> Brent Meeker wrote:
> > Vic defends the view that physical laws are based
> on point-of-view-invariance;
> > that is a constraint we place on what we call a
> law.  As such, they are not
> > really laws constraining nature, they are
> symmetries that are an absence of
> > 'law' (i.e. structure).
IMO "Law" is the improper word. What we call 'laws' 
are the mostly observed (maybe without alternative?)
behavior in OUR OBSERVATIONS within the 'model' of
nature we observe(d). It may be close to Vic S's
definition (model = point of view). 
Natural sciences always forget about the lawyers, who
are paid for violating the 'law' and argue about it.

Rupert Sheldrake was crucified in the mag. Nature for
calling it "nature's habit'. Meaning: the ones we
already discovered. 

Of course those 'symmetries' are also ONLY invariant
within the so far acknowledged domains. As we are
learning our ways into chaos and emergence, less and
less incariance remains and the validity of our 'laws'
shrinks. Where are we from the 'atom' (a-temno) [not
cuttable any further]? It was 'law' in Dalton's time. 

The position "...cannot be, because it violates
natural law..." are slogans of reductionist

John Mikes

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to