:grin: :up: :up: :up:

depends on perspective.

My perspective is from the angle of maintaining a hospitable environment. The ecosystem has developed in such a way that it doesn’t disturb this equilibrium*.
When we came along, we thought we knew better and disturbed the equilibrium for purposes of internal conflict (within social groups) power struggles and greed.
This is what the allegory of Adam and Eve is all about.

* The equilibrium does from time to time get disturbed when one, or more species hit on something more exploitative in the environment, or ecosystem. But usually, a correction is made and the equilibrium is restored.

part of the natural process.

Then it’s time for us to leave the stage then.

not the premise of the argument.

Everything follows the law of physics. We're just a few decades or centuries away from understanding them. — Copernicus

So your argument, that we are all physical beings is based on what you are hoping physics will discover some day. OK, I'm a millionaire too, based on my hopes of winning the lottery some day.

So your argument, that we are all physical beings is based on what you are hoping physics will discover some day. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course not. Laws are laws whether we understand them or not.

What is your suggestion on that?

If we leave theistic views aside, I'd say it's a complex process that we're too early to understand. The same way the universe came into being or formed planets and oceans and lives. — Copernicus

If you only provide two options: physicalist and theistic and you jettison theism, then physicalism by necessity.

...and?

The ecosystem has developed in such a way that it doesn’t disturb this equilibrium*.
When we came along, we thought we knew better and disturbed the equilibrium for purposes of internal conflict (within social groups) power struggles and greed. — Punshhh

Indeed. And what other species acts in ways that disturbs the equilibrium so badly that we are concerned it might wipe itself, if not all life, out?

Fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, and other maths of complexity do a good job of modelling physical processes over all scales. A vortice is a vortice from the level of a Bose-Einstein condensate to a black hole accretion disk. — apokrisis

That’s why I said “usually.” As I understand it, engineering mechanics is the science of phenomena that can be constructed using the principles of lower levels of organization.

That’s why I said “usually.” As I understand it, engineering mechanics is the science of phenomena that can be constructed using the principles of lower levels of organization. — T Clark

Sure. But I am drawing attention to the tricky fact that Nature is organised by both “complicity” and “simplexity” as Stewart and Cohen waggishly put it.

So there is simplicity that applies across all scales of being. And there is complexity that arises as because topological order than cuts across the smooth change to create its abrupt phase transitions.

You get a world being organised by two apparently quite different types of hierarchical cause. Hence the word play of complicity versus simplexity as an attempt at unifying these oppositions - making them both fundamental in their own right as complementary ways to slice up the hierarchical order of Being.