Do the Laws of Nature Exist Independent of the Human Mind?

[blackout]

If the laws of nature are constructions of our own minds...
they should hold together only as tightly as we ourselves hold to them.

In my own mind...
the world is malliable...
and all things are ultimately possible...

In art, majik, music, dreaming, poetry
the constructs of my own mind loosen
unwind & unwravel the "laws" of the collective mind set.

This is what I believe, see and hold to.
I hold to the freefall and change-ability of all my constructs!

and so it is.

 

[Willamena]

I think part of the problem on both sides of this discussion is the need to qualify that what is being "constructed" by intellect is the form of things. Perception is the construction of forms. The "maps" of the mind are constructs of form. The "laws of nature" are movement taken form. "Existence," to me, is form given to things, and existence is always in context; a statement of "form" makes no statement about existence in a context apart from intellect. It neither confirms nor denies "actual existence."

There is nothing inherently arrogant or narcissistic about acknowleding the role that intellect plays in providing to us the world in all its forms.

 

[eudaimonia]

Do the laws of nature exist independent of the human mind? Are they real things that exist in themselves, or are they only human constructs? What do you think? Why?

The laws of nature are descriptions of nature. The "laws" exist as concepts in our minds, however, what they describe exists in reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Willamena]

The laws of nature are descriptions of nature. The "laws" exist as concepts in our minds, however, what they describe exists in reality.

What do they describe? We have a relationship, as observers, to the world around us. We observe a ball in movement towards another ball (earth) and define gravity. We observe growth from seed to tree and back to soil and we define a life-cycle. We observe behaviours, and we describe.

The "laws of nature," through description, express our relationship with the world around us.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Ontologically????

 

[Sunstone]

Ontologically????

Being.

 

[Panda]

Linky Penguino. I had to read up about that word yesterday lol.

I do not see how the laws of nature can exist only within our mind. I feel the laws of nature are universal and exist wholly outside of our mind. However the formulas we use to interpret them exist within our mind and do not exist outside of it. These formulas are the language we use to describe the world around us, if another species exists somewhere similar to us I would say they would find different interpretations however the two interpretation are equivalent. Like French and English. In French a potato is called pomme de terre in English it is potato. They both mean the same thing even though they are different.

 

[Willamena]

Ontologically????

I know, big words... bigger word is "epistomologically".

 

[eudaimonia]

What do they describe? We have a relationship, as observers, to the world around us. We observe a ball in movement towards another ball (earth) and define gravity. We observe growth from seed to tree and back to soil and we define a life-cycle. We observe behaviours, and we describe.

The "laws of nature," through description, express our relationship with the world around us.

Well put. I agree.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[eudaimonia]

I know, big words... bigger word is "epistomologically".

A bigger word is
disestablishmentarianism


Ouch!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Storm]

I'm under the impression that we're discussing "scientific laws" here.

Then why are we arguing? Did I not clearly state that I was NOT talking about the statements of science? I just woke up, but I'm pretty sure I did.

Edit: Yes, I did:

Gotta disagree with you there. The laws of nature create the patterns and are the territory; the statements of science are the map.

 

[Sunstone]

Then why are we arguing? Did I not clearly state that I was NOT talking about the statements of science? I just woke up, but I'm pretty sure I did.

I must have missed that. Sorry for any confusion that caused.

 

[Storm]

S'ok.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not see how the laws of nature can exist only within our mind. I feel the laws of nature are universal and exist wholly outside of our mind. However the formulas we use to interpret them exist within our mind and do not exist outside of it.

But my dear Panda, in what way can it be demonstrated that the patterns of nature are actually caused by these mysterious "laws of nature" that you speak of?

 

[Panda]

But my dear Panda, in what way can it be demonstrated that the patterns of nature are actually caused by these mysterious "laws of nature" that you speak of?

The patterns are the laws of nature is what I was trying to say. What we derive from them, ie all the scientific formulas are the interpretation of these laws.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Do the laws of nature exist independent of the human mind? Are they real things that exist in themselves, or are they only human constructs? What do you think? Why?

Hi!

Us peanuts know that no matter how hard we use our mind, (which we don't have, really, we're just peanuts! But if we did...) if we drop off the vine, we will fall! Oh, yes!

Cheers!

 

[Storm]

Your schtick is getting really old, really fast, Peanut.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Your schtick is getting really old, really fast, Peanut.

Hi!

Awwww! I'm sorry! I'm just a peanut! Just trying to give an answer...sorry to have somehow upset you! :sorry1:

Cheers!

 

[Sunstone]

The patterns are the laws of nature is what I was trying to say. What we derive from them, ie all the scientific formulas are the interpretation of these laws.

Looks like we're in some kind of basic agreement divided only by semantics, then.

 

[Willamena]

The patterns are the laws of nature is what I was trying to say. What we derive from them, ie all the scientific formulas are the interpretation of these laws.

Is there anything that you can think of that is not "the interpretation"?

For instance, when we say that the laws exist independent of our thinking about them, is that not a particular intepretation of reality?