Laws of Nature

[untermensche]

Exactly: the illusion of "cause and effect" is the result of an observer in a similar way as numbers is the result of an observer identifying and isolating items.

Do many observations of a feather drifting across one's field of view or even rising cause one to pause regarding untermenche's proposition, or, at least to think about other considerations required?

The squirrel is very different from the feather. Within the squirrel you have memory and "programming" and a will to live, and a drive to make more squirrels.

This creates something with animation that is not trapped like a feather, up and down according to external circumstances, no "internal" circumstances to allow decisions.

No rebellion possible.

 

[Juma]

Do many observations of a feather drifting across one's field of view or even rising cause one to pause regarding untermenche's proposition, or, at least to think about other considerations required?

The squirrel is very different from the feather. Within the squirrel you have memory and "programming" and a will to live, and a drive to make more squirrels.

This creates something with animation that is not trapped like a feather, up and down according to external circumstances, no "internal" circumstances to allow decisions.

No rebellion possible.

What in "a feather behaves differently than a ball" us hard to understand?

 

[fromderinside]

The squirrel is very different from the feather. Within the squirrel you have memory and "programming" and a will to live, and a drive to make more squirrels.

This creates something with animation that is not trapped like a feather, up and down according to external circumstances, no "internal" circumstances to allow decisions.

No rebellion possible.

What in "a feather behaves differently than a ball" us hard to understand?

Maybe untermenche is building up to something like "It is not sufficient to accept Galileo. Rather it is necessary to understand thermodynamics to understand the behavior of metabolic things."?, or something like that to bring us back to laws of nature without need to understand whether laws require explanation of all variables including those immeasurable, by humans, variables in other deemed necessary dimensions to make our current laws to work.

 

[untermensche]

The squirrel is very different from the feather. Within the squirrel you have memory and "programming" and a will to live, and a drive to make more squirrels.

This creates something with animation that is not trapped like a feather, up and down according to external circumstances, no "internal" circumstances to allow decisions.

No rebellion possible.

What in "a feather behaves differently than a ball" us hard to understand?

I've been watching this here feather for days now.

And there is no behavior to report.

When will the show begin?

 

[Juma]

What in "a feather behaves differently than a ball" us hard to understand?

I've been watching this here feather for days now.

And there is no behavior to report.

When will the show begin?

Laying still is also a behavior.

 

[untermensche]

I've been watching this here feather for days now.

And there is no behavior to report.

When will the show begin?

Laying still is also a behavior.

If something has a choice it is.

But if a thing cannot make choices it does not have behavior. It has properties. And perhaps even properties that allow the wind to throw it around.

 

[Juma]

Laying still is also a behavior.

If something has a choice it is.

But if a thing cannot make choices it does not have behavior. It has properties. And perhaps even properties that allow the wind to throw it around.

Behavior is how it moves in time, how it moves during different circumstances. Free will/choice is not required.
Now can we please go on with the real matter?

 

[untermensche]

If something has a choice it is.

But if a thing cannot make choices it does not have behavior. It has properties. And perhaps even properties that allow the wind to throw it around.

Behavior is how it moves in time, how it moves during different circumstances. Free will/choice is not required.
Now can we please go on with the real matter?

You can arbitrarily and abstractly define a feather doing absolutely nothing as behavior but the word is defined differently by many.

What is the real matter?

If these questions had definitive answers they would have been answered and we would have been done with them a long time ago.

What is the nature of the universe?

That is a work in progress, and we are only able to move in some directions.

 

[Juma]

Behavior is how it moves in time, how it moves during different circumstances. Free will/choice is not required.
Now can we please go on with the real matter?

You can arbitrarily and abstractly define a feather doing absolutely nothing as behavior but the word is defined differently by many.

What is the real matter?

If these questions had definitive answers they would have been answered and we would have been done with them a long time ago.

What is the nature of the universe?

That is a work in progress, and we are only able to move in some directions.

Cut the crap.

It was you that started the meaningless derail about behavior.

Now get back to the "laws of nature"

 

[fromderinside]

You can arbitrarily and abstractly define a feather doing absolutely nothing as behavior but the word is defined differently by many.

What is the real matter?

If these questions had definitive answers they would have been answered and we would have been done with them a long time ago.

What is the nature of the universe?

That is a work in progress, and we are only able to move in some directions.

Cut the crap.

It was you that started the meaningless derail about behavior.

Now get back to the "laws of nature"

Maryiage.

So are we agreed nature is as likely to be unlawful as it is be lawful notwithstanding human measurement to satisfy human need for certainty.

 

[untermensche]

Cut the crap.

It was you that started the meaningless derail about behavior.

Now get back to the "laws of nature"

This idea of "derail" is a strange one. A childish one.

As if anyone is being forced to follow trains of thought.

There is no getting back to the "laws of nature".

There are opinions a plenty, but if there was anything definitive to say it would be widely known.

 

[Juma]

As if anyone is being forced to follow trains of thought.

"Following trains of thought" is what prevents discussion from just being disconnected monologues.

 

[fromderinside]

Ahem. OP " Does the term, "Laws of nature" refer to the regularities that exist in nature or our explanations of the regularities?"

Where in that is discussion of disconnected monologues or if there was anything definitive to say it would be widely known

Which brings me back to we are agreed nature is as likely to be unlawful as it is be lawful notwithstanding human measurement to satisfy human need for certainty.

 

[untermensche]

Ahem. OP " Does the term, "Laws of nature" refer to the regularities that exist in nature or our explanations of the regularities?"

Where in that is discussion of disconnected monologues or if there was anything definitive to say it would be widely known

Which brings me back to we are agreed nature is as likely to be unlawful as it is be lawful notwithstanding human measurement to satisfy human need for certainty.

I don't know what a "need for certainty" consists of but the natural world most definitely satisfies human needs for survival.

And it is what has over billions of years brought humans into existence.

And it's unlikely the "rules" of organic chemistry changed one bit over those billions of years.

And those "rules" are there whether they satisfy some human whim or not, or no matter how humans model them.

 

[fromderinside]

And it's unlikely the "rules" of organic chemistry changed one bit over those billions of years.

And those "rules" are there whether they satisfy some human whim or not, or no matter how humans model them.

You hit both of our points of contention. The universe seems very rule abiding to us. But then we're humans who only have four senses. As for whether they suit or not is irrelevant. Why is it we need to fit our mechanics of 10% of what we experience to the other ninety percent rather than explain our 10% in the other ninety percent? Why need there be a time-space dimension

Simple. We can't measure the other ninety percent. So since we can't experience everything present for all time and everything everywhere at all time we invent time's arrow. Does that organizing devise make things lawful or just understandable to our sensibilities?

No amount of gum flapping will change that.

 

[untermensche]

The universe doesn't "seem" to be rule abiding. It is.

Take two sample with the same starting conditions, expose them to the same environmental conditions and you will end up with the same product.

This doesn't happen because humans want the universe to follow rules.

And it doesn't matter one bit what else is happening.

That imaginary "other" you speak of doesn't make the rule abiding we see into "not-rule abiding".

 

[fast]

The universe doesn't "seem" to be rule abiding. It is.

Take two sample with the same starting conditions, expose them to the same environmental conditions and you will end up with the same product.

This doesn't happen because humans want the universe to follow rules.

And it doesn't matter one bit what else is happening.

That imaginary "other" you speak of doesn't make the rule abiding we see into "not-rule abiding".

The universe doesn't abide by rules.

 

[untermensche]

The universe doesn't "seem" to be rule abiding. It is.

Take two sample with the same starting conditions, expose them to the same environmental conditions and you will end up with the same product.

This doesn't happen because humans want the universe to follow rules.

And it doesn't matter one bit what else is happening.

That imaginary "other" you speak of doesn't make the rule abiding we see into "not-rule abiding".

The universe doesn't abide by rules.

Organic chemists say otherwise.

They know some of the rules and can use them to make molecules of their choosing.

 

[fromderinside]

The universe doesn't "seem" to be rule abiding. It is.

Take two sample with the same starting conditions, expose them to the same environmental conditions and you will end up with the same product.

This doesn't happen because humans want the universe to follow rules.

And it doesn't matter one bit what else is happening.

That imaginary "other" you speak of doesn't make the rule abiding we see into "not-rule abiding".

So how are you accounting for recent, universe time, acceleration of expansion of parts of the known universe?

Why should there be a heavier Higg's Boson along with the current one? Why are masses moving other than would be predicted by light matter?

Why is an electron a field rather than a orbital? Which way is up?

Why is most everything seen as random?

You may begin any time you want.

 

[untermensche]

The universe doesn't "seem" to be rule abiding. It is.

Take two sample with the same starting conditions, expose them to the same environmental conditions and you will end up with the same product.

This doesn't happen because humans want the universe to follow rules.

And it doesn't matter one bit what else is happening.

That imaginary "other" you speak of doesn't make the rule abiding we see into "not-rule abiding".

So how are you accounting for recent, universe time, acceleration of expansion of parts of the known universe?

Why should there be a heavier Higg's Boson along with the current one? Why are masses moving other than would be predicted by light matter?

Why is an electron a field rather than a orbital? Which way is up?

Why is most everything seen as random?

You may begin any time you want.

What is this?

Argument by excrement?

Throw as much shit as possible in the hopes.....you know.

If "nature" can be predicted then it has rigid "rules" it follows.

I can only send a rover to Mars if the "rules" don't change.

Adding layers of complexity in any way will not change this.