That, if everything I said is true, implies that humans too, being composed of matter and energy, must obey the laws of nature — TheMadFool
By universal I mean the laws of nature apply to any and all without exception. — TheMadFool
The impression I get from science, what I know of it, is that the so-called laws of nature are universal. — TheMadFool
...and at this time period.They are not the true laws of nature, which are unknown, and they are not universal either. These laws only exhibit an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe. — alcontali
This is a paradox because how is it that the laws of nature, universal in scope produces humans whose interactions, necessarily derived from the universal laws of nature, have exceptions? — TheMadFool
I'll take ethics as an example. We all know that all ethical theories are "incomplete" in the sense that there are exceptions which cause them to fail. — TheMadFool
Right. If you and a rock fall out the window, you will hit the ground at the same time, all things being equal. However, you might regret it, while the rock cannot — Wayfarer
If not, why not? We - the ones aware of these laws of thought - are but energy and matter, right? — javra
They are not the true laws of nature, which are unknown, and they are not universal either. These laws only exhibit an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe. — alcontali
I think we can actually ask a simple question: "Why don't we think alike?" — TheMadFool
effort at laying down universal laws, just like mother nature and also the various exceptions that resist such an effort. There are no exceptions to the laws of nature. — TheMadFool
This is a paradox because how is it that the laws of nature, universal in scope produces humans whose interactions, necessarily derived from the universal laws of nature, have exceptions? — TheMadFool
↪Terrapin Station
"Everything is relative" is a universal. — Harry Hindu
The aspect that I want to focus on is that the laws of nature are UNIVERSAL i.e. there can be no exception. [...] It's "obvious" that humans and whatever they do must obey the laws of nature. — TheMadFool
If you're trying to connect this question to the law of physics, then it's the same as "why aren't all molecules alike"; i.e. why is there any differentiation at all. — boethius
If the physical laws being coherent is just a starter to contrast with our many incoherent sayings and doings as a society as a whole, then I have no qualms. This is what I understand of your last post, as you emphasize that you are not saying a contradiction arises about our behaviour from the laws-of-physics per se, is this accurate? — boethius
People claim things to be universal that are no such thing. That's the simple problem there. — Terrapin Station
Everything is relative" is a universal. — Harry Hindu
By chaos I refer to the many exceptions in our attempts at setting down rules (patterns) of social interaction. — TheMadFool
What do you mean? Have you seen anything defy gravity? Is there anything that breaks the laws of thermodynamics? — TheMadFool
I like what javra said. He pointed out that the laws of thought are universal. Despite his intentions for doing that not being clear to me it brings to relief the fact that nature's patterns are, if anything, universal in character. — TheMadFool
I think we can actually ask a simple question: "Why don't we think alike?" — TheMadFool
Continuing, we know that every aspect of humanity, everything we do, has a pattern "resembling" the laws of nature — TheMadFool
I expect, therefore, that the laws of nature reflect a fundamental fact about the universe and everything it contains. The aspect that I want to focus on is that the laws of nature are UNIVERSAL i.e. there can be no exception. — TheMadFool
Are you trying to contrast (coercive) human laws, made to govern humans, with (descriptive) 'laws of nature'? The former are for us to manage exceptions, if our coercion is disobeyed; the latter simply describe how the universe appears to us to work, and have no coercive force whatever. — Pattern-chaser
The Theory of Everything would be the real construction logic of the universe, and not just some patterns that somehow resist falsification (for the time being). — alcontali
So, given that the laws of thought are universal, in this sense alone, we do all think alike.
But I get it, you're asking why there are variations in our thoughts. And, I acknowledge, my previous train of thought can't address this. — javra
Before confirming or denying that, the question of whether there is a human nature needs to be asked. If one posits that the language that has developed through the idea is actually a misguided interpretation of other elements, then what is understood to be "natural" is not the same nature as the one described as a special set of conditions that pertain to our species. — Valentinus
The OP misunderstands the nature of universality at play in the 'laws of nature'. The so-called laws must be understood negatively, as limits which cannot be crossed. To dumb it down, they say something like: "you can do almost whatever you want, but you can't do this". The 2nd law of thermodynamics is exemplary: in a closed system, entropy can never decrease. All well and good. But this says nothing about what actually happens in those systems: it just says that whatever does happen, it can't happen such that entropy decreases. The philosohoper of science Nancy Cartwright puts it best:
"Covering-law theorists tend to think that nature is well-regulated; in the extreme, that there is a law to cover every case. [Instead,] natural objects are much like people in societies. Their behaviour is constrained by some specific laws and by a handful of general principles, but it is not determined in detail, even statistically [by those laws]. What happens on most occasions is dictated by no law at all. ... God may have written just a few laws and grown tired". (Cartwright, How The Laws of Physics Lie)
'Universality' simply means that nothing can contravene those laws, not that the laws determine "everything". A stop sign must always be obeyed: but not everything you do is governed by the stop sign. — StreetlightX
I understand that the Theory of Everything is expected to cover all physical phenomena. That human group interactions always has exceptions to any law designed for it indicates either that there can't be a theory of everything or that the mind is not physical. — TheMadFool
Newtonian mechanics or laws determine what objects do — TheMadFool
The same holds true, mutatis mutandis, for physical law. Everything abides it, it is universal in scope, and it determines everything that happens. But not all of it. — StreetlightX
Please read javra's post on how logic is universal. — TheMadFool
So, my question can be framed as: "Why do we have rules when in fact we should be having laws?" — TheMadFool
'Universality' simply means that nothing can contravene those laws, not that the laws determine "everything". — StreetlightX
It seems that you want to frame what is peculiarly human against a background of an existence that is ordered without provision for that possibility. A freaking fluke accident, if you will. — Valentinus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.