/lit/ - Literature

>>23369619
On The Cosmic Mystery Of Jesus Christ
by Saint Maximus the Confessor
it discusses the metaphysics behind physical laws

>>23369619
>Those who speak against killing and who desire to spare the lives of all conscious beings are right. It is good to protect even animals and insects. But what about those persons who kill time, what about those who are destroying wealth, and those who destroy political economy? We should not overlook them. Furthermore, what of the one who preaches without enlightenment? He is killing Buddhism.

>All beings by nature are Buddhas, as ice by nature is water. Apart from water there is no ice; apart from beings, no Buddha's.

>when you meet the Buddha, kill him.

Is Water H2O?, Hasok Chang
Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, EA Burtt
From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Koyre
Loss of Certainty, Kline

>>23369619
difference and repetition

>>23369639
>Is Water H2O?, Hasok Chang
I have not read this but it reminds me of something.
The modern periodic table of the elements vs the ancient Greek elements
It's not a matter of scientific progress proving the old one wrong. It's two different modes of thinking.

>>23369619
>ontology of physical laws?

soo...math?

>>23369758
What is math, anon? Give me a precise definition.

>>23369619

>>23369772
Rigorous masturbation

>>23369758
Math just gives us a way of describing a regularity.

Suppose I ask what is the ontology of the regularity that metals expand when heated, and you give me the equation for heat expansion. All you did was refine the statement of the regularity.

So is all of physical law just about regularities, or do physical laws exist beyond that?

>>23369758
>>23369961
Kant's First Critique goes precisely into how mathematical reasoning is fundamentally different from conjectures of lawfulness of physical motion, and this is the basis of his whole line of argument.

>>23369619
tim maudlin is good on this
>>23369967
lel

if you believe in scientific realism, you literally believe that there is an immaterial symmetry group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)× P(1,3) living outside the universe and yet governing every interaction in the material universe without even being able to explain how immaterial rules act on matter.

>>23369619
>The Advancement of Learning of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, Divine and Human (1605)
>Novum Organum (1620)
Francis Bacon is one of the creators of the scientific method. Scientific laws, correctly understood, are part of God's will for creation. Descartes, Newton, and Bacon, as in those who invented the scientific method, all agreed. What are these laws metaphysically? Bacon argues they are a second Scripture or the natural Bible itself which dovetails nicely with the Thomistic understanding of Natural Law.
>>23370827
This is why pagans cannot understand science nor invent it - all of sciences governing assumptions are dogmatically Christian to the core.

>>23370537
Yeah but you need math for physics

>>23370466
>So is all of physical law just about regularities, or do physical laws exist beyond that?
Define "exist beyond that".
When you are asking something this outlandish you HAVE to be concrete. When you are discussing fundamental shit you can't just use regular words without defining them first.
Again, it's fine to ask outlandish questions, you just have to do it right.

We have stuff we presume to be real and it has a predictable behavior.
Behavior==laws

>>23369619
How would you imagine the existence of a laws on their own,for what is a law without a subject to govern?

Asking if the laws are real carries with it an aura of arrogance as if we have figured out if all of the other physical concepts are "real" and all that is left are the laws. Which is not true, because take foe example energy.
We don't know if it's a reality or just an abstraction.

>>23370537
nope you misunderstood Kant really really bad

>>23369619
Pic-related.

>>23370827
This honestly went above my head so you'll have to describe this symmetry whatchamacallit and what the implications are.