I do miss stuff - shit, 30,000 mentions... I need to get out more. And there are folk I just don't read, but that does not include you. Thanks.

Well, yes, but in so far as we are concerned with what we believe - what we hold to be the case - we are in an anthropocentric position.

Hume cannot be absolutely sceptical. — JuanZu

And do you think that he is absolutely sceptical? I don't.

Is the conversation about which bedrock is preferable, or is it about about whether we can avoid bedrock altogether? If the latter, then exactly how?

I am trying to understand legitimate beliefs in Hume — JuanZu

So stuff Hume. — apokrisis

14 pages of fulmination to arrive at the blank refusal to address the topic of the thread. No one forced you to engage in a topic you have only contempt for. "It's your own time you're wasting."

But it raises a lot of questions about the details of this objective, but invisible and all-powerful, existence that laws partake of. Are the laws all omnipresent? If so, how does that fit with them being numerically distinct? Or is there really one big law that explains everything? Do laws change? Eternal god(s) without the personality? — bert1

"All powerful"? Whatever gives you that idea?

According to the theory, laws are relations between types of objects. These relations exist when and where these types exist. This removes the mystery associated with a platonic view of laws, by proposing they exist as part of the ontological structure of the world.

There's no reason to think they would change. Bare possibilities are irrelevant, because the theory is an inference to best explanation of regularities we observe in the world. The theory isn't dependent on the tentative current state of the discipline of physics; if an apparent "law of physics" were to change, it would be imply there's more to this "law of physics" than we thought.

Is there one big law? That might be the case if monism is true. But these questions are irrelevant to the theory.