Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

Its a test to help us determine what we mean by "law".

Do triangles "obey" the 180d law?
If there was no such "law" would we find the angles of triangles adding up to any old number?
Its enough to make me think this so called "law" is really just our description of triangles, and has no metaphysical existence or properties of its own..

If law is just a description of something, isn't that something that is universal and is always universally the way that something is and has to be a law that we try to describe rather than a description?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

If matter behaves a certain way, all the time, in all places, in the same way, and could not be any other way that we know of, we are not adding a thing called law we are observing a law.

 

[redblue22]

there are no married bachelors.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A couple of possibilities:
1. The laws of nature arise from the universe itself. That is, the big bang created the laws.

If the big Bang created the laws why did they not exist immediately?

2. The laws of nature exist outside of time and thus have never been set or created, they just are.

Time was created after the big bang, there was no time before the universe existed.

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.

That is adding something extra, in the same way that you all are saying God is added.

 

[durangodawood]

If law is just a description of something, isn't that something that is universal and is always universally the way that something is and has to be a law that we try to describe rather than a description?

Let me direct you to a previous post of mine:

Do triangles "obey" the 180d law?
If there was no such "law" would we find the angles of triangles adding up to any old number?
Its enough to make me think this so called "law" is really just our description of triangles, and has no metaphysical existence or properties of its own..

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wouldn't 1+1=2 be considered a part of mathematical law? So, my assertion is that yes, there had to be a lawgiver, as opposed to laws "becoming" by chance.

1 + 1 has no choice but to be 2. When we work within a particular mathematical system, its truths are inescapable logical conclusions. In Euclidean geometry, the Pythagorean Theorem is true. No one had to 'make it' true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.)

The question is simple, if laws are those attributes that govern the universe, and we know that laws must be followed or the universe as we know it would cease to exist, what caused these laws to exist and why does the universe obey them and though they are physical in nature, they are conceptual in reality. They are metaphysical in the sense that they are not based on direct experience with material reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me direct you to a previous post of mine:

Can you think of any way a triangle could be other than a triangle? Is a triangle a universal attribute? Can a triangle be something that it is not? If you answer no, then our description of a triangle doesn't effect the triangle, it would be a triangle whether or not we could describe it or not. It would hold the same existence whether or not we knew of triangles or not. We gain knowledge of the triangle but it is not a triangle because we describe it.

 

[durangodawood]

Can you think of any way a triangle could be other than a triangle? Is a triangle a universal attribute? Can a triangle be something that it is not? If you answer no, then our description of a triangle doesn't effect the triangle, it would be a triangle whether or not we could describe it or not. It would hold the same existence whether or not we knew of triangles or not. We gain knowledge of the triangle but it is not a triangle because we describe it.

Exactly how I think physical "laws"work.
"Laws" of matter/energy are our description of matter/energy.
Matter/energy doesnt behave the way it does because of laws.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly how I think physical "laws"work.
"Laws" of matter/energy are our description of matter/energy.
Matter/energy doesnt behave the way it does because of laws.

Really, why does it behave the way it does, all the time, universally?

 

[durangodawood]

Really, why does it behave the way it does, all the time, universally?

Because their behavior is a natural result of what they are.
If the electron was heavier, it would naturally act differently.
It isnt "obeying" anything.

 

[expos4ever]

They are descriptions of how matter behaves. They are not commands that tell matter how to behave. In that, they do not exist without matter.

I agree but I think the OP raises an implied question that cannot be satisfactorily answered by anyone. Let me try to illustrate.

As I understand things – and I could be mistaken – the spontaneous creation of matter, space, and time from nothing is consistent with quantum theory. However, I believe it would be a mistake to presume that this provides a satisfactory explanation of how the universe came to be. The problem is that the “existence” of the laws of quantum is still itself a mystery. Yes, I am aware that physical law is generally “descriptive” and not “prescriptive”. But do you not agree that to say “the creation of the universe from nothing is consistent with quantum theory” means there has to be at least a sense in which these laws manifest real “existence” and are hence not solely prescriptive?

I think this really all boils down to the fact (as I see it, anyway) that is literally impossible for human beings to imagine an uncaused event. What this cashes out to in the present context is that we cannot make sense of the universe coming into being without positing an antecedent cause. In other words, you have to assume the “existence” of the laws of quantum to make sense of the notion that the universe came into being in accordance with those laws.
And that presents an impossible to solve mystery – how can we explain the “existence” of the laws of quantum theory?
Of course, the believer in God is in the same boat. While s/he can say that God created the laws of quantum mechanics, the obvious problem of the origin of God is still there.

 

[Freodin]

Can you think of any way a triangle could be other than a triangle? Is a triangle a universal attribute? Can a triangle be something that it is not? If you answer no, then our description of a triangle doesn't effect the triangle, it would be a triangle whether or not we could describe it or not. It would hold the same existence whether or not we knew of triangles or not. We gain knowledge of the triangle but it is not a triangle because we describe it.

Any neither is a a triangle because a deity said that it should be a triangle.

Really, why does it behave the way it does, all the time, universally?

Because of what it is. As you said, a triangle would be a triangle whether or not we could describe it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because their behavior is a natural result of what they are.
If the electron was heavier, it would naturally act differently.
It isnt "obeying" anything.

How do you know it isn't "obeying anything"? If electrons are just a natural result of what they are how are they the way they are in relation to other parameters?

 

[Freodin]

I agree but I think the OP raises an implied question that cannot be satisfactorily answered by anyone. Let me try to illustrate.

As I understand things – and I could be mistaken – the spontaneous creation of matter, space, and time from nothing is consistent with quantum theory. However, I believe it would be a mistake to presume that this provides a satisfactory explanation of how the universe came to be. The problem is that the “existence” of the laws of quantum is still itself a mystery. Yes, I am aware that physical law is generally “descriptive” and not “prescriptive”. But do you not agree that to say “the creation of the universe from nothing is consistent with quantum theory” means there has to be at least a sense in which these laws manifest real “existence” and are hence not solely prescriptive?

I think this really all boils down to the fact (as I see it, anyway) that is literally impossible for human beings to imagine an uncaused event. What this cashes out to in the present context is that we cannot make sense of the universe coming into being without positing an antecedent cause. In other words, you have to assume the “existence” of the laws of quantum to make sense of the notion that the universe came into being in accordance with those laws.
And that presents an impossible to solve mystery – how can we explain the “existence” of the laws of quantum theory?
Of course, the believer in God is in the same boat. While s/he can say that God created the laws of quantum mechanics, the obvious problem of the origin of God is still there.

(First of all: in the last sentence of the first paragraph, did you mean to say "...and are hence not solely DEscriptive...". Prescriptive doesn't seem to make sense here. I just assume you made a mistake. )

And that presents an impossible to solve mystery – how can we explain the “existence” of the laws of quantum theory?

I see that as a philosophical problem, not necessarily a physical one. And I may be completely wrong here, but I think this here might provide a potential solution.

I don't accept the common concept of "nothingness". The ultimate emptiness, blankness... however you try to describe it, you fail. You always have to refer to "something" that is absent... and you just silently ignore that you just cannot get rid of the "absent from where or what" question.

How could we explain the "existence" of nothingness? If "nothingness" exists, wouldn't there be things to say about it? Attribute, conclusions... like the famous "something cannot come from nothing"? And if these "laws" about nothingness would exist... how could there be real nothingness?

So I came to conclude that the whole concept of "nothingness" is false. There is 'always' something.

And if there is "something", there is also a part of that "something" that we might call "behaviour"... or "laws". How these laws look like is irrelevant. They could be completely different from everything we know or assume or even can imagine. Personally, I think this is the case: the basic existence in general is completely different from everything we know or can know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Any neither is a a triangle because a deity said that it should be a triangle.

Because of what it is. As you said, a triangle would be a triangle whether or not we could describe it.

So it is not a description but a reality that exists due to the way the universe and its matter are made up.

 

[Oncedeceived]

(First of all: in the last sentence of the first paragraph, did you mean to say "...and are hence not solely DEscriptive...". Prescriptive doesn't seem to make sense here. I just assume you made a mistake. )


I see that as a philosophical problem, not necessarily a physical one. And I may be completely wrong here, but I think this here might provide a potential solution.

I don't accept the common concept of "nothingness". The ultimate emptiness, blankness... however you try to describe it, you fail. You always have to refer to "something" that is absent... and you just silently ignore that you just cannot get rid of the "absent from where or what" question.

How could we explain the "existence" of nothingness? If "nothingness" exists, wouldn't there be things to say about it? Attribute, conclusions... like the famous "something cannot come from nothing"? And if these "laws" about nothingness would exist... how could there be real nothingness?

So I came to conclude that the whole concept of "nothingness" is false. There is 'always' something.

And if there is "something", there is also a part of that "something" that we might call "behaviour"... or "laws". How these laws look like is irrelevant. They could be completely different from everything we know or assume or even can imagine. Personally, I think this is the case: the basic existence in general is completely different from everything we know or can know.

Yet, if we know the physical universe has not always exited and the universe is "everything" that something that was before the nothing had to be non-physical due to everything physical came into existence with the universe.

 

[Freodin]

How do you know it isn't "obeying anything"? If electrons are just a natural result of what they are how are they the way they are in relation to other parameters?

I think you are not going far enough with that reasoning.

If an electron would be different from what they are - what we observe - we would not identify it as "an electron". You might call a positron "an electron that doesn't follow the natural law that electrons have to have negative charge". You might call an orange "an electron that is too heavy, is split up into a lot of particles and has the completely wrong colour". Or you see it as something different.

But first: if there was anything that would have all the attributes that we observe in an electron... we would call it an electron. And if there wasn't... we wouldn't talk about electrons.

And second: if the attributes of an electron were by divine decree, they could indeed be arbitrary. There wouldn't be any relation - which would just be another "natural law" - for it to follow but this decree.

 

[Freodin]

So it is not a description but a reality that exists due to the way the universe and its matter are made up.

Not quite. Or rather: both. It is a description of reality.

Yet, if we know the physical universe has not always exited and the universe is "everything" that something that was before the nothing had to be non-physical due to everything physical came into existence with the universe.

And again: not quite. It depends on how narrow or how broad you define "physical". And how you define "non-physical". And if you accept theremight be room for something else.

 

[durangodawood]

How do you know it isn't "obeying anything"? If electrons are just a natural result of what they are how are they the way they are in relation to other parameters?

Good point. Maybe there is a sort of metaphysical "law" and electrons do obey it.

But my main point is there doesnt have to be such a law to explain reality.
And further: this "law" terminology is a hold-over from a time when it was simply assumed without question that there is a law-giver. I do not consider unquestioned assumptions a good starting point for a philosophical discussion.