Gdb—do you really believe this stuff, are you just playing advocate for swarz?
I have no stocks of Swartz, if that is what you mean.
What is the stuff you have trouble with? How do you read:
I don’t wake up in the morning and ask myself “Which laws of nature will I create today?” No, it’s rather that I ask myself, “What will I do today?”, and in choosing to do some things rather than others, my actions – i.e. my choices – make certain propositions (including some universal statements containing no proper names) true and other propositions false.
Compare it with a historical discovery, e.g. Kepler’s laws. This discovery made the sentence ‘Planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun’ true. Of course, the fact the planets already moved in elliptical orbits around the sun was already the case since sun and planets exist. Kepler’s discovery made the sentence ‘Planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun’ true, and ‘Planets move in circular orbits around the earth’ false. ‘Making true’ here means ‘discovered as being true’.
Another comparison: the king in Saint-Exupery’s Little Prince.
He leaves to see what the rest of the universe is like, and visits six other asteroids (numbered from 325 to 330) each of which is inhabited by an adult who is foolish in his own way:
* The King who can apparently “control” the stars but only by ordering them to do what they would do anyway.
When the king would just see that if he would have said ‘the stars move according to rules I know’ there would be no problem… But no, he says ‘the stars obey him’. (For full text see here).
Again, I think Swartz’ way of explaining that natural laws are descriptions of natural processes and not laws that forces process to run as they do, is confusing. He just stresses that all processes can be described by natural laws, so obviously these descriptions must really follow what actually occurs, otherwise these descriptions would be wrong.
Do you really think that Swartz is saying ‘I choose the laws of nature as I want them to be’?