On the other hand, the Rules of Man is brought into being by politics ... or would this be philosophy? — Pieter R van Wyk

Precisely, the Rules of Man 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.

the Laws of Nature are sacrosanct — 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:

Does general relativity conserve global energy and momentum then? :chin:

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 prescribe—it 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.

Definitely

[N]ature doesn't prescribe—it 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." — Astorre

:up: :up:

Precisely, the Rules of Man are the subject of Law and Philosophy of Law. — javi2541997

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.

A more accurate expression would be "stable regularities of the physical world" or simply "physical invariants." — 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?

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. — 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.

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. — Ludwig V

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.

On a point of order honourable Members: This is a debate on the demarcation problem - the question of how to distinguish between science and non-science. I have provided my solution to the problem: science is the study of the laws of nature, as I have defined it. Mathematics is the language we humans use to describe our understanding of these laws. Non-science is then the rules of man, as I have defined it and as it present itself by the politics we conduct amongst ourselves and the philosophy we contemplate in order to try and understand this.

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.

Precisely, the Rules of Man are the subject of Law and Philosophy of Law. Although politics can be involved, — 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.

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: — 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.

↪Pieter R van Wyk Does general relativity conserve global energy and momentum then? :chin: — 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?

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 prescribe—it 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." — 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?

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). — 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.

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". — 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?

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: — 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

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

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.

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. — 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:

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). — Astorre

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 "it" that happens? — Athena

What is happening, I think, is that the author of the original post is trying to fit life into logic. At this point, he’s 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 don’t quite see the scientific novelty or practical applicability of this distinction, though to be fair, there’s no mention of God in his original post.

As for me, I have no firm opinion regarding the metaphysical essence of being. Yet I’ve 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.

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? — javi2541997

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.

What is happening, I think, is that the author of the original post is trying to fit life into logic. At this point, he’s 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 don’t quite see the scientific novelty or practical applicability of this distinction, though to be fair, there’s no mention of God in his original post.

As for me, I have no firm opinion regarding the metaphysical essence of being. Yet I’ve 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. — Astorre

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:

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. — Athena

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: νόστος, nostos) is a sacrosanct pattern of conduct inherent to human psychology.

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 prescribe—it 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." — Astorre

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.

The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exists no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Law of Nature. — Pieter R van Wyk

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?

Wouldn’t 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.

So, you agree with my solution to the problem? — Pieter R van Wyk

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.

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. — 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.

Non-legal rules can also be the subject of law and philosophy of law. — javi2541997

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?

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? — Ludwig V

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 don’t 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!

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 — javi2541997

Yes. I don't have a complete answer.

We need a system where we "force" (I don’t really like this word, but I can't think of anything better) the application of a law to those who don't respect it. — 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.

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. — Ludwig V

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.

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. — javi2541997

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:

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. — 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.

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: — 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.

The OP is not worth commenting on — SophistiCat

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.

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?

Wouldn’t 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. — Mww

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

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.

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.
— 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. — Ludwig V

"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:

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. — 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.

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:
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.
— 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. — Pieter R van Wyk

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.

If you do not have a replacement to offer, fine; by all means, try to refute my proposal. — Pieter R van Wyk

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.

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

the Laws of Nature are sacrosanct - they can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, we can even try to ignore them; but they cannot be changed. — Pieter R van Wyk

So neither the laws of nature nor the rules of man can be changed?

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. — 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.)

I agree that "sacrosanct" is perhaps a poor descriptor, perhaps inviolable is a better word. But whenever in doubt - refer to the definition. — Pieter R van Wyk

"Inviolable" is not much improvement, if any. You don't need either.
"The Laws of Nature are sacrosanct - they 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.

My solution is grounded on the assumption of the conditional truth of the existence of physical things. — Pieter R van Wyk

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 don’t 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, I’m sure. So…..for me, a simple matter of procedural interest.

@javi2541997@Ludwig V@Mww et al

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).

I agree. Now, I understand you better, Pieter. You explained yourself and argument more clearly.

But...

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). — 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.