tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post3717989584885024126..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Argument from Laws of NatureJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-38032087038216692802016-05-02T20:40:38.478-07:002016-05-02T20:40:38.478-07:00sorry it took me so long to get to this.
I actu...sorry it took me so long to get to this.<br /><br /><br /><br />I actually don't see that a mind helps at all. Suppose physical system S obeys laws L. Well, why does S obey L rather than some other set of laws, L*? Because some mind M chose L rather than L* to govern S, you suggest. But how did M get S to obey L rather than L*? Is L an add-on to S? Could all the constituents of S have been exactly the same and yet be governed by L* rather than L? If so, then how does M ensure that S reliably continues to observe L and doesn't go off the rails? That is, what ensures the L-ness of S? <br /><br /><b>Law like aspects are indicative of mind. when things work and seem to flit together for a purpose that is usually an indication of planning. Thus mind is a better explanation for the nature of nature.</b><br /><br /><br />One possible answer is that M constantly exerts a causal influence on S. This would be like ensuring that a toy car on a table always moves in a circle because you are moving it with your arm – there is nothing about the car or the surface of the table which constrains its movement to a circular path. <br /><br />But another answer is that S obeys L because of the inherent properties of the constituents that make up S. L is built-in; get S and you thereby have L. This would be like putting a motorized car on a circular track – the movement of the car is constrained to a circular path by the structure of the track.<br /><br /><br /><b>even your language betrays a subliminal knowledge that there is purpose behind order, because nothing is built-kin by random chance. minds build in. As per the Hawking quote the innate qualities (scientific realism) are not explained by random chance but by physical law. hawking says gravity works as it does because physical law made it to.</b><br /><br /><br />Now before you ask why the track has the shape it does rather than some other shape, notice that this is really changing the question. Since on the view I am suggesting, the laws are ultimately “structural” features of the system itself rather than external add-ons, L is what happens when you have S. Instead of asking why S obeys L, you would now be asking why we have S that obeys L rather than S* that obeys L*.<br /><br /><b>It's not changing my argument, it's right on the point, you pulled a bait and switch creating your own question.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />In keeping with my persistent all-things-lead-back-to-Leibniz orientation, this largely recapitulates a dispute in Leibniz's correspondence with Samuel Clarke (or at least a point that Leibniz took to be in dispute), viz., whether God has to constantly exert influence on the world in order to ensure that all goes as he wants it to, or whether he can create a world which can afterwards be left entirely to govern itself. And perhaps that is a perfectly good question to ask, but it still matters that it is a different question. One thing at a time. <br /> 5:18 AM <br /><br /><b>In setting up physical laws it appears God set things up to work in such a way so he wont have to mind the sore all the time. Not to say he's not minding the store in our lives.</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6407435863281000882016-05-02T05:18:15.023-07:002016-05-02T05:18:15.023-07:00“...mind is the best explanation for law-like regu...“...mind is the best explanation for law-like regularity...”<br /><br />I actually don't see that a mind helps at all. Suppose physical system S obeys laws L. Well, why does S obey L rather than some other set of laws, L*? Because some mind M chose L rather than L* to govern S, you suggest. But how did M get S to obey L rather than L*? Is L an add-on to S? Could all the constituents of S have been exactly the same and yet be governed by L* rather than L? If so, then how does M ensure that S reliably continues to observe L and doesn't go off the rails? That is, what ensures the L-ness of S? <br /><br />One possible answer is that M constantly exerts a causal influence on S. This would be like ensuring that a toy car on a table always moves in a circle because you are moving it with your arm – there is nothing about the car or the surface of the table which constrains its movement to a circular path. <br /><br />But another answer is that S obeys L because of the inherent properties of the constituents that make up S. L is built-in; get S and you thereby have L. This would be like putting a motorized car on a circular track – the movement of the car is constrained to a circular path by the structure of the track.<br /><br />Now before you ask why the track has the shape it does rather than some other shape, notice that this is really changing the question. Since on the view I am suggesting, the laws are ultimately “structural” features of the system itself rather than external add-ons, L is what happens when you have S. Instead of asking why S obeys L, you would now be asking why we have S that obeys L rather than S* that obeys L*.<br /><br />In keeping with my persistent all-things-lead-back-to-Leibniz orientation, this largely recapitulates a dispute in Leibniz's correspondence with Samuel Clarke (or at least a point that Leibniz took to be in dispute), viz., whether God has to constantly exert influence on the world in order to ensure that all goes as he wants it to, or whether he can create a world which can afterwards be left entirely to govern itself. And perhaps that is a perfectly good question to ask, but it still matters that it is a different question. One thing at a time.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.com