ruveyn1

Normative laws or neurophysiological laws?

to produce ideas the brain needs data from the outside on which it performs its genetically fashioned integration processes. Perceptions in, Concept Out.

Popper's garbage is the following principle of logic a -> b - b therefore -a. Even Aristotle knew that piece of garbage.

Nothing like Rand. Robespeirre was a nasty piece of work. He managed to divorce virtue from any comprehensible notion of goodness and righteousness. Talk about the stolen concept! ruveyn1

Philosophy is not empirically bases. A prior principles are assumed at the foundation of philosophy. Also most philosophical systems cannot be empirically falsified. When something contradicts the system, the system "explains it away". Physical empirical science does not work that way. That was why the history of physical science is littered with the bones of busted theories. ruveyn1

Actually I "spouted" nothing. I asked a question which you choose not answer. Can you show or at least outline a method of deriving ethical laws from the physical laws of nature and a method for empirically corroborating that derivation. This is a question, not a "spout". ruveyn1

Hobbes argues that living in a state of nature is a state of no-law. Which is why he advocates having a State or Commonwealth so that property is possible.

I quoted directly from Hobbes. Hobbes saw the natural state of man living without any law or authority as leading to brutality and making industry and culture above mere survival impossible. He advocated the State precisely to control the violence and to give some safety to the possession of property.

Just to clarify the terminology a bit, the term chaos or chaotic does not mean random or disordered when used in the scientific/technical sense. In the scientific use of the term chaotic system are sensitive to initial condition. Here is a portion of the wiki article on chaotic dynamics: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sensitivity to initial conditions means that each point in such a system is arbitrarily closely approximated by other points with significantly different future trajectories. Thus, an arbitrarily small perturbation of the current trajectory may lead to significantly different future behaviour. However, it has been shown that the last two properties in the list above actually imply sensitivity to initial conditions[9][10] and if attention is restricted tointervals, the second property implies the other two[11] (an alternative, and in general weaker, definition of chaos uses only the first two properties in the above list).[12] It is interesting that the most practically significant condition, that of sensitivity to initial conditions, is actually redundant in the definition, being implied by two (or for intervals, one) purely topological conditions, which are therefore of greater interest to mathematicians. Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", so called because of the title of a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different. A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that if we start with only a finite amount of information about the system (as is usually the case in practice), then beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. This is most familiar in the case of weather, which is generally predictable only about a week ahead.[13] The Lyapunov exponent characterises the extent of the sensitivity to initial conditions. Quantitatively, two trajectories in phase space with initial separation diverge where λ is the Lyapunov exponent. The rate of separation can be different for different orientations of the initial separation vector. Thus, there is a whole spectrum of Lyapunov exponents — the number of them is equal to the number of dimensions of the phase space. It is common to just refer to the largest one, i.e. to the Maximal Lyapunov exponent (MLE), because it determines the overall predictability of the system. A positive MLE is usually taken as an indication that the system is chaotic. There are also measure-theoretic mathematical conditions (discussed in ergodic theory) such as mixing or being a K-system which relate to sensitivity of initial conditions and chaos.[4] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are deterministic chaotic system which cannot be predicted because we cannot specify the initial condition of the system to infinite precision. The convective behavior of the atmosphere is deterministic and can be described by non-linear differential equations. There is nothing random or "mixed up" about the convective motion of air driven by solar heat yet the dynamics of the system are chaotic simply because of the sensitivity of the outcome to initial conditions. ruveyn1

The physical cosmos is a closed thermodynamic system

How does genus-differential produce the mathematical laws of physics?

Then specify an experimental or empirical way of testing a scientific theory that purports to derive ethical principle from the physical laws of nature?

You misunderstand what Hobbes was getting he. He said we need a Commenwealth (a State) precisely so humans can live more than a hard scrabble life consisting of wars for survival. ruveyn1

His stated goal to to find a genuinely scientific-objective bases to morality. He has not yet succeeded in reaching his goal. Perhaps his doctrinal inclinations are at work in his thinking, but he is attempting to find a basis for morality in fact and logic. ruveyn1

The physical processes of turbulence in water and air are chaotic. They are extremely sensitive to initial and boundary condition. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_dynamical_system

Rights are conditions of existence X, such that is X is denied or forbidden then one either will die or cease to exist as a human person. For example slavery can reduce a human person to a mere meat machine incapable of choice or discernment.

Galt would have had to deny his very essence in order to become dictator. If Galt became dictator he would cease to be Galt.

His entire book -The Moral Landscape- while very entertaining and sometimes intellectually challenging fails to make the case that science can deal with the problem of ethical values. His book, if you will, expresses a fond wish. The only way for him to prove his case is to produce a science such that its conclusions would be assented to by any rational or ethical person. Which is very unlikely since there are many ethical systems, some pairs of which are contradictory or contrary. It is impossible for all ethical systems to be "true" in the metaphysical sense.

The weak anthropic principle states the obvious that later states of the cosmos logically constrain what the initial states might be given the laws of physics which are really the time evolution or unfolding of the cosmos. On the other hand the Strong Anthropic Principle introduces purpose to the unfolding of the cosmos which makes it very unpopular with physicists. The weak principle is almost a tautology and the strong principle is rejected out of hand because it postulates cause other than formal, material and efficient cause. A physicist while he has his physicist hat one simply rejects teleology as a physical condition or factor.

I am pushing 80 and I have had to change many of my views and assumptions during my life, hundreds and perhaps thousands. My views and beliefs are governed largely by the facts I learn and by the consequences of my heretofore held views and beliefs. Time and the Facts are stern teachers.

Consider the consequences of loosing. That is the justification.

The issue is not coal per se. it is the effluent that burning the coal in inefficient ways produces. Coal would be a dandy fuel (we have many centuries of coal buried under our -own- soil) if: 1 The noxious effluents could be separated and sequestered in a harmless place or 2. could be burned so hot that the effluents would be broken down by the heat. There is a theoretical way of burning coal so hot the the gases produced are a plasma. Look up magneto hydrodynamics.

That is true. Adolph was living off the interest of capital investment made before he was born. The point I was making is that all these institutions were State created and State supported. And Americans profited from them greatly. Our first generation scientific elite in the 20 th century was mostly German educated. The second generation of which Richard Feynman is a prime example was American educated, but in schools heavily staffed by emmigres from Europe running from Hitler and his cronies.

Really? Then account for "nasty, brutish and short"

Ethics ceases when war begins. The main question changes from "what is right" to "what will win"