The way you tell it is almost as if our cognitive apparatus is unnatural, or supernatural. — unenlightened
But if I wanted to seek external opinions about if the universe is really "lawful" under the hood, I would seek the opinion of scientists first, physicists in particular, rather than ancient philosophers. I respect that that's not necessarily a popular opinion here — flannel jesus
Well, nature very well could BE the laws. — flannel jesus
Perhaps Kant can help us? Or phenomenology? What methodology do you think you have access to that can answer the above and determine what direction this enquiry should take? Or do you think straightforward empiricism can resolve this matter? — Tom Storm
Once you start asking 'why' of scientific inferences, you tend to head into philosophy and more metaphysical areas. — Tom Storm
But should laws not refer to something? Law itself being nature sounds, for me at least, a bit inconceivable. — Pez
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. My post referred to "Russell's statistical argument to explain Nature's regularities". Then I asked a philosophical (non-scientific) question : not how, but "why would a random, non-designed, process (e.g. Evolution or coin flipping) have a tendency to average-out extreme states into a law-like & predictable moderate position?".If one begins with maximal simplicity, there is nowhere to go but towards complexity. However, once complexity has evolved, it can devolve into more simple forms, and there are many examples, — unenlightened
Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. If so, the topical question could be rephrased as : why do physical systems tend to follow a middle-of-the-road course, toward more & more order, as they evolve? Moreover, why is the cosmos now in a moderate state of Entropy, which allows Life & Mind to emerge? — Gnomon
Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. — Gnomon
Does this mean that transcendental idealism is in the end unavoidable and there is no realistic alternative to this world-view? — Pez
The spatiotemporal world we live in is, according to Kant, of our own making. It exists only in our ideas (Vorstellung) and gives us no clue to what these things might be „an sich“ or per se. — Pez
Obviously, the "demon" was a metaphor that Maxwell used to illustrate a physical phenomenon --- work without a worker --- that had no better explanation. It remains a puzzle for both scientists and philosophers*1. But the metaphor is still used, not to explain but to illustrate, various anomalies in science. For example, physicist Paul Davies' The Demon in the Machine, in which he identifies the "demon" with Causal Information. Could that be the mysterious "entity to impose laws"? :smile:I think the scientific presumption is that demons do not exist. If they did exist, they would be just the entities to impose laws on particles like political economists such that wealth/energy would accumulate rather than dissipate. — unenlightened
So, you think Entropy is a causal force, instead of merely a degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system, as defined by physicist Rudolph Clausius?*2 In a similar metaphorical sense, I called my own coinage of "Enformy" a counter-force to Entropy. That's not yet a scientific fact, but it's a useful way for philosophers to think about the "general trend" of the universe to go downhill, while in local pockets of organization, like planet Earth, the thermodynamic trend has been "violated" ; reversed toward Life and Order. :cool:But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened
That's a good analogy. But I object to the "pseudoscientific" characterization. "Holism" was originally a scientific term to describe how Evolution works its natural "magic". But the term was adopted by New Agers, and rendered contaminated by its association with supernatural beliefs. Similarly, the term "Metaphysics" was originally a useful philosophical term to describe topics, such as Mind, that are not understandable from a reductive physical perspective. Today, scientists use the term "Systems Theory" as a disguise for their holistic research*3. :nerd:This is Hegel's "geist", disguised in pseudoscientific language. — unenlightened
So, you think Entropy is a causal force, — Gnomon
If it is the case the spatialtemporal world resides in our intelligence, insofar as “it is of our own making”, it’s absurd to then suppose we live in it. — Mww
If that in which we live exists merely from our ideas of it, why do we have and employ apparatus for the receptivity of various modes of physically real affectations caused by really existent things?
————-
“….. In the transcendental æsthetic we proved that everything intuited in space and time, all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomena, that is, mere representations; and that these, as presented to us—as extended bodies, or as series of changes—have no self-subsistent existence apart from human thought. This doctrine I call Transcendental Idealism….” (A491/B519, in Kemp Smith,1929) — Mww
Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. — Gnomon
But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth),despitebecause increasing general entropy. — unenlightened
OK. But, if your reply above is not a "causal" explanation, how does it explain --- increase understanding of --- how local complexity could increase, in apparent violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? My footnote *2, describes a possible explanation --- given certain conjectures --- of how high-density stars could form even-though (despite) the uphill pull against the inexorable cosmic expansion trend toward lower overall density of matter*3. Ironically, it uses the counter-intuitive statistical notion of "Entropy Density"*4. Perhaps, instead of striking out "despite" in favor of "because", your explanation should insert "probably" or "possibly".No. "because" not "by cause". An explanation is not a cause of anything except, occasionally, understanding. — unenlightened
Would You not say a dream is of Your own making? And as long as You dream is it absurd to say You live in that dream? — Pez
What do You mean by "really existent things"? — Pez
…..Transcendental Idealsms has nothing whatsoever to do with ordinary idealism or solipsism. — Pez
There used to be a force of gravity. Now mass curves space and that produces what acts like a force, but explains the details better — Gary Venter
Dunno, but maybe these days the term has been transitioned onto one of those newfangled language games, where idealism of old is now raw subjectivism, or some other such nonsense. — Mww
I can take it only as subjective opinion…. — Pez
the only fact, that I can be sure of is, that I exist. (…) reminiscence to Descarte's „cogito ergo sum“ — Pez
But any knowledge in a strict sense about objects entirely out of our consciousness is impossible, especially regarding their behavior in the future. If this was the case, Hume's arguments are indeed irrefutable. — Pez
That's a good question. From our perspective as subjects to the Law, the physical regularities of Nature are Necessities*1 --- "gravity always wins". Also, since Nature has physical Forces to enforce those laws, the consequence is what we call Causation. Which raises the contentious question : is the lawful order & predictability of Nature due to top-down Causality (Lawmaker), or to fortuitous Accident (Chance)?Perhaps it would be helpful to turn things around for a moment and ask, 'what would have to occur for nature to disobey laws?' — unenlightened
I don't think our science is so incomplete that we can't determine that there are regularities in nature independent of our cognitive faculties. For example, I routinely capture highly regular sequences of events using an oscilloscope, where the time intervals between events are measured in microseconds or nanoseconds. I have no reason to think that my cognitive faculties are capable of distinguishing events at such temporal resolutions, let alone impose such regularity on the events.
I don't see any sensible of interpreting such high speed events as products of my mind. — wonderer1
….where is the "immediate" object? — Pez
Immediate appearance is before the processing. Object here just indicates that which is processed, depending on which sense is affected. The object for the ear is sound, for the tongue, chemicals, etc. The intellectual system, metaphysically speaking, the brain physically speaking, determines how the object of sense, referred to as sensation, is to be known by that system. :up: — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.