Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Impermanence and the laws of nature

WhoknowsWhoknows Australia Veteran
edited January 2011 in Philosophy
Hi all,

Vincenzi's question on Cosmology led my thoughts in another direction that I wish to explore. It is straight forward impermanence. If every conditioned phenomenon is subject to impermanence, so to are the "laws of nature". If we postulate that the laws of nature are constant then we are saying that they are unconditioned. If they are conditioned then they are subject to continual change, not just sudden change. That means that our assumptions based on properties that exist without change over time are suspect! Think of the implications of this.

Secondly, to me, the entire notion of the "laws of nature" seems a bit ridiculous, or infantile. It seems to imply that some entity created these self supporting "laws" and, in my opinion, is nothing but the historical offspring of science and religion. Sure science has apparently disassociated itself from religion, but it has left this notion of "laws of nature" intact and without cause or reason. I was watching a documentary last week and they kept referring to "mother nature" like it was some sort of thing in its own right and they appeared completely oblivious to it.

Am I completely bonkers or do others have some similar views? What would a more reasonable way of describing the conventional world from a scientific point of view? Can we only talk about the way things appear as they are now? What happens when we try to extrapolate backwards or forwards in time?

Cheers, WK

Comments

  • [DeletedUser][DeletedUser]
    edited January 2011
    A spontaneous present moment of tranquility that all shared is conventional :D
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited January 2011
    @Whoknows, There's never been any evidence in my experience at least that the laws of nature change. The only way to experience them is in how phenomena are affected, and the way phenomena are affected seems to be consistent, hence the Buddha's methods of awakening to this reality for one's self. We can't just say because everything else changes that the fact everything else changes will change; that's just throwing something out there out of thin air -- nothing shows this outside of speculation.

    A better way of saying "laws of nature" is simply "Nature", or "the nature of all phenomena". They're not laws because of being created or handed down, but in the scientific meaning that they seem to be consistent and true.
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    Hi all,

    Vincenzi's question on Cosmology led my thoughts in another direction that I wish to explore. It is straight forward impermanence. If every conditioned phenomenon is subject to impermanence, so to are the "laws of nature". If we postulate that the laws of nature are constant then we are saying that they are unconditioned. If they are conditioned then they are subject to continual change, not just sudden change. That means that our assumptions based on properties that exist without change over time are suspect! Think of the implications of this.

    Secondly, to me, the entire notion of the "laws of nature" seems a bit ridiculous, or infantile. It seems to imply that some entity created these self supporting "laws" and, in my opinion, is nothing but the historical offspring of science and religion. Sure science has apparently disassociated itself from religion, but it has left this notion of "laws of nature" intact and without cause or reason. I was watching a documentary last week and they kept referring to "mother nature" like it was some sort of thing in its own right and they appeared completely oblivious to it.

    Am I completely bonkers or do others have some similar views? What would a more reasonable way of describing the conventional world from a scientific point of view? Can we only talk about the way things appear as they are now? What happens when we try to extrapolate backwards or forwards in time?

    Cheers, WK
    The "Law of Nature" is TriLaksana: Impermanence, Anatta (egoless/no-self) and Dukkha (suffering).

    Shunyata is "empty space" and "dark energy"... in a way.

    What scientists define as laws of nature should be called "natural tendencies in specific phenomena". Isn't the speed of light dependant on gravity?

    AND, science will not find mind in brain... it even sounds stupid.
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    @Whoknows, There's never been any evidence in my experience at least that the laws of nature change. The only way to experience them is in how phenomena are affected, and the way phenomena are affected seems to be consistent, hence the Buddha's methods of awakening to this reality for one's self. We can't just say because everything else changes that the fact everything else changes will change; that's just throwing something out there out of thin air -- nothing shows this outside of speculation.

    A better way of saying "laws of nature" is simply "Nature", or "the nature of all phenomena". They're not laws because of being created or handed down, but in the scientific meaning that they seem to be consistent and true.
    Maybe the OP was refering to "Natural Constants"?
  • WhoknowsWhoknows Australia Veteran
    Thanks for your views people! I am currently reading Sangharashita's book Wisdom Beyond Words, its a great book. But one of the things he mentions is that humility can be overdone in such a way as to end up doing nothing. Because the ego fears rejection. I really appreciate it when people speak their mind as it shows courage on the path which is something to be admired. Of course there is always the other side of the equation, but I think that is over exaggerated in forums with a tendency to limit expression that goes against the norm. But anyway, thats got nothing to do with my post here though! PS: This is the first time I've read the Thuderbolt Sutra (my preferred name for the Diamond Sutra, Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita Sutra) and its absolutely fantastic! I love it.

    Wilfred: nice quote and well said!

    Cloud: As always you seem to have a skill at hitting the nail on the head. In elaboration to what I have said, I would like scientists to have a clear view of where their scientific knowledge begins and ends and where speculation and assumption is involved in their theories.

    Vincenzi: Thanks for your insightful comments, though I am referring to something that can be dealt with by layman and not only yogi's and yogini's. I agree completely with what you say about the brain! As to natural constants, the scientists hold that not only the constants are fixed but the theories that refer to them as well.

    Cheers, WK
  • TalismanTalisman Veteran
    edited January 2011
    All things are conditioned. The "laws of nature" are conditioned by other "laws of nature." Any known constant can be altered by an infinite number of variables, and can never be stated to be an unalterable, independent, manifestation of truth. That is why there is the "theory" of gravity, the "theory" of evolution, the "theory" of general relativity, so that there is always room for improvement and change, depending upon further investigation and analysis. The development of the "laws of nature" is what led to the persecution of Galileo. Only enfeebled and naive minds take that which points toward the truth to be the truth itself.
Sign In or Register to comment.