The law

[Athena]

Philosophy, for those who think it is crap, is the love of knowledge. Philosophy is the foundation of science. Philosophy is also the framework for moral thinking, and this discussion does not belong in the forum for religion, because it is about philosophy and an understanding of morals that makes democracy and liberty possible.

 

The law, what is it? How do we know it?

 

There is an organizing force to the universe, because obviously manifest reality is not disorganized chaos. We speak of this organizing force as the laws of physics and human nature and mathematics, etc..

 

I invite you to say what you know of the law and how you know it.

[michel123456]

There is no law.

WE deduce laws from observation, we invent laws in order to make the whole thing comprehensible and eventually prepare for future events.

An apple falling down from a tree does not follow the law of gravitation, an apple knows nothing about gravity, Newton found some deep mathematical relationship we call a law.

 

Philosophy, for those who think it is crap, is the love of knowledge. Philosophy is the foundation of science. Philosophy is also the framework for moral thinking, and this discussion does not belong in the forum for religion, because it is about philosophy and an understanding of morals that makes democracy and liberty possible.

 

The law, what is it? How do we know it?

 

There is an organizing force to the universe, because obviously manifest reality is not disorganized chaos. We speak of this organizing force as the laws of physics and human nature and mathematics, etc..

 

I invite you to say what you know of the law and how you know it.

 

Etymologically, it is the love (as friendship) of wisdom.

[studiot]

Well here is one view of what we mean by a scientific law and how we come by it.

 

1)When we observe the the world around us we divide things into individual compartments we call systems.

 

2)When we look within individual systems we distinguish patterns in the objects or characteristics that make up those systems.

 

3)Sometimes we note that we can see the same pattern in more than one system.

 

4)We do this by matching participating elements (putting them into one to one correspondence).

 

5)If this pattern is repeated over many systems we call it a law and use the list of systems involved to specifiy the scope of the law (ie the conditions under which it is valid).

 

6)Both the last two ( 4 & 5) statements can then be used to examine new or further systems to make predictions about them and potentially extend or refine the law.

 

All too often problems arise when people ignore the conditions of applicability part of the process.

 

go well

[Athena]

There is no law.

WE deduce laws from observation, we invent laws in order to make the whole thing comprehensible and eventually prepare for future events.

An apple falling down from a tree does not follow the law of gravitation, an apple knows nothing about gravity, Newton found some deep mathematical relationship we call a law.

 

 

 

Etymologically, it is the love (as friendship) of wisdom.

 

 

I don't think we invent the laws, but you can try, and may be you can get rich inventing the laws of the universe?

 

When we make laws to regulate banking or traffic or things like avoiding crime, it may seem like we are inventing laws, and sometimes the reasoning for a law is not good and needs to be changed. Democracy is about all of us having a say in the laws we live by, and education for democracy, prepares us to do that. It begins with an understanding of The Law. I am concerned education for technology is not doing a good job of teaching this, leading us to believe our laws are just a matter of whim, and accepting this would mean the end of our liberty.

 

Well here is one view of what we mean by a scientific law and how we come by it.

 

1)When we observe the the world around us we divide things into individual compartments we call systems.

 

2)When we look within individual systems we distinguish patterns in the objects or characteristics that make up those systems.

 

3)Sometimes we note that we can see the same pattern in more than one system.

 

4)We do this by matching participating elements (putting them into one to one correspondence).

 

5)If this pattern is repeated over many systems we call it a law and use the list of systems involved to specifiy the scope of the law (ie the conditions under which it is valid).

 

6)Both the last two ( 4 & 5) statements can then be used to examine new or further systems to make predictions about them and potentially extend or refine the law.

 

All too often problems arise when people ignore the conditions of applicability part of the process.

 

go well

 

I really enjoyed this explanation of how we come to identifying a law. Now can we look at what religion did to do with our understanding of the law, without a mod moving things to the religious forum? As we know, in the past, different groups of people starting tell everyone what God's laws are. They came up with some good ideas and some not so good ideas. Moses, whom some believe spoke for God, making theology different from philosophy, told everyone how to handle human waste, and taking this for God's law, they all did things the way Moses told them to do things. In Jerusalem this was a disaster! Only in a dry desert can you handle waste this way. In Jerusalem it meant contaminating the water used for washing their hands, and we get Jesus telling us it is not necessary to wash our hands. Someone noticed Moses' laws for sanitation were not working in Jerusalem, but were in fact leading to early death. They didn't correctly understand the law, so Jesus tells us it was a law made by humans and we don't have to follow it. As everyone knows, the problem with religion is the failure to check the laws, and the inability to change them, unless someone else speaking for God, tells us to do things differently. This is really problematic and I really hate it when well a meaning mod, moves my post to religion, and everyone denies that this was a mistake. I do not speak for God, but use philosophy and science for my reasoning, that is to know The Law.

 

The benefit of democracy is the ease with which we make and change laws. Threw science, we have learned a lot and now have better sanitation laws, and laws for welding boilers that prevent boilers from blowing up and killing people. We have laws regulating just about everything in our lives, and this begins to become another a problem., especially when people deny there any law maker above them, and believe they can make any laws they want.

 

When we went from "God's laws" to secular laws, then education for technology, the connection between our laws and the laws of the universe was lost. Before education for technology, education taught everyone that our wonderful laws that save so many lives, and regulate our society, are our improved understanding (science) of God's laws. People with 8th grade educations, saw violating the law, as ignorance. In a democracy our laws are supposed to be based on the reasoning of philosophy and science. That reasoning is not inventing universal laws but identifying them. For example, we do not lie, because if we lie, people will not trust us, and good relationships depend on trust. That is universal. This makes lying ignorance of the law. We can knowingly ignore the law, or perhaps fail to understand the law. The point is, when it comes to sanitation, making boilers or human relationships, The law regulates our lives, and when we fail to know the law and follow the law, things go badly. That is just the way it is.

 

Since education for technology, a lot of people seem to be denying this. They say things like "we invent the laws", and then act like we can get away with inventing the laws. We seem to think we are above The Laws. This problem has hit the banks and our economies badly! Our justice system is out dated and expensive and ineffective, it is pathetic! Especially in the US. We are not applying science to our laws. We are acting like our laws can be anything we want them to be, and that is a failure to know The Law, and that is causing our systems to fail. It is a tyranny and everything we opposed. Democracy is among other things, a search for truth and laws made by a consensus on the best reasoning. Only when we know and understand this, can we defend our democracy and liberty. Our military weapons defend neither our democracy nor liberty.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Athena

[Athena]

There is no law.

WE deduce laws from observation, we invent laws in order to make the whole thing comprehensible and eventually prepare for future events.

An apple falling down from a tree does not follow the law of gravitation, an apple knows nothing about gravity, Newton found some deep mathematical relationship we call a law.

 

 

 

Etymologically, it is the love (as friendship) of wisdom.

 

There is no law? The biggest argument in the moral thread is over the understanding of The Law. Michael S. Schneider wrote "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe- The Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science".

 

Now there are so many words of wisdom I don't know where to begin. How about quoting Philolaus a fifth century B.C. Greek Pythagorean philosopher.

For the nature of number is to be informative, guiding and instructive for anybody in everything that is subject to doubt and that is unknown. For nothing about things would be comprehensible to anybody, neither of things in themselves, nor of one in religion to the other, if number and its essence were nonexistent... The essence of number, like harmony, does not allow misunderstanding, for this is strange to it. Deception and envy are inherent to the unbounded, unknowable, and unreasonable... Truth, however, is inherent in the nature of numbers and inbred in it.