Re: What is Natural Law?

[John Kineman <***>]

HI all,
Sorry to regress to this earlier discussion, but I've been away from the 
list and would like to add a point of correction (from my perspective) 
to the implicit meanings here.

The discussion of "law" between Judith and Steve up to this point was 
congruent with my understanding of the matter as well. However, here we 
begin to depart again into the subtlty I was trying to point out earlier.

If we say that a model does not accurately reflect "natural law" we have 
erected a belief structure called "natural law" which is that such a 
thing exists. Its only existence IS in fact a formal system of some 
kind, i.e., a model (metamodel, etc.).

In other words, the whole point is that a belief has arisn in science 
that nature is fundamentally "law-like" and thus the concept of "natural 
law" is valid even if we don't know what those laws are or can't model 
them. I would challenge that belief structure. I think all formal 
descriptions of natural behavior, i.e., all laws, are constructs of 
nature itself (which includes minds). As such, they may appear to be 
very consistent indeed, to the extent that they are part of a shared 
reference system, but they have no fundamental mode, no original 
inviolate form - they are constructed from the very interaction between 
form and idea - at all levels, with no fundamental foundation in 
behavior that can ever be fully described as 100% law-like. I am saying 
that nature simply isn't constructed in a manner that allows us to 
separate the origins of any law or model or description from the thing 
it describes, and that kind of closed loop arrangement never yields a 
reality that can thus be described fully by a law, other than one that 
is in constant relationship (possible a relationship that keeps it 
stable, or one that allows it to change).

Can I proove it? Sorry. Its a general inference from all the 
incompletenesses we are discovering, the origin problem, etc. Its a way 
out of the circularity that is evident in these discussions. For me, 
the  concept I have expressed resolves the question without invalidating 
either of the opposite views (that laws are given vs. that laws are 
created).

JK