You have given me a lot of things to think about in terms of philosophical arguments and concerns over the nature of “Natural Laws”. I am not sure if this is the best answer, but it is a probable answer to a question that is uncertain.

What is “natural law”? There are several ways to interpret the concept and I’ve seen several different perspectives trying to frame the idea.

First, some people assume natural laws mean absolute rules, based on certain facts of nature, i.e. there is always going to be darkness at night and light in the daytime hours due to how the earth revolves on its axis. However, what if I tell you that it can be as dark as night in the day and as light as the day at night; such a thing would be impossible, assuming natural laws carries a meaning of absolute values. However, lunar and solar eclipses have proven that this can occur, which makes the assumption a fallacy based on “common” sense or experience. However, you could say that the day and night example proves nothing as there are other absolutes like death, which is certain and absolute, proving the existence of natural laws. That’s a nuclear argument that death is the ultimate law, but what if I were to say that death is not absolutely certain or that it is not the end of an individual. Beyond getting into Polemic arguments on afterlives and faiths, since it is even simpler than those big ideas, do you know if you will die? If yes, how do you know? Your answer probably is based on experience, watching friends and family going through the process of death. However, it does not mean you will die, simply it means that death exist. In essence, the concept that Natural Law is an absolute rule cannot hold substance as the value of absolutes would require reflective reference to experiences of others.

Then, what is a Natural law?

I would surmise that a natural law is based on the empirical values of the highest certainty or in essence a probabilistic outcome that would often occur with small variations due to variables within any system. Usually, the day would be brighter than the night; the night would usually be darker than the day. Death would happen in all observable instances, but it does not mean that death is certain in all instances, if the observer is not present to view the death (Quantum states argument).

To apply this concept, I will go back to what started my thoughts into this entry: Supply and Demand.

Some viewed this as a law that a contraction in supply would reduce quantity of demand or an expansion in demand would raise the quantity of supply. This "law" is not certain as inefficient outcomes occur all the time within nature and especially in business. Concepts such as information, benefit-opportunity, and shared resources would create dissonance between efficient and inefficient outcomes. For example, if you had birds hunting in the same tree for larvae of insects, do the insects know that they need to reproduce more to keep up their reproductive supply and quantity for the birds? Do the birds knows that they should not over exhaust the “limited” supply of insect larvae, which would harm their future food supplies? Neither has this information and in some cases, the birds will over feed and insects do not reproduce at a sufficient level, thus it would harm both groups in the end.

However, I want to point out that this does not disprove Supply and Demand law existing in nature based on probable outcomes. In fact, as the population of insects decrease, the birds will not be able to feed from the same tree as there is not enough supply to meet their demand. Thus, many would fly off and rebuild their nests in a better location with more insect larvae. The insects in the original tree would be left with fewer birds eating their young and could re-grow their population to higher levels needed for their function, until the cycle repeats itself again. In essence, the inefficient outcome might be arrived, but probabilistic outcomes would hold that both insects and birds would need to change their patterns of growth and consumption over time to reach a “natural” outcome, or in other words the likely outcome of shifts in population growth and demand.

Also, while I applaud the nature of using price on the Y axis to display the interest of demand, this is not the true nature of Demand. I understand where financial people and economists come to perceive that Demand = Price, but the true nature of demand is based on “perceived value”, not price. Perceived value is a complex arrangement of motivators such as need, utility, and benefit to the individual. Price is easier to quantify than these concepts, which are left open in the realm of the psychological expressions of behavior. As with my example of birds, I doubt they would understand what price value is in terms of demand.

My argument against using linear price theory is founded on certain Austrian economic school concepts, which try to differentiate the motivators in demand rather than evaluate based on a static monetary figure to the position of demand. I would think that demand is not a static curve always expanding quantity desired as prices fall, but it is in essence a dynamic curve or even a multi-variable figure that fluctuates. For a real world example, look at the real estate markets, while prices might be falling to record lows, homebuyer demand is not making a huge surge or even flat lining in certain spots. Benefit from a home is just not present as prices remain in decline and utility is not satisfied as mortgages remain difficult to receive despite lower prices. Price is not the absolute deterministic element in demand.

With all that said, I hope that I have not overstepped my bounds and have given some of our readers an insight, even if you disagree with my concepts.

I think probability is the essential missing piece in the argument supporting a highly probable "natural law" with systems empirical derived value through observation.