Jay520 on 24 November 2012
| GameOver22 said: No. In that case, we couldn't observe the implication of the laws. This does not mean the laws are not there. Our observations depend on matter existing, so our justification for laws depends on their being some matter for the laws to affect. If there is not matter, we could never observe a law's effects, however, not being able to observe the implications of a law does not mean its not there.....there just isn't anything for it to affect. Another way to put it, laws are not dependent on the physical existence of the things they explain. |
This doesn't seem to make sense to me, but perhaps I should do my own reading on it. I was sure that people would agree that in nothingness, there would be no laws.
Also, what do you mean "this doesn't mean the laws are not there." Your saying even if there are no objects, laws can still be "there." Isnt saying a law is "there" the same as saying a law "exists"? Which goes against your earlier post saying we don't speak of laws in terms of existence.
