> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > I always have a problem at this point. Isnt it so, that natural laws and > natural constants havent change at all since the big bang?
Depends upon what one means by law. In physics laws are often treated as descriptive rather than prescriptive even though physics retains the older view of fundamental laws. The problem is that lacking a grand unified theory we can’t really discuss fundamental laws. The Standard Model which is our best explanation is usually deemed very unsatisfactory simply because it seems so arbitrary. String theory (and to a lesser extent loop quantum gravity) attempted to explain this although it was hampered by explaining too much. Any particular less fundamental law was arbitrary and just how chance worked out in our universe. I had this fascinating undergraduate thermodynamic text which, in an appendix actually worked out all of thermodynamic laws starting from symmetries in a system. Change the symmetries and you change the laws. Now there’s a old debate in philosophy of science over whether we should use the term law in these cases and whether there even are laws. I’m not sure many find that particularly helpful anymore. And as a practical matter this has long been true in physics. The ideal gas law is of course not really a law, for example, since very little is ideal in the form it requires. Again this isn’t to justify Peirce here. I think Peirce’s cosmology and panpsychism is understandably the most controversial aspect of his thought. It’s also arguably the most speculative. I think it quite easy to accept his semiotic structures without necessarily buying into his cosmology. I find it fascinating for various reasons. Arguably it’s no worse than any other work of foundational ontology. But all ontology that far removed from experience is dubious. Anyway, relative to “laws” changing due to symmetries I think it’s far less mysterious if one simply eliminates the term “law.” Consider say ice and how it freezes. There will be certain types of symmetries that determine properties. That’s far less mysterious and really is all that’s going on in the early universe with quantum type symmetries. I think “law” in the traditional sense is just a term that easily leads astray. I simply note that the way Peirce uses law is much more conducive to physics even if perhaps it’s not for traditional philosophy of science debates. (And I can’t say I’ve followed the debate over “law” there much beyond the typical undergraduate philosophy of science readers most of us have encountered) > I once had uttered the idea, that maybe there is a meta-universe, in which > there once was an elementary-school-class of young Gods, each pupil given the > job to construct a little universe, and now ours is one of them. > Unfortunately, I had uttered this not totally seriously-meant idea in a > christian forum. I never, before and after, have received verbal attacks with > the worst of bad words you can imagine, like thereafter. But I never have > cared so little about being insulted like then, I only mention it, because I > find it a funny thing to tell. Yeah certain types of conservative Christians aren’t apt to find that too appealing. I’m from a Mormon background so I’m far more used to that sort of speculation. <grin>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
