.
There would remain the question how you know what the Laws of Nature are, and, especially, how you know there are any?
It simply states that there are no law of nature that is also a rule of man and there are no rule of man that is also a law of nature.
Quoting Ludwig V
I'm sorry, I don't understand your statement. What, exactly, according to you, is this distinction between the "laws and rules" that we can make and change and the "laws and rules" that we cannot change?
Quoting Ludwig V
I know what the Laws of Nature are because I have defined them. A typical example is the well known Law of the conservation of mass and energy - surely you learned about this in your grade 6 science class.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
The former are what you call rules of man and the latter are laws of nature. I suspect that everything else in your definition follows from that distinction.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
You misunderstand me. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My question is how you know that the law of the conservation of energy and mass is true?
Quoting Ludwig V
... he can at least substantiate such a statement - so, what is this distinction that you are speaking of?
Quoting Ludwig V
What is true? According to my understanding, in philosophy, it is a moving target: According to Godfriedt Wilhelm Leibniz: "A principle of sufficient reason obtain in virtue of which we consider that no fact could be true or actual, and no proposition true, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although most often these reasons cannot be known by us." Then, what would constitute a sufficient reason?
But, already in 1918, Emmy Noether proved, mathematically, that every continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservative law. Is this a sufficient reason? If not, kindly consider her second theorem ...
So, my perception is that the conservation of energy and mass is true. If it is your perception that it is false, I would like go into business with you; you will create energy and mass from nothing and I will sell it at a 1000% profit.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Is this the question?
Quoting Ludwig V
That's my answer.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I'm aware of the principle and who first propounded it. It would be very helpful if you could outline to me what evidence or arguments are there for it.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Well, if someone has proved it, one would be inclined to think that it is. It follows that the conservation of energy and mass is a priori true.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
If it is a matter of your perception, then, it would seem, the conservation of energy and mass is based on empirical evidence.
[quote="Pieter R van Wyk;1021881"]What is true? According to my understanding, in philosophy, it is a moving target:
So sometimes the conservation of energy and mass is true and sometimes it isn't?
What is your problem with the word "sacrosanct". It is simply a concept that is too important to dismiss without good cause. However, it can be tangled with superstition involving the gods. But it can also be an understanding of a law of nature. Global warming caused by human activity is destroying life on our planet, and for me, that is too sacrosanct to ignore. I think we are more sure of this than we are sure of what gravity is.
I deleted most of my argument because it was looking more like the Mad Hatter's tea party than philosophy. What is Quoting Pieter R van Wyk? The explanation I found says it is [an imaginary or physical line that divides territory[/quote] What does that have to do with the laws of nature? If something is imaginary, how do we get people to agree it's real? We can't even get people to agree on what is true when the facts are evident.
Who provides such concepts, and how does the birth of such a concept become a truth?
I have no problem with that. I believe global warming will continue to destroy life on our planet as long as human activity continues to cause the problem, and jumping off the top of a 10-story building will be deadly.
I am in favor of believing we can not violate the laws of nature without bad things happening. I think superstition interferes with rational thinking.
Does it matter to you how a person defines God? I like the concepts of logos or quantum physics, and the Creator is also good. The Aztec gods are so unfamiliar to me, I have a hard time relating to them. I believe those gods are inacting concepts that have an interesting notion of our relationship with the universe.
If anyone is familiar with the Aztec gods, I think that could make a very interesting discussion of the
demarchation problem.
Quoting Athena
It's not a simple question. Of course, I'm always curious about how exactly the person I'm speaking with calls the transcendental. Most often, it has to do with its origin (but sometimes it's different). To better understand the person I'm talking to, I believe it's important to consider and understand their views on this matter. But for me personally, I've given up on trying to name God. 2,500 years of philosophy haven't been able to do so. The likelihood that I'll be able to is very slim. Therefore, in such matters, I prefer to strive not to comprehend matter (substantia), but to understand the properties of the dynamics of the manifestation of divine design.
I do not have a particular problem with the concept. It is just that I don't think it was well used in the context of the present OP. Your example of climate change and its consequences is good, but I can't admit it when we discuss the Laws of Nature when history taught us that knowledge (thanks to human progress) tends to change. Even Pieter acknowledged that perhaps "sacrosanct" is not the correct word to describe the law of gravity (for instance). I understand that "universal" or "symmetric" might be more accurate terms. Yet I also observe disparities here. The point is that "sacrosanct" is more related to divine or god-like arguments. It is acceptable as long as it does not contradict the fields of humanities and science.
I'm sorry, I was not clear enough. My question to you is: What is your distinction ... how do you decide what is a law of nature and what is a rule of man?
Quoting Ludwig V
It is my perception that the statement has utility and it seems to be consistent. Therefore I regard it as valid. If you disagree, it is your free will to discard it.
Quoting Ludwig V
"The only thing we (humans) have is a perception of things, albeit physical, abstract or imaginary things. Through perception, we gain information, glean knowledge, construct abstract things and conjure imaginary things - and play politics." [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
So, yes, the conservation laws is based on physical measurements on which an agreement of validity has been reached.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
To my knowledge and understanding, the law of conservation of mass and energy has not been refuted yet.
Who provides such concepts, and how does the birth of such a concept become a truth?[/quote]
My statement: "There exists no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature", is a summary of an argument that I maintain is a solution to the philosophical problem named the [I]Demarcation Problem[/I]. I have named this statement [i]The Demarcation Rule[/I] simply so I can refer to the argument and the statement.
This answers the question in my first response, whether the statement is a rule or a law. Now that it is given as a rule, we are met with the appearance of a contradiction, in that there exists no shared collection implies the apodeitic certainty of law instead of the mere contingency, or, at best, the hypothetical certainty, of rule.
The demarcation between law and rule in general is trivially true, from which is given the demarcation between the laws of Nature and the rules of man, hence shouldnt even be a philosophical problem in need of a solution. The problem does arise, on the other hand, at least potentially, in any proposed solution from an argument affirming the distinction itself, those conditions under which it is necessarily the case. And it is a problem only insofar as the conditions justifying the distinction are purely metaphysical, dependent entirely on the initial set of premises determined a priori in a deductive logical syllogism, historically there being precious little accommodation for consensus with respect to metaphysical solutions.
(This makes this a law and not a rule, that makes that a rule and not a law)
From which follows your perception, in and of itself alone, is nothing but an observation of empirical relations, which can subsequently be understood as objective verification .or not .of that which the conclusion of the a priori syllogism for this or that law or rule, warrants.
I hesitate to bring forward the ol adage its a matter of principle. But, of course, thats exactly what it is.
To my understanding (gleaned from some perceptions), "In philosophy of science and epistemology, the demarcation problem is the question of how to distinguish between science and non-science. It also examines the boundaries between science, pseudoscience and other products of human activity, like art and literature and beliefs. This debate continues after more than two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields."
It is my perception that the understanding that I posted on Laws of Nature and Rules of Man, referenced from: [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I], is, in fact, a solution to this, two millennium old philosophical question.
Please consider:
"Through perception, we gain information, glean knowledge, construct abstract things and conjure imaginary things - even play politics." - from the same reference cited above.
You can either agree with me (my perception, that is), point out your perception of an error in my reasoning, perhaps even get the perception of a fatal flaw ...
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Sorry for thinking that if the demarcation meridian references the necessary separability of law from rule, the demarcation problem would thereby reference the distinction between law and rule in general, such that the meridian statement cannot possibly be false.
-
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Youre entitled to your own definitions, of course, but here must be the ground for the parting of our epistemological ways, for it is my contention that through perception we gain information, and nothing more than that, the rest belonging to other components of the human intellectual system.
-
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Ive already agreed with what youve called the demarcation meridian, but Im not inclined to agree with your argument for its affirmation, for no other reason that I reject the domain and range of its initial condition, re: perception.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
My [s]perception[/s] understanding of a fatal flaw, is the aforementioned domain and range of perception. Youve attributed to it much more than I think it deserves, which is sufficient reason for at least questioning the inferences provided by it.
I mean .if there is perception of an imaginary thing, how is it still imaginary? That thing imagined, then perceived, was only ever really a possible thing anyway, while the thing imagined but not perceived can be either a possible or impossible thing. All that in conjunction with your time-variance/invariance premise in the OP.
And if there is perception of an abstract thing, how is not actually a concrete thing? In fact, how can a thing be abstract? Again, I suppose .definition-dependent.
These other components of the human intellectual [i]system[/I] that you are speaking of; what would that be? The collective perceptions of: Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Plato, Locke, Nietzsche, Descartes, ... and @Mww
Please be very careful of using the word "system". As far as I have investigated there is no agreement on what exactly is considered a system. In a different discussion that I have started on this forum, asking for a definition of a system, I got more than 10.
Quoting Mww
Now consider:
"To summarise then: Our reality consists of systems:
[i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of existence[/I]
Finally, consider the following:
"Let me describe a picture to you, a picture of knowledge[/I] and [i]understanding[/I]. We humans have been working on this picture for more than 2,600 years, but the picture is not clear yet, and it seems to be not the full picture. It is my [i]understanding[/I] that this whole picture is constructed on the notion that if and when we assume [i]something[/I] to be [i]true[/I] then we could, with agreed-upon [i]logic-rules[/I], deduce [i]something[/I] else to be true. We have developd elaborate schemes for this to find [i]truth[/I] and develop our [i]knowledge[/I] ... Now consider a geodesic - relating to or denoting the shortest possible line between two points on a sphere or other curved surface. Now consider any point on this geodesic surface as depicting the assumption of some [i]true fact[/I] represented by the symbol [i]P[/I]. From this point we could use any [i]rule[/I] of inference to arrive at some other point depicting a deduced [i]fact[/I] represented by the symbol [i]Q[/I]. We can perhaps use some [i]different rule[/I] of inference, in a [i]different[/I] direction on this geodesic surface, to arrive at some other point depicting a [i]different[/I] deduced [i]fact[/I] represented by the symbol [i]Q'[/I]. Or we could start from [i]Q[/I] and use some [i]rule[/I] of inference to arrive at yet another point depicting another deduced [i]fact[/I] represented by the symbol [i]R[/I] ... Using this geodesic, we found our entitled human rights, and developed meta-modernism, in the aftermath of postmodernism, that was built on modernism, or any other direction enough humans [i]decide to follow onto a new area on this geodesic. It is the exact same geodesic that was used to develop [i]mathematics, science, engineering[/I] and [i]technology[/I], that led to the expected problems of artificial intelligence and the environmental disaster we humans are bringing over ourselves. But at the same time some questions have been contemplated for thousands of years without any clear or agreed-upon answers. Questions like those contemplated by the demarcation problem ... The fundamental problem depicted by this picture of a geodesic is that there is no starting point on this surface, no pole from which we can determine any direction. One could start at any point on this surface, go in any direction, and land up at any other point or even returning to the exact starting point, without realising that the direction and way we are following is actually going nowhere! And this is the best we have in tackling the problems that humanity is facing!" From the same book cited above.
Quoting Mww
The domain and range of my perception and understanding is the geodesic described above with two opposing poles and a meridian going through both these poles - so I know exactly where I am and where I am going.
Now, to add to my question stated above - what exactly is the domain and range of your perception and understanding? Or is this the same question?
Yes, we can think all kinds of stuff, related or unrelated to each other, but never simultaneously. It follows that for the thought of P from this inference at this point, and the thought of Q from that inference from some other point, makes explicit the rules must be as equally dissimilar as the points. Otherwise, we couldnt determine weve thought different things, which is a contradiction justified by having already thought P according to this rule and subsequently thought Q according to that rule.
So much for rules, but what of natural law? Where is that, with respect to purely mathematical constructs like geometric figures? And if it is necessary to construct an empirical sphere upon which is proved the existence of geodesics, youre never going to find human rights on any point on that line.
Why should the human intellectual condition of thinking a myriad or related or unrelated thoughts, be a problem? I submit it would be a problem if we did NOT have that condition, insofar as the consequence of an alternative condition would be the impossibility for accumulating knowledge of vastly different kinds of things.
Besides, inference can be a rule or a law, depending on its use. Rules of inference are guides; laws of inference are principles; principles ground natural law but are not themselves natural laws.
But all this is much further afield than I wish to proceed, so Ill leave it with you to carry on.
Wow, I really, really like that last line! :cheer: I think it is worth my time to contemplate what you said, and if I have any thoughts to work well with it. The words "dynamics of manifestation" particularly get my attention.
That was a delight to read. Yes, the word "sacrosanct" is connected with a god or religious purpose.
My issue is, shouldn't the laws of nature be as important as anything that is held sacred?
I may be wrong, but I think that in the past, Aboriginal people saw nature as God/Creator, and Christianity came in and destroyed that sacred relationship with nature and ourselves. I would like to strengthen our past relationship with nature and a sense of spiritual purpose by giving the words a supportive meaning. I think many people want that?
I would not put the blame only on Christianity, but your point is valid, I think.
Thanks to you and all other contributors.
We agree, I think? The Christian problem begins with Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam. They are basically the same religion, tailored to fit different cultures. But we could put some blame on Zoroastrianism and Mithra, coming from Persia, with its understanding of good, evil, and demons.
What we have is kind of like a garden with some invasive plants. Some invasive plants are worse than others because they take root and spread so easily, building on the beliefs that are pretty much universal, like believing it is necessary to sacrifice a human to a god.
However, I struggle with the demarcation problem. I think ancient Chinese and South American cultures knew truths that can be helpful to us today, and I am irritated by our cultural bias. Jose' Arguelles' explanation of the Mayan matrix and Pulsation-Rays holds me captive with a curiosity about what he is talking about and how much of this is compatible with our science. Totally dismissing the truths of other cultures is a serious attitude problem in my point of view. The Chinese were right about acupuncture points, and it hasn't been that long ago when we finally accepted we need to stop cutting down trees and polluting our water. We still live in denial of science, and the self-righteousness that goes with this is so offensive.
I do not. I proposed a solution that has not been refuted, yet. The best criticism was for using the word sacrosanct which is easily replaceable with inviolable or perhaps just stick with the original definition statement - invariant:
Invariant(time) := When the somewhere (its place in space) and the sometime (its place in time) of a thing is a consequence of each other (indiscernible), this thing is defined as time-invariant. We have no perception of change. [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
I really like that statement. I used my phone to take a picture of the words so I can contemplate them when I don't need my brain for something else. Do you have any other statements that might help me develop that thought?
The definition is from Chapter 2, on Human Perception. It requires an understanding (definition) of space-time (the sometime and somewhere of things), once you figured this out, time-invariant follows. The chapter ends with the statement:
For any and all perceptions, for any and all collections,[discernibility <=> collections]
How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
People who believe there is a god experience proof of that god all the time. God is not limited by time or space. God is perceived when one believes that all good things come from God. Then surviving a car accident is proof of God. A flood that wipes out a town but leaves a church standing is proof of a god. You know how that goes.
Or in the Mayan gods, I see laws of nature. For me, the Greek gods and goddesses are concepts and archetypes, and of course, there is a connection between the Greek gods and nature. Do you see the problem in discerning what is real and what is not?