/lit/ - Literature

>>16832297
Because you need to justify why they're autonomous without resorting to circularity. There's only one way out of circularity.

Perhaps you could say we don't need a "why," but I'm not asking for a "why," I'm asking for a "how." How are there eternal, immutable laws of nature? How do they not change? How is there one set of laws over another? This shows that these laws/constants/formulas are arbitrary; they could have been any other way.

The problem with "autonomous" laws of the universe is that they're basically unconscious God. They're uncaused. They're eternal. They govern our existence. And so we can keep asking "why" ad absurdum, because these laws are not transcendental, which is another point of difference