Russel E. Rierson writes:
5. Physical laws determine the dynamics of quantum fields; physical law is primary to fields.
Physical law does not determine quantum field dynamics, it
describes them. Physical law is not primary to fields. Physical law is our post-hoc description of reality's behavior.
Russel E. Rierson writes:
6. Physical laws must have a principle of organization.
Says who? You? Why should we accept this as a premise?
Russel E. Rierson writes:
Infinite regress is an absurdity...
Again, why should we accept this as a premise? Just because you say so? I find nothing necessarily absurd about infinite regress.
Russel E. Rierson writes:
[9.] N[G] or N[not-G]
[10.] not-N[not-G]
[11.] N[G]
[12.] G
I think this is a good opportunity to demonstrate the inconsistency of Modal Logic. Beginning at [9] we have:
[9.] N[G] or N[not-G]
[10.] Not-N[G]
[11.] N[not-G]
[12.] Not-G
What good is a proof if it can be made to prove contradictory statements?
™ Version 4.2