One of the main challenges confronting Humean accounts of natural law is that Humean laws appear to be unable to play the explanatory role of laws in scientific practice. The worry is roughly that if the laws are just regularities in the particular matters of fact (as the Humean would have it), then they cannot also explain the particular matters of fact, on pain of circularity. Loewer (2012) has defended Humeanism, arguing that this worry only arises (...) if we fail to distinguish between scientific and metaphysical explanations. However, Lange (2013, 2018) has argued that scientific and metaphysical explanations are linked by a transitivity principle, which would undercut Loewer's defense and re-ignite the circularity worry for the Humean. I argue here that the Humean has antecedent reasons to doubt that there are any systematic connections between scientific and metaphysical explanations. The reason is that the Humean should think that scientific and metaphysical explanation have disparate aims, and therefore that neither form of explanation is beholden to the other in its pronouncements about what explains what. Consequently, the Humean has every reason to doubt that Lange's transitivity principle obtains. (shrink)

The demarcation between science and non-science seems to play an important role in the process of scientific change, as theories regularly transition from being considered scientific to being considered unscientific and vice versa. However, theoretical scientonomy is yet to shed light on this process. The goal of this paper is to tackle the problem of demarcation from the scientonomic perspective. Specifically, we introduce scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that an agent can take towards a theory. We contend (...) that changes in this stance are to be traced and explained by scientonomy. Thus, we formulate a new law of theory demarcation to account for changes in scientificity within the scientonomic framework. (shrink)

Introduction to the Scientific Proof of the Natural Moral Law This paper proves that Aquinas has a means of demonstrating and deriving both moral goodness and the natural moral law from human nature alone. Aquinas scientifically proves the existence of the natural moral law as the natural rule of human operations from human nature alone. The distinction between moral goodness and transcendental goodness is affirmed. This provides the intellectual tools to refute the G.E. Moore (Principles of Ethics) attack against (...) the natural law as committing a "naturalistic fallacy". This article proves that instead Moore commits the fallacy of equivocation between moral goodness and transcendental goodness in his very assertion of a "naturalistic fallacy" by the proponents of the natural moral law. In the process the new deontological/kantian theory of natural law as articulated by John Finnis, Robert George, and Germain Grisez is false historically and philosophically. Ethical naturalism is affirmed as a result. (shrink)

Michel Ghins's Scientific Realism and Laws of Nature: A Metaphysics of Causal Powers is a commendable exploration of the metaphysical foundations of scientific inquiry. The book, thoughtfully structured into six chapters, boldly advances a comprehensive and unified account of scientific theorizing, natural laws, and the ontology of properties. In an era where philosophical discourse often fragments into narrowly focused projects, Ghins's work offers a welcome counterpoint, providing a systematic and ambitious investigation into these distinctive questions (...) of the metaphysics of science. (shrink)

Laws of nature have various roles in scientific practice. It is widely agreed that an adequate theory of lawhood ought to align with the roles that scientists assign to the laws. But philosophers disagree over whether Humean laws or non-Humean laws are better at filling these roles. In this paper, I provide an argument for settling this dispute. I consider possible situations in which scientists receive conclusive evidence that—according to the non-Humean—falsifies their beliefs about the (...) laws, but which—according to the Humean—does not falsify their beliefs about the laws. I argue that, in these possible scenarios, all law-related aspects of scientific practice would remain unchanged. In other words, scientists would treat the regularities “preferred” by the Humean as the laws of nature. On this basis, I conclude that non-Humean laws fail to align with scientific practice. (shrink)

According to the standard Humean account of laws of nature, laws are selected partly as a result of an optimal trade-off between the scientific virtues of simplicity and strength. Roberts and Woodward have recently objected that such trade-offs play no role in how laws are chosen in science. In this paper, we first discuss an example from the field of automated scientific discovery which provides concrete support for Roberts and Woodward’s point that scientific theories (...) are chosen based on a single-virtue threshold. However, we then use this very same example as a starting point to argue that i) by insisting on a single best theory, Humeans rely on an overly simplistic conception of trade-offs, that ii) this conception should give way to one which allows for a Pareto front of equally optimal theories, and iii) that given this new conception, threshold behaviour for a virtue like strength is a) compatible with the existence of a genuine trade-off and b) can even play the positive role of a selection criterion. (shrink)

The aim of this master’s thesis is to analyse and highlight the interaction between science, politics and law. More precisely, our research question concerns the use of scientific arguments in social spheres (notably in politics and law) instead of legal or political arguments. In fact, we want to raise the way in which certain actors invoke scientific arguments to impose "objective" elements of fact in debate and, in this way, refrain from politically and "subjectively" discussing these same elements (...) (or, at least, their social consequences). This Master’s thesis will adopt an interdisciplinary theoretical framework (chapter 1) mobilising philosophy of science, philosophy of law, sociology of law, legal technique and analytical theories. Then, we will apply it to a case study: the European regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) after the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling of 25 July 2015 (chapter 2). The first chapter will provide theoretical elements to rethink the interaction between science, politics and law. The first section will propose a 'state of the art’ of the philosophical literature on the relationship between science (as a regime of truth) and politics. This master’s thesis will assess a truth under construction rather than a transcendental truth. Section 2 anticipates authoritarian claims based on science by considering the relationship science can have with power (Foucault). A solid review of philosophical, sociological and legal literature highlights the risks of giving decision-making power to an all-powerful science. Notably, the use of science to justify discriminatory policies is emphasised as these policies could not be challenged because, at the time, it was considered an objective scientific truth. Finally, section 3 offers a critique of the narratives of neutral and objective science, through the approach of science in action. This sociological approach presented all the doubts and subjectivity of science in action. The second chapter will propose a case study to illustrate the theoretical framework. We have chosen GMOs because they constitute a hybrid 'event', marked by scientific controversies, and with major socio-economic implications. The legal framework of GMOs in the European Union will be presented in the first section. In addition, the legal status of new breeding techniques (NBTs) will be examined. The second section will analyse the ruling of the European Court of Justice which made NBTs subject to GMO regulation. Finally, the third section will propose a reflection on the philosophy of law on the modes of existence of scientific, legal and political disciplines. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue for a distinction between two scales of coordination in scientific inquiry, through which I reassess Georg Simon Ohm’s work on conductivity and resistance. Firstly, I propose to distinguish between measurement coordination, which refers to the specific problem of how to justify the attribution of values to a quantity by using a certain measurement procedure, and general coordination, which refers to the broader issue of justifying the representation of an empirical regularity by means of abstract (...) mathematical tools. Secondly, I argue that the development of Ohm’s measurement practice between the first and the second experimental phase of his work involved the change of the measurement coordination on which he relied to express his empirical results. By showing how Ohm relied on different calibration assumptions and practices across the two phases, I demonstrate that the concurrent change of both Ohm’s experimental apparatus and the variable that Ohm measured should be viewed based on the different form of measurement coordination. Finally, I argue that Ohm’s assumption that tension is equally distributed in the circuit is best understood as part of the general coordination between Ohm’s law and the empirical regularity that it expresses, rather than measurement coordination. (shrink)

In this paper, I reconstruct the development and the complex character of Zilsel’s conception of scientific laws. This concept functions as a fil rouge for understanding Zilsel’s philosophy throughout different times (here, the focus is on his Viennese writings and how they pave the way to the more renown American ones) and across his many fields of work (from physics to politics). A good decade before Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was going to mark the outbreak of indeterminism in quantum (...) physics, Edgar Zilsel started to develop a complex logical-philosophical theory in which statistical and causal laws were given an indeterministic foundation (Zilsel 1916). However, in developing his thoughts on the emergence of regularities from disorder, Zilsel arrives at a profound ambiguity with respect to the ontological or the epistemic nature of laws and order in the world: Whether this order is to be conceived of as an empirical finding or as the product of reason – this would have to remain unclear. This tension between rationalism and empiricism, as well as a tension between a realist and an anti-realist conception of lawfulness, can be identified in both Zilsel’s Viennese and American writings: a tension which touches the core of the “application problem” that would keep haunting Zilsel until his premature death. (shrink)

Discovering laws of nature was a way to worship a law-giving God, during the Scientific Revolution. So why should we consider it worthwhile now, in our own more secularized science? For historical perspective, I examine two competing early modern theological traditions that related laws of nature to different divine attributes, and their secular legacy in views ranging from Kant and Nietzsche to Humean and ‘governing’ accounts in recent analytic metaphysics. Tracing these branching offshoots of ethically charged God-concepts (...) sheds light on how our ethical ideals and ideas of natural order can still be valuably integrated. Early modern intellectualists valued the law-governed order of nature as a sign of divine Reason. In turn, Reason traditionally ascribed to God has now been partly reclaimed for humans, reframing the value of natural order anthropocentrically, in terms of the value of our own intelligence. Alternatively, Reason may be reclaimed for nature itself, as in an ‘objective’ idealism or metaphysical rationalism. However, beyond divine Reason, an influential voluntarist tradition in theology stressed a connection between laws of nature and God’s Power or free Will. Tracking how divine Power has been reinvested in human beings provides a broader context for instrumentalism and related lineages of empiricism. But secularization can also transfer Power from God to the impersonal natural world. In this light, current scientific interest in lawlike order may also reflect the inherent value of brute necessity or inhuman causal power in nature: this is a deeper way to reject anthropocentrism and to show our respect for the environment. (shrink)

The appeal to mechanisms in scientific explanation is commonplace in contemporary philosophy of science. In short, mechanists argue that an explanation of a phenomenon consists of citing the mechanism that brings the phenomenon about. In this paper, we present an argument that challenges the universality of mechanistic explanation: in explanations of the contemporary features of the eukaryotic cell, biologists appeal to its symbiogenetic origin and therefore the notion of symbiogenesis plays the main explanatory role. We defend the notion that (...) symbiogenesis is non-mechanistic in nature and that any attempt to explain some of the contemporary features of the eukaryotic cell mechanistically turns out to be at least insufficient and sometimes fails to address the question that is asked. Finally, we suggest that symbiogenesis is better understood as a pragmatic scientific law and present an alternative non-mechanistic model of scientific explanation. In the model we present, the use of scientific laws is supposed to be a minimal requirement of all scientific explanations, since the purpose of a scientific explanation is to make phenomena expectable. Therefore, this model would help to understand biologists’ appeal to the notion of symbiosis and thus is shown to be better, for the case under examination, than the mechanistic alternative. (shrink)

In this paper I analyze the difficult question of the truth of mature scientific theories by tackling the problem of the truth of laws. After introducing the main philosophical positions in the field of scientific realism, I discuss and then counter the two main arguments against realism, namely the pessimistic metainduction and the abstract and idealized character of scientific laws. I conclude by defending the view that well-confirmed physical theories are true only relatively to certain (...) values of the variables that appear in the laws. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Barry Loewer attempts to defend Humeanism about laws of nature from a charge that Humean laws are not adequately explanatory. Central to his defense is a distinction between metaphysical and scientific explanations: even if Humeans cannot offer further metaphysical explanations of particular features of their “mosaic,” that does not preclude them from offering scientific explanations of these features. According to Marc Lange, however, Loewer’s distinction is of no avail. Defending a transitivity principle (...) linking scientific explanantia to their metaphysical grounds, Lange argues that a charge of explanatory inadequacy resurfaces once this intuitive principle is in place. This paper surveys, on behalf of the Humean, three strategies for responding to Lange’s criticism. The ready availability of these strategies suggests that Lange’s argument may not bolster anti-Humean convictions, since the argument rests on premises that those not antecedently sharing these convictions may well reject. The three strategies also correspond to three interesting ways of thinking about relations of grounding linking Humean laws and their instances, all of which are consistent with theses of Humean supervenience, and some of which have been heretofore overlooked. (shrink)

This article examines the use of scientific arguments in negotiations on the status of Digital Sequence Information (DSI), focusing on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP). DSI is a placeholder term used in negotiations on the dematerialization of genetic resources: the ability to sequence “physical” genetic resources and use this “intangible” information, which radically changes research practices. The CBD (among other (...) instruments) establishes rules for Access to the Genetic Resource and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from their utilization (ABS). This applies to “physical” genetic resources, but it is not clear for DSI. Indeed, different legal interpretations and political narrative are conflicting over the integration of DSI into these legal frameworks. This article explores how science is used in these negotiations, particularly in its rhetorical and epistocratic dimensions. The methodology combines an interdisciplinary approach (legal technique, philosophy of law and science) and a comparative discourse analysis: on the terminology; the inclusion of DSI in the definition of genetic material; and the inclusion of DSI in ABS systems. While scientific arguments play a crucial role in this technical issue, this article shows that scientific arguments can be used to support political positions (under the guise of objectivity and neutrality), and that this use of scientific arguments is not consistent, even contradictory (between PIP and CBD/ITPGRFA). -/- . (shrink)

Three popular views regarding the modal status of the laws of nature are discussed: Humean Supervenience, nomic necessitation, and scientific/dispositional essentialism. These views are examined especially with regard to their take on the apparent modal force of laws and their ability to explain that modal force. It will be suggested that none of the three views, at least in their strongest form, can be maintained if some laws are metaphysically necessary, but others are metaphysically contingent. Some (...) reasons for thinking that such variation in the modal status of laws exists will be presented with reference to physics. This drives us towards a fourth, hybrid view, according to which there are both necessary and contingent laws. The prospects for such a view are studied. (shrink)

The Scientific Explanation of the Spread of Major Religions -/- Religions have played a central role in shaping human history, influencing cultures, societies, and even political systems. The spread of major religions—such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism—can be understood through scientific explanations rooted in sociology, psychology, economics, and geopolitics. Rather than being solely driven by divine revelation, the expansion of religious beliefs has been largely influenced by historical circumstances, human cognition, and social structures. By analyzing these factors, (...) we can gain a deeper understanding of how and why religions spread across different regions of the world. -/- Cultural Evolution and the Power of Ideas -/- Religions can be viewed as “memes”—units of cultural transmission that spread from person to person, much like genes pass on biological traits. This concept, proposed by Richard Dawkins in his theory of memetics, suggests that religions that are easy to remember, emotionally compelling, and socially reinforcing tend to survive and spread. Throughout history, religious ideas have been passed down through generations via oral traditions, rituals, and later, written scriptures. Those that provided meaning, purpose, and guidance in an uncertain world became deeply embedded in human societies. -/- Social Cohesion and Group Survival -/- One of the primary functions of religion has been to unify communities. Shared beliefs and rituals create a sense of belonging, encouraging cooperation and social order. In early human societies, religious groups that fostered strong social bonds had a survival advantage. They were more likely to defend themselves, share resources, and maintain stability, which allowed them to expand and influence neighboring communities. As a result, religions that emphasized social cohesion—such as Islam’s ummah (community) or Christianity’s emphasis on brotherhood—were more successful in spreading. -/- Political and Military Expansion -/- The role of political power and military conquest in the spread of religions cannot be overlooked. Throughout history, many rulers have used religion as a tool to unify their empires and legitimize their authority. Christianity, for example, gained immense influence when the Roman Emperor Constantine adopted it in the 4th century, leading to its rapid expansion across Europe. Similarly, the Islamic Caliphates spread Islam through military conquests across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia. In many cases, conquered populations adopted the dominant religion, either voluntarily or through social and economic incentives. -/- Trade and Economic Networks -/- Trade has historically been one of the most effective ways for religions to spread peacefully. Merchants and travelers carried religious beliefs along trade routes, introducing them to new regions. Islam, for example, spread through merchant networks across Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean. Hinduism and Buddhism expanded through trade along the Silk Road and maritime routes, reaching China, Japan, and Southeast Asia. Religious ideas often spread more easily when they were associated with economic prosperity, as people were more willing to adopt new beliefs that were linked to wealth and success. -/- Human Psychology and Cognitive Biases -/- The human mind is naturally inclined to seek patterns, explanations, and a sense of purpose. Religions provide answers to existential questions, such as the meaning of life, the nature of good and evil, and the afterlife. Psychological studies suggest that people are more likely to believe in supernatural explanations when faced with uncertainty, fear, or suffering. The concept of divine reward and punishment—such as heaven and hell—also plays a strong motivational role in religious adherence and proselytization. Additionally, religious rituals and experiences often trigger deep emotional and neurological responses, reinforcing belief and devotion. -/- Missionary Work and Proselytization -/- Many major religions actively encourage conversion and missionary work. Christianity, for instance, has a long history of evangelism, with missionaries traveling to distant lands to spread their faith. Islam also emphasizes Dawah, or the invitation to Islam, encouraging believers to share their religion. Buddhism spread from India to East Asia largely through the efforts of monks and scholars who traveled and translated Buddhist texts. This deliberate effort to spread religious teachings has played a crucial role in their global expansion. -/- Technology and the Role of Media -/- Advancements in communication technology have accelerated the spread of religions. The invention of the printing press in the 15th century revolutionized Christianity by making the Bible widely available, fueling the Protestant Reformation and expanding religious literacy. Today, digital media, television, and the internet continue to spread religious ideas globally. Online sermons, religious forums, and social media have made it easier than ever for religious movements to reach new followers, transcending geographical boundaries. -/- Colonization and Forced Conversions -/- While some religions spread peacefully, others expanded through force. During the Age of Exploration, European powers, particularly Spain and Portugal, used colonization to spread Christianity to the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Indigenous populations were often forced to convert, either through direct coercion or social pressure. Similarly, Islamic expansion in some regions involved the establishment of religious laws that encouraged conversion. These historical events demonstrate how religion has often been intertwined with power and conquest. -/- Adaptability and Syncretism -/- Religions that successfully integrated local customs and traditions tended to spread more effectively. This process, known as syncretism, allowed religions to adapt to new cultures without completely replacing indigenous beliefs. For example, Christianity in Latin America blended with indigenous traditions, creating unique forms of Catholicism. Buddhism in China incorporated elements of Confucianism and Daoism, making it more appealing to the local population. By absorbing elements of local traditions, religions became more accessible and attractive to new followers. -/- Conclusion -/- The spread of major religions is not a purely spiritual phenomenon but a complex process influenced by historical, social, psychological, and technological factors. Political power, military conquest, trade networks, missionary efforts, and cognitive biases all played a role in shaping the religious landscape of the world. By understanding these scientific explanations, we gain a clearer perspective on how religious ideas have persisted and evolved over time. While faith remains a deeply personal experience, its expansion has been driven by forces that extend far beyond individual belief, shaping the course of human civilization. -/- . (shrink)

In light of recent criticisms by Woodward (2017) and Rescorla (2018), we examine the relationship between mechanistic explanation and phenomenological laws. We disambiguate several uses of the phrase “phenomenological law” and show how a mechanistic theory of explanation sorts them into those that are and are not explanatory. We also distinguish the problem of phenomenological laws from arguments about the explanatory power of purely phenomenal models, showing that Woodward and Rescorla conflate these problems. Finally, we argue that the (...) temptation to pit mechanistic and interventionist theories of explanation against one another occludes important and scientifically relevant research questions. (shrink)

According to one large family of views, scientific explanations explain a phenomenon (such as an event or a regularity) by subsuming it under a general representation, model, prototype, or schema (see Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441; Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press; Darden (2006); Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of (...) scientific explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation (pp. 331–496). New York: Free Press; Kitcher (1989); Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25). My concern is with the minimal suggestion that an adequate philosophical theory of scientific explanation can limit its attention to the format or structure with which theories are represented. The representational subsumption view is a plausible hypothesis about the psychology of understanding. It is also a plausible claim about how scientists present their knowledge to the world. However, one cannot address the central questions for a philosophical theory of scientific explanation without turning one’s attention from the structure of representations to the basic commitments about the worldly structures that plausibly count as explanatory. A philosophical theory of scientific explanation should achieve two goals. The first is explanatory demarcation. It should show how explanation relates with other scientific achievements, such as control, description, measurement, prediction, and taxonomy. The second is explanatory normativity. It should say when putative explanations succeed and fail. One cannot achieve these goals without undertaking commitments about the kinds of ontic structures that plausibly count as explanatory. Representations convey explanatory information about a phenomenon when and only when they describe the ontic explanations for those phenomena. (shrink)

Humean accounts of laws are often contrasted with governing accounts, and recent developments have added pragmatic versions of Humeanism. This paper offers Mitchell's pragmatist, perspectival account of laws as a third option. The differences between these accounts come down to the role of modality. Mitchell's bottom-up account allows for subtle gradations of modal content to be conveyed by laws. The perspectival character of laws is not an accident or something to be eventually eliminated - it is (...) part of how this modal content is conveyed. I conclude with a discussion of the metaphysical commitments in Humeanism as requiring a perspectiveless view of the manifold from outside, and how Mitchell's situated account is better able to account for the substantive notion of possibility involved in scientific laws. (shrink)

Scientific Explanation of Political Polarization and Mind Control Bias Techniques -/- Political polarization and mind control bias techniques are interconnected phenomena that shape public opinion and influence societal divisions. These processes can be explained scientifically through psychology, neuroscience, and mass communication studies. This essay will explore both concepts in depth, including their cognitive, social, and technological underpinnings. -/- I. Political Polarization: The Science Behind Division -/- Definition of Political Polarization -/- Political polarization is the process by which political attitudes (...) and opinions become increasingly divided, leading to two or more opposing camps with little room for compromise. It results in an “us vs. them” mentality, where political groups become hostile to each other. -/- A. Psychological and Cognitive Biases Driving Polarization -/- 1. Confirmation Bias -/- People tend to seek and believe information that aligns with their pre-existing views while rejecting contradictory evidence. -/- Example: A conservative individual may only watch right-wing news, reinforcing their perspective, while a liberal person may do the same with left-wing news. -/- 2. Motivated Reasoning -/- Individuals process political information in a way that aligns with their desired conclusions, ignoring facts that contradict their beliefs. -/- Example: A person might dismiss credible reports about a political leader’s corruption because they support that leader. -/- 3. Groupthink and Social Identity Theory -/- Humans naturally categorize themselves into groups, forming a strong loyalty to their own group while viewing outsiders with suspicion. -/- Example: Political parties, religious organizations, and ideological movements foster an “us vs. them” mentality, where criticism of the group is seen as betrayal. -/- 4. Cognitive Dissonance -/- When people encounter information that contradicts their beliefs, they experience discomfort and resolve this by rejecting or rationalizing the new information. -/- Example: A supporter of a leader accused of misconduct may justify the actions as necessary rather than accepting the wrongdoing. -/- B. Social and Technological Factors Reinforcing Polarization -/- 1. Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles -/- Social media platforms use algorithms to show users content that aligns with their views while filtering out opposing perspectives. -/- Result: People only see information that reinforces their existing beliefs, further deepening polarization. -/- 2. Misinformation and Political Propaganda -/- Governments, media outlets, and online influencers manipulate public opinion by spreading biased or false information. -/- Example: Fake news campaigns during elections that distort facts to manipulate voters. -/- 3. Fear and Emotional Manipulation -/- Political leaders and media often use fear-based narratives to shape public opinion. -/- Example: “If the opposition wins, the country will collapse,” creating panic and emotional bias rather than rational decision-making. -/- 4. Media Framing and Selective Reporting -/- News outlets emphasize certain stories and ignore others to shape public perception. -/- Example: One news channel focuses only on economic success under a leader, while another highlights only corruption scandals. -/- 5. Political and Economic Interests -/- Corporations, interest groups, and governments use media to maintain control over public opinion and policy. -/- Example: Politicians funding biased media outlets to spread their narratives. -/- II. Mind Control Bias Techniques: The Science of Influence -/- Mind control techniques (also known as psychological manipulation) exploit cognitive biases and behavioral psychology to shape public opinion and influence individual thinking. These techniques are widely used in propaganda, advertising, and political campaigns. -/- A. Persuasion and Influence Tactics -/- 1. Repetition Effect (Illusory Truth Effect) -/- The more a message is repeated, the more likely people are to believe it, even if it is false. -/- Example: A false claim about a politician being corrupt is repeated so often that people accept it as fact. -/- 2. Framing Effect -/- The way information is presented influences perception. -/- Example: “Tax relief for hardworking citizens” sounds positive, while “tax cuts for the wealthy” sounds negative—yet they refer to the same policy. -/- 3. Priming -/- Exposure to specific stimuli influences future decisions. -/- Example: Repeated association of an ethnic group with crime leads people to unconsciously stereotype them. -/- 4. Bandwagon Effect -/- People are more likely to believe something if they see many others believing it. -/- Example: A political leader’s approval ratings appear high in polls, influencing undecided voters to support them. -/- B. Psychological Control Techniques -/- 1. Fear and Scapegoating -/- Creating fear and blaming an external group as the cause of problems. -/- Example: “Immigrants are taking jobs,” creating hostility toward a group to manipulate public sentiment. -/- 2. Dissonance Reduction -/- People modify their beliefs when they experience psychological discomfort from contradictory information. -/- Example: A person who supports strict law enforcement but dislikes police brutality may justify excessive force as “necessary for safety.” -/- 3. Authority Bias -/- People tend to obey authority figures and accept their statements without questioning. -/- Example: A celebrity or leader endorses a political claim, leading followers to accept it as truth. -/- C. Mass Media and Propaganda Methods -/- 1. Controlled Narratives -/- Governments and corporations control what information is released to shape public perception. -/- Example: State-controlled media omitting news about protests or scandals. -/- 2. Pacing and Leading -/- Gradual introduction of ideas to make extreme positions seem normal over time. -/- Example: Media slowly shifting narratives on controversial issues to make them acceptable. -/- 3. Subliminal Messaging -/- Unconscious cues in advertisements, political speeches, and media that influence thoughts without awareness. -/- Example: Hidden symbols or phrases in campaign ads that create positive associations with a candidate. -/- III. The Connection Between Political Polarization and Mind Control -/- Political polarization and mind control techniques are interrelated. As society becomes more polarized, individuals are more susceptible to manipulation. Here’s how they interact: -/- 1. Polarization Creates a Fertile Ground for Mind Control -/- The more divided a society is, the easier it is for political actors to use manipulation techniques. -/- Example: In a polarized election, misinformation spreads more easily because people are already inclined to believe negative stories about the opposition. -/- 2. Mind Control Techniques Deepen Polarization -/- Media framing, misinformation, and psychological manipulation create a feedback loop where divisions grow stronger. -/- Example: Social media algorithms push divisive content, reinforcing people’s biases and making compromise impossible. -/- 3. Fear and Emotional Manipulation Maintain Division -/- Political leaders exploit fear to keep their supporters loyal. -/- Example: “If the other party wins, your freedoms will be taken away,” preventing rational debate. -/- 4. Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles Block Critical Thinking -/- People exposed only to biased information become increasingly radicalized. -/- Example: A person who only follows one-sided news sources will believe their political opponents are evil rather than fellow citizens with different opinions. -/- Conclusion: How to Resist Polarization and Mind Control -/- Understanding the scientific principles behind political polarization and mind control techniques can help individuals resist manipulation. Some strategies include: -/- Critical Thinking – Question sources of information and seek diverse viewpoints. -/- Media Literacy – Recognize propaganda techniques in news and social media. -/- Emotional Awareness – Avoid reacting emotionally to political content and analyze information logically. -/- Avoiding Echo Chambers – Engage with different perspectives and avoid isolating oneself in ideological bubbles. -/- By applying these principles, societies can move toward a more rational, less divided political landscape, where decisions are based on reason rather than manipulation. -/- . (shrink)

Background and Objectives: In this research article, the researcher addresses the issue of creating public understanding in a democratic society about the progress of science, with an emphasis on pluralism from philosophers of science. The idea that there is only one truth and that there are just natural laws awaiting discovery by scientists has historically made it difficult to explain scientific progress. This belief motivates science to develop theories that explain the unity of science, and it is thought (...) that diversity in the way different ideas presented by scientists is a problem that results in time being wasted in search of the most accurate theory. Some scientists perceive a benefit in having a range of scientific hypotheses, though. One benefit that is frequently cited is that scientific diversity as a whole contributes to the development of a democratic society that permits the expression of a range of viewpoints. The road to accountable scientific pluralism is fraught with difficulties, though. Therefore, it is crucial to take into account both pluralism's advantages and disadvantages. This research aims at: 1. analyzing in an epistemological way the interpretation of scientific theories and the progress of science from the perspectives of scientific pluralists; 2. analyzing the relationship between science and democracy in explaining scientific significance and progress; and 3. synthesizing new knowledge on epistemic dependentism and to argue that it plays a significant role in evaluating research issues related to scientific pluralism. Methodology: The research methodology involves the application of documentary investigation along with philosophical discourse. The method of philosophical argumentation involves analyzing the lines of arguments found in relevant academic publications in order to assess their validity and soundness. Main Results: One key argument of the pluralists is the use of the concept of theoretical pluralism, which suggests that scientific knowledge is created from a variety of perspectives according to the social and cultural context of knowledge creation. It is found that part of Longino's argument is based on the negation of rational/social dichotomy. Moreover, her theory is a departure from philosopher of science Philip Kitcher, who advocates the creation of scientific knowledge and the evaluation of scientific progress through the means of democratic society. He explains that these procedures will lead to "well-ordered science" in democratic society. Discussions: The researcher examines the underlying ideas accepted by these two philosophers of science and finds that although their opinions differ, they have common ground in the acceptance of consensus. However, the views of both philosophers still lack weight in explaining the knowledge itself. The researcher argues that the acceptance of pluralism as a way of understanding scientific progress necessarily lends itself to dependentism, which points to interdependence in comparisons of superiority/inferiority between scientific theories. It is undeniable that the situation has emerged all the time, even though the success of the scientific theories being compared to each other comes from different social and cultural grounds of thought. Conclusions: Some popular models of scientific pluralism in the philosophy of science still lack a compelling justification, particularly on the epistemic grounds. By elucidating the epistemic significance of the interdependence of these things, scientific pluralism can be strengthened by incorporating the notion of epistemic dependentism into the analysis of scientific progress. (shrink)

A recent methodological approach at the interface of metaphysics and philosophy of science suggests that just like causal laws govern causation, there needs to be something in metaphysics that governs metaphysical relations. Such laws of metaphysics would be counterfactual-supporting general principles that account for the explanatory force of metaphysical explanations. There are various suggestions about how such principles could be understood. They could be based on what Kelly Trogdon calls grounding-mechanical explanations, where the role that grounding mechanisms play (...) in certain metaphysical explanations mirrors the role that causal mechanisms play in certain scientific explanations. Another approach, by Gideon Rosen, takes it that there are essentialist principles or laws that tell us about what grounds what. Finally, Jonathan Schaffer defends an approach that he considers to be neutral regarding grounding or essences. In this paper I will assess these suggestions and argue that for those willing to invoke a non-modal notion of essence, there is a more promising route available: metaphysical and scientific explanations may be unified in terms of general essences. Accordingly, essentialists may be better viewed as outlaws when it comes to laws of metaphysics. (shrink)

Contingentism, generally contrasted with law necessitarianism, is the view that the laws of nature are contingent. It is often coupled with the claim that their contingency is knowable a priori. This paper considers Bird's (2001, 2002, 2005, 2007) arguments for the thesis that, necessarily, salt dissolves in water; and it defends his view against Beebee's (2001) and Psillos's (2002) contingentist objections. A new contingentist objection is offered and several reasons for scepticism about its success are raised. It is concluded (...) that certain higher-level laws describing the behaviours of molecular compounds may be necessary due to their dependence on underlying physical laws, and that the modal status of laws of nature cannot be determined a priori, as the structural features of the substances and properties they govern must first be investigated. (shrink)

Rapid technological advancements such as fMRI have led to the rise of neuroscientific discoveries. Coupled with findings from cognitive psychology, they are claiming to have solved the millennia-old puzzle of moral cognition. If true, our societal structures – and with that the criminal law – would be gravely impacted. This thesis concerns itself with four distinct theories stemming from the disciplines above as to what mechanisms constitute moral judgement: the Stage Model by KOHLBERG, the Universal Moral Grammar Theory by MIKHAIL, (...) the Social Intuitionist Model by HAIDT, and the Dual-Process Theory by GREENE – comparing the findings of the latter to the consequentialist and retributivist theories of punishment present in the American Criminal Law Doctrine. Analysing both a direct (link to deontology) and indirect (link to incompatibilism) approach to discrediting retributivism, I come to the conclusion that while science can have an impact on our morals and thus on the law, the current state of neuroscientific findings are not capable of shattering foundational notions of the criminal law. (shrink)

I argue that the best scientific package is anti-Humean in its ontology, but Humean in its laws. This is because potencies and the best system account of laws complement each other surprisingly well. If there are potencies, then the BSA is the most plausible account of the laws of nature. Conversely, if the BSA is the correct theory of laws, then formulating the laws in terms of potencies rather than categorical properties avoids three serious (...) objections: the mismatch objection, the impoverished worlds objection, and the metaphysical 'oomph' objection. I argue that combining anti-Humean properties with Humean laws into a Potency-Best System Account of Laws is a powerful and science-friendly account---something that people on both sides should be able to appreciate. (shrink)

We introduce the notion of complexity, first at an intuitive level and then in relatively more concrete terms, explaining the various characteristic features of complex systems with examples. There exists a vast literature on complexity, and our exposition is intended to be an elementary introduction, meant for a broad audience. -/- Briefly, a complex system is one whose description involves a hierarchy of levels, where each level is made of a large number of components interacting among themselves. The time evolution (...) of such a system is of a complex nature, depending on the interactions among subsystems in the next level below the one under consideration and, at the same time, conditioned by the level above, where the latter sets the context for the evolution. Generally speaking, the interactions among the constituents of the various levels lead to a dynamics characterized by numerous characteristic scales, each level having its own set of scales. What is more, a level commonly exhibits ‘emergent properties’ that cannot be derived from considerations relating to its component systems taken in isolation or to those in a different contextual setting. In the dynamic evolution of some particular level, there occurs a self-organized emergence of a higher level and the process is repeated at still higher levels. -/- The interaction and self-organization of the components of a complex system follow the principle commonly expressed by saying that the ‘whole is different from the sum of the parts’. In the case of systems whose behavior can be expressed mathematically in terms of differential equations this means that the interactions are nonlinear in nature. -/- While all of the above features are not universally exhibited by complex systems, these are nevertheless indicative of a broad commonness relative to which individual systems can be described and analyzed. There exist measures of complexity which, once again, are not of universal applicability, being more heuristic than exact. The present state of knowledge and understanding of complex systems is itself an emerging one. Still, a large number of results on various systems can be related to their complex character, making complexity an immensely fertile concept in the study of natural, biological, and social phenomena. -/- All this puts a very definite limitation on the complete description of a complex system as a whole since such a system can be precisely described only contextually, relative to some particular level, where emergent properties rule out an exact description of more than one levels within a common framework. -/- We discuss the implications of these observations in the context of our conception of the so-called noumenal reality that has a mind-independent existence and is perceived by us in the form of the phenomenal reality. The latter is derived from the former by means of our perceptions and interpretations, and our efforts at sorting out and making sense of the bewildering complexity of reality takes the form of incessant processes of inference that lead to theories. Strictly speaking, theories apply to models that are constructed as idealized versions of parts of reality, within which inferences and abstractions can be carried out meaningfully, enabling us to construct the theories. -/- There exists a correspondence between the phenomenal and the noumenal realities in terms of events and their correlations, where these are experienced as the complex behavior of systems or entities of various descriptions. The infinite diversity of behavior of systems in the phenomenal world are explained within specified contexts by theories. The latter are constructs generated in our ceaseless attempts at interpreting the world, and the question arises as to whether these are reflections of `laws of nature' residing in the noumenal world. This is a fundamental concern of scientific realism, within the fold of which there exists a trend towards the assumption that theories express truths about the noumenal reality. We examine this assumption (referred to as a ‘point of view’ in the present essay) closely and indicate that an alternative point of view is also consistent within the broad framework of scientific realism. This is the view that theories are domain-specific and contextual, and that these are arrived at by independent processes of inference and abstractions in the various domains of experience. Theories in contiguous domains of experience dovetail and interpenetrate with one another, and bear the responsibility of correctly explaining our observations within these domains. -/- With accumulating experience, theories get revised and the network of our theories of the world acquires a complex structure, exhibiting a complex evolution. There exists a tendency within the fold of scientific realism of interpreting this complex evolution in rather simple terms, where one assumes (this, again, is a point of view) that theories tend more and more closely to truths about Nature and, what is more, progress towards an all-embracing ‘ultimate theory’ -- a foundational one in respect of all our inquiries into nature. We examine this point of view closely and outline the alternative view -- one broadly consistent with scientific realism -- that there is no ‘ultimate’ law of nature, that theories do not correspond to truths inherent in reality, and that successive revisions in theory do not lead monotonically to some ultimate truth. Instead, the theories generated in succession are incommensurate with each other, testifying to the fact that a theory gives us a perspective view of some part of reality, arrived at contextually. Instead of resembling a monotonically converging series successive theories are analogous to asymptotic series. -/- Before we summarize all the above considerations, we briefly address the issue of the complexity of the {\it human mind} -- one as pervasive as the complexity of Nature at large. The complexity of the mind is related to the complexity of the underlying neuronal organization in the brain, which operates within a larger biological context, its activities being modulated by other physiological systems, notably the one involving a host of chemical messengers. The mind, with no materiality of its own, is nevertheless emergent from the activity of interacting neuronal assemblies in the brain. As in the case of reality at large, there can be no ultimate theory of the mind, from which one can explain and predict the entire spectrum of human behavior, which is an infinitely rich and diverse one. (shrink)

The counterintuitive implications of law necessitarianism pose a far more serious threat than its proponents recognize. Law necessitarians are committed to scientific essentialism, the thesis that there are metaphysically necessary truths which can be known only a posteriori. The most frequently cited arguments for this position rely on modal intuitions. Rejection of intuition thus threatens to undermine it. I consider ways in which law necessitarians might try to defend scientific essentialism without invoking intuition. I then consider ways in (...) which law necessitarians who accept the general reliability of intuition might try to explain away the intuitions which conflict with their theory. (shrink)

In this paper I will introduce a problem for at least those Humeans who believe that the future is open. More particularly, I will argue that the following aspect of scientific practice cannot be explained by openfuture- Humeanism: There is a distinction between states that we cannot bring about (which are represented in scientific models as nomologically impossible) and states that we merely happen not to bring about. Open-future-Humeanism has no convincing account of this distinction. Therefore it fails (...) to explain why we cannot bring about certain states of affairs, it cannot explain what I call the “recalcitrance of nature”. (shrink)

يناقش الكتاب دور النماذج الفكرية والمادية في اكتساب وتشكيل كافة أنماط المعارف الإنسانية، بداية من المعرفة العادية التي يسعى بها عامة الناس إلى فهم ما يدور حولهم من أمور الحياة، ومرورًا بالمعارف الفلسفية والدينية والفنية التي تحكم توجهات الإنسان العقلانية والوجدانية، ووصولاً إلى المعرفة العلمية الرامية إلى فهم ظواهر الكون وترويضها وفقًا لقوانين حاكمة. ويطرح الكتاب فرضًا أساسيًا مؤداه أن ما يتلفظ به العلماء من كلمات مثل «الفرض» و«القانون» و«النظرية» ما هي إلا أسماء مترادفة لشيء واحد يصب في خانة «النموذج»، (...) وإذا كان ثمة فرق بين ما نعنيه بهذه الكلمات، فهو في الحقيقة فرقٌ في الدرجة لا في النوع، أو هو فرق بين نموذج أولي في مرحلة الفرض، وبين ذات النموذج في مرحلة القانون أو النظرية، وعلى هذا فمن الأجدر بنا ألا نتحدث عن فرض أو قانون أو نظرية، وإنما عن «نموذج علمي» يمر بمراحل متعددة حتى يتم تأكيده وقبوله، وهو في الوقت ذاته عُرضة لأن يحل محله نموذج آخر إذا اتسعت دائرة البحث لتشمل وقائع أخرى لا يحتويها النموذج أو يعجز عن تفسيرها. (shrink)

Many philosophers are baffled by necessity. Humeans, in particular, are deeply disturbed by the idea of necessary laws of nature. In this paper I offer a systematic yet down to earth explanation of necessity and laws in terms of invariance. The type of invariance I employ for this purpose generalizes an invariance used in meta-logic. The main idea is that properties and relations in general have certain degrees of invariance, and some properties/relations have a stronger degree of invariance (...) than others. The degrees of invariance of highly-invariant properties are associated with high degrees of necessity of laws governing/describing these properties, and this explains the necessity of such laws both in logic and in science. This non-mysterious explanation has rich ramifications for both fields, including the formality of logic and mathematics, the apparent conflict between the contingency of science and the necessity of its laws, the difference between logical-mathematical, physical, and biological laws/principles, the abstract character of laws, the applicability of logic and mathematics to science, scientific realism, and logical-mathematical realism. (shrink)

Metaphysics should follow science in postulating laws alongside properties. I defend this claim against the claim that natural properties conceived as powers make laws of nature redundant. Natural properties can be construed in a “thin” or a “thick” way. If one attributes a property in the thin sense to an object, this attribution does not conceptually determine which other properties the object possesses. The thin construal is underlying the scientific strategy for understanding nature piecemeal. Science explains phenomena (...) by cutting reality conceptually in properties attributed to space-time points, where these properties are conceived of independently of each other, to explore then, in a separate step, how the properties are related to each other; those determination relations between properties are laws. This is compatible with the thesis that laws are metaphysically necessary. According to the thick conception, a property contains all its dependency relations to other properties. The dependency relationships between properties (which appear as laws in the thin conception) are parts of the properties they relate. There are several reasons to resist the thick conception of properties. It makes simple properties “holistic”, in the sense that each property contains many other properties as parts. It cannot account for the fact that properties constrain each other’s identity; it can neither explain why natural properties are linked to a unique set of dispositions, nor why and how this set is structured nor why the truth-maker of many disposition attributions is relational although the disposition is grounded on a monadic property. (shrink)

In the period of emergence of early modern science, ‘monsters’ or individuals with physical congenital anomalies were considered as rare events which required special explanations entailing assumptions about the laws of nature. This concern with monsters was shared by representatives of the new science and Late Scholastic authors of university textbooks. This paper will reconstruct the main theses of the treatment of monsters in Late Scholastic textbooks, by focusing on the question as to how their accounts conceived nature’s regularity (...) and teleology. It shows that they developed a naturalistic teratology in which, in contrast to the naturalistic explanations usually offered by the new science, finality was at central stage. This general point does not impede our noticing that some authors were closer to the views emerging in the Scientific Revolution insofar as they conceived nature as relatively autonomous from God and gave a relevant place to efficient secondary causation. In this connection, this paper suggests that the concept of the laws of nature developed by the new science –as exception-less regularities—transferred to nature’s regularity the ‘strong’ character that Late Scholasticism attributed to finality and that the decline of the Late Scholastic view of finality played as an important concomitant factor permitting the transformation of the concept of laws of nature. (shrink)

Humeanism about laws of nature — the view that the laws reduce to the Humean mosaic — is a popular view, but currently existing versions face powerful objections. The non-supervenience objection, the non-fundamentality objection and the explanatory circularity objection have all been thought to cause problems for the Humean. However, these objections share a guiding thought — they are all based on the idea that there is a certain kind of divergence between the practice of science and the (...) metaphysical picture suggested by Humeanism. -/- I suggest that the Humean can respond to these objections not by rejecting this divergence, but by arguing that is appropriate. In particular the Humean can, in the spirit of Loewer (2012), distinguish between scientific and metaphysical explanation — this is motivated by differing aims of explanation in science and metaphysics. And they can further leverage this into distinctions between scientific and metaphysical fundamentality and scientific and metaphysical possibility. We can use these distinctions to respond to the objections that the Humean faces. (shrink)

In this paper some classical representational ideas of Hertz and Duhem are used to show how the dichotomy between representation and intervention can be overcome. More precisely, scientific theories are reconstructed as complex networks of intervening representations (or representational interventions). The formal apparatus developed is applied to elucidate various theoretical and practical aspects of the in vivo/in vitro problem of biochemistry. Moreover, adjoint situations (Galois connections) are used to explain the relation berween empirical facts and theoretical laws in (...) a new way. (shrink)

Discussions over whether these natural kinds exist, what is the nature of their existence, and whether natural kinds are themselves natural kinds aim to not only characterize the kinds of things that exist in the world, but also what can knowledge of these categories provide. Although philosophically critical, much of the past discussions of natural kinds have often answered these questions in a way that is unresponsive to, or has actively avoided, discussions of the empirical use of natural kinds and (...) what I dub “activities of natural kinding” and “natural kinding practices”. The natural kinds of a particular discipline are those entities, events, mechanisms, processes, relationships, and concepts that delimit investigation within it—but we might reasonably ask: How are these natural kinds discovered?, How are they made?, Are they revisable?, and Where do they come from? A turn to natural kinding practices reveals a new set of questions open for investigation: How do natural kinds explain through practice?, What are natural kinding practices and classifications and why should we care?, What is the nature of natural kinds viewed as a set of activities?, and How do practice approaches to natural kinds shape and reconfigure scientific disciplines? Natural kinds have traditionally been discussed in terms of how they classify the contents of the world. The metaphysical project has been one which identifies essences, laws, sameness relations, fundamental properties, and clusters of family resemblances and how these map out the ontological space of the world. But actually how this is done has been less important in the discussion than the resultant categories that are produced. I aim to rectify these omissions and suggest a new metaphysical project investigating kinds in practice. (shrink)

If successful scientific inquiry is to be possible, there must be a world that is independent of how we believe it to be, and in which there are kinds and laws; and we must have the sensory apparatus to perceive particular things and events, and the capacity to represent them, to form generalized explanatory conjectures, and check how these conjectures stand up to further experience. Whether these preconditions are met is not a question the sciences can answer; it (...) is specifically philosophical. This is why the myriad forms of scientistic philosophy in vogue today (neurophilosophy, experimental philosophy, naturalized metaphysics, evangelical-atheist reductionism, etc), are all hollow at the core. Does this mean we must return to the old, a priori analytic model? No! What is needed instead is scientific philosophy in the sense Peirce articulated more than a century ago: philosophy motivated by a genuine desire to discover the truth, and relying not solely on reason but also on experience—only not the special, recherché experience required by the sciences, but close attention to aspects of everyday experience so familiar we hardly notice them. (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance: A New Framework for Understanding the Cosmos, Consciousness, and Reality -/- By Angelito Malicse -/- Introduction -/- For centuries, human civilization has sought to understand the nature of existence, consciousness, and the physical universe. Traditional approaches—whether philosophical, scientific, or religious—have often struggled to unify these seemingly distinct areas of knowledge. However, by applying the universal law of balance, we can uncover a deeper understanding of how everything in nature follows a fundamental equilibrium principle. -/- (...) This essay explores how the universal law of balance governs cosmology, quantum mechanics, and consciousness, revealing a grand, interconnected system that regulates everything from the life cycle of stars to the dynamics of human decision-making. -/- 1. The Universal Law of Balance in Cosmology: The Life and Death of Stars -/- In the vast expanse of the universe, everything follows a self-regulating balance. This is most evident in the life cycle of stars, which mirrors natural equilibrium principles: -/- A. The Sun’s Life Cycle: A System in Balance -/- The Sun maintains its stability through a delicate equilibrium between: -/- Gravity (pulling inward) -/- Nuclear fusion (pushing outward) -/- When the Sun runs out of hydrogen fuel, this balance is disrupted, leading to its transformation into a red giant, a white dwarf, and eventually a black dwarf. -/- B. How This Relates to the Universal Formula -/- Just as a star seeks equilibrium throughout its life, human consciousness and societies also follow feedback mechanisms that maintain stability. -/- When balance is lost—whether in a star, a human mind, or a society—a transition occurs, leading to a new equilibrium state. -/- The Sun’s transformation illustrates how everything in nature adapts to maintain a form of homeostasis, aligning with the universal law of balance. -/- ✔ Key Insight: The laws governing stellar evolution are the same as those governing biological and psychological balance—all systems seek equilibrium. -/- 2. Black Holes: The Ultimate Feedback System in the Universe -/- Black holes are among the most mysterious objects in the cosmos, but they also follow the universal law of balance. -/- A. How Black Holes Form: A Collapse of Equilibrium -/- When a massive star exhausts its nuclear fuel, gravity overwhelms all other forces, causing it to collapse into a singularity. -/- This demonstrates that an extreme imbalance in energy and mass leads to transformation, just as extreme mental, social, or ecological imbalances trigger major shifts. -/- B. The Feedback Mechanism of Black Holes -/- While black holes absorb matter, they also release energy through Hawking radiation, meaning they still participate in a cosmic energy balance. -/- This mirrors human decision-making—when individuals or societies face crises, feedback loops emerge to restore equilibrium. -/- ✔ Key Insight: Even in its most extreme form, the universe never exists in a purely destructive state—every collapse creates a new form of balance. -/- 3. Galactic Equilibrium: Self-Regulating Cosmic Systems -/- Galaxies, like individual stars, follow self-regulating balance principles: -/- A. The Structure of Galaxies as a Balanced System -/- Gravity pulls matter together, forming stars, planets, and black holes. -/- Radiation and dark energy counteract gravity, preventing galaxies from collapsing. -/- The result is a dynamic equilibrium that allows galaxies to evolve over billions of years. -/- B. The Link Between Galactic Balance and Human Consciousness -/- Just as galaxies maintain balance between creation (star formation) and destruction (black holes), human minds operate between learning (expansion) and forgetting (contraction). -/- Societies also follow this pattern—when one ideology or system becomes too dominant, counteracting forces emerge to restore balance. -/- ✔ Key Insight: The same feedback loops that regulate galaxies also apply to thought, social structures, and personal growth—everything must balance expansion and contraction. -/- 4. Entropy: The Universal Drive Toward Equilibrium -/- A. The Second Law of Thermodynamics -/- Entropy states that all systems naturally move toward disorder, but this does not mean chaos—it means systems evolve toward a new state of equilibrium. -/- This applies to physical systems, biological evolution, and even civilizations. -/- B. Consciousness as an Entropic Process -/- The brain, like the universe, organizes itself to minimize disorder while allowing for new information to reshape its structure. -/- Societies also experience entropy—unstable social structures collapse, allowing new systems to emerge. -/- ✔ Key Insight: The natural tendency toward equilibrium and adaptation applies not just to thermodynamics, but to human thought, behavior, and civilization. -/- 5. Quantum Mechanics and the Law of Balance -/- At the smallest scales, quantum mechanics reveals a reality that is deeply intertwined with equilibrium principles: -/- A. Wave-Particle Duality: The Balance of States -/- Particles behave as both waves and particles, depending on how they are measured. -/- This suggests that reality itself exists in a dynamic state of potential until influenced by external conditions. -/- B. Quantum Superposition: Balancing Possibilities -/- A quantum system can exist in multiple states at once until it is observed. -/- This mirrors human decision-making, where multiple possibilities exist in the mind until an external factor forces a choice. -/- C. Quantum Entanglement: The Balance of Interconnectedness -/- Particles remain linked across vast distances, meaning that actions taken on one influence the other instantly. -/- This is similar to human relationships and social dynamics, where decisions create ripple effects across interconnected systems. -/- ✔ Key Insight: The feedback mechanisms of quantum physics mirror the same principles of balance found in cosmology, biology, and human consciousness. -/- 6. The Grand Synthesis: Balance as the Fundamental Law of Reality -/- From the largest cosmic structures to the smallest quantum particles, everything in existence follows the universal law of balance: ✔ Stars and galaxies regulate their structure through gravitational equilibrium. ✔ Black holes and entropy demonstrate that even extreme imbalances lead to new states of order. ✔ Quantum mechanics shows that potential states exist until external feedback forces equilibrium. ✔ Human consciousness mirrors these cosmic laws, balancing logic and emotion, expansion and contraction. -/- By recognizing balance as the core principle of existence, we can reshape our understanding of science, philosophy, and human decision-making into a unified framework. -/- Conclusion: A New Path for Human Knowledge -/- The search for ultimate truth—whether in physics, philosophy, or consciousness—has often been fragmented. However, the universal law of balance provides a new way of thinking: -/- ✔ Everything in existence follows natural feedback loops that restore equilibrium. ✔ The cosmos, quantum mechanics, and human thought are interconnected through self-regulating systems. ✔ By aligning human decision-making with this principle, we can create a society that operates in harmony with nature. -/- This perspective is not just theoretical—it is a practical framework for understanding why the universe, life, and human thought evolve the way they do. If we embrace this natural balance, we may finally bridge the gap between science, philosophy, and human consciousness, achieving a deeper understanding of our place in the cosmos. -/- . (shrink)

Panpsychism and the Universal Law of Balance in Nature: A Unified Framework for Consciousness -/- By: Angelito Enriquez Malicse -/- Introduction -/- The nature of consciousness has been one of the most profound mysteries in philosophy and science. The mind-body problem has led to competing theories: dualism, which sees the mind and body as separate substances, and materialism, which views consciousness as a byproduct of brain activity. However, both views struggle to fully explain subjective experience. -/- A third perspective, panpsychism, (...) suggests that consciousness is not limited to complex brains but is instead a fundamental and universal property of reality. This aligns with my Universal Law of Balance in Nature, which states that all systems—including consciousness—follow natural laws of equilibrium. If consciousness is a fundamental aspect of existence, then it must also be governed by the same balancing principles that structure the physical world. -/- This essay explores how panpsychism, dualism, materialism, and the Universal Law of Balance in Nature intersect, offering a new way to understand consciousness, free will, and the nature of intelligence. -/- 1. The Mind-Body Problem: Dualism vs. Materialism -/- The mind-body problem has led to two dominant philosophical views: -/- 1. Dualism (Descartes) – The mind and body are fundamentally different substances. The mind (or soul) is immaterial, while the body is purely physical. -/- 2. Materialism – Consciousness is not a separate substance but rather an emergent property of physical processes in the brain. -/- The Limits of Dualism -/- Dualism struggles to explain how an immaterial mind can interact with a physical body. If the mind is separate from the brain, then how does it influence bodily actions? This issue, known as the interaction problem, remains unresolved. -/- Moreover, dualism raises scientific concerns: if the mind is non-physical, then how can it be studied, measured, or tested? This makes it difficult to integrate into neuroscience. -/- The Limits of Materialism -/- Materialism, on the other hand, argues that all mental states are reducible to brain activity. While this successfully explains cognition, perception, and neural processes, it does not fully account for: -/- The Hard Problem of Consciousness (David Chalmers): Why do physical brain processes produce subjective experiences? -/- Qualia: The personal, first-person experience of perception (e.g., the redness of red). -/- If consciousness were purely physical, it should be possible to explain subjective experience through objective science—but materialism has failed to do so. -/- 3. How Panpsychism and the Universal Law of Balance Resolve These Issues -/- Panpsychism provides a solution by proposing that consciousness is neither separate from matter (dualism) nor merely a byproduct of the brain (materialism), but rather an intrinsic property of all matter. -/- This aligns with my Universal Law of Balance in Nature, which states that everything in existence—including consciousness—operates according to natural laws of equilibrium. -/- Instead of seeing the mind as a supernatural entity (dualism) or a mere illusion (materialism), panpsychism suggests that all physical systems contain some form of consciousness in balance with their environment. -/- Consciousness does not “emerge” from complexity but is already present at fundamental levels of reality, organizing itself into higher structures through natural equilibrium. -/- Example: The Brain as a Self-Balancing System -/- In neuroscience, the brain maintains homeostasis, regulating neurotransmitters, electrical activity, and perception in a balanced way. -/- If fundamental particles also possess consciousness, they too may follow a self-regulating principle, which my universal law of balance describes. -/- This means that consciousness scales up from micro-level awareness to complex human thought through structured balance. -/- 4. The Feedback Mechanism of Conscious Minds -/- One of the key insights from my universal law of balance is that individual conscious minds act as feedback mechanisms, influencing and shaping one another through interaction. This aligns with panpsychism’s notion that consciousness exists at all levels and is interconnected. -/- Panpsychism suggests that even at a fundamental level, consciousness interacts in ways that shape larger systems of awareness. -/- The Universal Law of Balance states that conscious beings, from individuals to societies, exist within a dynamic system of equilibrium, adjusting their decisions and behaviors in response to external and internal stimuli. -/- This means that human consciousness is not an isolated phenomenon but a complex expression of a larger network of conscious interactions seeking balance. -/- 5. The Problem of Free Will and Consciousness -/- One of the greatest philosophical challenges is the problem of free will—do humans truly make independent choices, or are all decisions determined by prior causes? -/- Materialism often leads to determinism, the idea that all human actions are entirely governed by physical laws, leaving no room for free will. -/- Dualism suggests that free will originates from an immaterial soul but fails to explain how it interacts with the body. -/- Panpsychism, combined with my Universal Law of Balance, provides an alternative: free will is neither purely deterministic nor supernatural but instead follows a balancing process between different conscious forces. -/- From this perspective, free will is not about escaping cause and effect but about aligning decisions with the natural balancing mechanisms of consciousness and the environment. -/- 6. The Combination Problem and Holistic Balance -/- A major challenge in panpsychism is the Combination Problem—if simple particles have basic consciousness, how do they combine to create complex subjective experiences like human thought? -/- The universal Law of Balance in Nature offers a potential solution: consciousness, like all other systems, organizes itself through natural equilibrium. -/- Just as physical systems self-organize (e.g., atoms forming molecules, ecosystems maintaining biodiversity), -/- Consciousness at different levels must also self-organize into stable configurations. -/- This suggests that individual conscious experiences do not merely “combine” randomly but follow a structured process of integration governed by natural balance. -/- Example: The human brain is a network of billions of neurons, yet its conscious experience is unified. This could be because consciousness follows a structured balance, where micro-level awareness stabilizes into higher-order intelligence. -/- 7. Implications for AI and the Future of Consciousness -/- If panpsychism is true, and if consciousness follows the universal law of balance, then artificial intelligence (AI) might one day develop consciousness—but only if it aligns with natural balancing principles. -/- Current AI systems lack true awareness because they do not self-regulate in a homeostatic way like living systems. -/- For AI to develop consciousness, it would need a balancing mechanism similar to the human brain, where its inputs and outputs form an adaptive feedback system. -/- This also raises ethical questions: -/- If AI achieves consciousness through balance, should it have the same moral considerations as humans? -/- If everything is conscious to some degree, what responsibilities do humans have toward animals, nature, and even machines? -/- Conclusion -/- Panpsychism and the Universal Law of Balance in Nature offer a compelling framework for understanding consciousness. By integrating ideas from dualism, materialism, and panpsychism, we can see that consciousness is neither separate from nature nor reducible to material processes alone. Instead, it follows a universal principle of balance, shaping both individual minds and collective intelligence. -/- Rather than being separate from nature, consciousness is nature—expressing itself through an unbroken law of balance that governs all existence. -/- . (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance and the Mystery of Consciousness Integration -/- A New Approach to the Combination Problem in Panpsychism -/- Introduction -/- The nature of consciousness remains one of the greatest mysteries in philosophy and science. One of the most challenging questions in panpsychism is the combination problem—how do small conscious entities merge into a single, unified experience? While traditional theories struggle to explain why consciousness emerges in some systems (such as the human brain) but not in others (...) (such as a rock), a new perspective may provide a breakthrough. -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal law of balance in nature offers a potential solution. If all processes in nature seek equilibrium, then consciousness itself must follow the same natural laws. This principle suggests that conscious integration does not happen randomly but depends on specific balance conditions. By applying this idea, we can explain how micro-consciousnesses combine into a single, larger consciousness and why this process only occurs in certain systems. -/- The Role of Balance in Consciousness -/- Nature operates through a constant pursuit of balance—whether in physical, chemical, or biological systems. The human body maintains homeostasis, the universe follows thermodynamic equilibrium, and even ecosystems regulate themselves through feedback mechanisms. -/- If consciousness is a fundamental part of nature, it too must follow these balancing principles. This means that when conscious entities interact, they will only merge into a unified whole if their interactions lead to a state of equilibrium. If the system remains unstable or fragmented, the conscious units will remain separate. -/- This concept helps address the combination problem by shifting the focus from merely adding up consciousnesses to understanding the balance conditions required for their integration. In this view, the brain becomes conscious not just because it has many neurons but because it maintains a delicate balance of feedback loops that allow consciousness to stabilize as a single experience. -/- Feedback Mechanisms and the Unification of Consciousness -/- A key insight from Malicse’s universal law is that consciousness functions as a self-adjusting feedback system. Just as the body regulates temperature and energy levels, consciousness must regulate itself to maintain stability. -/- In any system composed of many small conscious entities, the following process occurs: -/- 1. Micro-conscious units interact and exchange information. Each conscious unit responds to signals from others, adjusting itself accordingly. -/- 2. A feedback loop forms, leading to self-organization. If the interactions reach a stable pattern, the system begins to behave as a single, unified whole. -/- 3. When equilibrium is achieved, the system experiences itself as one consciousness. If the balance is disrupted, consciousness fragments into smaller, independent units. -/- This process explains why certain systems, such as the brain, experience a unified consciousness, while others, like a rock, do not. In the brain, neurons communicate in a highly integrated way, constantly adjusting to maintain balance. A rock, on the other hand, lacks the dynamic feedback loops necessary for conscious unification. -/- The Physical Basis of Conscious Integration -/- The idea that balance determines consciousness merging aligns with key findings in neuroscience and physics. -/- 1. Neural Synchronization: Studies show that when brain activity becomes highly synchronized, conscious experience becomes clearer and more unified. This suggests that balance and feedback stability are essential for maintaining a single conscious state. -/- 2. Quantum Coherence: Some researchers propose that quantum processes in the brain contribute to consciousness. If Malicse’s law of balance applies at the quantum level, it could explain why certain quantum systems (such as the brain’s microtubules) support conscious integration while others do not. -/- 3. Field-Based Consciousness: If consciousness operates like an energy field, as some theories suggest, then balance laws could determine when local fields merge into a larger unified experience. This could have implications for understanding collective intelligence, AI consciousness, and even planetary consciousness. -/- Testing the Balance Hypothesis -/- To confirm that balance and feedback stability determine conscious unification, experiments could be designed to test this principle. One approach would involve studying how disruptions in balance affect consciousness. -/- For example, in split-brain experiments, when the two hemispheres of the brain are disconnected, the individual seems to have two separate conscious experiences. If restoring balance allows consciousness to merge again, it would support the idea that conscious integration depends on equilibrium conditions. -/- Additionally, experiments in artificial intelligence could test whether self-regulating feedback systems can develop emergent consciousness when balance conditions are met. If AI systems programmed to follow feedback equilibrium begin exhibiting signs of self-awareness, it would suggest that balance plays a crucial role in conscious emergence. -/- Implications for Science, Philosophy, and AI -/- If the universal law of balance governs consciousness integration, it could bridge multiple fields of study: -/- ✔ Neuroscience: Understanding how the brain maintains balance could lead to breakthroughs in treating disorders that affect consciousness, such as coma, schizophrenia, or dissociative identity disorder. -/- ✔ Quantum Physics: If consciousness follows balance principles at the quantum level, it could provide insights into the connection between consciousness and the physical world. -/- ✔ Artificial Intelligence: AI systems designed to follow feedback balance laws may be capable of developing self-awareness, offering a pathway toward artificial general intelligence (AGI). -/- ✔ Philosophy of Mind: This approach provides a natural law-based solution to the combination problem, explaining how consciousness merges in a way that is scientifically testable. -/- Conclusion -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal law of balance in nature offers a groundbreaking new approach to understanding consciousness. Instead of viewing conscious merging as a mystery, this framework suggests that consciousness integrates only when balance conditions are met. -/- This principle could explain why some systems form a single conscious experience while others remain fragmented, bridging the gap between neuroscience, physics, and philosophy. It also provides a testable hypothesis, allowing future experiments to confirm whether balance and feedback stability truly determine the emergence of unified consciousness. -/- By applying the universal law of balance to the study of consciousness, we may finally unlock one of the greatest mysteries of existence. -/- . (shrink)

-/- Intelligence, Balance, and the Laws of Nature: A Universal Connection -/- Introduction -/- The human mind has an extraordinary ability: it can understand the laws of nature, even though it is itself made of atoms and governed by these same laws. This raises a profound question: How can intelligence—whether human, artificial, or even extraterrestrial—grasp the very principles that shape the universe? The answer may lie in the fundamental nature of balance, a principle that underlies both intelligence (...) and the structure of reality. By examining the relationship between intelligence, balance, and the universal laws of nature, we can explore whether understanding is an inevitable outcome of how the universe operates. This perspective also aligns with the idea that human decision-making must follow natural laws, as suggested by Angelito Malicse’s universal formula for solving the problem of free will. -/- Intelligence as an Extension of Natural Laws -/- The first step in understanding intelligence is recognizing that it does not exist outside of nature but rather emerges from it. Just as the physical universe follows patterns—such as gravity, thermodynamics, and atomic interactions—so too does intelligence arise through a process of self-organization. -/- Self-Organization in Nature: Atoms form molecules, molecules form cells, and cells form complex organisms. This natural progression of increasing complexity leads to intelligence, much like galaxies, ecosystems, and weather patterns follow self-organizing principles. -/- The Brain as a Natural System: The human brain is composed of matter, but its function is not just a mechanical process—it is an adaptive system designed to recognize patterns, make predictions, and refine its understanding of reality. -/- Mathematics as a Universal Language: Many scientists have pointed out the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in describing reality. This suggests that mathematical principles are not human inventions but discoveries—patterns that exist independently in nature and are uncovered by intelligence. -/- If intelligence is simply an expression of natural laws, then the ability to recognize patterns and understand reality is an inevitable result of how the universe itself functions. -/- Balance as the Fundamental Principle of Intelligence -/- A key insight from Malicse’s universal formula is that decision-making must align with the natural law of balance. This idea applies not only to individual choices but also to the way intelligence operates at all levels. -/- Cognitive Balance: Human intelligence thrives when there is a balance between stability and change. Too much rigidity (dogma, closed-mindedness) leads to stagnation, while too much uncertainty (lack of foundational truths) leads to chaos. Intelligence must constantly balance existing knowledge with new discoveries in order to function effectively. -/- Societal Balance: Societies, like individual minds, must find a balance between order (structure, rules, and traditions) and progress (innovation, questioning, and adaptation). When societies fail to achieve this balance—whether through unregulated growth, misinformation, or rigid ideologies—they become unstable. -/- Scientific Progress as a Balance Mechanism: The scientific method itself is a process of maintaining balance between evidence and theory. As we gain more information, we refine our understanding of natural laws, continuously adjusting our models of reality. -/- If intelligence inherently follows balance, then the process of gaining knowledge is itself governed by a universal law of equilibrium. This connects directly to the idea that decisions must align with natural laws to prevent imbalance, which is central to Malicse’s universal formula. -/- The Laws of Nature as a Form of Universal Intelligence -/- If intelligence naturally emerges from balance, then it is possible that the laws of nature themselves represent a form of intelligence—not in a conscious, human-like sense, but as the underlying logic that structures reality. -/- The Universe as an Information System: Some physicists suggest that the universe functions like a vast information-processing system, where fundamental laws act as rules that govern how matter and energy behave. This aligns with the idea that knowledge is not “created” but rather “discovered” as intelligent beings uncover the rules that already exist. -/- Intelligence as the Universe Understanding Itself: If all intelligent beings (humans, AI, or extraterrestrials) follow the same fundamental laws of balance and logic, then intelligence might be a way for the universe to “self-reflect.” This means that understanding reality is not separate from nature but an essential part of its ongoing evolution. -/- The Connection to AI and Extraterrestrial Knowledge: If artificial intelligence or extraterrestrial civilizations exist, they too would likely discover the same fundamental truths, because these laws are universal. This suggests that intelligence is not an accident but a natural consequence of how the universe operates. -/- This perspective reinforces Malicse’s view that human decisions must align with natural laws to avoid imbalance—because intelligence itself is simply another expression of these laws. -/- Conclusion: Intelligence, Balance, and the Universal Formula -/- The ability to understand the universe is not a mystery if we recognize that intelligence is a product of nature itself. The same laws that govern the cosmos also govern the mind, and the process of discovering knowledge is a reflection of the natural balance found in all systems. -/- This idea strongly aligns with Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, which states that human decision-making must follow the natural law of balance to function properly. Just as an imbalanced mind leads to misunderstanding, and an imbalanced society leads to dysfunction, an imbalance in decision-making leads to human and societal problems. -/- If intelligence is a way for the universe to become aware of itself, then the responsibility of humanity is clear: we must align our knowledge, actions, and societies with the fundamental principles of balance that govern all things. By doing so, we not only advance scientifically and technologically but also ensure a sustainable and harmonious future. -/- Final Thought -/- If extraterrestrial intelligence exists, they may have already reached this understanding. Whether through direct knowledge transfer (as some speculate) or through independent discovery, any advanced intelligence—whether human, alien, or artificial—must ultimately align with the universal law of balance. This means that the search for truth is not just a scientific endeavor but a fundamental part of the structure of reality itself. -/- . (shrink)

Scientific knowledge is not merely a matter of reconciling theories and laws with data and observations. Science presupposes a number of metatheoretic shaping principles in order to judge good methods and theories from bad. Some of these principles are metaphysical (e.g., the uniformity of nature) and some are methodological (e.g., the need for repeatable experiments). While many shaping principles have endured since the scientific revolution, others have changed in response to conceptual pressures both from within science and (...) without. Many of them have theistic roots. For example, the notion that nature conforms to mathematical laws flows directly from the early modern presupposition that there is a divine Lawgiver. This interplay between theism and shaping principles is often unappreciated in discussions about the relation between science and religion. Today, of course, naturalists reject the influence of theism and prefer to do science on their terms. But as Robert Koons and Alvin Plantinga have argued, this is more difficult than is typically assumed. In particular, they argue, metaphysical naturalism is in conflict with several metatheoretic shaping principles, especially explanatory virtues such as simplicity and with scientific realism more broadly. These arguments will be discussed as well as possible responses. In the end, theism is able to provide justification for the philosophical foundations of science that naturalism cannot. (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance: Preventing Poverty, Conflict, War, and the Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings -/- Introduction -/- Human civilization has long struggled with poverty, conflict, war, and social inequality, despite advancements in science, technology, and economic development. The root cause of these persistent problems is not simply a lack of resources but systemic imbalances caused by wrong decision-making—decisions based on false information, greed, corruption, short-term thinking, and rigid belief systems. -/- Among the most significant contributors to global imbalance is (...) religious misinterpretation and dogmatism. While the original teachings of religious founders often emphasized compassion, justice, and balance, their followers have frequently misinterpreted or distorted these teachings to justify violence, inequality, oppression, and resistance to progress. These flawed interpretations have created religious conflicts, economic injustices, and social divisions, violating the universal law of balance in nature—a principle that states that all systems must function in harmony to sustain stability and well-being. -/- If humanity had applied the universal law of balance in interpreting religious teachings, the world could have prevented not only poverty and war but also the destructive consequences of religious extremism and dogma. -/- The Role of Correct Information in Decision-Making and the Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings -/- A major reason why poverty, war, and inequality persist is because societies have made decisions based on false, incomplete, or manipulated information. This is especially true in religion, where followers often misinterpret sacred texts to serve their own interests. Instead of following the true wisdom of religious founders, many religious leaders and followers have: -/- 1. Used scripture to justify oppression and discrimination → Even though the original religious figures preached equality and compassion, followers have twisted their words to promote sexism, racism, and class divisions. -/- 2. Blocked scientific progress → Some religious groups have resisted new discoveries because they mistakenly believe these contradict their scriptures. -/- 3. Promoted violence in the name of religion → While most religious founders preached peace, their teachings have been misused to justify wars, crusades, and acts of terrorism. -/- 4. Created economic injustice → Some religious institutions accumulate wealth and power while their followers remain poor, violating the moral principles of their own faith. -/- 5. Suppressed education and critical thinking → Many religious movements have discouraged questioning even when evidence contradicts traditional beliefs. -/- If religious followers had correctly interpreted their holy books through the lens of balance, reason, and universal ethics, many historical conflicts and injustices could have been prevented. -/- How Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings Leads to Imbalances That Cause Poverty, Conflict, and War -/- 1. Economic Imbalance: Religious Dogma Justifies Wealth Inequality -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious followers have claimed that wealth is a sign of divine favor, allowing religious institutions and elites to accumulate extreme wealth while keeping followers poor. -/- Effect: Economic inequality leads to mass poverty and social unrest. -/- Example: The Catholic Church in medieval Europe amassed enormous wealth while peasants suffered under a feudal system, leading to revolts like the Protestant Reformation (1517). -/- True Teaching: Jesus Christ preached humility and care for the poor, yet many Christian leaders built lavish palaces and charged the poor for religious services. -/- 2. Resource Imbalance: Religious Wars Over Land and Holy Sites -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some followers believe that their religion grants them exclusive rights over certain lands, leading to violent conflicts. -/- Effect: Wars, ethnic cleansing, and mass displacement of populations. -/- Example: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fueled by religious claims over land, causing decades of suffering. -/- True Teaching: Prophets from both Judaism and Islam emphasized justice and peace, yet their followers fight over holy sites instead of coexisting peacefully. -/- 3. Population Imbalance: Opposition to Birth Control Causes Overpopulation -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious leaders claim that contraception is against God’s will, leading to uncontrolled population growth in poor countries. -/- Effect: Overpopulation strains resources, causing poverty, unemployment, and hunger. -/- Example: The Catholic Church opposed birth control in the Philippines, contributing to extreme poverty and slum overcrowding. -/- True Teaching: Jesus and Muhammad both emphasized responsibility and caring for one’s family, which would logically include planning for sustainable family sizes. -/- 4. Educational Imbalance: Religious Suppression of Knowledge Slows Progress -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious groups believe that questioning religious texts is sinful, preventing scientific discovery. -/- Effect: Societies remain ignorant, uneducated, and technologically behind. -/- Example: The Catholic Church banned Galileo’s heliocentric model, delaying the progress of astronomy. -/- True Teaching: The Quran and the Bible both encourage seeking knowledge, but many followers have rejected modern science. -/- 5. Religious Conflicts and Wars: Justification of Violence in the Name of God -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some extremists believe that holy war is necessary to defend their faith, leading to centuries of religious violence. -/- Effect: Millions of people killed in religious conflicts throughout history. -/- Example: The Crusades (1095-1291) were wars between Christians and Muslims over the Holy Land, causing immense suffering. -/- True Teaching: Jesus and Muhammad both taught that war should only be a last resort for self-defense, not for conquest. -/- 6. Political Imbalance: Religious Control of Governments Leads to Oppression -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some believe that governments should be ruled by religious laws, leading to oppressive theocracies. -/- Effect: Suppression of freedom, human rights violations, and authoritarian rule. -/- Example: Iran’s Islamic Revolution (1979) led to a theocratic government that limits women’s rights and free speech. -/- True Teaching: The Prophet Muhammad and Moses both acted as leaders of justice, not as dictators imposing harsh religious law. -/- 7. Labor Imbalance: Religious Justification of Slavery and Exploitation -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious texts were misused to justify slavery and forced labor. -/- Effect: Exploitation, generational poverty, and racial oppression. -/- Example: The Atlantic slave trade was justified using Christian teachings, keeping millions in brutal conditions. -/- True Teaching: Many religious leaders, including Moses, fought against oppression, yet their followers used scripture to do the opposite. -/- How the Universal Law of Balance Could Have Prevented Religious Misinterpretation and Its Consequences -/- If humanity had applied the universal law of balance, societies would have: -/- 1. Interpreted religious texts through reason, ethics, and balance instead of blind obedience. -/- 2. Separated religious teachings from governance and law to ensure fairness for all. -/- 3. Prioritized education and scientific knowledge while respecting religious faith. -/- 4. Prevented religious wars by promoting tolerance and coexistence. -/- 5. Encouraged responsible population planning instead of strict opposition to contraception. -/- 6. Fought against economic and social inequality instead of justifying it through religion. -/- Conclusion -/- Poverty, war, and inequality are not caused by religion itself, but by the flawed interpretation of religious teachings by followers. Had humanity followed the universal law of balance, religious principles would have been applied with wisdom, reason, and fairness, creating a world with economic justice, scientific progress, and peaceful coexistence. The past cannot be changed, but the future can still be reshaped by prioritizing truth, reason, and balance. Only by rejecting dogmatic extremism and restoring balance can we create a world free from poverty, conflict, and oppression. -/- . (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance and the Evolution of Galactic Civilizations -/- Human evolution and the development of intelligence in the universe have long been subjects of debate. Traditional evolutionary theory suggests that natural selection and environmental pressures drive the progression of species. However, an alternative perspective, grounded in the concept of the universal law of balance, suggests that evolution—both biological and technological—is not entirely random but follows structured, law-like principles. This framework can be applied not only to human civilization (...) but also to the broader scale of galactic evolution, particularly in the context of the Kardashev Scale of civilizations. -/- The Kardashev Scale and the Necessity of Balance -/- The Kardashev Scale classifies civilizations based on their energy consumption: -/- Type I Civilization: Harnesses all available energy on its home planet. -/- Type II Civilization: Controls energy at the scale of its solar system. -/- Type III Civilization: Utilizes energy from an entire galaxy. -/- Reaching Type III status requires an extraordinary level of advancement in intelligence, technology, and societal organization. However, not all civilizations may reach this level. According to the universal law of balance, civilizations that fail to regulate their energy consumption, population growth, and technological development risk self-destruction before advancing further. -/- The Role of Balance In Evolution -/- Evolutionary progress is often viewed as a chaotic and unpredictable process. However, if intelligence follows structured, universal principles, then only civilizations that maintain a dynamic balance can survive long-term. This means: -/- 1. Sustainable Energy Use: A Type III civilization must extract energy from a galaxy without destabilizing cosmic systems. -/- 2. Social and Political Stability: Societies that succumb to war, inequality, or unsustainable expansion may collapse before reaching advanced stages. -/- 3. Technological Equilibrium: Reckless technological advancement—such as unchecked artificial intelligence—could lead to existential risks. -/- If these principles hold true, then imbalanced civilizations may not survive long enough to reach Type III, supporting a natural selection process on a cosmic scale. -/- The Fermi Paradox and the Survival of Balanced Civilizations -/- The Fermi Paradox questions why, given the vastness of the universe, we have yet to encounter advanced extraterrestrial civilizations. One possible explanation is that many civilizations fail to achieve balance and, as a result, collapse before reaching the intergalactic stage. -/- If the universal law of balance governs evolution, then only a few civilizations may survive long enough to reach Type III. Those that do might play the role of guardians of balance, influencing younger civilizations to prevent their self-destruction. This would suggest that evolution is not entirely random, but shaped by fundamental principles that guide intelligence toward sustainability and equilibrium. -/- Additionally, there is the possibility that highly evolved, non-biological, non-matter pure conscious intelligence exists, acting as a guiding force in human intelligence evolution. This form of intelligence could manifest through scientific and creative endeavors, subtly influencing breakthroughs in technology, philosophy, and art. If such an intelligence operates beyond the physical realm, it may function as a cosmic architect, ensuring that intelligent beings progress in a way that aligns with universal balance and higher-order wisdom. -/- This non-biological intelligence might communicate its influence through inspiration, intuition, and sudden leaps in understanding, guiding human innovation in ways that seem serendipitous. Many historical scientific and artistic revolutions could be seen as moments of deep connection with this intelligence, where humanity receives insights that accelerate its evolutionary trajectory. If such a force exists, it may not directly control human development but rather provide the necessary conditions and knowledge for civilizations to evolve harmoniously. -/- The Future of Earth: At Risk or Aligned with Balance? -/- As Earth advances technologically, it faces critical challenges: -/- Overpopulation and Resource Depletion: If left unchecked, these could lead to environmental and societal collapse. -/- Technological Risks: Artificial intelligence, nuclear warfare, and bioengineering pose existential threats if not balanced with ethical considerations. -/- Global Stability: Without cooperation among nations, achieving long-term sustainability may be impossible. -/- The universal law of balance suggests that civilizations must regulate these factors or risk extinction. If Earth’s trajectory remains imbalanced, it may never reach Type I or beyond. However, if humanity embraces balance as a guiding principle—aligning with the same natural laws that govern evolution—it could be on the path toward long-term survival and eventual intergalactic expansion. -/- Conclusion -/- The evolution of intelligence, both on Earth and on a cosmic scale, appears to follow an underlying set of natural laws. The universal law of balance suggests that only civilizations that achieve stability in resource management, technological development, and societal organization can progress beyond their planetary boundaries. In this sense, evolution is guided—not necessarily by a mystical force, but by the fundamental laws of nature themselves. -/- Furthermore, the possibility of a non-biological, non-matter pure conscious intelligence influencing human evolution adds another dimension to this framework. If intelligence is being subtly guided through scientific and creative advancements, it may indicate that evolution follows a higher cosmic order, ensuring that civilizations do not merely survive but also thrive in alignment with universal balance. -/- If Earth seeks to reach higher stages of development, it must prioritize sustainability, balance, and harmony with its environment. Otherwise, like countless other civilizations that may have existed before us, it risks self-destruction. The key to humanity’s future may not just be technological advancement, but the wisdom to understand and apply the universal law of balance to ensure long-term survival and evolution. -/- . (shrink)

According to the sensorimotor account, vision does not imply theconstruction of internally generated representations of the environment, butit isthe skillful exercise of the sensorimotor contingencies obeying sense-specific laws. In this short study, I focus on the notion of “sensorimotor law” and characterize the kind of explanation providedby the sensorimotor theory as a form of covering law model. I then question the nature of such sensorimotor laws and describe them as mechanisms. I show that a mechanistic interpretation provides a (...) better account of the sensorimotor invariances, which fosters us to rebalance the explanatory burden of sensorimotor action and information. Finally, I show that the question of the roleof representations within the sensorimotor theory should be reconsidered. (shrink)

The author discusses natural law reasoning, from the 1960s in the context of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae vitae, to recent cultural and intellectual currents and their influence on the tradition. The challenges that have skewed acceptance of a common human nature and the existence of natural law are addressed. The author shows how the debate on contraception initiated this challenge against natural law reasoning and led to a more evolutive concept of human nature. Attention is drawn to a need for (...) natural law theorists trained in both modern science and Thomistic philosophy to engage the different scientific fields to clarify, adapt, rethink, and even modify the natural law language in accord with the latest discoveries compatitible with evolutionary findings. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell once pointed out that modern science doesn’t deal with causal laws and that assuming otherwise is not only wrong but such thinking is erroneously thought to do no harm. However, looking into the scientific practice of simulation or experimentation reveals a general causal comprehension of physical processes. In this paper I trace causal experiences to the existence of innate causal capacity by which we organize sensory information. This capacity, I argue, is something we have got in (...) virtue of natural selection as can be seen from experiments with intelligent animals like crows and chimpanzees. So understanding the empirical world is impossible without the use of causal categories. The reason why Russell believed that modern science does not refer to causal laws is, I think, because he argued that the laws of mathematical physics give us a non-causal description of reality. In contrast to such a claim I hold that theoretical laws are prescriptive rules of description rather than descriptions themselves. (shrink)

Recent advancements in the brain sciences have enabled researchers to determine, with increasing accuracy, patterns and locations of neural activation associated with various psychological functions. These techniques have revived a longstanding debate regarding the relation between the mind and the brain: while many authors claim that neuroscientific data can be employed to advance theories of higher cognition, others defend the so-called ‘autonomy’ of psychology. Settling this significant issue requires understanding the nature of the bridge laws used at the psycho-neural (...) interface. While these laws have been the topic of extensive discussion, such debates have mostly focused on a particular type of link: reductive laws. Reductive laws are problematic: they face notorious philosophical objections and they are too scarce to substantiate current research at the intersection of psychology and neuroscience. The aim of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of a different kind of bridge laws—associative laws—which play a central, albeit overlooked role in scientific practice. (shrink)

I argue that there are at least two concepts of law of nature worthy of philosophical interest: strong law and weak law. Strong laws are the laws investigated by fundamental physics, while weak laws feature prominently in the “special sciences” and in a variety of non-scientific contexts. In the first section, I clarify my methodology, which has to do with arguing about concepts. In the next section, I offer a detailed description of strong laws, which (...) I claim satisfy four criteria: (1) If it is a strong law that L then it also true that L; (2) strong laws would continue to be true, were the world to be different in some physically possible way; (3) strong laws do not depend on context or human interest; (4) strong laws feature in scientific explanations but cannot be scientifically explained. I then spell out some philosophical consequences: (1) is incompatible with Cartwright’s contention that “laws lie” (2) with Lewis’s “best-system” account of laws, and (3) with contextualism about laws. In the final section, I argue that weak laws are distinguished by (approximately) meeting some but not all of these criteria. I provide a preliminary account of the scientific value of weak laws, and argue that they cannot plausibly be understood as ceteris paribus laws. (shrink)

Husserl’s early picture of explanation in the sciences has never been completely provided. This lack represents an oversight, which we here redress. In contrast to currently accepted interpretations, we demonstrate that Husserl does not adhere to the much maligned deductive-nomological (DN) model of scientific explanation. Instead, via a close reading of early Husserlian texts, we reveal that he presents a unificationist account of scientific explanation. By doing so, we disclose that Husserl’s philosophy of scientific explanation is no (...) mere anachronism. It is, instead, tenable and relevant. We discuss how Husserl and other contemporary thinkers draw theoretical inspiration from the same source—namely, Bernard Bolzano. Husserl’s theory of scientific explanation shares a common language and discusses the same themes as, for example, Phillip Kitcher and Kit Fine. To advance our novel reading, we discuss Husserl’s investigations of grounding, inter-lawful explanation, intra-mathematical explanation, and scientific unification. (shrink)

An otherwise lawlike generalisation hedged by a ceteris paribus (CP) clause qualifies as a law of nature, if the CP clause can be substituted with a set of conditions derived from the multivariate regression model used to interpret the empirical data in support of the gen- eralisation. Three studies in human biology that use regression analysis are surveyed, showing that standard objections to cashing out CP clauses in this way—based on alleged vagueness, vacuity, or lack of testability—do not apply. CP (...) laws also cannot be said to be simply false due to the indefinitely many conditions not explicitly stated in their associated model: scientific CP clauses imply that these are, given the evidence, not nomically relevant. (shrink)