or it has inherently the creative power to give itself consciousness and purpose. — leo

No "matter inherently has the power to give itself" is not accurate, or at least it's a very strange way of putting it. Matter is the building block, it's only a certain configuration of those building blocks that has purpose and consciousness. Matter and itself don't have the same meaning in that sentence.

Edit: You can combine carbon atoms with carbon atoms to form really hard or really soft substances. The property of hard and soft is not something the carbon atom by itself has, it only a property of certain configurations of it.

No "matter inherently has the power to give itself" is not accurate, or at least it's a very strange way of putting it. Matter is the building block, it's only a certain configuration of those building blocks that has purpose and consciousness. Matter and itself don't have the same meaning in that sentence. — ChatteringMonkey

It is accurate. If everything is matter, matter configures itself, there is not something else configuring it.

Edit: You can combine carbon atoms with carbon atoms to form really hard or really soft substances. The property of hard and soft is not something the carbon atom by itself has, it only a property of certain configurations of it. — ChatteringMonkey

If everything is matter, 'you' are matter, so if 'you' combine carbon atoms with carbon atoms, it is matter that is combining itself. The properties of hardness and softness are created by matter itself.

Ok fine, if you really want, matter combines itself into consciousness. What is your point? It still doesn't make matter itself conscious, like a carbon atom itself isn't hard or soft.

Let's say they are created. Creation presupposes a process from something to something else. Now for creation to make any sense that process should be predictable in some way, otherwise one never knows what one is creating and anything can come from anything. Predictability presupposes that there is some ' way things go'. — Tobias

Sure. But if the 'way things go' is ultimately that the creator can create whatever he wants, then the creator isn't constrained by any external law, any law would come from himself. In that instance it is false to say that the laws "just are", they are created.

The same applies for 'reasons'. things have a reason when they are there to accomplish a certain something. Now one can only accomplish a certain something if it can be predicted what will cause that something to come into being. Therefore also ' reason' is only applicable against the backdrop of some natural laws. — Tobias

As above, an omnipotent creator could predict what he will create without being constrained by a "backdrop of some natural laws". And his reason for creating a certain something would be that he chooses to.

If you want to fill it in with wild speculative metaphysics , more power to you, but why would you, if it is pointless to do so? — Tobias

It isn't wild speculative metaphysics to point out that saying natural laws "just are", that there is no reason for them, is an assumption and not a logical necessity. It is the assumption that there is a fundamental meaninglessness. And I'm not the one who believes the universe is pointless, you have to see the other guy for that.

Ok fine, if you really want, matter combines itself into consciousness. What is your point? It still doesn't make matter itself conscious, like a carbon atom itself isn't hard or soft. — ChatteringMonkey

The point is matter has the creative power to give itself consciousness, purpose, feelings, thoughts. This is even more extraordinary than saying that matter is conscious.

Matter isn't some dead thing that moves, it has an immense creative power. It gave itself consciousness. Purpose. Feelings. Thoughts.

Matter doesn't reduce to atoms, it is much more than that. What we observe of matter, that is what matter observes of itself, is given to itself by itself. Potentially matter is showing us, who are parts of itself, only a tiny part of itself.

The point is reality is much more extraordinary and amazing and awe-inspiring than materialists would have us believe, that's the point.

A law is a constraint. — leo

Rather, a natural law is a description. hence the remainder of your OP does not follow. Myth.

Oo, look! The OP woke up Tobias! Cool!

Take a traffic light. Yes, you have to stop, but because it regulates all the participants in traffic, it enables you to plan your journey and safely arrive at a destination. — Tobias

Fathoming how traffic lights work should be a first task amongst philosophers. The physical description of their construction and implementation tells us nothing about what they actually are for. Nor will a description of the intent of one individual explain why they are there. Even a brief explanation must cover the full range from basic physics to ethical and social theory.

Extraordinary things, traffic lights. Working them out was one of the things that motivated me to move from physics to philosophy.

Rather, a natural law is a description. — Banno

This was addressed in the rest of the thread.

The point is reality is much more extraordinary and amazing and awe-inspiring than materialists would have us believe, that's the point. — leo

That's also a matter of perspective, isn't it? If you consider that the sciences are built on materialism, then they have given us a lot of stuff that is awe-inspiring i'd say, from the big bang to the quantum-wave-function... and the whole process of how we came to be, and the astronomical odds against it, is arguably more 'fantastic' than any of the creations myths.

But I could maybe agree on this general point, what is lacking in the scientific story is purpose. It doesn't give us a clear direction that transcends the individual, it doesn't provide us with a set of mores to live by etc etc... Maybe a society needs some inspiring overarching stories that make it more than a collection of individuals. There's certainly that creative aspect to human life that science doesn't capture with it's reliance on description only. But that was never its role to begin with. It's very good at what it does, description, and not so much at the more creative stuff society needs. And I think that's fine, so long you don't expect something it's doesn't and isn't supposed to do.

Sure. But if the 'way things go' is ultimately that the creator can create whatever he wants, then the creator isn't constrained by any external law, any law would come from himself. In that instance it is false to say that the laws "just are", they are created.

Why would we need a creator at all? How would a creator know what he wants to create if there is nothing there towards which he (just assuming) can direct his will? When I want something it is because I know of that certain something and I know of that certain something because I experienced it or because someone told me about it or because of some physical urge or drive. Now a creator being rather immaterial does not have these physical urges. Moreover there is no one that could have told him about the thing he wants. Thirdly he has no experienced the thing he wants because it is not there. How does he know what to create? Gee I know the answer... hopping excitedly from one foot to the next... because he is omniscient! Ahhh ok. So the omniscient creator creates the world (in a broad sense, everything there is) cool. But now, that creator, how did it come into being? He cannot be created because that which is created is lower than that which creates and that would impinge on the almightiness of the creator. The only credible answer is that the creator just is. The latin name for that would be causa sui.

It isn't wild speculative metaphysics to point out that saying natural laws "just are", that there is no reason for them, is an assumption and not a logical necessity. It is the assumption that there is a fundamental meaninglessness. And I'm not the one who believes the universe is pointless, you have to see the other guy for that.

And now for the main point: no what I propose is not wild speculative metaphysics. I arrive at the same point as you do, " just there", but without having to construct a being that is beyond willing but somehow wants, all powerful, but somehow feels the need to create something other than himself, all knowing but somehow beyond the laws of physics which he nonetheless put there himself. Ockam would have it that an explanation not involving all kinds of stuff is better than an explanation that does. So, cut it away! I think the principle of sufficient reason would come to the same conclusion, but my jargon has become a bit rusty.

The point of me saying 'it is pointless to do so' is not to say the universe is pointless, it is pointless to put a creator in it, it does not solve anything. Moreover I do not assume a fundamental meaninglessness, you do because you think meaning comes from a creator and without it meaninglesness is left. Again though that is your assumption not mine....

Best
Tobias

Fathoming how traffic lights work should be a first task amongst philosophers.

Agreed Banno :). In any case for legal and political philosophy they are indispensible.

The physical description of their construction and implementation tells us nothing about what they actually are for. Nor will a description of the intent of one individual explain why they are there. Even a brief explanation must cover the full range from basic physics to ethical and social theory.

They are a metaphoric realisation of the power of law, or as we lawyers say it, ' the rule of law' .

We are rocks dreaming about being human and wondering what laws apply to the human perspective on the world and wondering if rocks are conscious to humans and what laws are and how they apply to dreaming rocks.