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.
;-)