Science Forums 2

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I explained I used those laws from wikipedia for the reason they may be familiar with people. Why did I say this, because I found and read through them there.
Law of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After further reading of the source of the Schopenhauer quote, I think I've found why the second version of the fourth law, which is the version you quoted, is apparently so different from the original version - your quote was taken out of context. The complete quote is:

The laws of thought can be most intelligibly expressed thus:
Everything that is, exists.
Nothing can simultaneously be and not be.
Each and every thing either is or is not.
Of everything that is, it can be found why it is.
There would then have to be added only the fact that once for all in logic the question is about what is thought and hence about concepts and not about real things.
– Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4, "Pandectae II," §163

The text (in bold) that you omitted makes it clear that when Schopenhauer used the term "everything that is", he was not referring to physical reality at all. He was referring to logic and thought. This is confirmed by his later refinement of the four into two laws. The second law then becomes:

The second law of thought, the principle of sufficient reason, would state that the above attribution or denial must be determined by something different from the judgment itself, which may be a (pure or empirical) perception, or merely another judgment. This other and different thing is then called the ground or reason of the judgment.

Here, again, he explicitly refers to "law(s) of thought". So when you say:

Originally Posted by arkain101

I've taken this theory and applied it to certain areas of physics. Based on these laws they can be translated in order to become theme specific. I translate them as the following to become applicable to cosmology...

It seems clear, to me, that you are applying to physical reality laws which Schopenhauer derived solely in the context of logic and thought. I would suggest such usage is not legitimate, or at least, is not justified by Schopenhauer's usage. In particular, the law "of everything that is, it can be found why it is" clearly does not apply to physical reality. I.e. Schopenhauer's three laws that preceded it do not justify such a conclusion about reality.