2.What is the ultimate origin of the laws of Physics?
The workings of the Physical world are subject to laws and these laws are discernible by human beings. The existence of mind and matter are the ultimate origins of the laws of Physics. Matter is always reacting with other matter and causing innumerable different things. We use maths and to be more specific, algebra to model what actually happens when matter reacts or to use a wider viewpoint what happens in our world.
Unfortunately the models that can be made by humans don’t always live up in accuracy as a true representation of what has happened. I doubt that it is actually possible to produce a completely perfect representation of anything happening in our world no matter how close we can make the representation.
An example of this would be if an apple fell from a tree (this has nothing much to do with Newton) through the air to the ground, there would be resistance to its path, whether it is air resistance or something else. This resistance is directly proportional to the velocity of the falling apple. Unfortunately we do not have any kind of number or any indication to how proportional the speed is to the air resistance thus the laws of physics are mathematical models that are used to roughly show what happens in our world.
3.What is the nature of mathematical objects?
Mathematical objects are abstract objects in that we can put them into a position and reason about their properties and derivative objects, unencumbered by the necessity of their having any physical attributes. Generally a mathematical theory has an intended interpretation that guides the development of the theory, and as such is necessary to an understanding of the theory and its intended mathematical objects. With this in mind, doing mathematics is not just an analytic process of proving theorems, but requires interplay between the analytic process and an intuitive unfolding of the mathematical objects one is trying to develop. So, doing mathematics is a process relating to a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem and it is this notion of 'doing' that we should try to communicate to everyone everywhere.
4. Is the notion of a disembodied mind coherent?
I assuming disembodied to mean having been divested of any material existence or substance. The notion of a disembodied mind in my opinion is very coherent but, due to the laws and rules that our planet abides by, I am assuming that it is not physically possible for a mind to be disembodied – unless of course due to recent extreme scientific advancements of which yet I have heard nothing. The idea of a mind being disembodied is perfectly plausible but unless we live in a world of so called fantasy, where the all-seeing Eye from the Lord of the Rings would be possible, we are limited by our scientific advancements and knowledge thus making a disembodied mind a physical problem rather than a mental one.
5. What do you understand by the expression a physical object?
The physical object, which he (Kant) calls the 'thing in itself', he regards as essentially unknowable; what can be known is the object as we have it in experience, which he (Kant) calls the 'phenomenon'. The phenomenon, being a joint product of us and the thing in itself, is sure to have those characteristics which are due to us, and is therefore sure to conform to our a priori (not based on prior study or examination; non-analytic) knowledge. Hence this knowledge, though true of all actual and possible experience, must not be supposed to apply outside experience. Thus in spite of the existence of a priori knowledge, we cannot know anything about the thing in itself or about what is not an actual or possible object of experience. In this way he tries to reconcile and harmonize the contentions of the rationalists with the arguments of the empiricists.
