When primitive law has once been embodied in a Code, there is an end to what may be called its spontaneous development.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
So the thing I realized rather gradually - I must say starting about 20 years ago now that we know about computers and things - there's a possibility of a more general basis for rules to describe nature.
I strongly believe that the fundamental laws of nature are not emergent phenomena.
Children learn many principles of natural law at a very early age. For example: they learn that when one child has picked up an apple or a flower, it is his, and that his associates must not take it from him against his will.
The law established by the Creator, which has existed from the beginning, extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind.
According to the Law of Biogenesis, life arises only from preexisting life.
The laws of nature are structured so that we grow and change, and get to experience the full spectrum of biological existence.
No great idea in its beginning can ever be within the law. How can it be within the law? The law is stationary. The law is fixed. The law is a chariot wheel which binds us all regardless of conditions or place or time.
No law of nature, however general, has been established all at once; its recognition has always been preceded by many presentiments.
I think that the 'laws of nature' are also prone to evolve; I think they are more like habits than laws.
We know from biology that new forms of organisms simulate their primitive form as closely as possible at first, even though obliged to exist under changed internal and external conditions.