Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

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.

The fact that an electron does indeed have attributes that are observed, they could be called by any other name and still be the element that behaves the way it behaves universally. The way it behaves has a cause, that cause makes it behave the way it does and makes it what it is. You can claim it is some unifying law that provides reason and cause to all the parameters, but they behave and are the way they need to be in our universe as it is. As it is has a reason or it would be totally chaotic and we wouldn't have reason to claim there are laws to begin with.

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.

Why would there be no relation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

You don't like unquestioned assumptions as a starting point but science itself could not be done if we didn't have unquestioned assumptions. Secondly, how do you know there doesn't have to be such a law to explain reality?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

The description of a rose is a description of reality. Yet the description does not make the rose in just the same way that the description of a law is not the law. The law exists whether or not we describe it.

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.

Semantics?

 

[durangodawood]

You don't like unquestioned assumptions as a starting point but science itself could not be done if we didn't have unquestioned assumptions. Secondly, how do you know there doesn't have to be such a law to explain reality?

1. We should minimize unquestioned assumptions.

2. If we can explain reality just as well without a particular assumption, we should disregard it. The idea of metaphysically existing natural laws doesnt add anything to our understanding of how matter/energy works. That idea may just as well be an extra layer of meaning that we overlay onto the behavior of matter/energy.

(I'm fine with natural laws and a law-giver as matters of faith.)

 

[Freodin]

The fact that an electron does indeed have attributes that are observed, they could be called by any other name and still be the element that behaves the way it behaves universally.

Agreed. That's basically what I said. And the further conclusion: anything that would have exactly these attributes would be called "an electron".

The way it behaves has a cause, that cause makes it behave the way it does and makes it what it is. You can claim it is some unifying law that provides reason and cause to all the parameters, but they behave and are the way they need to be in our universe as it is.

For the third time: not quite.
It doesn't "need" to be in this way for our universe to be as it is... that is, I would say, backward reasoning. They "make" the universe to be as it is.
The "need" would indeed imply a metaphysical "law" or "blueprint" or "ideas" of what a universe would have to look like.

As it is has a reason or it would be totally chaotic and we wouldn't have reason to claim there are laws to begin with.

That would be a "law", wouldn't it? "Behave totally chaotically!"
But I don't think that would be a problem at all. Order is just a subset of chaos.

Why would there be no relation?

Ok, I have to phrase that differently: there wouldn't need to be any relations. If laws can be arbitrary - can be decreed by fiat alone, without the need for reference to something "real", relations are unnecessary. Cars can drive on the left side or on the right side. And they do. There is no necessary relation between "right side" and "drive here!".
Things like the sum of angles in a triangle on the other hand... they are in a necessary relation. If you have a closed plane polygon with three sides, you will have three angles, and these angles will come to pi radians. Always. Anything else is impossible. There is no leeway for divine fiat.

 

[Freodin]

The description of a rose is a description of reality. Yet the description does not make the rose in just the same way that the description of a law is not the law. The law exists whether or not we describe it.


Semantics?

Both are based on the limits of language... and human imagination.

 

[Loudmouth]

The laws themselves are not physical, we cannot touch them (hence metaphysical); they govern how matter behaves in the universe.

You have this the wrong way 'round. The words we write in physics papers and textbooks do not force nature to behave a certain way. Another way of saying this is that the map is not the territory. If the map and the terrain say different things, we throw out the map.

Our descriptions of reality are just that, our imperfect descriptions. Reality is not forced to follow those laws just because we write them down. In fact, Mercury was quite famous for refusing to follow Newton's Laws of Gravity. If planets refuse to follow laws, does that mean that the Universe had a non-theistic origin?

"A fundamental rule of nature that cannot be broken." Yes, thank you. So, that is my question. How did that come to be from "nothingness"; from un-directed, purely materialistic, and natural processes which supposedly brought our universe into existence?

It seems that you have based your conclusions on a completely unsupported premise, that non-theistic processes would necessarily result in a universe without consistent or rational physical interactions. I think you need to support this premise before we can discuss your conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. We should minimize unquestioned assumptions.

2. If we can explain reality just as well without a particular assumption, we should disregard it. The idea of metaphysically existing natural laws doesnt add anything to our understanding of how matter/energy works. That idea may just as well be an extra layer of meaning that we overlay onto the behavior of matter/energy.

So minimize those that you particularly don't like? I think it is obvious that an understanding of the laws of matter and energy do indeed add much to our knowledge of the universe and how it works.

(I'm fine with natural laws and a law-giver as matters of faith.)

Natural laws are a reality, so I'm glad you are fine with them as your feelings have nothing to do with them. A law-giver is a matter of what one's worldview influences them to believe. It is a reasonable and rational notion to attribute laws to a law giver if that causes a problem for those who have a purely naturalistic worldview, which I find as much resting in faith as the theistic view is to you.

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

Isn't a "process" also something that we cannot touch, and therefore "metaphysical"?

The gist of it: if there is "something" - even undirected, purely materialistic and natural processes - it has to be and behave in "some way". You cannot have one without the other.

Thus my question (the one I asked in the post you quoted and didn't answer ): "what was the sum of angles in a plane triangle before that rule existed?"
Or to generalize: how did anything behave before it was commanded how to behave?

If you consider this question, and recognize that its premise is nonsensical, you will start to understand our position.


What you can of course ask is the question for the origin of anything - how did that come to be from "nothingness"? (which is something different from un-directed, purely materialistic, and natural processes).

My general answer: I don't know.
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.

Materialism which by its very nature is finite and limited is always assumed to be the "pre-existing reality" by Materialists. But it is the Laws of Nature that rule over the material NOT vice-versa. The ruling laws came before the actual material subservient to them. Lets be specific about these laws- for example the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Material of the physical world we observe with our five senses cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form-1st Law. 2nd Law-Entropy; the material can only change from higher degrees of order to lower degrees or states of order-this is the degradation and decay built into the material, making it finite. Materialism says that anything beyond the material of the physical world is "nothingness," the spirit world does not exist for them... so there is no "infinite" world or reality for Materialists because they deny everything beyond what their 5 senses can tell them. As an example, they only acknowledge the light of the visible spectrum because they can't see the UV, X-rays, Gamma Ray aspects etc. of the light spectrum. You can't explain the meta-physical world to those who refuse to admit the possibility that it exists. If we are right we have lost nothing in this world and gained everything in the next.

 

[Freodin]

Materialism which by its very nature is finite and limited is always assumed to be the "pre-existing reality" by Materialists. But it is the Laws of Nature that rule over the material NOT vice-versa. The ruling laws came before the actual material subservient to them. Lets be specific about these laws- for example the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Material of the physical world we observe with our five senses cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form-1st Law. 2nd Law-Entropy; the material can only change from higher degrees of order to lower degrees or states of order-this is the degradation and decay built into the material, making it finite. Materialism says that anything beyond the material of the physical world is "nothingness," the spirit world does not exist for them... so there is no "infinite" world or reality for Materialists because they deny everything beyond what their 5 senses can tell them. As an example, they only acknowledge the light of the visible spectrum because they can't see the UV, X-rays, Gamma Ray aspects etc. of the light spectrum. You can't explain the meta-physical world to those who refuse to admit the possibility that it exists. If we are right we have lost nothing in this world and gained everything in the next.

You didn't read anything that was written here, did you?

Just look at your post! All the things that you claim "materialists" do and say and acknowledge... and nothing of it fits the actions and words of real "materialists".

Sorry, but I don't debate strawmen. Perhaps you will gain a little understanding in the next world, but in this world you have just lost someone to talk to.

 

[durangodawood]

So minimize those that you particularly don't like? I think it is obvious that an understanding of the laws of matter and energy do indeed add much to our knowledge of the universe and how it works.

Natural laws are a reality, so I'm glad you are fine with them as your feelings have nothing to do with them. A law-giver is a matter of what one's worldview influences them to believe. It is a reasonable and rational notion to attribute laws to a law giver if that causes a problem for those who have a purely naturalistic worldview, which I find as much resting in faith as the theistic view is to you.

We dont know that.
For all we know, natural laws are an explanatory overlay we humans place over reality. They may "exist" in some way. Or they may not. Either way, the electron will behave just the same.

There is nothing to indicate that these "laws" must exist as laws, here or anywhere.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We dont know that.
For all we know, natural laws are an explanatory overlay we humans place over reality. They may "exist" in some way. Or they may not. Either way, the electron will behave just the same.

You are by saying that the electron will behave just the same whether or not we explain them as such confirms that they do have behavior that is absolute, universal and inherent in their nature.

There is nothing to indicate that these "laws" must exist as laws, here or anywhere.

So you don't like the word law? If something is absolute, inherent and universal and behaves the way that something must it is a natural law.

natural law
n.
A body of principles that are considered to be inherent in nature and have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong, often contrasted with positive law.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Both are based on the limits of language... and human imagination.

Both are subjected or filtered through those but the rose remains what it is regardless.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Agreed. That's basically what I said. And the further conclusion: anything that would have exactly these attributes would be called "an electron".

So we agree on what an electron is, what it behaves like and that if it did anything other than what we know electrons to do it would no longer be an electron. Which means the behavior of an electron is to act or behave in the way it has to behave to be one.

For the third time: not quite.
It doesn't "need" to be in this way for our universe to be as it is... that is, I would say, backward reasoning. They "make" the universe to be as it is.
The "need" would indeed imply a metaphysical "law" or "blueprint" or "ideas" of what a universe would have to look like.

Yet, it may very well be a "law" or "blueprint" or "ideas" of what this universe would have to look like to be in existence.

That would be a "law", wouldn't it? "Behave totally chaotically!"
But I don't think that would be a problem at all. Order is just a subset of chaos.

Ok, I have to phrase that differently: there wouldn't need to be any relations. If laws can be arbitrary - can be decreed by fiat alone, without the need for reference to something "real", relations are unnecessary. Cars can drive on the left side or on the right side. And they do. There is no necessary relation between "right side" and "drive here!".
Things like the sum of angles in a triangle on the other hand... they are in a necessary relation. If you have a closed plane polygon with three sides, you will have three angles, and these angles will come to pi radians. Always. Anything else is impossible. There is no leeway for divine fiat.

Why does design of our universe by a Divine Being make anything arbitrary?

 

[Freodin]

Both are subjected or filtered through those but the rose remains what it is regardless.

Does it? Isn't "the rose" already an abstraction that is limited by language?

 

[Freodin]

Yet, it may very well be a "law" or "blueprint" or "ideas" of what this universe would have to look like to be in existence.

Where would that come from?

If you consider the previous conversation about roses or electrons, you might see that the only "perfect" description of a thing is the thing itself. The blueprint or law or idea to perfectly describe a rose or an electron must be exactly as complex as the rose or electron itself... and so it would have to be for the universe.

So if the universe was created according to such an "idea"... where did that idea come from?

Why does design of our universe by a Divine Being make anything arbitrary?

Because this divine being cannot do things by referring to other things that already exist. It is said to be the source of everything. That makes any of its designs arbitrary by default.

 

[Loudmouth]

Materialism which by its very nature is finite and limited is always assumed to be the "pre-existing reality" by Materialists. But it is the Laws of Nature that rule over the material NOT vice-versa.

Then how was Mercury able to have an orbit that violated the Laws of Gravity?

2nd Law-Entropy; the material can only change from higher degrees of order to lower degrees or states of order-this is the degradation and decay built into the material, making it finite.

If that were so, then refrigerators would not work. Obviously, things can go from disorder to order.

This is what I mean. We can make any law we want. Nature is not required to follow those laws.

Materialism says that anything beyond the material of the physical world is "nothingness,"

It does? Where does it say that?

the spirit world does not exist for them...

I have yet to find evidence that it exists for anyone.

As an example, they only acknowledge the light of the visible spectrum because they can't see the UV, X-rays, Gamma Ray aspects etc. of the light spectrum.

They do? Have any references to back this up?

You can't explain the meta-physical world to those who refuse to admit the possibility that it exists.

We are more interested in what really exists, not in what you can imagine.

 

[durangodawood]

You are by saying that the electron will behave just the same whether or not we explain them as such confirms that they do have behavior that is absolute, universal and inherent in their nature.

So you don't like the word law? If something is absolute, inherent and universal and behaves the way that something must it is a natural law.

natural law
n.
A body of principles that are considered to be inherent in nature and have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong, often contrasted with positive law.

I apologize for using the term "natural law", which is more commonly used to describe ethical principles - per your definition, instead of scientific or physical law, which is what we're really discussing.

Wikipedia says:
A physical law or scientific law "is a theoretical statement inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

Dictionary.com says:
scientific law noun. a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

Before I comment, let me ask:
Do these definitions sound reasonable to you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does it? Isn't "the rose" already an abstraction that is limited by language?

How so?

 

[expos4ever]

(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. )

Yes, my mistake; I meant "Descriptive".

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......

I will have to get back to you re the rest of your post.