How does one determine what the laws of nature are? It seems to me that all that theoretical science ever achieves is interpretations, some better than others, and discoveries are relative to interpretations. Science never gets to a Ding an sich as far as fundamental laws of nature are concerned. One can of course attempt to "legislate" favored interpretations, but that's not the same as legislating the laws of nature themselves.

Re: Framework on the Supremacy of Natural Law and the Limits of Scientific Authority

Dear Dr. Karl Pfeifer ,

Thank you for your thoughtful question regarding the determination of the laws of nature.

The publication linked here: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10861.86240, specifically under the Charter on the Supremacy of Fundamental Physical Laws and the Limits of Scientific Authority, addresses this concern directly. It articulates the following principles:

Article I – Primacy of Natural Law The fundamental laws of physics and physical science are universal, immutable, and supreme. They exist independently of human recognition, interpretation, or decree. No institution, body, or person possesses the competence to create, amend, or repeal these laws.

Article V – Scope of Human Inquiry Humanity does not legislate natural law; it only uncovers and interprets fragments of it through rational and conscious inquiry. The mandate of scientific institutions is limited to facilitating discovery, interpretation, and responsible application — never to assume jurisdiction over the laws themselves.

Your observation that scientific theories and interpretations are provisional and contingent on the frameworks we use aligns with this understanding. The Charter emphasizes that while science may interpret and discover aspects of natural law, the laws themselves stand apart from human constructions or authority.

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion and hope that these clarifications reflect the consistency between your perspective and the framework’s recognition of the primacy of natural law and the proper scope of human inquiry.

With regards, Soumendra Nath Thakur

Dear Dr. Karl Pfeifer,

Further, I thank you for your insightful response. I value your emphasis on the constitutional principles underlying scientific inquiry and the careful distinction between interpretation and reality. Your perspective resonates deeply with the core principles articulated in the Charter on the Supremacy of Fundamental Physical Laws and the Limits of Scientific Authority, which underscores that scientific inquiry is a process of uncovering, not legislating, the immutable laws of nature.

Given the depth and novelty of your contribution, it would not be appropriate to dilute this meaningful exchange by drawing attention to metrics or popularity trends related to ECM’s reception. The broader engagement with works such as Appendix 17: Internal Force Generation and Non-Decelerative Dynamics in ECM under Negative Apparent Mass Displacement is certainly noteworthy, particularly among those who challenge classical principles in favour of relativistic supremacy. However, I accept in reserving such discussions for other contexts better preserves the spirit of this dialogue.

I appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas grounded in rigorous inquiry and principled reasoning.

With regards, Soumendra Nath Thakur