GP remarked: "Your definition of 'laws' is: Identical parts or waves in identical circumstances always result in identical structures."
"Is there something that is identical?" he asked skeptically.
"That's a good question. I have therefore formulated the sentence so that it is clear, well-defined.
As a rule, I express it in a modified form: the more similar substances and circumstances are, the more similar are the structures or laws resulting from them.
But back to your question: I would describe 'identical' like this: A substance - with or without mass - that matches all of its properties with another. It follows that both operate according to identical laws.
If 'identical substances under identical circumstances' did not achieve an identical result, then either the substances or the circumstances were not identical.
"Is there anything in the content of the universe that does not follow the law?"
“No, laws are inherent in everything.
That's why not everything is possible, only what the laws allow."
"You also claim that all laws are eternal," GP continued.
“That's right, the same substances in the same circumstances always result in the same thing. You can never change a law. However, as soon as you subtract or add something from a substance, other laws arise.
The Gestalt theory is suitable as an example. She says that the essence of something can only be grasped from its entirety, not if it is reduced to the individual pieces that make it up. The whole, which ultimately always creates the brain (and thus adds something), results in a new law and view of man. "
"Where do the laws come from, who made them?" GP asked.
“Nobody did that, any more than anyone created the universe. As I said, they are inherent to the substances. There are no substances without laws. So the formula applies: substances = laws. Since every formula also applies the other way round, you can also say: Laws = substances. "
"So, the laws are in the substances or the respective environment," GP thought out loud.
"Anyone can check that," I nodded. "The same things - or substances - in the same circumstances always result in the same thing. It is a universal law.
This is valid in the macro world as well as in the micro world, the world of the smallest particle waves. Only that the micro world is more susceptible to interactions, such as interactions, and the laws here are more difficult to determine. ”
"Why did only a few people notice that everything went according to the law?" GP asked thoughtfully.
“Because the world is constantly on the move. This movement constantly creates new constellations, each of which follows another law.
It would not be important for survival to realize that everything is done according to the law. It is important to react appropriately to changes. Therefore, there was no aim to check exactly whether the same substances always achieve the same result under the same circumstances - which is the definition of the law.
But anyone who tries to refute this sentence will conclude that it cannot be refuted. ”
--- causality ---
"What about the causality?", CP was still curious. "It says, that every effect has a cause."
"This is valid in the macro world as well as in the micro world, the world of quanta. In the macro world we live in, this is obvious if you look for the cause long enough.
In the microworld this is not immediately clear. Since it is much more difficult to measure or observe in the quantum world without interfering with the process, it is very often the case that coincidence occurs here. I call coincidence ignorance of the legal process.. Here, of course, causality is also present because the inherent laws of elementary parts and the local or non-local environment are the cause of the effects. That's how they build their structures. "
"So, the problem is not," concluded CP, "that in the quantum world, not everything works according to laws, but that one can observe and measure them much more difficult. So, you're dealing with a measurement or observation problem in general? "
"The word 'coincidence' is often used for this," I nodded. “Today, interaction-free quantum measurement can be used to measure very well.
Here comes a particular phrase that should not be forgotten: 'Everything has the aim of forming a structure according to the laws.' If you look for it, quantum mechanics loses the mystery and you take it for granted."
"How could one imagine elementary particles, such as an electron that is simultaneously wave and particle?" He was curious.
"All elementary particles are subject to this fact. We are used to introducing ourselves to one or the other, for example in quick succession. Imagining a part in two exactly opposite properties at the same time is not possible for us, for example, to think of a cat as dead and alive at the same time.
An aid can be the yin and yang symbol. This is meant to express that opposing properties are one. When immersed in it, this image dissolves into a non-objective cloud. Such a cloud is also the reality of the elementary particles. "
"Atoms are made up of elementary particles, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, (and smaller elements, such as quarks, leptons, etc.), that is, virtual clouds," CP considered.
"Yes, atoms and their components are clouds, in which particles and wave form a unit. They run according to their inherent laws that determine when they fall apart.
That man can make no predictions by observing or measuring the decay of an atom, should be clear after what has just been said. Maybe one can still imagine the virtual clouds, but then also recognize the respective laws, according to which they expire, is due to the fact that we can neither measure nor observe them - I refer here to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - virtually
"Well, just because we cannot make a precise prediction about the decay of an atom, and then conclude that something is happening out of nothing, has no basis whatsoever," concluded CP.
--- probability calculus ---
"That's clear," I agreed. "The particle-wave clouds are unimaginative to humans about the exact process. They are, as I said, neither exactly to measure nor to observe. Unless you try the math. Because this can make very accurate predictions with the probability calculus.
But that is only possible because everything is legal. And because the number of possible variations in a system is very diverse, but finite.
That's why not everything is possible.
Albert Einstein once said, 'How can mathematics, after all a product of human thought, regardless of experience, really match the realities?'
My Answer: Because the real thing is governed by laws. And because the particular set of structures involved in this relationship is limited.
This is to be understood, because mathematical probability calculus otherwise could make no clear statements.
Since we are currently in probability calculations: Due to the ever-growing data storage, the amounts of data, from which one can obtain results by specific questions, gigantic enlarged and they are constantly expanding to ever-increasing orders of magnitude, which are no longer manageable.
This amount of data can be made relatively small by goals that arise from certain questions.
This amount would still be far too large to make one hundred percent statements. Therefore, probabilities are expected here and then, depending on the accuracy of the question, provide good answers. "
"You mean that if you want to get answers from masses of data, is that only at the expense of accuracy?"
"That's inevitable. But even so, one can get answers that are likely to answer the questions. "
"In these cases," CP considered, "it is no longer the case that the calculator uses individual facts to come to a conclusion, but a lot of data that can only be expressed in powers."
"Yes, this form is very similar to the process in the brain, which also has to process huge amounts of data. An example: human beings absorb about 11 million bits every second. The brain compares and uses this to construct the world according to its goals. This is only possible with the cognitive clouds that do not arise from the individual factors, but from large amounts of data. "
"They say chaos, meaning complete disorder," CP commented. "You say, even in chaos, everything goes according to laws?"
"With the disorder, do you mean that predictions about the course are not possible?" I asked back.
"Yes," CP nodded.
"And if predictions are not possible, then there is disorder?" I asked further.
"That's the way it is said."
"Well, in chaos move parts or particles, waves. Why should not this process be legal? "
"As I said, predictions about the course are not possible."
"It's the same knitting pattern as what we just discussed," I shook my head. "Because you cannot predict something, it is concluded that there are no laws, and we use the word coincidence. Is not that too easy? Because 'structure' can of course also mean 'disorder'. In this case, the goal is simply that processes take place according to laws and not that the parts form into a certain order according to the imagination of man. "
CP considered. "True," he said then, "it has yet to be proven. In fact, the chaotic behaviour we see is no proof that there are no laws here. "
I nodded. "Chaos also means the unpredictability due to the initial state of a system. For example, assuming two seemingly identical initial states, under the same circumstances, and the prediction of the result is different, then one has not included all the components that play a role in the initial state. "
"That would mean that even in chaos, everything is determined, but you did not know all components or included," thought CP.
The opinion that not everything is done according to substances and laws, but is in this respect like fast. Out of ignorance and because we cannot dive into the chaos inside to see it closely. Not infrequently, to prove something mystical.
This scheme is used whenever it is difficult for a person to take a deeper look at what is happening. Like the dream, which often seems completely incomprehensible. "
"But still running according to laws?" CP asked again.
"For sure. Neurons work according to laws.
But you quickly reach its limits if you want to make concrete statements.
--- Physical laws and God? ---
How else than by law should the substances in the universe run out? "
"Well," replied CP, "there are people who say, by the hand of God."
"Well, can you imagine that, for example, physical laws can be changed by a hand movement of God or no longer apply?"
"People who say that are not serious in my view. They live in their world, in their midpoints and these simply exclude the facts, the reality with their complexes. Thus, man escapes reality. "
"But they also argue: Can my feeling be wrong, that tells me with absolute certainty that God exists? Can my feelings tell me something wrong? "
"There is a clear answer to that: of course. If you look closely at his own behaviour, the question will answer itself. How often have people been deceived by their feelings?
By the way, "I said," laws like that did not exist before the seventeenth century. It was all destined for God by the people living then. "
"But after that," wondered CP, "it became more and more clear what role the laws play."
"Laws have the connotation of compulsion. People do not like compulsion. They prefer to believe that they decide to have their freedom. This is not conducive to the truth, but to their faith.
And then there are the cultural traditions that have carried on the belief in God from generation to generation. That was also gladly accepted, among other things, because it could temporarily escape the harsh reality. "
--- Meaning of life only through religion? ---
"It is said religions are meaningful," CP interjected.
"Well, if you look at the history of religions, then you can conclude that they are nonsensical, to say the least moderately."
"But where should man get the meaning of his life? And what I always wanted to ask: what exactly does sense mean? "
"Gait, travel, walk, take a direction. So, meaning is the aim.
On the question of the meaning of life: You can help other people, you can stand for tolerance, you can lead a self-determined life for your most important aims, etc. These aims are already laid out in people. For example, about the so-called mirror neurons, which I call mirror midpoints. One sees or interprets the other, this stimulates similarities, which again activate midpoints in one. Thus, one can feel and sympathize similarly. No religion is needed to respond to it.
If you look at what reasons the religions cite for their existence! And what religious beliefs have already done to other people's atrocities.
It is only people who have created the religions and who have then enforced other people according to their own, sometimes very selfish goals.
If one translates meaning with aim and looks at what religions have done, then one can only be warned against this 'meaningfulness'. "
"But what about the hold that faith gives people and from which they can draw strength?" asked CP.
"That's another thing. This has nothing more to do with the external reality, but exclusively with the interior of man. There is no question that faith, as the midpoint, can help people to better face spiritual conflicts. "
"But is not it too sober when you say everything is legal?" CP still came to mind.
"Since all substances are inseparable from laws, you should just take it that way. Look around the world at how colourful she is: people with their behaviours and ideas, nature in all its manifestations. Of course, everything works according to laws. Is that really only sober to call? "
--- Acceptance of nature ---
"I remember," CP changed the subject, "is the fact that everything works according to laws, for the people, for the society to accept at all?"
"That's a good question. You could have asked: Do people like the bare truth? "
"So, the truth you're standing for," GP noted.
"Everyone has the opportunity to refute my truth or to find one's own.
I believe, following my truth, that one would then stand between the acceptance of reality and its own midpoints. For the aims in man, in society, of course, want to be realized. This is the truth in the way and it is probably rather ignored, because otherwise the goals would seem to be impossible to achieve.
For example, if someone stole something, it is understandable from the point of view that everything had to happen the way it did, but it does not fit with the values, aims of the people who demand punishment and retribution. "
"How could one unite these fundamental opposites?"
"Through tolerance and insight, on the one hand, saying it had to happen that way, and on the other hand, our rules are important to us. You could argue, "If you get off scot-free now, our rules would be in jeopardy. And more importantly, this would apply not just to this case, but eventually over time. That could lead to internal tensions in society.
This tension can only be resolved by judging, 'You have broken a rule that applies to all of us, including you, and that is why you must be punished.'
It's true that everything had to happen the way it did, but a society would break apart if you accepted everything and let everything go. Because it is held together by rules. "
--- Rules of good and evil ---
"Where do these rules come from?"
"The ideas of good and evil are formed unconsciously or consciously, unwritten or written, for example through the primal structures in the human being, a cultural imprint, as goals in each group or society. These assessments then act more or less in the form of social norms and moral concepts in every member of society. "
"You mean," summed up CP, "who did something that harmed others, and believes he does not have to take responsibility for it, because: what had to happen, how it happened, should be remembered has violated the rules or laws of a group or society that would not be viable in the long run without them.
Because the opinion that others represent, their judgment, of course had to be done as it happened. Therefore, the offender cannot blame the judges for the verdict.
With the sentence: 'Everything's going according to laws', it should only be shown that everything had to happen the way it happened. "
"You have reproduced that well," I agreed.
"So, as far as possible, elements of understanding should be taken into account when assessing the sentence and should be included in the judgment," added CP.
"Yes, but most people will hardly worry about it because they just want to stay in their midpoints, and such insights are obstacles. So, they will have little understanding of the wrongdoing of other people (wrongdoing in terms of the goals of society). "
"But a big plus to the attitude that everything is predetermined," said CP, "is that you can come to terms with what happened in the past more quickly."
"That's true," I agreed. "It's even a huge gain, because it makes you live more in the present and is less shaped by the past.
For example, the anger that breaks out in some people when they have not reached their goal is not very meaningful in view of what we have just discussed.
This is especially true for mistakes we make. So, if we curse ourselves, it can be particularly destabilizing for one's self. "
"But humanly understandable," he interjected.
Another advantage of the attitude that everything had to happen as it was is the tolerance that comes from the sentence and can have a positive effect on yourself and living together with other people.
One more word about the punishments that people pronounce against others: A deed is usually judged by the degree to which one was hurt in one's feelings. These feelings, it is demanded, should also be compensated by the judges by punishment. "
--- Dictators ---
"Since you've just addressed tolerance, I can think of people whose word is a foreign word: dictators."
"Yes, the best examples of intolerance are dictators. On the one hand I mean the dictators, who believe that everything has to be aligned with their own goals, such as in the family, in the group, in a company, etc., and of course, in particular, the dictatorships, the states, and only their own goals,
One reason is that many people believe that what they feel is right for others too. And the more power someone has, the more he can enforce this view.
With the dictators it is a simple matter: they want and can largely fight through their own opinion and tolerate no other. Every means is right for them. They are people who ruthlessly pursue their own goals, live out their midpoints.
Often dictators are supported - in the beginning - because the people in them see the leader who makes everything better. "
"And how can one recognize a dictator even though he might try to change his coat?"
"The best indication is that it restricts or shuts down media that does not share its opinion."
"You mean, it's about him, ultimately cold up all opponents. These include, first of all, the media that he does not control, and then all those who criticize him or otherwise oppose him?”"
"Exactly, dictators are creating their own world. They surround themselves with people who agree with them - all others are ignored or, if necessary, eliminated. It is impossible that dictators surround themselves with people who contradict them. Exactly the opposite is the case.
And the stronger a dictator becomes, the more he loses grip. There are fewer and fewer voices to listen to. This is not rare his downfall.
Well, the world is as it is, people are as they are.
The sentence helps me: 'What happens must happen as it happens'.”
© It is permitted to use or reproduce this content without restriction on the condition of naming my website www.karlheinzhermsch.de and without changing or shortening the texts. (Please inquire about exceptions via my imprint.)