There is something fundamentally wrong with you conception of laws. The laws do not simply pre-exist only to be uncovered by a hard- working or lucky scientist. It is true to say that laws are designed by people to reflect the natural phenomena they are witness to, experiment with and design experiments to verify. But this is not the same as simply uncovering something that is already there. Laws are also dependent on the framework of understanding in which they are designed and are limited by the interpretive horizons and perceptions of humanity.[ A famous mathematician once said that geometry was not true but advantageous.] For one thing many of these Laws have been proved wrong despite them often working for many years happily. For certain, abandoned laws cannot have been part of some magical design that pre-existed mankind. And thus we should realise with some humility that in some time in the future any of our current laws that seem to work so well, may go under with new discoveries and new ways of looking at the universe.
As for consciousness, and the first germ born. That would depend on what you think it is. This is a question of degree. Is evolution possible by chance? No, there is no chance if you mean by that a random event, but events that result in 'mistakes' in transcription lead to natural selection of traits that persist. These 'mistake' are determined by events such asThis is nothing more remarkable than the fact that the larger of two objects striking will be moved less than the smaller. On Aug 17, 6:39 pm, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > Evolution / Consciousness and Quantum of Light. > ==. > The scientific laws are already there in Nature. > The scientists only discovered them and usually name them after > themselves. > Maybe these laws were there by chance, but maybe these laws were > created > and set in motion which explain the evolution of Nature. > If the Universe was created by chance – we don't need consciousness. > But if the Universe was developed by way of evolution > ( from simple to complex ) it means it needed consciousness > for its development. > And then we have a question: > How and where was the first germ of consciousness born? > # > Can evolution be possible by chance? > No, because “ The second law of thermodynamics “ says the Universe > as whole goes to cold equilibrium ( T=0K) , to regress, to death. Yeah but not yet. > So, by chance evolution is impossible. It is simply how it is. > Evolution means progress. Evolution does not mean progress of necessity but change. But if evolution is progress > it must have consciousness to make this progress possible. Why? Why is survival not enough? > If it so, we have an astonishing situation. > In 1900 , Max Planck , trying to save the Universe from ice age > discovered > Quantum of Light. This Quantum of Light saves the Universe from > extinction, gives life and it means takes part in the Cosmic > evolution. > Question: > Does Quantum of Light have consciousness? > # > All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me > no nearer to the answer to the question ' What are light quanta?' > Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, > but he is mistaken > / Albert Einstein / > # > "There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive > solution could provide considerable elucidation. > What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?" > / Max Planck. Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920 / > > This question still waits for its answer. > =======================. > Best wishes. > Israel Sadovnik. Socratus. > =============================. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
