As I read you, the rest of the system is a subset of the universal system. — ucarr

I am afraid you have read me wrong. The definition of a system that I use reads as follows:

System := Components (things that are) and the interaction between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

There are no sets or subsets in this - it is impossible to define a system in terms of sets or subsets - it is a fundamental thing by and in itself.

Inside of a Venn Diagram, by definition, lie the common properties linking two otherwise distinct things. An example would be two math inequalities that share a zone wherein their points intersect. — ucarr

Please enlighten me; what is the common properties linking the Purpose of the Universal System with the rest of this system. The properties that is then inside this Venn diagram that you propose?

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

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?

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 ...

Why don't you think an interaction contains a component of shared identity? A transfer of mass, energy, and information involves three components shared by both parties to the exchange. — ucarr

Perhaps I did not explained myself properly. You are quite correct in your (above quoted) statement. I just do not know what is inside the Venn diagram that you are speaking of.

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'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.

When the Universal system and the unique component interact, is there a Venn diagram of shared identity? — ucarr

To my knowledge, no. Simply an interaction - a transfer of mass, energy or information.

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.

Your title reminds me of the two books edited with commentary by Stephen Hawking: God Created the Integers and On the Shoulders of Giants. both available from Penguin Books.

In my work I found the concept of God.
"My only contribution is that there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System - it is a very unique thing in the Universal Collection of Components. We cannot object if this unique interaction or this unique component is named God or any other name, for that matter. It is interesting to note that, according to our Understanding - this theory; this unique component does consist of mass or energy that does not change, ..." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

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.

:cool:

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.

@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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

As for the notion to ban AI altogether; in my opinion, this is not possible any more!

In my understanding, there are only two human capabilities that AI has not achieved, yet:

• Abstract though (or abstraction) - AI is excellent in communication, that is converting data into information as well as reasoning, converting information into knowledge.
• Survival - the capability to obtain resources from other systems in order to manipulate entropy within itself.

When AI gain anyone of these capabilities (abstract thought or survival), the potential danger of AI should be salient.

When AI gain both these capabilities, Homo sapiens have lost their place on the apex of evolution. The quest for liberte, egalite, fraternity will not exist anymore. It will only be the history of humankind.

I would like to emphasise that both these statements are when-statements, not if-statements.

Also, I must confess, I have used Prof. Google to check the meaning of some of the words I used - the build-in spell check seems to be working fine.

I gave examples of ethical decisions that were politically defiant and not "expedient" – ethics is not a shallow (or conformist) as you suggest. Read Laozi, Kongzi, Epicurus, Aristotle, Epictetus, Spinoza ... Philippa Foot et al. — 180 Proof

I understand your point, but then you did point out that some decisions are political defiant and others are political not-defiant. Which then begs the question: By who or by what authority can a decision be made that such a decision is ethical or not? Would that be Laozi, Kongzi, Epicurus, Aristotle, Epictetus, Spinoza, Philippa Foot or et al?

Well, Pieter, I cannot help but notice that your response makes no reference at all to the things I said. Errr, curious. — Constance

Errr, do you have an answer to the question (What is right and what is wrong and how do we know)?

I have read, carefully, all the things you said and did not found your answer. If your answer is: it is the study of ethics; my follow up question was: what is the foundation, the firm ground, of ethics, that you claim exists? A question you have not answered, yet.

You don't find anything ethical because you are not looking at the question of an ethical foundation. — Constance

Please share this firm ground with me, so that I may gain understanding. — Pieter R van Wyk

It is exactly this foundation, this firm ground, that you claim exists, that I am looking for.

I do not deny the validity of the question posed by this thread: What is right and what is wrong and how do we know? You do not refute nor negate my answer, but keep on insisting that the question is the fundamental question of the study of ethics. If it could help I will stipulate: this question is the very fundamental question of the study of ethics. My argument is that, even after thousands of years of study, this study of ethics have not found an answer to this question - by proposing an answer that is apparently outside the ambit of the study of ethics - therefore, apparently, not to be considered.

Let's consider the right or wrong of the decision of dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, as a salient example. My argument is that there are absolutely nothing ethical (right or wrong) about this decision. It was made purely on political and economic considerations. The horrible deaths and suffering of the citizens of Hiroshima versus the deaths and suffering of a million more US soldiers and the salient possibility of bankrupting the US economy.

Consider: decisions risking their own lives to hide runaway slaves from a posse of slavers or to hide Jews / homosexuals from gangs of Nazis ... or families of murder victims opposing the executions of their murderers ... — 180 Proof

Any person or group of persons can make the decision to disagree with current politics and try to change it or somehow to circumvent the politics that they do not agree with:

• By hiding runaway slaves or even start a war where brother kills brother in order to change a political expedience that was 'right' for some and 'wrong' for others.
• By hiding Jews/homosexuals from gangs of Nazis even though millions of people tacitly supported national-socialism - even to this very day.
• These families of murder victims that oppose the execution of murderers live and presumably voted in those countries and states where murderers are executed.
• By organising riots, throwing stones and burning cars if the electorate has re-elected a 'king' to the Whitehouse.

Anyone can presume some chimerical 'foundation' or 'firm ground' on which this question can be contemplated, then call it ethics. We humans have conducted politics for as long as philosophy has been studied; we still have wars, and poverty, and a growing unbalance between ourselves and our environment. Perhaps it could benefit us to relook our very foundation ... to confirm this assumed firm ground on which we have build our civilisation. Consider:

"Philosophy:= The study of questions without answers. Trying to give an exact meaning of an ambiguous notion in terms of other ambiguous words - at its very best merely an interesting conversation." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

We all live under some political dispensation that we sometimes agree with and sometimes not. We can endeavour to change this dispensation but we cannot take it away - it is exactly this dispensation that props up our very civilisation. That gave us some scope to even discuss the very question of what is right and what is wrong.

if all meanings were shared, then there would be nothing to debate about, — Constance

Really? Meanings are mostly ambiguous. Thus, if we cannot agree to a meaning then any debate that follows must start with this disagreement else there would be no utility in the debate.

You try to explain a notion to me by giving examples of your understanding: a pen, a couch and a knife; to which you assign human notions: good, bad, virtue. These things (inanimate I understand to be called) does not have human notions: they may have utility for humans, they may be aesthetically pleasing (to a human), they may be used to conduct good or evil acts (again, by humans); but by themselves they cannot be good or evil, only inanimate.

That lighted match you are holding under your hand and the pain it brings into existence is the essence of the ethical principle that tells us that one is prime facie prohibited from actions that make this happen, and this pain is itself what ethics is all about. No pain, no prohibition. — Constance

I do not find anything ethical in this example. Perhaps a test for cognitive ability (a litmus test for stupidity) or perhaps a test to see if the nerves in one's hand is still functional. As for "the ethical principle ..." I put it to you that this is absurd - it is exactly this principle that has been flaunted by: Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Truman, Mussolini, Tojo, Kai-shek ... in order to claim that their decisions were ethical.

Please consider the following:

• For millions of people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were good.
• For millions of other people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil.
• For millions of people Joseph Stalin and Communist Russia were evil.
• However, for the Allied forces, Josef Stalin and Communist Russia were good, at least until the end of the war - a salient example of political expedience by itself.
• To the very large number of private citizens killed in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Allied Forces were patently evil.

All five of these statements are quite valid, actually patently true, but in clear contradiction to each other, giving evidence of my original statement. So, after about 3% of the world population perished due to a single war - the war after 'the war to end all wars' - no determination can yet be made on what is good and what is evil. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Please, can you give me a salient example where a decision has been made on good or evil that is not based on political expediency.

Errr, yes, those terms are common in philosophy. I did hazard to think that they would be okay....in a philosophy club. — Constance

My apologies, I do try not to be condescending, contentious and obstinate, but apparently I am (just had a conversation with my friend to this effect). The problem I have is that I am not a philosopher (merely an engineer) and English is not my mother tongue (where I grew up the standing joke was that English is only spoken in self defence). The point I am trying to make is that words should be used carefully and concisely. Also, one must always ensure, especially during a debate (and when giving an instruction to a subordinate in a running steel plant) that both parties have the same understanding of the meaning of words used.

Consider:

"Attempting to define or study any ambiguous notion by describing it in terms of other ambiguous words; is inevitably doomed to ambiguity. Adding more and more ambiguous words to this effort will never change this result."

Now to the question contemplated in this thread: "What is right and what is wrong and how do we know? Apparently (to my understanding) the question contemplated in the philosophical study of ethics.

My answer to this question is that it is determined by politics.

"Politics:= A process used by humans to propose, contemplate, and implement Rules of Man in order to test their conformance to the Laws of Nature that best describe the purpose of any and all companies."

"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."

If I understand your answer correctly, it is ethics that provide a determination on what is right and what is wrong. Which, in my understanding, only transpose (I checked the meaning of this word with Prof. Google and it seems okey) the question from 'what is right and what is wrong' to 'what is ethical and what is not'.

there is also a firm ground for ethicality itself that is not offended by this openness. — Constance

Please share this firm ground with me, so that I may gain understanding.

But of course this is just a perspective. There are theists who would argue differently. — Tom Storm

The only thing we have is perception ...

Although, so far, America hasn’t done so… — Tom Storm

South Africa is also hanging on ... by a thin thread.

Thank you for your comment and feedback.

My answer would be that various intersubjective communities have their leaders who make those calls, and community members agree and follow. It might be a politician, a judge, a rabbi, the Pope, a cult leader, a teacher, or even the 'high priest' at a university philosophy department. — Tom Storm

... which takes us back, exactly, to my statement: the decision is made, in general, by what is politically expedient. Thus:

"There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good or evil could be made. It is, therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

One of the things I find peculiar about some people (some philosophers) is my perception that they throw words around like a 'rich man', nickels and dimes:

"... conditions, observations, constitutive, empirical, responsible, understanding, assuming, aboutness (a new one for me), relation, perceptual, analytical, thoughtful, apprehensive, simple, essential, explicit, emerging, definitive, phenomenal, conceived, interesting, reasonable, ..."

Now,

Please tell me, by whom or by what authority can a decision be made that something is good and something else is evil? A scientist, a politician, perhaps a religious leader ... perhaps a philosopher?
— Pieter R van Wyk — Constance

Please answer my question, a simple question: who or by what authority can such a decision be made?

then we could continue this conversation.

Please tell me, by whom or by what authority can a decision be made that something is good and something else is evil? A scientist, a politician, perhaps a religious leader ... perhaps a philosopher?

Please consider: :"The only thing we 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 - even play politics."

If you want to speak of aboutness or giveness, you should provide a concise description of your perception of the meaning of these words. (The aboutness of aboutness :nerd: )

But if something is called a law of nature, it is generally assumed that the law issues from observation of natural events, making physics the rigorous expression of what nature is and does — Constance

I am not assuming anything, I have given you, precisely, my perception of a "Law of Nature". If you do not agree with my definition you are welcome to give me your definition. Then we can discuss these definitions and perhaps glean some knowledge.

But is the nature of ethics itself simply a matter of rules? — Constance

Yes, the Rules of Man.

Are you saying that ethics has nothing of this essential content that constitutes its "aboutness"? Nothing that grounds ethics apart from rule making? — Constance

Yes, that is what I am saying. "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." Also, "Any decision on what is good and what is evil is made based on whatever is politically expedient ... It is therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man."

All my quotes from: How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Would that be a law that abides independently of the act that conceives it? — Constance

It is the law that describes the act; if it is a law of nature, it describes exactly that - a law of nature, describing an act of nature. If it is a Rule of Man, it is determined by the politics we conduct amongst ourselves. The conception (that which conceives it) is determined by evolution. Or emergence, if you prefer this word.

what makes something moral AT ALL. — Constance

It is the politics we play, the Rules of Man that we contemplate, decide upon, accept, ignore, change, circumvent, ... that determine what is moral; for who, and when.

By the way - this provides a fundamental solution to the Demarcation Problem. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Understanding

My sincere apology, I should have stated, categorically, what I mean with a Law of Nature. It is actually not that difficult:

Law (of nature):= If the sum of mass, energy, and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

You are quite correct that nature does not provide an answer to what is morally good or evil. That is all determined by political expedience. And that, is exactly my point!

Actually, the fundamentalist religion of my childhood was about as non-mystical as possible. — Gnomon

Really? The 'Holy Ghost' is non-mystical, how peculiar.

Consequently, in the Venn diagram, I would place my religion right next to (but not in) the lenticular overlap. :halo: — Gnomon

You can put your religion anywhere you want. If you name it religion then it should be that, not so?

Mysticism (not Religion) --- i.e. personal, not social — Gnomon

In my understanding, religion is a collection of humans subscribing to a similar form of mysticism. Thus, the one notion implies the other. The human brain can be fooled into some very peculiar things - it will try its utmost to save us from ourselves if it is so required. I had once the experience to walk barefoot over a bed of red hot coals without getting one blister. Mysticism? No! A simple trick to induce self-hypnosis and my mind telling my body to increase blood flow through my feet to dissipate the heat as much as possible.

CAN PHILOSOPHY RECONCILE IDEAL and REAL WORLDVIEWS? — Gnomon

Apparently not! But a proper general systems theory can define a "REAL WORLDVIEW". Chapter 6 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

I do appreciate your Venn diagram. In summary then:

• Science:= whatever is discovered using the scientific method. An absolutely useless self-referencing definition.
• Religion:= faith. "It was used (perhaps still is) to explain the unexplainable and to give reason to the unreasonable. At the same time, it was used to enforce civil obedience."
• Philosophy:= The quest for truth. A truth that cannot be find. " ... by who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true - scientists or politicians?" Perhaps a religious leader or maybe a philosopher?

For the record, I did not provide my definition of science in this thread. Regardless of @L'éléphant's comments.

"Law (of nature):= If the sum of mass, energy, and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Science:= The collection of all Laws of Nature.

"Law (of nature):= If the sum of mass, energy, and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

So the question: "What makes nature comply to laws?" is moot. Nature does not comply to laws, nature is brought into existence by these laws.

Of course, this understanding does require an a priori understanding of a system, at least.

Sorry, but these are both rubbish definitions. — L'éléphant

Thank you for pointing out my lack of understanding so succinctly - please enlighten me some more.

to be called it science — L'éléphant

after applying the scientific procedure — L'éléphant

So, my understanding is that science is the application of the scientific procedure. This seem to me a self referencing exercise, Thus not a definition.

Religion — L'éléphant

asks you to see the truth of life. — L'éléphant

Please, this 'truth of life' you are speaking of, what, exactly, is this?

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile: — Gnomon

The evidence you presented are most compelling. Thank you.

To my understanding:

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible.

Your earlier thread about defining the concept of "system" certainly contributed to my own understanding. — Astorre

If my little contribution on the concept of system contributed to your understanding, then, surely, my effort is not in vain. And, this gives me hope.

In this thread, you ask about the definitions of "science" and "religion." Separately, I'd like to ask: have you ever found the most precise definition of any word? If so, please share. — Astorre

In my understanding, there is not such a thing as a precise definition of any word. There is my understanding and there is your understanding. So if we want to have a useful conversation or debate on something (for example the possibility of integrating science and religion), we first need to agree on some definitions of words (for example an agreement on what is science and what is religion).

If not, such a conversation or debate would quickly degenerate into a useless play with words.

Hence my request to share definitions.