Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Freodin]

How so?

(Ok, linking pics didn't work for some reason.)
Just look up two pics of roses on wikipedia.

Obviously, the first rose doesn't have exactly the same attributes that the second one has. They share some attributes, and by these attributes we humans use our imagination to categorize them and our language to name them.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

I completely agree - the term "law" is deeply misleading when used as in "the laws of nature".

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

This is what I provided in an earlier post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?


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.

Where does a material universe come from?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I completely agree - the term "law" is deeply misleading when used as in "the laws of nature".

Why and how?

 

[durangodawood]

This is what I provided in an earlier post.

Excellent. I take it you approve, then.

So, those definitions basically offer 2 meanings for physical law:
1. "statements" we can make about how things behave.
2. "a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur....."

My comments:
1. Statements we make is just us humans in action. Its something we do, and not any big metaphysical other thing.
2. "a phenomenon of nature" is just nature in action. It also is not any big metaphysical other thing.

I'm not finding the metaphysical law in either of these. Where is it?

 

[Freodin]

Where does a material universe come from?

Oh come on, dear!
Responding to a question with a counterquestion without attempting to answer the original question is rather impolite, don't you think?

What I tried to do in my post was to show the differences between "design as done in our universe" and "design without a universe", and the problems and conclusions that would arise from these differences for a theistic model. The question was meant to get you to realize that there is something to be answered.

If you just want to play "shift the blame", I think you will find better partners than me.

So, to answer your question: I don't know. I can see a basic potential way though. Chaos can provide the basis for potential order, of whatever magnitude. And complex structures can arise from simple foundations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Excellent. I take it you approve, then.

So, those definitions basically offer 2 meanings for physical law:
1. "statements" we can make about how things behave.
2. "a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur....."

My comments:
1. Statements we make is just us humans in action. Its something we do, and not any big metaphysical other thing.
2. "a phenomenon of nature" is just nature in action. It also is not any big metaphysical other thing.

I'm not finding the metaphysical law in either of these. Where is it?

I don't see a metaphysical law, either.

What I see are idealized models built by humans to approximate what they see in nature. They are descriptive, not prescriptive as in the case of axioms. If we find reality "violating" one of those laws, then we throw out the law.

The only metaphysical axiom I really see is that nature operates in a rational and consistent manner through space and time.

 

[expos4ever]

Why and how?

The problem is the term "law" implies either:

1. That there is some "agent" (such as God) who has established a set of prescriptive rules that govern the universe; or
2. That, even in the absence of such an agent, there are such rules.

This is really about "what comes first" the theory or the observation. When scientists develop what we often, and misleadingly I suggest, call the "laws of nature", they are really only describing the universe - they make observations and create a model that successfully predicts how the universe behaves. They are not, repeat not, making the philosophical / religious commitment that this model consists of "rules" that the universe is somehow forced to follow.

I think what I just wrote is probably quite confusing so I think an example better illustrates this distinction: Suppose I observe that all objects, no matter how heavy or what shape, accelerate under the force of gravity at the same rate in a vacuum. This is an observation of how the universe behaves. I might then describe the universe with a statement of the form "All objects accelerate under the force of gravity at the same rate of 9.8 meters per second per second". This is a descriptive statement only. But if I call it a "law", this clearly implies that I am saying that there is a sense in which objects have to all accelerate at a rate of 9.8 under gravity in a vacuum.

That is a "philosophical" or "religious" - or more generally non-scientific - speculation: there is nothing at all in the conduct of the experiments themselves that justifies such a conclusion. Yes, I may have arguments that such regularity in the universe implies the existence of a God, but the point is that these reasons would have to be reasons other than the mere observation and subsequent descriptive characterization of regularity in nature.

The so-called "laws" of nature are really just descriptions of nature. It would be far more accurate to use a phrase like "mathematical models that successfully characterize regularities in nature" instead of "laws of nature". But, for historical reasons, we are stuck with the deeply misleading term "laws of nature".

 

[quatona]

there are no married bachelors.

...but there could be if God had created the natural laws differently?

 

[quatona]

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

Is a rose the way it is because there´s a law by which a lawgiver has edicted how a rose must be?

 

[Jfrsmth]

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 that response would fall within the boundaries of my OP . . . how then could these natural laws / laws of physics / etc. arise from nothing? Your response begins from "something".

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that response would fall within the boundaries of my OP . . . how then could these natural laws / laws of physics / etc. arise from nothing?

We don't know. We don't know if it requires something, or if it can arise from nothing.

The problem is that you are claiming that certain things CAN'T happen, and you have zero evidence to back it up.

 

[durangodawood]

The problem is the term "law" implies either:

1. That there is some "agent" (such as God) who has established a set of prescriptive rules that govern the universe; or
2. That, even in the absence of such an agent, there are such rules.

This is really about "what comes first" the theory or the observation. When scientists develop what we often, and misleadingly I suggest, call the "laws of nature", they are really only describing the universe - they make observations and create a model that successfully predicts how the universe behaves. They are not, repeat not, making the philosophical / religious commitment that this model consists of "rules" that the universe is somehow forced to follow.

I think what I just wrote is probably quite confusing so I think an example better illustrates this distinction: Suppose I observe that all objects, no matter how heavy or what shape, accelerate under the force of gravity at the same rate in a vacuum. This is an observation of how the universe behaves. I might then describe the universe with a statement of the form "All objects accelerate under the force of gravity at the same rate of 9.8 meters per second per second". This is a descriptive statement only. But if I call it a "law", this clearly implies that I am saying that there is a sense in which objects have to all accelerate at a rate of 9.8 under gravity in a vacuum.

That is a "philosophical" or "religious" - or more generally non-scientific - speculation: there is nothing at all in the conduct of the experiments themselves that justifies such a conclusion. Yes, I may have arguments that such regularity in the universe implies the existence of a God, but the point is that these reasons would have to be reasons other than the mere observation and subsequent descriptive characterization of regularity in nature.

The so-called "laws" of nature are really just descriptions of nature. It would be far more accurate to use a phrase like "mathematical models that successfully characterize regularities in nature" instead of "laws of nature". But, for historical reasons, we are stuck with the deeply misleading term "laws of nature".

So we have our models, which are not laws of nature, but are simply our best effort to date of describing nature.
But,
Do you think that there actually are, as you put it: "a set of prescriptive rules that govern the universe" (whether devised by God or not)?

 

[Jfrsmth]

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.

Could you elaborate more on Euclidean geometry and the Pythagorean Theorem?

But, it seems you are starting from "something," instead of "nothing", which is what I am curious about; from purely naturalistic and materialistic processes.

 

[Jfrsmth]

We don't know. We don't know if it requires something, or if it can arise from nothing.

The problem is that you are claiming that certain things CAN'T happen, and you have zero evidence to back it up.

Please quote me saying things "CAN'T" happen.

 

[redblue22]

...but there could be if God had created the natural laws differently?

umm, no. there are no married bachelors in any alternate reality. God cannot create married bachelors.

 

[quatona]

umm, no. there are no married bachelors in any alternate reality. God cannot create married bachelors.

Thanks.
So we have found at least one law that doesn´t require a lawgiver.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I came back to answer your question and respond again:

Where would that come from?

It would require something to come from, that something to the theist is God; what would it be from the non-theist (you)?

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.

You don't think God is complex enough?

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

For the theist God; for the non-theist it is dismissed.

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.

Arbitrary means no reason but that doesn't fit with Christianity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

(Ok, linking pics didn't work for some reason.)
Just look up two pics of roses on wikipedia.

Obviously, the first rose doesn't have exactly the same attributes that the second one has. They share some attributes, and by these attributes we humans use our imagination to categorize them and our language to name them.

I agree but that isn't the same as an electron that has no such differences.