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

[Panda]

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?

Yes and no. I believe that there are universal patterns that are not part of the interpretation. Earlier I posted about French and English having different names for the potato, well I feel the patterns are the potato. A potato is always a potato no matter what name you call it. It is a separate thing from the mind that is unaltered by my perception of it. Science is a language and the universe is a potato

 

[Willamena]

Yes and no. I believe that there are universal patterns that are not part of the interpretation. Earlier I posted about French and English having different names for the potato, well I feel the patterns are the potato. A potato is always a potato no matter what name you call it. It is a separate thing from the mind that is unaltered by my perception of it. Science is a language and the universe is a potato

Is the understanding of "universal patterns that are not part of the interpretation" thought of, and therefore itself a particular interpretation?

 

[Panda]

Is the understanding of "universal patterns that are not part of the interpretation" thought of, and therefore itself a particular interpretation?

Is a potato an interpretation?


Edit: I will be back in a few hours, got my psychology class to go to.

 

[Willamena]

Is a potato an interpretation?

Is it not?

I think it is.

 

[Willamena]

I think there is nothing that we can know that is not an interpretation of whatever might be. It is an interpretation simply by virtue of our knowing it. An interpretation is our version, i.e. what we know.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

HI!

I think their are Laws, some of which some people have discovered, and some that have not been discovered, yet still in existance. Does that make any sense at all? (I'm trying)

Cheers!

 

[Panda]

Is it not?

I think it is.

No your knowledge of a potato is an interpretation, the potato it's self is not.

 

[Willamena]

No your knowledge of a potato is an interpretation, the potato it's self is not.

How do you know?

 

[Panda]

How do you know?

Because if the potato it's self was an interpretation it would no longer be a thing but a concept. Concepts can not be eaten

 

[Sunstone]

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

 

[lunamoth]

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?

Wow, this thread is long! OK, I have not read it so apologies if this view has already been said. The 'laws' are models that only exist in our mind and language, but they describe phenomena that are real (exist) outside of our minds. I'm sure someone has pointed out that if this were not so we would not be here to even talk about such things.

 

[Sunstone]

Wow, this thread is long! OK, I have not read it so apologies if this view has already been said. The 'laws' are models that only exist in our mind and language, but they describe phenomena that are real (exist) outside of our minds. I'm sure someone has pointed out that if this were not so we would not be here to even talk about such things.

Excellent!

 

[Buttercup]

Wow, this thread is long! OK, I have not read it so apologies if this view has already been said. The 'laws' are models that only exist in our mind and language, but they describe phenomena that are real (exist) outside of our minds. I'm sure someone has pointed out that if this were not so we would not be here to even talk about such things.

Now this wording I can grab ahold of and agree.

 

[s2a]

The issue of whether nature exists apart from the human mind has nothing necessarily to do with the issue of whether the laws of nature exist apart from the human mind. If you believe the two issues are necessarily related, please reveal why they are necessarily related. Otherwise, please address the latter and leave the former to a different thread -- as it seems off-topic in this one.

Well, if you had presented just what you think qualifies as (or examples) a "law of nature" (which is what I requested you provide), you might have been spared enjoying my "poetry". ;-)

How might we best test your premised inquiry, if you offer no example?

Does the aphorism "What goes up, must come down" qualify as "law of nature"?

Do you equate "laws of nature" as akin to the generalizations afforded in the understandings of "scientific law", or (a) "physical law""?

IF so, then I would submit one (of an available many) example of a "scientific law":
[If your understanding/intent differs, ie. you don't consider a "scientific law" as a "law of nature", then I again request that you submit a more befitting example for consideration.]
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics"..."which is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy"...explaining "the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature."

OK.

You asked two basic (yet distinct) questions, which I will again answer:

1)"Do the laws of nature exist independent of the human mind?"

If a "law of nature" is understood to be an "explanation" of (an) observed natural phenomena, it might be fair to say that the "explanation" (itself) would not "exist" if the human mind were also non-existent...but the "phenomena" itself persists, independent of human thought or "explanation". A rose, is a rose...no matter what name (or explanation) human beings place in it's stead.

By "scientific law" (maybe even as a "law of nature"?) the natural cosmos itself examples the fact of irreversibility init's ongoingprocesses. That fact (as a phenomena) far precedes the last-minute "phenomena" that is "the mind of man".

So, in short answer...yes.



2) "Are they real things that exist in themselves, or are they only human constructs?"

Yes, and no...

Assuming that "real things" are, by demonstrable fact: physical, natural, and objectively/independently observable/perceivable/verifiable as being "existent"...and that many (if not most) of the "real things" within the cosmos "exist" far beyond our most immediate realm of direct (human) interaction, influence, or control...then we can fairly and confidently conclude that "they (as "explained phenomena") exist in themselves".

"Human constructs" are manifest "explanations" (or ideas/conjectures) of (upon) the human experience/condition itself. These "human constructs" can also be literally physical (roads, homes, shopping malls) "things" that are, more or less, self-explanatory in function/purpose.

Ideas (thoughts/perceptions/imaginings) manifested within the human mind (in and of themselves) do not affect "a law of nature". "Imagining" a super-nova (or building a detailed "construct" of such an event) does not, in fact, instigate nor prevent a star from exploding, or affect it's course in unconsciously abiding a "law of nature".

We, as human beings with human minds can effect (and alter) "human constructs" (both imagined and physical), but human minds (in and of themselves) can not alter or affect the course of cosmological phenomena...we can but alter/adapt our mindful human "explanations" of that phenomena.

Cosmological phenomena do not require "human constructs" (by extension being "explanations" described as "laws of nature") to "exist"...unless you prefer to qualify or insist that the natural cosmos only "exists" within the human mind itself. If you want to go to that self-contained cosmological molecule in a fingernail, then indeed that is a topic for another thread.

Or, just accept Lunamoth's reply as fairly reflective of my own perspective...

...either way, asked...and answered.

;-)

 

[Willamena]

Because if the potato it's self was an interpretation it would no longer be a thing but a concept. Concepts can not be eaten

But eating is itself a concept.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But eating is itself a concept.

Right! What is "eating" but a load of sensory data of taste, texture, hunger, satiation, etc?

The potato is nothing but sensory information to us. Delicious sensory information when interpreted right!

 

[Panda]

But eating is itself a concept.

No not really. Taking pleasure in food is a concept. Physically putting the food in your mouth and chewing it is not.

 

[Willamena]

No not really. Taking pleasure in food is a concept. Physically putting the food in your mouth and chewing it is not.

"Physically" is a concept.

 

[Panda]

"Physically" is a concept.

So is mentally . Mentally is more of a concept than physically.

 

[logician]

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?

This is really the same thing as asking does anything exist if there is no consciousness to perceive its existence.