The way you tell it is almost as if our cognitive apparatus is unnatural, or supernatural. — unenlightened

Perhaps that's the way you read it.

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

Not being a philosopher or scientist, I have no commitments either way. But I think the quesion what are the presuppositions which allow science to be understood as reliable is inevitable here. Once you start asking 'why' of scientific inferences, you tend to head into philosophy and more metaphysical areas.

Well, nature very well could BE the laws. — flannel jesus

:up: Yes, in one sense. Spinoza. Natura naturata and natura naturans, commonly translated as "nature natured and nature naturing. The passive and the active

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

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.

Once you start asking 'why' of scientific inferences, you tend to head into philosophy and more metaphysical areas. — Tom Storm

I don't think you have to go that deep into ancient philosophy to understand all that. It is philosophical, yes, it's epistemology for sure.

I'm not talking 'ancient' I am thinking more along the lines of embodied cognition studies - thinkers like Evan Thompson and Dan Zahavi - as one avenue of enquiry.

But should laws not refer to something? Law itself being nature sounds, for me at least, a bit inconceivable. — Pez

Nature refers to everything, everything is a part of nature. Have you ever seen a star doing something UNnatural?
Everything that happens naturally does so because nature is the rules. Even human intervention cannot cause things to happen unnaturally.

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

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?".

Here's a physical example : The behavior of gas-in-a-box (Maxwell's Demon) illustrates --- without explaining --- that natural-but-inexplicable trait of averaging the pressure, by moving particles from a demon-caused condensed state toward a more natural diffuse state : order to disorder, or energy to entropy. In between those extreme states the gases were free to move forward and backward. Even biological evolution allows change to move back & forth*1. 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?

Scientists have not been able to empirically determine an “underlying reason” for that “law-like behavior”, or for the simple to complex direction of natural Evolution. But some philosophers have speculated beyond the physical boundaries of Science --- to postulate a First Cause or Logos --- hoping to explain the Impetus and Intention behind such regularities in a universe that could otherwise be totally random and directionless. Even some professional scientists, Terrence Deacon, Paul Davies, Max Planck, Norbert Wiener, etc, have used the term “teleology”, not to explain, but to describe the lawful & directional forms of natural processes. So, isn't it reasonable for even fun-loving amateur philosophers like us to push the boundaries toward a Theoretical and Metaphysical answer to those Why questions.

Regarding "maximal simplicity", I must suppose that would equate to minimum organization and max Entropy, as in the heat death (big freeze) of the universe. Which is the opposite of the Big Bang"s demonic (hot & dense) low Entropy*2 beginning. The article below, by physicist Ethan Siegel*2, implies that Evolution began in an almost perfectly ordered (superdense) state*3 like a Black Hole, from which there was "nowhere to go", but toward more internal freedom to change, and to organize into more complex systems. But, why not take the easy path, directly to complete Entropy, without the eons-long detour of incremental steps toward more & more organization? Instead, the BB theory describes the original state as a hot-dense Plasma, which is like a gas-in-a-box situation. For some unknown reason, a metaphorical Demon (Inflation???) moved all the particles into one side of the box, then opened the door to allow it evolve eventually & naturally into stars & galaxies & us. Hence today, we find "particles" of matter organized into upright bipedal creatures with big brains, who ask dumb Why? questions.

Here's one amateur philosophical (non-scientific) speculation of a possible answer to the OP question of "what makes nature comply with its own inherent laws of nature" {my added bold}. Entropy alone would never even get to the original plasma state. So, is it reasonable that some countervailing inherent "force" or "law"*4 is responsible for enforcing the "regulations" of evolutionary organization? :smile:

PS___Sorry to unload on you. I had a lot of momentum. :joke:

*1. Can Species Evolve Backwards? ;
Thus, penguins didn't "devolve," they simply adapted to their new environment, and in that particular case, that meant losing a feature that had previously been beneficial.
https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happens-when-species-evolve-backwards-the-strange-science-of-devolution

*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/

*3. Zero Entropy :
No entropy means no random motion in molecular level that means zero temperature that means zero heat energy that means zero possiblity for energy conversion that means "heat death of the universe" that means freeze of entire universe including all atoms and photons everything.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-there-is-no-entropy-in-the-universe

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
a. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
b. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

MAXWELL'S DEMON COSMOLOGY : low entropy initial state ; high entropy final state


COSMOLOGY : What Demon placed the BB at the top of the energy/entropy curve?
Natural evolution has a law-like gravity ride downhill from the demonic Normal position

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

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.

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. The complex ordering that is life is an eddy in the energy dissipation stream of the sun. and in no way contradicts entropic flow.

As to why we live in that peculiar condition that allows life to exist - that is a question too fatuous to respond to.

Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. — Gnomon

This is Hegel's "geist", disguised in pseudoscientific language. He, and you, may well be right. I certainly agree that the scientific view cannot account for everything, because it resolutely excludes the subject from consideration. But I at least, cannot not pretend that a hypothetical metaphysical aspect of reality that results in "progress" and implies a goal, is science. The great advantage of Hegel's version to my mind is that the direction it establishes is towards freedom - that is to the transcendence of the limitations of physical law as that goal. Thus for example, nature evolves heavier than air flight, and intelligence does the same thing faster and more extensively for flightless apes. And the science side of this is that life does it by exploiting exactly those chaotic complex situations where a butterfly's wing or a neuron's firing can have a disproportionate effect on the world.

I’m a week late to the party, so the following is more or less rhetorical…..

Does this mean that transcendental idealism is in the end unavoidable and there is no realistic alternative to this world-view? — Pez

TI is not a world-view, although it may be said to contain the ground for the development of one. TI is a doctrine, supported by a speculative metaphysical theory concerning the human intellect in general, and as such, has no warrant beyond its own logic for actually being the case.

So saying, even if not a world-view per se, TI is certainly avoidable by not having any knowledge of it, and, there can be realistic alternatives to it by assuming a different set of initial conditions. Just as in any theory, TI is neither certifiably irrefutable nor unalterable.

On the other hand, TI is unavoidable iff the rational thinking subject….that to which the theory applies….subscribes to its rules. With respect to the thread title, one of the major rules is the source of the legitimacy for attributing to Nature, only that by which its observable relations are comprehensible, and its unobserved relations are nonetheless possibly comprehensible.

Only if comprehension is invariant, that is to say, subsumed under the principles of universality and necessity, and thereby under any legitimate condition, is the attribution to Nature a law. From which follows as a matter of experience alone, we do in fact influence the laws of Nature, insofar as we propose them, even if it is true we cannot influence Nature or the intrinsic relations observable in it.
————-

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

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.

If something is of our own making, how is it possible we don’t have a clue about what that something is? If it is something because of us it cannot be nothing to us.

Wouldn’t the fact we don’t have a clue about these things, immediately presuppose them? How is it possible to have or not have clues about things that aren’t there to have or not have clues about? And if things are presupposed, the notion of ideas alone as conditions for having no clue about the existence of things, is categorically false.

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)

It is, then, in Kant, representations are that which exists only in human thought, and subsequent peer review iterations have extended mere human thought to ideas. That in which we live, in which we exist as a particular kind of thing amongst all things in general, is necessarily presupposed as existing by its own accord, independent of human intelligence, in order for there to be spatialtemporal phenomena at all.

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

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:


*1. Maxwell's Demon is a way of demonstrating that the laws of mechanics are compatible with microstates and Hamiltonians that lead to an evolution which violates the Second Law of thermodynamics by transferring heat from a cold gas to a hot one without investing work. . . .
Maxwell’s Demon is a thought experiment devised by J. C. Maxwell in 1867 in order to show that the Second Law of thermodynamics is not universal, since it has a counter-example. Since the Second Law is taken by many to provide an arrow of time, the threat to its universality threatens the account of temporal directionality as well. Various attempts to “exorcise” the Demon, by proving that it is impossible for one reason or another, have been made throughout the years, but none of them were successful.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7516722/#:~:text=Maxwell%27s%20Demon%20is%20a%20way,hot%20one%20without%20investing%20work.

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

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:

*2. Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder. . . .
the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy

This is Hegel's "geist", disguised in pseudoscientific language. — 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:

Systems Theory & Holism :
Systems have common defining properties, such as hierarchical ordering, coupling, permeability, holism, emergence, equifinality, and homeostasis. Representing the broader systems perspective are several specific theories and perspectives, such as Weick's theory of organizing, communication network perspectives, ecological and evolutionary perspectives, and self-organizing systems theory. Systems theory has been extensively applied in research areas ranging from communication design and adoption of technology use in organizational operations to professional communication, health campaigns, and public relations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316283969_Systems_theory

So, you think Entropy is a causal force, — Gnomon

No. "because" not "by cause". An explanation is not a cause of anything except, occasionally, understanding.

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

Interesting objection indeed. 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?

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

What do You mean by "really existent things"? That term is exactly what is at stake here. Not many people would earnestly doubt the real objective existence of things in space and time. At least I do not. Nevertheless the question about the nature of space and time and the validity of scientific theories remains. Your quote regarding Kant's Critique shows it quite clear, that Transcendental Idealsms has nothing whatsoever to do with ordinary idealism or solipsism.

Quotes from this thread above :

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), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened

No. "because" not "by cause". An explanation is not a cause of anything except, occasionally, understanding. — 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".

The Second Law is usually taken to be inviolable, with the possible exception of a highly unprovable & improbable First Cause scenario, as postulated in Cosmic Inflation theory, when presumably lax pre-bang physics also allowed a violation of the speed limit of light*5. Technically, that mathematical creation story took place before our Universe existed ; so it's not about Physics, but Meta-Physics : Voila! instant universe from nothing ; indistinguishable from magic. It's not a physical causal explanation, because it assumes a mysterious Cause that no longer exists in the real world. :smile:

PS___ Again, I apologize for pushing this esoteric Causation enigma, but it's a hobby-horse of mine.


*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/

*3. Entropy vs Density :
When we think about the Universe in the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang, we’re imagining all the matter and radiation that we have today — currently spread out across a sphere some ~92 billion light-years in diameter — packed into a volume about the size of the world’s largest pumpkin. The Universe back at that stage was incredibly hot and dense, . . .
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/

*4. What is the relationship between entropy and density?
Density measures how closely the atoms are packed, whereas entropy measures the disorder or randomness. . . .
The law of entropy ( the law which says, entropy always increases) is better read as “there is a high probability that entropy always increases”. It’s not physics, but probability that governs this.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diference-between-density-and-entropy-basic

*5. Is cosmic inflation faster than light?
Around 13.8 billion years ago, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light for a fraction of a second, a period called cosmic inflation. Scientists aren't sure what came before inflation or what powered it. It's possible that energy during this period was just part of the fabric of space-time.
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/

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

Yes to both. I cannot do science in a dream. While it could be said by dreaming I may represent myself as if I am doing science, in fact I’m not doing anything scientifically.
————

What do You mean by "really existent things"? — Pez

Ehhhh, that’s just me being…..me. Existing indicates that for which the negation is contradictory; really existing just indicates that for which the negation is stupid.

…..Transcendental Idealsms has nothing whatsoever to do with ordinary idealism or solipsism. — Pez

True enough, but it is a form of idealism nonetheless. 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.

It used to be that forces obeyed certain laws but we didn't know why. But given that, the forces enforced those laws, pushing everything around according to their rules. But with quantum mechanics, the rules described by the wave equation cannot be enforced by forces. Physicists have proposed some ideas about how they do get enforced , but some of course regard that as philosophy, not physics. Still, those discussions do help create visions of what the world might be like.

It's similar with general relativity. 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. How does mass manage to curve space? No body knows.

That's ultimately what science has to say about the even simpler question of how the universe manages to follow the laws that our models postulate.

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

I think gravity is still a force, and mass curves spacetime. Its a little like mass increasing as velocity increases, a perspective replaced by increases in kinetic energy. Sorry. Nitpicking.

It is very confusing. Walking down a hill is easier than going up and it sure feels like a force pulling at you. When experts try to explain that they start getting into inertial and non-inertial reference frames. They say the apple is not falling off the tree but the Earth is accelerating towards it, but not getting bigger because it is doing that in curved spacetime. Huh? Anyway, a couple of links along those lines: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/if-gravity-is-not-a-force-what-is-holding-us-down.1004751/#:~:text=It%20isn't%20easy%20to,exactly%20as%20a%20force%20would.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/understanding-general-relativity-view-gravity-earth/

Thanks for bringing this up. I wish I had a clearer picture odf it.

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

But why is it nonsense? Maybe You can explain it to me. Otherwise I can take it only as subjective opinion and further discussing nonsense does not interest me.

I can take it only as subjective opinion…. — Pez

Was my “Dunno, but maybe….” your first clue? Is any opinion not subjective? Doesn’t “opinion” characterize the majority of postings in this kind of public media? So it is no big deal to take what anybody says, at least initially, as mere opinion.

Speaking of nonsense…..

the only fact, that I can be sure of is, that I exist. (…) reminiscence to Descarte's „cogito ergo sum“ — Pez

…..relevant insofar as, because there is an antecedent necessary condition supporting the fact you exist, which is fundamentally reminiscent of Descartes, it is nonsense to assert the fact that you exist is the only fact there is to be sure of.

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

….. it is the case knowledge of objects out of our consciousness is impossible, which makes both their future behavior superfluous, and, the connection to Hume’s argument, irrelevant.

Categorical error: knowledge of objects impossible because they are not in consciousness, is very far from knowledge of objects impossible because they are not immediately perceived. Hume’s argument, re: that knowledge of unperceived objects is validated by “constant conjunction”, or, habitual cause/effect thinking, has nothing to do with the objects as the content of consciousness, and is entirely refuted by theories of empirical knowledge wherein the immediate appearance of objects to the senses is a fundamental prerequisite.

My opinions, of course. I can give the textual references for them, from Rene’s, Dave’s or Manny’s opinions, if you like.

Perhaps it would be helpful to turn things around for a moment and ask, 'what would have to occur for nature to disobey laws?' Miracles? Magic? One difficulty would be that if folk were able to turn water into wine on a regular basis, we might come to see it as a lawful natural talent, rather than disobedient nature. On the other hand, if it only happened the one time, we might simply deny the event.

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

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)?

A slight alteration of the OP might ask : why are these particular Necessities needed for the workings of Nature? If the mechanics of the universe was completely random, no physical path would be favored, and Evolution would not need to be Selective, and Statistics would never vary from a central norm. Obviously, the world we live in is mostly non-random, except perhaps on the quantum level, where spontaneity happens just enough to call it "Uncertainty". On the macro scale though, most processes are directional and predictable --- hence the "effectiveness" of Science. So, it seems that a bit of fundamental randomness is Necessary, only to allow degrees of freedom (flexibility) in the otherwise deterministic path of Evolution*2. The general direction, at least on Earth, is toward more complexity & organization, with just enough plasticity to allow for novelty along the way*3.

Therefore, the universe --- or agents within --- could "disobey" natural Laws only if they were Un-necessary, or optional. But, as far as empirical Science can tell, the law-like limits on Physics are universal*4. And the only exceptions are found on the Quantum scale*5, which seem to serve only to dilute the mechanical rigidity of absolute Cause & Effect. So, only more Randomness, and less Lawfulness (i.e. Magic), would allow Nature to vary from it's legitimate path of orderly Causation & Evolution. :smile:


*1. What does necessary mean in philosophy?
In philosophy, necessity and sufficiency are two attributes that together constitute causality. A cause is necessary and sufficient to generate the effect. It being necessary is the negation or falsification: the effect cannot occur without the cause, so the cause is necessary for the effect to occur.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-explain-necessity-in-philosophy

*2. When being flexible matters :
In this debate, it has been argued that our view of evolutionary causation should be rethought by including more seriously developmental causes and causes of the individual acting organism. . . . to reflect on the causal role of agency, individuality, and the environment in evolution.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32285230/

*3. Evolutionary Causation :
Most scientific explanations are causal. This is certainly the case in evolutionary biology, which seeks to explain the diversity of life and the adaptive fit between organisms and their surroundings. The nature of causation in evolutionary biology, however, is contentious.
https://philpapers.org/rec/ULLECB

*4. Is natural law a law in the true sense? :
Laws of nature are the only real laws based on principle and truth. Natural laws are universal, eternal, and immutable,
Nature doesn’t “have” laws, since natural laws aren’t like man-made laws that tell people how they should behave. Instead, natural laws are merely our best descriptions of how we have observed that things behave within nature and how we think, by extension, things behave elsewhere within nature.
https://www.quora.com/Is-natural-law-a-law-in-the-true-sense

*5. Quantum Magic :
Some quantum scale behaviors (e.g. tunneling) might seem magical, but they are never found on the macro level of reality.

the immediate appearance of objects to the senses is a fundamental prerequisite. — Mww

But take the signal traveling through the optical nerve for instance. Besides the fact, that it is heavily pre-processed by the retina: where is the "immediate" object?

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

Is our science complete enough to rule out the possibility that the universe will undergo a radical transformation next year, with all current regularities and physical constants replaced by new ones? Is it possible there is an undiscovered mechanism whereby the universe goes through such radical changes ever 13.7 billion years or so? How would you even calculate the odds of such an event?

….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.

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

This really is quite close to the ideas presented by Kant in his Critique!