Do the immutable Laws of Nature cease to be immutable for a living creature? Must we know the answer before research, or not be sure till after? Does evolution necessarily have a contradiction?:mickey:
no they don't. i mean i suppose you could be using words in some strange way. words are slippery things. but nature works they way it does, regardless of what we may want to think about it, or about anything else. if there aren't living plants producing oxygen, things that breathe oxygen, like us, suffocate. like everything else, there's always a lot of popular bs about everything. what immutable laws of nature are and are not is no exception. but some things are kind of basic. diversity again, is the foundation of stability. without it, things change in ways that, other things might survive, but could harm, or even cause to become extinct, US. i do not understand what you mean by knowledge before research. there is no such thing as knowledge before research. do you mean something we are born remembering from the research someone else did in some other life?
Oh; knowledge before research: thus there is the knowledge of the heart for the laws of a higher order OR by a hierarchy of Reason. The reason requires this implicit Being for the research of the Objectivity of being part of Nature. Nature remembers like Man (or Woman).
this makes no sense. how does reason require implicit being, unless you mean each awareness that exercises reason has to exist in order to do so? this "higher order" of which you speak, that sound more like a fabrication of the insecure ego. things work the way they do. if you need air to breathe, or the oxygen component anyway, then you need the green parts of plants that create that oxygen. i mean to have enough of it, for enough oxygen breathers to live, to have a self sustaining gene pool. and to have the plants, you need to allow all the things they need. this isn't immutable because someone discovered it and wrote it in a book. its just how things work. now if you don't need a physical form to occupy to exist, and that my be possible, but if you're in a bigger hurry to test that then i am, well, that's up to whoever feels that way.
I think it's healthy if we can learn to use it to our advantage. Vortex based math is an interesting one, it's been flagged as a load of pseudoscience but it'll be interesting to see what happens with that. It's essentially the holy grail of the physical universe. I do think it's possible to conceptualise a form of math that will allow us to do this, at least in theory, it'll be fuckin' awesome if we can fit it into physics and ground that mental orgasm. I definitely vote for breaking shit and looking at it, there are lots of clever people out there who'll be able to do a lot of good with it. There'll also be a lot of dick moves, but it'd be a real let down to not even try and get ourselves out of this mess.
Someone may want a curved line (shape) mutable for perception of the sudden life of getting away from the "tangent"; but whatever that was to H. Bergson (Evolution Creatice) that was still only the geometry, not quite the analyzed algebraic prediction of events.
Sorry, I'm not sure if it's the cannabis, but I am very confused now. Could you please restate the initial question? and the last one. I think I like this question but for one reason or another it's foggy and I can't see what you're pointing at
I think you wanted a philosophy of science approach which I am not prepared to offer. My question was concerned with the origin of Life in the midst of the objective world of the Past. That's all. Now I'll get on with another thread.
Please forgive me, it was just that your trail of breadcrumbs had gone stale by the time I reached the end of the trail.. and since I had the munchies, I ate them anyway. Fewer complexities keep things fresh and crispy, like a lovely head of iceberg lettuce. Om nom nom!
there is one 'law' of nature, that is immutable. that diversity being its nature, is eternally inviolable.
