James,
I welcome any comments; please, don't feel any need to ask forgiveness for entering the discussion.
By "laws of nature", I'll assume that you mean the laws of physics, which are, in fact, theories. That is not to diminish them in the least, but there are arbitrary lines (usually adhering to experimental data) that are drawn in physics. What may be true in the macroscopic, may not be so in the sub-atomic. What may be possible in the sub-atomic, is extraordinarily improbable in the macroscopic. Where should the line be drawn? The line between sub-atomic and macroscopic is reasonably easy to draw compared to the lines we must draw between tolerable and intolerable, in many cases. And, even then, the concept of "drawing a line" may be incorrect or forced.
Calling the theories of physics as the "laws of nature" inadvertently diminishes them. Don't those old sayings go: laws are meant to be broken; or, one must obey the laws. Well... if a theory of physics is true, then there isn't much of a choice but to obey. It is only our awareness of reality that we can affect to "obey the laws of nature" as you put it.
Do you agree? Are you really saying that tolerance and intolerance are (similar to hatred) fundamentally reflections of the tolerant or intolerant person and not necessarily reality? Are they just projections? Perhaps you could explain some more.
My latest iteration/mutation of Kant is: The questions of metaphysics regarding God, freedom, and the immortality and existence of the soul are unanswerable by, and fundamentally beyond the realm of, physics.
Greg |
