Scientists are part of the natural world, like elephants. Scientific
behaviour, like elephant behaviour, has invariants across the entire set of
scientific disciplines (humanity) as for elephanity(!) = elephants behaving
elephantly. Not many invariants, but a few. One of those is creativity, for
example. Not all are adopted well by all scientists. But there are
invariants to be found, even if they are not always adopted.... 

Scientists are regularity in the natural world. There is absolutely no
reason why Scientific behaviour can't be expressed as a natural law like any
other law. Their behaviour is not that of a musician. Their behaviour is not
that of a tax accountant. Whatever their behaviour it is unique and can be
expressed as a basic minimal prescription, a statistic like and other
natural law.

I have constructed a prototype of what it may be like. The difference
between this law and all others is that it is implicit in scientists in that
unlike any other law of nature it has never been explicitly formulated, but
is passed on by mimicry. The complete set of all J+1 currently available
'laws of nature' (any paper in any scientific journal expressing empirical
results qualifies to go into this set....) is:

T = {t0, t1 ..tN, .. tJ }

These are the laws of appearances, the T-aspect. The special law t0 is the
one for scientific behaviour. The status of these laws is as follows:

By acting 'as-if' t0 was literally driving the natural world you can predict
(statistically) the behaviour of a scientist.
By acting 'as-if' tx was literally driving the natural world you can predict
(statistically) the behaviour of those things that were used to formulate
tx. For example newton's 2nd law f = ma reformulated into the form of the
set T members would be one such law - this would enable a human to predict
the behaviour of mass m.

All the laws in the set T can be treated as beliefs necessary to drive
behaviour of a HUMAN in order that the natural world be predictable. They
say NOTHING about the actual underlying causal necessities of the natural
world. That claim cannot be made: there is no evidence. Novel Technology
proves the laws as predictive and therefore that the causal parent = the
human behaviour resulting from believing in the laws is adequate...remember
the laws are formulated with evidence of behaviour as presented by qualia
into the head of scientists. To the best of my ability the law t0 is as

tN =    The natural world in < insert context> behaves as follows: <insert

t0 =    The natural world in <the context of being scientific about the
natural world> behaves as follows: < to formulate statements of type tN,
each of which is a statementNote 1 of regularityNote 2 in a specific
contextNote 3 in the natural world arrived at through the process of
critical argumentNote 4 and that in principle can be refuted through the
process of experiencingNote 5 evidenceNote 6 of the regularity Note 7>.
I have embedded the notes down below. They don't matter much in what I am
trying to convey. Creativity is in them. Objectivity is in them.

Just like a thought about thinking is a member of the set of all possible
thoughts, the law t0 is a law of type tN about the formulation of laws of
type tN.

The set T does not have to be consistent. Different laws in set T can
contradict each other. That is they can be egregiously wrong outside their
context. The set T is growing exponentially day by day. Each member of set T
represents a net brain state (achieved during dynamic brain activity)
comprising the holding of a belief about the natural world by a scientist.
That is all that is claimed.

The property of the natural world that enables t0 is intrinsic (innate) to
brain material: the extraction of invariance from perceptual fields. The
accuracy of t0 is proven by observation of history in that it has been used
all along by scientists and can be seen to be in operation all along even
though any explicit t0 at any time could be very very wrong (it was never
written down until now)!

t0, as a 'law of science' is NOT 'scientific method'. Scientific method is
just detail inside the overall behaviour. This law t0 is novel. It is not in
science literature and it is not in philosophy literature and it is not in
anthropology literature.

Note that I have a second aspect T' ( a new set about underlying structure)
and the pair T and T' form the characterisation of science called dual
aspect. Set T and set T' are not claimed to 'be' the natural world, but
merely be 'about' it. Qualia as scientific evidence are evidence for both T
and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that
generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is
quite consistent and empirically backed throughout.

Colin Hales

t0 Notes:
Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended to be
complete or even appropriately configured. It is merely intended to be a
prototype - as starting point - for ongoing development. The details have no
fundamental bearing on the outcome of establishment of a t0, its framework
and delineation of inconsistency in science.

Note 1. Formulation of a statement is the creative act of a cognitive agent
and the statement must be well formed in that it is consistently derived
from a well formed axiomatic context (see note 3). The statement is a
potential truth about the universe or a prediction of same. Philosophical
considerations can be used here to assist with the creative process.

Note 2. This includes statistical (probabilistic/stochastic) regularities.
Indeed it is arguable that all empirical theorems are describing statistical
objects. Most, if not all, current theories of the natural world describe
regularities in the behaviour of statistics evident in the colligative
behaviour of multiple instances of similar natural structures. Ms. and Mr.
Average have predictable behaviour useful in making decisions. These people
do not actually exist (they are virtual). Nevertheless we can formulate
theorems that can be said to describe the natural world in a useful way i.e.
one that facilitates decision making. The decision being made is one of
configuration of initial conditions which will subsequently lead to the
natural world achieving a desired state (technology).

Note 3. A well formed set of axioms (assumptions held to be self evident for
the purpose) establishing the basis for the hypothesis that is the
'statement'. A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatised if a set of
statements, the axioms, has been formulated which satisfies the following
four fundamental requirements: (a) a system of axioms must be free from
contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is
equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is
deducible from it. (b) The system must be independent, i.e. it must not
contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms. In other words, a
statement is to be called an axiom only if it is not deducible within the
rest of the system. (c) The axioms should be sufficient for the deduction of
all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatised, and (d)
axioms should be necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they
should contain no superfluous assumptions.

Note 4. This incorporates the creative act of induction and all critical
argument that stabilises on a final chosen statement.

Note 5. This means that the regularity shall occur in the experiential life
of an observer. This prescribes phenomenal consciousness as the source of
all evidence. This may include the use of instruments which make visible
otherwise unobservable aspects of the natural world. Instruments are
technology and exploratory regimes resulting from previously formulated

Note 6. Evidence results from the act of deduction and the creative act of
formulation of a statement (via the same method of critical argument) which
leads to a choice of initial conditions as a causal precursor to an
experiment exhibiting behaviour in relation to the chosen statement.

Note 7. Statements tN are not a prescription of truth in that it is not
proven by the scientific process. Scientific statements, unlike mathematical
theorems, are never proven. They live life permanently in the inferior state
of being 'not wrong' but of great predictive utility. This is mandated
logically because no matter how predictive any one theorem may be it is
always possible to configure doubt in accuracy or applicability in new

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

Reply via email to