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.

laws of nature are a set of statements that predict a natural phenomenon — 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.

In any case, I thank you for your contribution. — Pieter R van Wyk

:up: :up:

I also appreciate the exchange we had on this topic. I learnt a lot from you, Pieter. Until next time!

:cool:

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

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.

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

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Could you explain?

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

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?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Could you explain? — Ludwig V

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.

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. — 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?

There would remain the question how you know what the Laws of Nature are, and, especially, how you know there are any? — 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.

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

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? — 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.

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 — 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?

You have not answered my question. I assume that if and when a learned philosopher makes a statement like this;

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 — Ludwig V

... he can at least substantiate such a statement - so, what is this distinction that you are speaking of?

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? — 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.

what is this distinction that you are speaking of? — Pieter R van Wyk

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough.

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? — Pieter R van Wyk

Is this the question?

The former are what you call rules of man and the latter are laws of nature. — Ludwig V

That's my answer.

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, ... — 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.

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? — 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.

So, my perception is that the conservation of energy and mass is true. — 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.

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? — Pieter R van Wyk

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. — javi2541997

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

The Demarcation Meridian — 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?

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. — Astorre

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. — 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.

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. — Athena

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 wasn't clear enough.

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?
— Pieter R van Wyk
Is this the question?
The former are what you call rules of man and the latter are laws of nature.
— Ludwig V
That's my answer. — Ludwig V

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?

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. — 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.

If it is a matter of your perception, then, it would seem, the conservation of energy and mass is based on empirical evidence. — 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." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

So, yes, the conservation laws is based on physical measurements on which an agreement of validity has been reached.

So sometimes the conservation of energy and mass is true and sometimes it isn't? — Pieter R van Wyk

To my knowledge and understanding, the law of conservation of mass and energy has not been refuted yet.

The Demarcation Meridian
— Pieter R van Wyk
? The explanation I found says it is [an imaginary or physical line that divides territory — Athena

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?[/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 Demarcation Problem. I have named this statement The Demarcation Rule simply so I can refer to the argument and the statement.

I have named this statement The Demarcation Rule…. — Pieter R van Wyk

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 shouldn’t 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…it’s a matter of principle. But, of course, that’s exactly what it is.

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 shouldn’t even be a philosophical problem in need of a solution. — Mww

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: How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence, 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 ...

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

…..the demarcation problem is the question of how to distinguish between science and non-science… — 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.
————-

"Through perception, we gain information, glean knowledge, construct abstract things and conjure imaginary things - even play politics." — Pieter R van Wyk

You’re 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.
————-

You can either agree with me…. — Pieter R van Wyk

I’ve already agreed with what you’ve called the demarcation meridian, but I’m 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.

…..perhaps even get the perception of a fatal flaw….. — Pieter R van Wyk

My perception understanding of a fatal flaw, is the aforementioned domain and range of perception. You’ve 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.

the rest belonging to other components of the human intellectual system. — Mww

These other components of the human intellectual system 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.

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….defintion-dependent. — Mww

Now consider:

"To summarise then: Our reality consists of systems:

• 1. Real systems - consisting of perceived, measurable mass or energy.
• 2. Abstract systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (a real system) - perceived by analysis of real systems.
• 3. Imaginary systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (still a real system) - that cannot be perceived by analysis of any real system."

How I Understand Things. The Logic of existence

Finally, consider the following:

"Let me describe a picture to you, a picture of knowledge and understanding. 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 understanding that this whole picture is constructed on the notion that if and when we assume something to be true then we could, with agreed-upon logic-rules, deduce something else to be true. We have developd elaborate schemes for this to find truth and develop our knowledge ... 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 true fact represented by the symbol P. From this point we could use any rule of inference to arrive at some other point depicting a deduced fact represented by the symbol Q. We can perhaps use some different rule of inference, in a different direction on this geodesic surface, to arrive at some other point depicting a different deduced fact represented by the symbol Q'. Or we could start from Q and use some rule of inference to arrive at yet another point depicting another deduced fact represented by the symbol R ... 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 decide to follow onto a new area on this geodesic. It is the exact same geodesic that was used to develop mathematics, science, engineering and technology, 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.

My perception understanding of a fatal flaw, is the aforementioned domain and range of perception. — 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 couldn’t determine we’ve 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, you’re 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 I’ll leave it with you to carry on.

Thank you for the conversation and for sharing your thoughts and insights with me