I’m curious if a Law or Process could actually be called a ‘Law’ or a ‘Process’ if one attributes either to mindlessness? I realize this question is simplistic on the surface but so are the naturalistic answers… i.e.… “They are natural ‘laws’ and ‘processes’ because they are from nature”… “They are just a result of a mindless universe and ‘laws’ and ‘processes’ must emerge regardless”… or… “What a stupid question because you cannot relate ‘laws’ or ‘processes’ from intelligence to the natural”… (This is the common answer)
Honestly, if someone used our pre-existing laws and processes to make some novel design – what would this prove other than the laws and processes we live under allow novel designs? Must we still assume that they ultimately came from mindlessness and assume that the purely mindless mechanisms resulted and caused – the universe, DNA, consciousness, and our own (somewhat) intelligently designed laws and processes that we use to govern ourselves…
Now although; selection, survival, fitness, etc. can be anthropomorphized – I do not believe the same can be said of natural ‘laws and processes’ because they ‘must’ be used initially and regardless to set things in motion… I would actually go on the record as saying that both a law and a process invoke teleology as I do not see how either could ‘ultimately’ be a result of mindlessness and still be observed. A law and a process require information transfer and instructions to be carried out toward an end and from a beginning.
If someone asserts a TOE without a teleological shoe, it will be stubbed.
– Heartlander’s Law
Yes; and it seems in all cases the common answer is an exercise in circular reasoning. It's like a snake biting its own tail....
BTW, I don't thing it's "simplistic" to seek after the most simple, basic explanation of phenomena we observe. After all, isn't this what scientific laws and principles seek to do?
Thanks so much for writing, Heartlander.