Laws of Nature

[fromderinside]

Seems pretty voluntary to me

"To conform to" seems voluntary to you?

All that shows is you have a vivid imagination. There is nothing specifically voluntary or involuntary about conforming.

The ball dropped conforms to the "forces" pulling it to towards the earth.

Something can conform even if it doesn't have the ability to not conform.

That sort of reasoning gets one to "Barlow's face detector cell" in cats. If the cell a cat's brain abides by signalling consistently that Barlow's face is present it is de facto a Barlow face detector. Not at all lawful but abiding satisfied.

 

[Juma]

Yes, and that essence is that it somehow could not abided.

So lets see what happens when nature does not abide. Is it the law that need to be changed or nature?

The "essence" of abiding is doing something under the control of something else.

The act of abiding points to something that is the cause of the abiding, the reason the abiding occurs.

You didnt answer the question:

what happens when nature does not abide. Is it the law that need to be changed or nature?

 

[fast]

Abiding and not abiding reflect what our perceptions are about what should happen. Our perceptions are controlled by how well they abide with reality. Reality is whatever it wants to be.

I think your use of "not abiding" captures more than you might expect. "Not abiding" is an opposite, not an antonym.

"Abiding and not abiding" is collectively exhaustive, just as "belief and not belief" is collectively exhaustive, but "abiding and abiding not" is not collectively exhaustive, just as "belief and belief not" is not collectively exhaustive.

 

[untermensche]

"To conform to" seems voluntary to you?

All that shows is you have a vivid imagination. There is nothing specifically voluntary or involuntary about conforming.

The ball dropped conforms to the "forces" pulling it to towards the earth.

Something can conform even if it doesn't have the ability to not conform.

That sort of reasoning gets one to "Barlow's face detector cell" in cats. If the cell a cat's brain abides by signalling consistently that Barlow's face is present it is de facto a Barlow face detector. Not at all lawful but abiding satisfied.

Again, a vivid imagination.

Where is this cell that signals constantly?

- - - Updated - - -

The "essence" of abiding is doing something under the control of something else.

The act of abiding points to something that is the cause of the abiding, the reason the abiding occurs.

You didnt answer the question:

what happens when nature does not abide. Is it the law that need to be changed or nature?

It's not a very interesting question since anything nature does is abiding. It can't not abide.

 

[fast]

That of course is the unanswered philosophical question.

As Chomsky says; All unanswered questions are philosophical questions, once they have an answer they are scientific.

But it is the question of "will" and the alleged "freedom of will", which if it exists as it seems to exist would also seem to pay no mind to the "laws of nature".

Defying and abiding requires agency.

Not true at all and you can in no way prove it.

If we choose to act in accordance to what is wanted of us, we are abiding; otherwise, not. Falling down is not something we do. It's something that happens to us. The universe does not have wants and therefore does not want us to fall down, yet given the scientifically identifiable factors that contribute to our falling (gravity, mass, weight, etc.), we will fall, but given that no want, desire, or intent to fall is a causal factor, that too (in addition to no wants of the universe) we are not abiding to anything or anyone when we fall. The universe doesn't want us to fall, and we didn't choose to fall, yet you think we are abiding.

You think to abide is agency neutral. Why are you neglecting to include that aspect of the word's lexical meaning that makes it obvious. Another poster has given you the easy opportunity to inspect the definitions, and he has done so by posting them for your convenience in this thread.

What I'm not quite sure about is your resistence. Are you just simply used to habitually misusing the term? There's no underlying philosophical or scientic basis to quibble over this semantic issue. You just need to get with the program and start using it as its used by fluent speakers of the English language.

 

[Juma]

That sort of reasoning gets one to "Barlow's face detector cell" in cats. If the cell a cat's brain abides by signalling consistently that Barlow's face is present it is de facto a Barlow face detector. Not at all lawful but abiding satisfied.

Again, a vivid imagination.

Where is this cell that signals constantly?

- - - Updated - - -

The "essence" of abiding is doing something under the control of something else.

The act of abiding points to something that is the cause of the abiding, the reason the abiding occurs.

You didnt answer the question:

what happens when nature does not abide. Is it the law that need to be changed or nature?

It's not a very interesting question since anything nature does is abiding. It can't not abide.

Do you abide being a human? No you just are human.

 

[Ahab]

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.

Do you also object to the claim that the universe is law abiding?

 

[fast]

The universe doesn't abide by rules.

Do you also object to the claim that the universe is law abiding?

I've seen ya lurking for quite awhile now. I was wondering when you were gonna chime in.

For a direct answer, I'd say yes, but it's of course qualified by the contingency I'm not seriously mistaken by what it means to say law abiding. The universe will certainly function in accordance to the physical necessities of our world, but it shall never of its own mindful volition choose to act in opposition to the laws of nature. It's neither obedient nor disobedient, and as such, it's neither abiding or defiant.

 

[4321lynx]

The universe doesn't abide by rules.

Do you also object to the claim that the universe is law abiding?

Yes, in a way I object. I consider that the universe is the law or the laws. That is the so-called laws are merely human descriptions of facts observed in nature/universe. Facts simply are, that is they exist. The discovery of them by human minds does not alter or affect the facts in any way whatsoever. They existed before there were humans and will exist after humans die out. If we like,we can call them "laws" and say that the universe obeys those laws or abides by them. It will not change the facts of the universe if we claim that the laws were created by a spaghetti monster, god, gods,the big bang or whatever. The universe IS.

 

[Ahab]

Do you also object to the claim that the universe is law abiding?

I've seen ya lurking for quite awhile now. I was wondering when you were gonna chime in.

For a direct answer, I'd say yes, but it's of course qualified by the contingency I'm not seriously mistaken by what it means to say law abiding. The universe will certainly function in accordance to the physical necessities of our world, but it shall never of its own mindful volition choose to act in opposition to the laws of nature. It's neither obedient nor disobedient, and as such, it's neither abiding or defiant.

Has anybody claimed that non-sentient agents can willingly choose to act in opposition to a law (or a rule) of nature?

Per the OED definition of "agent":

Hence in mod. Science: Any natural force acting upon matter, any substance the presence of which produces phenomena, whether physical as electricity, chemical as actinism, oxygen, medicinal as chloroform, etc.

So when hydrochloric acid burns your skin when it comes in contact with it, it can be described as an agent acting upon you. It is acting in accordance with the laws of nature. If perchance a miracle occurred and your skin was not burned then such an act would be described as a violation of the laws of nature.

 

[Juma]

If perchance a miracle occurred and your skin was not burned then such an act would be described as a violation of the laws of nature.

Which shows that the "laws" is how we expect the universe to behave, not a somehow hidden rule that the universe follows.

 

[untermensche]

Again, a vivid imagination.

Where is this cell that signals constantly?

- - - Updated - - -

The "essence" of abiding is doing something under the control of something else.

The act of abiding points to something that is the cause of the abiding, the reason the abiding occurs.

You didnt answer the question:

what happens when nature does not abide. Is it the law that need to be changed or nature?

It's not a very interesting question since anything nature does is abiding. It can't not abide.

Do you abide being a human? No you just are human.

You abide to the products of your genes.

No matter how hard you try you are trapped by the limitations a genetic construction implies.

 

[fast]

I've seen ya lurking for quite awhile now. I was wondering when you were gonna chime in.

For a direct answer, I'd say yes, but it's of course qualified by the contingency I'm not seriously mistaken by what it means to say law abiding. The universe will certainly function in accordance to the physical necessities of our world, but it shall never of its own mindful volition choose to act in opposition to the laws of nature. It's neither obedient nor disobedient, and as such, it's neither abiding or defiant.

Has anybody claimed that non-sentient agents can willingly choose to act in opposition to a law (or a rule) of nature?

Per the OED definition of "agent":

Hence in mod. Science: Any natural force acting upon matter, any substance the presence of which produces phenomena, whether physical as electricity, chemical as actinism, oxygen, medicinal as chloroform, etc.

So when hydrochloric acid burns your skin when it comes in contact with it, it can be described as an agent acting upon you. It is acting in accordance with the laws of nature. If perchance a miracle occurred and your skin was not burned then such an act would be described as a violation of the laws of nature.

The main point of contention I have with him is in his use of the word, "abide." I would be as argumentative had he said the universe is obedient to the laws of nature. People abide, not objects.

Oh, and I did not use the word "agency" as you are using the word, "agent." A chemical agent is an agent of a different kind.

 

[fast]

Again, a vivid imagination.

Where is this cell that signals constantly?

- - - Updated - - -

The "essence" of abiding is doing something under the control of something else.

The act of abiding points to something that is the cause of the abiding, the reason the abiding occurs.

You didnt answer the question:

what happens when nature does not abide. Is it the law that need to be changed or nature?

It's not a very interesting question since anything nature does is abiding. It can't not abide.

Do you abide being a human? No you just are human.

You abide to the products of your genes.

No matter how hard you try you are trapped by the limitations a genetic construction implies.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[untermensche]

Again, a vivid imagination.

Where is this cell that signals constantly?

- - - Updated - - -

The "essence" of abiding is doing something under the control of something else.

The act of abiding points to something that is the cause of the abiding, the reason the abiding occurs.

You didnt answer the question:

what happens when nature does not abide. Is it the law that need to be changed or nature?

It's not a very interesting question since anything nature does is abiding. It can't not abide.

Do you abide being a human? No you just are human.

You abide to the products of your genes.

No matter how hard you try you are trapped by the limitations a genetic construction implies.

This is getting ridiculous.

Your saying so doesn't make it so.

It seems the only refuge people have to conclude the universe does not abide is the old dead end of human "free will".

Other than that they are perfectly happy, I suppose, to conclude that all the rest abides.

And of course if there is abiding there is that which the universe abides to; the so-called "laws".

 

[Juma]

And of course if there is abiding there is that which the universe abides to; the so-called "laws".

Now you go in circle. You started by use the word "abide" because it means to follow something.

 

[Ahab]

Has anybody claimed that non-sentient agents can willingly choose to act in opposition to a law (or a rule) of nature?

Per the OED definition of "agent":

Hence in mod. Science: Any natural force acting upon matter, any substance the presence of which produces phenomena, whether physical as electricity, chemical as actinism, oxygen, medicinal as chloroform, etc.

So when hydrochloric acid burns your skin when it comes in contact with it, it can be described as an agent acting upon you. It is acting in accordance with the laws of nature. If perchance a miracle occurred and your skin was not burned then such an act would be described as a violation of the laws of nature.

The main point of contention I have with him is in his use of the word, "abide." I would be as argumentative had he said the universe is obedient to the laws of nature. People abide, not objects.

Oh, and I did not use the word "agency" as you are using the word, "agent." A chemical agent is an agent of a different kind.

It is still an agent. And that use is quite appropriate when discussing the laws of science (or the laws of nature). And it is quite correct usage according to the OED.

And Merriam-Webster does not agree with your view that objects cannot be described as abiding.
One example it gives of the use of the word "abide":

… Cocos Island, a mountainous chunk of barely penetrable rain forest that abides in watery solitude 300 miles off Central America's Pacific coast. Eighteen square miles in area, it is considered the world's largest uninhabited tropical island. —Tom Koppel, Travel, November 1989

 

[untermensche]

And of course if there is abiding there is that which the universe abides to; the so-called "laws".

Now you go in circle. You started by use the word "abide" because it means to follow something.

Following logic is not going in a circle.

If there is that which abides it must be abiding to something.

 

[Juma]

Now you go in circle. You started by use the word "abide" because it means to follow something.

Following logic is not going in a circle.

If there is that which abides it must be abiding to something.

How do you know it is abiding?

 

[untermensche]

Following logic is not going in a circle.

If there is that which abides it must be abiding to something.

How do you know it is abiding?

If behavior can be predicted then it must be abiding.