-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do the Laws of Nature Exist Independent of the Human Mind?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I hold that Nature is essentially Lawless. We impute it with varying levels of predictability via our intellectual perception of its cycles and motions, but fundamentally Nature is Anarchy, it is the Unruly, the unbound, the Wild. Its changes are entropic and the order we percieve in it is an illusion born of the interface of chaos and rationality.
Secondly, I hold that the source of Nature's entropy is human beings. WE are the entropic force in Nature, which is why our subsistence is essential for its continuance. You only have to look to the present state of the World to see Man's effect on Nature.
Furthermore, I hold that the reason for all of this is that Reality is a Deterministic simulation, by which I mean the Universe is maintained by the power of the Collective Unconscious of the Human race. We dreamt a dream together and one day it became our shared Consensus Reality and hardened fast to our perceptions of it, with our respective souls/consciousnesses as its operating programs. Reality thus contains Nature, but is not identifiable with it on a supramundane level.
Therefore, as said before, Consciousness is whatever consciousness is conscious OF, so WE ARE NATURE, because we are conscious of it and that is its content. It does NOT, cannot, "exist" @ all independent of Mind. Without entropy, Nature will fail, or transform and become something else, not-nature.
Secondly, I hold that the source of Nature's entropy is human beings. WE are the entropic force in Nature, which is why our subsistence is essential for its continuance. You only have to look to the present state of the World to see Man's effect on Nature.
Furthermore, I hold that the reason for all of this is that Reality is a Deterministic simulation, by which I mean the Universe is maintained by the power of the Collective Unconscious of the Human race. We dreamt a dream together and one day it became our shared Consensus Reality and hardened fast to our perceptions of it, with our respective souls/consciousnesses as its operating programs. Reality thus contains Nature, but is not identifiable with it on a supramundane level.
Therefore, as said before, Consciousness is whatever consciousness is conscious OF, so WE ARE NATURE, because we are conscious of it and that is its content. It does NOT, cannot, "exist" @ all independent of Mind. Without entropy, Nature will fail, or transform and become something else, not-nature.
The laws of physics incorporate the observer into them. When particles are unobserved they have wave like properties.
How do we know that, if they are unobserved?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Yes.
because if humans were not here, they would still work the same.
Actually, I will go out on a limb an suggest that they would likely work better because if human were not here than we would not be interfering with them.
I suspect that it depends upon with whom you are speaking.
Since no definition of "Laws of Nature"" has been given...
I think that before we can actually begin an in depth discussion we must first have at least one definition given of "Laws of Nature."
This is contradicted by your final assertion.
Lol! Can't wait to see someone try this...
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
How so?
Actually, i have seen many different definitions.
The question is, which one is to be used for this thread?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Your point being?
This merely demonstrates that human observation changes the rules.
Well, you asserted that the laws of Nature exist independent of Mind and that in fact Nature would be better off without human beings, whence you latter admitted you lacked a working definition of the "Laws of Nature", thus you were assuming according to you own idea, which is fallacious.
But not to worry, you're forgiven.
Mestemia said:
Sunstone, you're up!
No this demonstrates that observation changes the rules.
Jiddu Krishnamurti said this, as much the same thing. It's true. :yes:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I stand corrected.
I added 'human' when I should not have.
However, one question I have to ask, did it change the rules or are there rules that we do not yet know/understand?
Meaning, if the rule has always been there and we (meaning people) are ignorant of it, does that equate to the rule being changed?
And how long before the rule is changed to something like "particles will behave in this manner unless being observed, in which case they behave is this other manner"?
To answer this in terms of Quantum physics is beyond my knowledge. However I would say it is not that we change the rules but that we do not know all of the rules so constantly need to update them to incorporate new findings and theory's.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
That is pretty much my position as well.
Both that we incorporate new finding and that answering in terms of Quantum Physics is beyond my knowledge.
So would it stand to reason that the rules are there, regardless of our knowing of them, or our understanding of them, thus concluding that they will work regardless of Human existence?
I would says the rules exist regardless of human existence but our knowledge is not yet great enough to fully understand them so they appear to change.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
So it does appear that we are in agreement.
Hooray for us!!
Yeah; not helpful. But thanks.
Marzipan
New Member
Maybe if we consider some natural law more basic than quantum physics to begin with a foundation for further exploration could be established.
Gravity, for example.
I have a large collection of dinosaur bones dating from before the existence of humanity that suggest, due to the layers of earth from which they were washed out, that gravity did indeed exist long before humans found themselves sticking to the surface of the earth.
Gravity, for example.
I have a large collection of dinosaur bones dating from before the existence of humanity that suggest, due to the layers of earth from which they were washed out, that gravity did indeed exist long before humans found themselves sticking to the surface of the earth.