Why would it not be possible to understand physical laws as a physical object?

As this can of worms has now been opened, let's see what is in it, starting with



(I will provide an attribution in due course.....)

That quote seems to say that hip size and brain size are both found in the same gene, or set of genes... that is why the argument makes no sense.

No, my friend, it would not be possible. Objectification is a function of the human mind. This is why philosophy is the true foundation of science, because it investigates and describes the fundamentals of science. Ontology is prior to physics.

So where I am trying to get to with this is a 'sympathetic reading' of Western metaphysics. What I really should be doing is 'bracketing' my personal feelings about whether God does or does not exist, and trying to understand the outlook and the worldview of the Classical philosophers in their own terms. This is actually very difficult, and I have a new-found respect for those who really do understand and read the Classics. And this is actually a separate discipline, and a separate subject, to my own practise and engagement with a spiritual tradition (namely Buddhism).

Physical laws come after ontology do they not? I am not claiming we can know some sort of "essence" of reality, but I do not consider physical laws necessarily a part of that.

I respect this. Not many are able to do so. In philosophy we must, as has been quoted, "follow wherever the argument leads", despite our personal beliefs. Those who are able to do this, I call reasonable.

Why would it not be possible to understand physical laws as a physical object? If we are able to seek out patterns, then it makes sense we would eventually find consistent patterns of nature.

What is the nature of the physical law if it is not random? And how is it possible for physical minds to seek things out?

If the law were related to organism then we have a theory which relates the law to human minds. But if the law is, as you say, not related to organism, then how does it come about that human minds are created?

That "negative" selection pressure is most likely the result of big brains evolving and hip size staying the same. However, even more growth occurs after the baby is born, is that growth the result of "negative selection pressure"?

That quote seems to say that hip size and brain size are both found in the same gene, or set of genes... that is why the argument makes no sense.

I first peered at your question to kenneth confusingly. But now I get it.

You're not looking for a cause. You're looking for one of those reasons. One of those reasons the mystical sort will suppose they know. So, explaining the origin of the mind through a chain of events, evolutionary history, will not suffice for you. Is this right?

What if bigger hips were statistically a risk for a woman's ability to walk, and to avoid the breaking of her hips? This disadvantage would be counterbalanced by the success of her presumably fewer offspring.

I don't claim to be an evolutionary scientist. I feel that you no more than me in this area. I ask you in humility.

Good question. The distinction between cause and reason is an important distinction that some would prefer to ignore. People have reasons, of course, and often, those reasons can also be a cause. But to ask for a reason for some even when there are no people to have a reason for that event, makes no sense. For instance, what is the reason for that rock falling to the ground is a question that makes no sense unless it is assumed that some person caused that rock to fall to the ground. Objects, by themselves have no reasons for doing anything. We can explain human actions in terms of reasons, but we cannot explain non-human events in terms of reasons, since non-human events can have no reasons. Although non-human events can have, and do have, causes. But, no reasons.

The first refuge for a man looking for reason where reason does not exist, is God.

I first peered at your question to kenneth confusingly. But now I get it.

You're not looking for a cause. You're looking for one of those reasons. One of those reasons the mystical sort will suppose they know. So, explaining the origin of the mind through a chain of events, evolutionary history, will not suffice for you. Is this right?

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.

What is the nature of the physical law if it is not random? And how is it possible for physical minds to seek things out?

If the law were related to organism then we have a theory which relates the law to human minds. But if the law is, as you say, not related to organism, then how does it come about that human minds are created?

The universe does not have a reason and yet it produces reason.
The universe is primarily inert, insenate, dead particles obeying mechanistic and deterministic laws and yet it produces life and forms wondrous and beautiful.
Some of us just do not view it that way. Some of us see reason and purpose behind the "grand game". Granted there is simply no proof either way and thus we should respect each others views.

The first refuge for a man looking for reason where reason does not exist, is God.

Yes, because God is a person, and has reasons. But Aristotle had a teleological conception of the world, in terms of which he tried to explain all events. It was Galileo who finally put paid to this conception. And then, science took off. You can find the story in Randall's, The Making of the Modern Mind. Now, we are being confronted with a regression.

Incidentally, the great man himself (Einstein) had this to say: