The "laws" are what we wrote, as descriptions of observations. So yes, the laws change.
The fact that we are able to "define" anything at all. Which is the purpose behind contrast, which gives us the means to define everything within its range. There is no definition without contrast, and contrast is the convergience (i.e., medium) between two extremes.
As if to say there would be nothing there if we weren't here to observe it? No.
Humans "seem" to establish their own rules. Yet they couldn't do so without any precusory rules (i.e., the laws of physics) in order to do so. So in that sense we have to ask, if human intelligence is just an anamoly when, taken in that context, can only be expressed as existing "outside" of the framework (i.e., the inherent design of the Universe) which spawned it?
And, are we to take human intelligence (and the things humans design) in context with the Universal design that spawed it or, entirely outside of that context?
You have your proof.
Let me guess--you were missing the day they talked about Venn diagrams in school.
Not at all what I said. Please try to read and understand. You asked if the laws change. The laws are what we write to describe the observations. The laws do change, and have changed. Nothing in this truthful account comes remotely close to saying that "there would be nothing there if we weren't here to observe it".
The precursory rules you speak of are not the laws of physics. The laws of physics are written by humans, to describe our observations. We are not "establishing our own rules", but using rules (a human construct) to describe what we observe in the universe. Whether or not those "rules" exist without us is impossible to answer. Whether or not the "rules" we describe will ever be an exact description of the universe is also impossible to answer; there may always be a better description.
You are within your rights to do so. Unless you have learned from what others posted in that thread, you can expect to see the same sound thrashing of your notions as you saw before.
Yes, I have a mind and I have a body, and both overlap and coexist. I don't see how this has anything to do with being "mutually exclusive."
Oh, it's not a problem at all, unless you want to claim that your mind actually influences your body. Then, you run afoul of the laws of physics as we currently understand them. If something has an effect on your physical body, that something is by definition physical. If it is not physical, it cannot have an effect on your body. This is where dualism falters Descartes put the interaction in the pineal gland, but did not say how mind actually is able to move even the pineal gland. Others "solve" the problem by saying simply that god does it, and is not bound by the laws of physics. Which is great--now we have explained one assumed magical entity (the mind) by the use of another magical entity (god).
Iacchus, you have redefined so many words during your time here that it is useless for you to ask this question. How is it that you use the term "induction", and how does it apply to the alleged causal connection between immaterial and material?
Cleo, I bumped your other thread (you may have missed it if subscriptions got bolluxed in the server change). Perhaps your book will also be appropriate there?