Thank you! I enjoyed the article. I do have a point of contention with your statement that "... scientists had to somehow invent a concept [the laws of nature] even more implausible than Zeus to explain away the seeming causal consistency that makes our lives possible." The "laws of nature" were developed over time through observation, experimentation, hypothesis, sharing of data, repeat, etc. In the spirit of Heraclitus, the process of understanding the cosmos through the scientific method is ongoing and continues without an end point.
Thank you Jonathan. Good point, I did not mean to insult scientists. This is a very big topic that I've touched on a few times and will return to. I personally refrain from buying into the idea that there are laws at work behind nature's consistency, I see it as a category mistake. Thanks for commenting, I hope we can engage more on this topic as my ears are open to commentary and criticism. Best wishes to you.
Thanks, Steven! I might, somewhat, agree with you on the terminology of “laws” of nature. A law is a human concept, created by humans to regulate human behavior. Whereas nature is what it is and people will always seek to understand and explain it. That understanding will continue to change. Perhaps “physics” is a better term?
Thank you! I enjoyed the article. I do have a point of contention with your statement that "... scientists had to somehow invent a concept [the laws of nature] even more implausible than Zeus to explain away the seeming causal consistency that makes our lives possible." The "laws of nature" were developed over time through observation, experimentation, hypothesis, sharing of data, repeat, etc. In the spirit of Heraclitus, the process of understanding the cosmos through the scientific method is ongoing and continues without an end point.
Thank you Jonathan. Good point, I did not mean to insult scientists. This is a very big topic that I've touched on a few times and will return to. I personally refrain from buying into the idea that there are laws at work behind nature's consistency, I see it as a category mistake. Thanks for commenting, I hope we can engage more on this topic as my ears are open to commentary and criticism. Best wishes to you.
Thanks, Steven! I might, somewhat, agree with you on the terminology of “laws” of nature. A law is a human concept, created by humans to regulate human behavior. Whereas nature is what it is and people will always seek to understand and explain it. That understanding will continue to change. Perhaps “physics” is a better term?
Your reference to Heraclitus as "the philosopher of thunder" for his saying about the thunderbolt is something I missed in my article on Heraclitus. Good observation! https://pyrrhonism.medium.com/the-thunder-perfect-mind-a-heraclitean-interpretation-c173f0086fe2
I bookmarked your article to read tonight, Douglas. I always enjoy reading your work.
All the quoted fragments here are from the translation by Brooks Haxton. I made some tiny grammatical adjustments for ease of flow. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/289525/fragments-by-heraclitus/