What would you ask a person who knew everything?

[Global Skeptic]

Because the definition of law of nature does not mention or presuppose the existence of people.

Define:

transitive verb
1
a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human> b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word) c : to create on a computer <define a window> <define a procedure>
2
a : to fix or mark the limits of : demarcate <rigidly defined property lines> b : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>
3
: characterize, distinguish <you define yourself by the choices you make — Denison University Bulletin>
intransitive verb
: to make a definition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/define

Note to make a definition. So who makes definitions?

 

[Souron]

Never quote the dictionary, it doesn't ever help your case.

Defining a word may require people, but that does not make it so that the concept a word represents has anything to do with people.

 

[Flying Pig]

Put another way, Souron is saying that if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, it still makes a noise - and the frequenters of Starbucks have probably already bought the recording.

 

[Global Skeptic]

...
Laws are human constructs in so far as the currently "known" laws are the product of scientists. However the "laws of nature" can refer to the actual rules nature follows, which are not human constructs. Modern science may be wrong, but the premise of science -- that laws exist -- it is hard to imagine that being wrong.

Never quote the dictionary, it doesn't ever help your case.

Defining a word may require people, but that does not make it so that the concept a word represents has anything to do with people.

So the concepts as the laws of nature "makes" nature and these concepts don't have anything to do with people.
So nature doesn't have anything to do with people or nature doesn't follow the laws of nature.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Put another way, Souron is saying that if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, it still makes a noise - and the frequenters of Starbucks have probably already bought the recording.

It doesn't make a noise.

 

[Flying Pig]

So the concepts as the laws of nature "makes" nature and these concepts don't have anything to do with people.
So nature doesn't have anything to do with people or nature doesn't follow the laws of nature.

I have absolutely no idea what this post means.

It doesn't make a noise.

Very decisive, at least...

 

[Global Skeptic]

Start here...

I have a hard time imagining how there could not be one, though like with quantum theory there are multiple equivelent and equally simple models. The univerce follows natural law, and theory explains the reason behind those laws. For any set of laws there must be at least one valid scientific theory to explain them.

Then later...

Because the difinition of law of nature does not mention or presuppose the existance of people.

And more...

...

Defining a word may require people, but that does not make it so that the concept a word represents has anything to do with people.

I have absolutely no idea what this post means.

Nature(N) follows the laws of nature(LN).
The laws of nature(LN) has nothing to do with people(P).
Since nature is not more (it follows) than the laws of nature, therefore nature has nothing to do with people.

In short:
P1: N is LN
P2: LN is not P
Conclusion: N is not P
Nature has nothing to do with people.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Very decisive, at least...

The ball is with you as you made the positive claim.

 

[Flying Pig]

Nature(N) follows the laws of nature(LN).
The laws of nature(LN) has nothing to do with people(P).
Since nature is not more (it follows) than the laws of nature, therefore nature has nothing to do with people.

In short:
P1: N is LN
P2: LN is not P
Conclusion: N is not P
Nature has nothing to do with people.

Yes, but I'm not quite sure what 'nature has nothing to do with people' means. Unless you mean 'the study of nature ought not to include any study of humanity', which is a valid point but I don't see its relevance.

The ball is with you as you made the positive claim.

There's no ball! It's an interesting question! Answering as if we were having a fencing-match of a debate is really, really boring!

 

[Souron]

Nature has nothing to do with people.

That's a stronger statement than I'm making. All I'm saying is the laws of nature don't require people to exist. People still have other relationships with nature.

 

[Global Skeptic]

That's a stronger statement than I'm making. All I'm saying is the laws of nature don't require people to exist. People still have other relationships with nature.

If the laws of nature don't require humans to, how come humans exist?

 

[Souron]

Put another way, Souron is saying that if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, it still makes a noise - and the frequenters of Starbucks have probably already bought the recording.

Technically I'm saying that it might still make a noise. The laws of nature could consevably have some special relationship with people, but it isn't inherrent to the concept of law of nature.

 

[Souron]

If the laws of nature don't require humans to, how come humans exist?

Chance perhaps. This is a philosophical question that there are varying opinions on.

 

[Flying Pig]

If the laws of nature don't require humans to, how come humans exist?

I see. So you are of the belief that until approximately one million years ago, the universe ticked along fine with neither humanity nor the laws of nature?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Put another way, Souron is saying that if a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, it still makes a noise - and the frequenters of Starbucks have probably already bought the recording.

It doesn't make a noise.

Of course it makes a noise. A tree falling will create vibrations, and these are perceived as sound by lifeforms anatomically able to hear them. Any wildlife around would certainly hear the tree fall. The other trees would know the tree fell, although not in the way that an animal would know. The vibrations would still exist even if there were NO other lifeforms around.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, but we don't know that this happens when there's nobody around to observe it. All that our experiments can prove to us is that when somebody is listening, a falling tree makes a sound. Ockham's Razor doesn't even (strictly) apply here, and common sense just gives you the most likely answer rather than actual proof.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Ah, but we don't know that this happens when there's nobody around to observe it. All that our experiments can prove to us is that when somebody is listening, a falling tree makes a sound. Ockham's Razor doesn't even (strictly) apply here, and common sense just gives you the most likely answer rather than actual proof.

You mean nobody has rigged up a remote camera/microphone to test this yet? If not, why not?

Honestly, that's like saying that if all the humans in my apartment building are absent and the fire alarm goes off, it won't make a sound because no humans will be there to hear it. And that's ridiculous, because I observed my cats' reaction to the building fire alarm just a couple of days ago when the fire department came around and tested all the hallway alarms, smoke alarms, and heat detectors. My cats definitely heard it, and they were definitely freaked. That reaction would have happened no matter if I was there or not.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, but there were cats watching. I put it to you that fire-alarm company makes the machines so that they switch off when there's nothing around to observe them - saves electricity.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Ah, but there were cats watching. I put it to you that fire-alarm company makes the machines so that they switch off when there's nothing around to observe them - saves electricity.

Then burglar alarms shouldn't function when nobody is looking at them, car alarms shouldn't be set off by random vibrations, phones should never ring when nobody is home...

 

[Flying Pig]

Not everyone's as clever as the fire alarm manufacturers, you see.