fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Your thread your rules. I believe they refer to human interpretations of regularity as they must coming from humans. I am obviously referring to the right. If there are laws of nature they cannot, probably, be apprehended by limited human access.
Since I am referring to the right, human laws must go through human validation. End.
I've always believed untermenche was putting cart before horse. One cannot speak of laws of nature (left) rules until one can demonstrate humans can divine regularities and rules defining nature (right).
I relieve it is why science is a faith that nature is lawful that permits us to go as far as we do in finding such. Then regularities as viewed by humans can be taken as evidence, rules constructed, and theories built. Still that does not mean there are laws of nature, that nature is lawful, or that humans are actually divining such laws.
Since I am referring to the right, human laws must go through human validation. End.
I've always believed untermenche was putting cart before horse. One cannot speak of laws of nature (left) rules until one can demonstrate humans can divine regularities and rules defining nature (right).
I relieve it is why science is a faith that nature is lawful that permits us to go as far as we do in finding such. Then regularities as viewed by humans can be taken as evidence, rules constructed, and theories built. Still that does not mean there are laws of nature, that nature is lawful, or that humans are actually divining such laws.