Re: Laws of nature

Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:40:34 -0700

>Chris
>>You assume that they were created or generated. The third alternative is
>>that they were not created or generated at all.
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Chris. For some time many Darwinists have insisted no one could
criticize
>"random mutation and natural selection as the principle mechanism of macro
>evolution" without offering an alternative. I never found that reasonable.
>Therefore I certainly respect your right to believe the laws of nature were
>neither created according to some complex design, nor arose by spontaneous
>generation, but came into existence in some third unspecified manner.

Chris
You're missing my point. You're still assuming that they "came into
existence." The third alternative I had in mind is simply that the Universe
(or at least it's basic material) never came into existence at all. I'm
suggesting that Existence has always existed, and that therefore the
(primary) laws of Nature have always "existed" as an aspect of Existence.

I notice also that you are implicitly treating the laws of Nature as somehow
separate from the nature of what exists, as if there was or might have been
something that existed, and then, somehow, the laws of Nature came along or
were imposed on it. But the laws of Nature are simply the way things behave
because of what they are; they are descriptions of aspects of the nature of
Nature. There are no laws of Nature independent of the nature of things in
Nature.

Bertvan
>And just as I can see design in nature without concerning myself about a
>"designer", I suppose you can believe something can exist without
concerning
>yourself with the question of whether it "came into existence". In any
case
>can we agree that it is probably not a question which can be answered by
>science?

Chris
Yes; it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

>Chris
>>Let me ask a question: Can you imagine a universe that COULD possibly
exist
>>that would not provide "evidence" of "design"? I cannot imagine such a
>>universe, because anything that exists is subject to the basic law of
>>causation: A thing DOES what it IS. All possible universes are orderly,
>>though it's possible that they don't all support life (a universe with
only
>>one atom in it, for example, would not support life).
>
>Bertvan:
>No. Since the only two options I am able to imagine are universes created
>according to some complex design or those which arose by spontaneous
>generation (and I can't really imagine that one), I choose to accept the
>obvious (design), until I see reason to believe what appears to me as
reality
>is really an illusion.

Chris
Here again, you are limiting yourself to universes that came into existence,
and missing the possibility that Existence never came into existence, but
simply IS and always has been, forever, without beginning, absolutely
infinitely.