If the main principle of a dynamic system is its tendency to self-organize and self-stabilize then any laws of the Universe would be fluid in this context.
I am most curious about the "transcendent metaphysical realm" and whether it may shed a light on the ultimate force behind any organizing principles.
Yes. I’d say we tend to think in terms of 2 layers. One dynamic and emergent (nature, social phenomena, weather etc.), and the laws of this layer are understood to be fluid.
But underneath, there are the ‘laws of the Universe’ - gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry… and these are mostly seen as fixed. Rupert Sheldrake argues that even this basic hardware is evolving and based on habits rather than laws.
The “transcendent metaphysical realm” is the elephant in the room, isn’t it. Mainstream science tries hard to do without it, and Sheldrake’s lectures are an excellent overview of the shortcomings of this reductionist materialist effort. He argues in the lectures that the hard materialists cannot avoid “metaphysical” properties (purpose, creativity, consciousness etc), but ascibe them to matter (“selfish genes”, consciousness as a quality of the brain, multiverse theory…). And that’s quite a paradox.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
If the main principle of a dynamic system is its tendency to self-organize and self-stabilize then any laws of the Universe would be fluid in this context.
I am most curious about the "transcendent metaphysical realm" and whether it may shed a light on the ultimate force behind any organizing principles.
Yes. I’d say we tend to think in terms of 2 layers. One dynamic and emergent (nature, social phenomena, weather etc.), and the laws of this layer are understood to be fluid.
But underneath, there are the ‘laws of the Universe’ - gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry… and these are mostly seen as fixed. Rupert Sheldrake argues that even this basic hardware is evolving and based on habits rather than laws.
The “transcendent metaphysical realm” is the elephant in the room, isn’t it. Mainstream science tries hard to do without it, and Sheldrake’s lectures are an excellent overview of the shortcomings of this reductionist materialist effort. He argues in the lectures that the hard materialists cannot avoid “metaphysical” properties (purpose, creativity, consciousness etc), but ascibe them to matter (“selfish genes”, consciousness as a quality of the brain, multiverse theory…). And that’s quite a paradox.