No I don’t believe they do. The ones that we have seem to be very workable, but we don’t know that any of them is complete. Newton’s law of gravity is a simple example. It was very workable in predicting the orbits of the known planets, with the exception of Mercury. It wasn’t until Einstien that it was modified so that the orbit of Mercury could be described.geometer
Thanks!
Do the laws of nature and mathematics exist outside the human mind?
In trying to answer that question, I realize that perhaps accidental is not the most correct term. Perhaps I should just leave it out altogether and simply say real existence in things. The laws or truths about nature are not objects that you can see or touch–they are not substances, but they are real and are true about nature whether we realize that or not.Katholish
What is meant by “real accidental existence in things.”
Thanks!
The sum of the angles of a triangle are equal to 180 degrees according to the axioms of plane geometry. It is true enough because that deduction can be clearly established in plane geometry. However, we can have very different results in spherical geometry, which is founded on different axioms. The angles of a spherical triangle are always greater than 180 degrees. Spherical triangles have a sum of angles that lies between 180 and 540 degrees.The laws or truths about nature are not objects that you can see or touch–they are not substances, but they are real and are true about nature whether we realize that or not.
Concrete example: The internal angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees. If all mankind died tomarrow, this would still be true. It is part of the very nature of what it is to be a triangle.
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” EinsteinDoes math exist independent of the human mind?
This simply means, that a characteristic exists in a thing, such as “yellow” in a Canary, but, it is not essential to the nature or existence of the thing. A Canary can be another color and still be a Canary. But, a man cannot be anything except a “rational animal”, for example, or, “two horses” cannot be three horses, or, one horse.Katholish
What is meant by “real accidental existence in things.”
Thanks!
My answer to this would be, “yes.” That a rational mind finds such laws is irrelevant. The laws of nature would exist, but, except for God, there wouldn’t be anyone around to care. For example, 1,000 years ago, the Laws of Thermodynamics were still exerting their effects on the universe, but, no one was capable of knowing it.geometer
Thanks!
Do the laws of nature and mathematics exist outside the human mind?
I am only looking for an answer.
I am not looking for a discussion, if that helps.
Again, in your judgment, do the laws of nature exist outside the human mind?
Or, if there were no humans, would the laws of nature or math exist?
Again, thanks!
This makes me wonder what you could possibly mean when you say something exists. In what sense could it be said that the laws of thermodynamics existed before there were any human minds to hold the idea? I think I’m hearing the sound of one hand clapping.My answer to this would be, “yes.” That a rational mind finds such laws is irrelevant. The laws of nature would exist, but, except for God, there wouldn’t be anyone around to care. For example, 1,000 years ago, the Laws of Thermodynamics were still exerting their effects on the universe, but, no one was capable of knowing it.
Not to overly confuse, but humans are the universe. We don’t inhabit the Earth, for example, we are actually it. We’re not all of it, but we are it.This makes me wonder what you could possibly mean when you say something exists. In what sense could it be said that the laws of thermodynamics existed before there were any human minds to hold the idea? I think I’m hearing the sound of one hand clapping.
It seems to me that whatever it is that the laws of thermodynamics can be said to apply to must have existed before humans could come up with the laws that describe it. But then, that itself is a human idea. The idea that a universe must have existed before we came along to name it “the universe” is a good idea, but the idea that the universe existed before us is still just an idea.
Best,
Leela
Oh, you’re so nit-picky! OK, the the thing existed before someone first defined it. I thought that’s what he was asking.This makes me wonder what you could possibly mean when you say something exists. In what sense could it be said that the laws of thermodynamics existed before there were any human minds to hold the idea? I think I’m hearing the sound of one hand clapping.
It seems to me that whatever it is that the laws of thermodynamics can be said to apply to must have existed before humans could come up with the laws that describe it. But then, that itself is a human idea. The idea that a universe must have existed before we came along to name it “the universe” is a good idea, but the idea that the universe existed before us is still just an idea.
Best,
Leela
That’s an interesting way to put it. In that sense, I concur.Not to overly confuse, but humans are the universe. We don’t inhabit the Earth, for example, we are actually it. We’re not all of it, but we are it.