Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Jfrsmth]

Perhaps, but these laws are universal.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Its always ironic how science talks about things. They always say things as if something is in control. The "laws of nature". Mother earth. Time, light...etc. These things all have rules and laws. But who made these rules and laws? They just invented themselves? I say its ironic because it almost sounds like they say "nature". As if its an thing that made the laws or maintains them. Yet the idea of calling nature God for some reason is stupid to them. Even though the imply God is in control/made the laws essentially.

 

[durangodawood]

What term might you use to describe it?

I used the term govern, because it implies that matter must behave within the boundaries of these laws. Govern indicates boundaries. No personification intended.

I see matter that behaves in a certain way. You add this extra thing called the "law". Seems unnecessary and unjustified.

 

[[serious]]

A couple of possibilities:
1. The laws of nature arise from the universe itself. That is, the big bang created the laws.
2. The laws of nature exist outside of time and thus have never been set or created, they just are.
3. There is a multiverse and the laws of nature are only what they are in our universe. All possible configurations of natural laws exist in other universes.

 

[MerlinJ]

It's already been pointed out, but unlike our regular laws which dictate civic order, natural laws are descriptions of things we see in the universe. Just because these concepts share the word "law," and the former type has lawgivers, doesn't mean the latter also must. They are simply properties of the universe.

As for why these properties are they way they are, I've found these two arguments to be the most convincing.

1. We have no other universe to compare with, and therefor no way of knowing if they could be otherwise. The best we can do there is speculate that it could be so, but just being able to imagine something, or putting it into words, doesn't make it possible. The Penrose stairs (aka impossible staircase) are an example.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it could be different. That leads us to the second argument.

2. The idea that the universe is finely tuned to our existence ignores the possibility that we are finely tuned to it. If we weren't suited to it, we wouldn't be here to bring it up in the first place, so its kind of an empty point to make. Perhaps there are other universes that are not suited to life, and others which aren't suited to our sort of life. It's like if you saw a puddle and marveled at how the hole was finely tuned to hold that water.

 

[Jfrsmth]

I see matter that behaves in a certain way. You add this extra thing called the "law". Seems unnecessary and unjustified.

I did not invent that term. That is what researchers call them: laws.

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, sometimes I don't catch everything in the threads.

I think you have an excellent point here. Yes, I find it difficult to even imagine that the "triangle rule" you mentioned may have happened through purely physical, un-directed processes.

Because you still do not get it, and you still haven't ansewered the question.

The "triangle rule" did not "happen". Not through purely physical, un-directed processes - nor through divine fiat.

Still you haven't even tried to consider my "excellent point".
You see this as two different concepts. One is the object, the other is the "rules" that the object is told to follow.
But that means you have to be able to view these things independently from each other. You must be able to view the object without the rules.

All I am asking you is to try to do that, to imagine what it would be like. What would the sum of angles in a triangle be without the 180° rule?

 

[quatona]

Would it be possible to have a mutually respectful discussion about the following:

How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical, come into being from un-directed, random materialistic processes?

1. Are you asking how our brains work which created those descriptions?
2. I don´t think that materialistic processes are random.
3. Since you are so concerned with the "how" - would you mind telling us how God created the natural laws (or whatever your alternative view is)?

 

[quatona]

Yes, I agree with your comment: they are descriptions of what we observe in the universe. We could name them anything we want, but they are still the same. They are constants; fundamental rules of nature that are not broken. Thus, how did these rules get there?

Let´s take a mathematical example: Do you think that - unless a supernatural entity edicted the constants - two and three apples could be seven apples?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Let´s take a mathematical example: Do you think that - unless a supernatural entity edicted the constants - two and three apples could be seven apples?

quatona, I'm not following you, I like to keep things simple. Would you mind elaborating or possibly re-wording your comment?

 

[Jfrsmth]

1. Are you asking how our brains work which created those descriptions?
2. I don´t think that materialistic processes are random.
3. Since you are so concerned with the "how" - would you mind telling us how God created the natural laws (or whatever your alternative view is)?

1. No, not at all. But the laws themselves, the constants, the predictors of how matter behaves in the universe. That's what I am after.

2. Materialistic refers to matter only. Matter cannot think or direct or create otherwise it would be directed processes. Thus, if not directed, it must be un-directed.

3. The concept of God is that He is outside time, space, and matter. Therefore, He is able to create such things.

 

[digitalgoth]

A more special answer: I think that the concept of "nothingness" is inherently flawed and self-contradicting. Something didn't come from "nothingness"... something came from something that is completely different from everything we know.

Why does there have to be nothing?

Why couldn't there have always been something?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Because you still do not get it, and you still haven't ansewered the question.

The "triangle rule" did not "happen". Not through purely physical, un-directed processes - nor through divine fiat.

Still you haven't even tried to consider my "excellent point".
You see this as two different concepts. One is the object, the other is the "rules" that the object is told to follow.
But that means you have to be able to view these things independently from each other. You must be able to view the object without the rules.

All I am asking you is to try to do that, to imagine what it would be like. What would the sum of angles in a triangle be without the 180° rule?

Whoa, relax dude/dudette, I was giving you a compliment. What's with the hostility? I'm not here to attack anyone or pounce on them. I enjoy the discussions - I like exercising my mind.

If I didn't "get" something, can't you find it in your heart to excuse me and simply try to clarify?

Do you think I was mocking you or something?

If you think I haven't understood your comment, then please, by all means, reword it or explain it in detail. Don't leave it up to interpretation.

Who knows what the sum of triangles would be without the 180 degree rule? How does that relate to the OP?

What is the connection to for example, the law of conservation of angular momentum? Whether I see it or not, or believe it or not, does not change it.

 

[quatona]

quatona, I'm not following you, I like to keep things simple. Would you mind elaborating or possibly re-wording your comment?

i´m not sure what is unclear about my question, sorry.
But I´ll try again:
Do you think that without divine laws two and three apples would be anything but five apples?

 

[quatona]

1. No, not at all. But the laws themselves, the constants, the predictors of how matter behaves in the universe. That's what I am after.

Why would you assume matter to act chaotically without divine guidance?

2. Materialistic refers to matter only. Matter cannot think or direct or create

Quite apparently, matter does can think. That´s at least what brain research suggest.

otherwise it would be directed processes. Thus, if not directed, it must be un-directed.

Undirected and random aren´t identical concepts.

3. The concept of God is that He is outside time, space, and matter. Therefore, He is able to create such things.

How did this concept of god come here?
You didn´t answer the question how He did it. Until you do, I do not see why being unable to explain the "how´s" gives any competing hypothesis a disadvantage compared to yours.
It´s funny that you demand answers that you yourself can´t give.

 

[Armoured]

How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical,

What law of nature is metaphysical??

 

[Freodin]

Whoa, relax dude/dudette, I was giving you a compliment. What's with the hostility? I'm not here to attack anyone or pounce on them. I enjoy the discussions - I like exercising my mind.

If I didn't "get" something, can't you find it in your heart to excuse me and simply try to clarify?

Do you think I was mocking you or something?

Yes, I think you are mocking me, right now. Perhaps you don't do it consciously, perhaps it is unintentional. But you do it.

So I really have to recapitulate this conversation?

You ask a question - a question that isn't new to us. A question that isn't really a question to aquire new knowlegde, but one to make us agree to your answer.
Quote from you: [Job8: The answer should be obvious. There cannot be any laws without a Lawgiver.] "It does appear obvious."

Well, no it isn't obvious. Quite the contrary.

So we did answer your question, several time, with several examples to clarify it.

Your response (paraphrased, not quoted): "Good point."... and then you repeat the same reasoning as before, the same reasoning that this "good point" adressed and refuted.
If you did understand this "good point", shouldn't you be able to adapt your reasoning to it?

So as I see it, you did nothing but handwaved it away... "yeah, good point, whatever... now if we ignore it, how do you answer my question."

If you think I haven't understood your comment, then please, by all means, reword it or explain it in detail. Don't leave it up to interpretation.

Who knows what the sum of triangles would be without the 180 degree rule? How does that relate to the OP?

What is the connection to for example, the law of conservation of angular momentum? Whether I see it or not, or believe it or not, does not change it.

See, this shows you didn't understand this "excellent point" I was trying to make, repeatedly now.

This is the core point to the OP, the question you asked! Regardless of "who knows" what it is... it would be something. It MUST be something. It is IMPOSSIBLE to not be something.

And I used this example because it is pretty basic and should be easy to understand. It is indeed obvious. Everyone with a simple understanding of geometry should be able to see why the sum of angles is this way and nothing else. This is not quite that easy to see or understand with "angular momentum" or other concepts. But it is the same principle.

Let's take it one step easier: a triangle has three angles, obviously. It also has three sides and three corners. Now did a law-giver have to decree that "a plane closed polygon with three angles - called a triangle - must also have three sides and three corners!" What would that object have looked like if this law was not given? Could that law have been given differently? Could God have decreed "a plane closed polygon with three angles can have any number of sides and corners between 2 and 15!"

Consider "human laws" - laws that are indeed given by lawgivers. "A vehicle must drive on the right side of the road!" You can answer the above questions for these laws. You can have vehicles without having any roads, or driving it, or sticking to specific sides. You can change it, so that the vehicle is required to drive on the left side.

But you cannot do that for "natural laws". They are not similar to the "given laws".

The laws of nature are not something that is independent from the object that are "subject" to these laws... they are part of it.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Yes, I think you are mocking me, right now. Perhaps you don't do it consciously, perhaps it is unintentional. But you do it.

Freodin, I'm not mocking you. I get too much attitude from people here on CF for asking questions and making points. Your response came across in a very similar fashion when all I meant to do was compliment you for what I perceived to be a good comment. There was no mocking there or even remotely intended. Hence, I made the comment to relax.

You are right, I am NOT a math major. Never was partial to math. I forgot basic geometry a hundred years ago. I'm a word man myself. So, please pardon me if I do not get what you are saying as it relates to the OP.

My question was meant to facilitate discussion from those who believe in purely materialistic and un-directed naturalistic processes, how these laws could have possibly come into the universe independent of a directing force.

I have been asked several times to clarify what laws are, and I think I have done a very good job of explaining them to the best of my ability as rules which govern predictable patterns of behavior for our universe.

Of course God could have decreed anything He wanted. I still do not see how this relates to what I am asking. Are you on a rabbit trail here? Are you trying to describe thought as opposed to laws??

The OP is asking how laws came into existence without direction. From everything I can understand about what you are trying to express, you are focusing on abstract ideas.

Sorry Freodin, I'm not getting it.

 

[The Cadet]

The question is malformed. As Quatona has pointed out, if there was no "divine lawgiver", why in the world would we expect matter and energy to behave completely randomly? Why would we expect no attributes to describe their properties? There's no reason the laws of nature have to "come from" anything. There's no reason to assume that they require a "cause", or that they even qualify as an "effect".

(And simply explaining it with "Because magic" does not provide a useful or meaningful answer to the question.)

 

[quatona]

It seems we have to get a little more basic here.
So a simple example:
Do you understand the fundamental difference between
"Carnivores eat animals because a law decrees them to."
and
"We classify animals as carnivores when they eat other animals."?