In Which “Gravity” is just a Sciency-Sounding Word for Faeries Making Stuff Fall

Natural Law: A principle which governs the world apart from the will of any particular being.

There is no such thing as The Natural Law of Gravity. Gravity is an adverb that has been nouned. Newton did not answer the question “what makes stuff fall?” “Gravity” is a general word that embodies a description of how things seem to “fall” in a consistent manner.

There is no Natural Law governing anything, for there can be no action without a causal agent (thank you, Pasteur). To claim that “Natural Law” is the agent is nonsense: An action can not be its own cause.

“Natural Laws” are descriptions of what seem to be (to the best of our knowledge) consistent acts by a causal agent: They cannot be the agent itself. Thus, there is no such thing as a violation of Natural Law. The faeries just changed their minds.


8 comments on “In Which “Gravity” is just a Sciency-Sounding Word for Faeries Making Stuff Fall

  1. Tim says:

    “In him all things consist and have their being.” So yeah, there is no such thing as Natural Law, as defined by the above statement.

    Hmmm I wrote up something arguing why you were wrong to say gravity was a noun that’s been adverbed, but I think I missed the point of your post. After a 3rd or 4th reading, I think I sort of understand what you are saying, let me try to paraphrase in words I can understand:(please alert me if I’m wrong):

    There is no such thing as a violation of “natural law” because what we have erroneously called “natural law” is merely the normal mode of operation for the physical universe which has been ordained by the causal agent. “Violations” are merely instances when the causal agent has ordained a different mode of operation.

    Uh, was that correct? If it was, I’d say “huh. That makes sense to me. Thanks for pointing that out.”

    What I’d like to add, though, is that due to fallen nature this often leads to another type of misunderstanding about the physical universe. To attribute what we call “natural law” to the will of a person often means we erroneously attribute some of our own characteristics to that causal agent, which affects how we understand the methods of operation of the universe. I’ve observed this in 2 ways:

    1) People think that the universe must be simple. And, when people come up with crazy theories like relativity etc. we say “that can’t be the way things work, because it doesn’t make sense to us.” Because we aren’t smart, we automatically assume that if someone is in charge they can’t be all that smart either, and must have come up with a capsela universe that fits together easily, so everyone can understand and can see exactly how everything works.

    2) People think that the modes of operation aren’t all that stable, consistent, or time-invariant. Because, we aren’t all that consistent, stable, or time invariant. So we say “oh, well, let’s see. The speed of light has been slowing down. Radio active decay rates change. Gravity might shift tomorrow. And, Gravity isn’t really all that complex. It’s probably just a bunch of faeries pulling you, uh, in the ‘down’ direction.”

    If a person attributes “natural law” to the will of a causal agent, it is important to take into account the nature of the causal agent when formulating opinions about the way the universe operates.

    And, this was longer than your original post, which is weird I normally don’t do this sort of thing.

  2. Tim says:

    Sorry, upon rereading, I am ashamed to submit an opinion so poorly worded to someone who teaches english. Try to sift through my grammar, who knows, there might be something good under the garbage. Hope I understood your post.

  3. tim,

    thanks for stopping by. you got my point exactly, and your comment about complexity is spot on and very important in my opinion (qualified science-guy that i am).

    i don’t like the terminology of ‘natural law’ but since adding “B.A.” after my name doesn’t seem to impress anyone, i guess we’re stuck with it. given that, i’d rather define ‘natural law’ as something like observed consistency in Jehovah’s governance of the natural world. what do you think?

    and don’t worry about the faeries: that’s just a device to get people to rethink their reification of ‘gravity’. of course faeries don’t make things fall: faeries are actually in charge of wavicles.

  4. or maybe it’s the bozons: i forget.

  5. My mom asked me last night to explain how an iPod works. I knew that no matter what I said, it would remain a mystery, so I told her there were little fairies singing in the little box. And then I tried to give a technical explanation, but I think we both agreed that the fairies made more sense.

  6. John says:

    It’s the gravity angels, as Jim Jordan says in Through New Eyes, drawing a bit on what John Calvin says about angels being behind all animal movement.

  7. Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others.

    The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.

    The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.

    The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.

    It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.

  8. huh? i get the feeling i just got spammed, but i don’t see any link to anything…wait, don’t click that user name!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s