Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

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

Possibly. I don't know. However, an electron does have to behave in a certain way universally all the time everywhere.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

I apologize, I sure didn't intend to be impolite. I went back and answered.

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.

Ok.

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

Did I blame you for anything? I wasn't aware.

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.

Yet we know that order to chaos is the natural way rather than chaos to order.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

First of all, you seem to be confusing Natural laws with scientific laws. Natural laws exist whether or not humans can observe or describe them.

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.

You are forgetting that there are however laws that do have to be what they are for the universe to exist.

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".

They are not just descriptions of nature but actual numerical and behavior of elements that have to be what they are for the universe to exist as we know it.

 

[[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.

any issues with these explanations? they kind of got skipped in the discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

any issues with these explanations? they kind of got skipped in the discussion.

I responded.

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.

 

[[serious]]

I responded.

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?

Not sure what you mean. When did natural laws not exist?

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.

Not a response to what I wrote. When time began is irrelevant to something that does not exist within time.

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.

The whole discussion is adding something extra. For the knowable duration of the universe, there have been natural laws that things appear to follow. Trying to assign an origin to them is something extra. Trying to assign a diety in addition to that is two things extra.

 

[quatona]

Possibly. I don't know.

...but what we do know is: "Rose" is a human classification.
However, an electron does have to behave in a certain way universally all the time everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Because a lawgiver told it so?

 

[Freodin]

I came back to answer your question and respond again:

Thank you! I know I could rely on you.

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

"Something", in both a general and a special way.
"Something" in general, because non-theists will most likely admit that they don't have the data to make further statements about it.
"Something" especially for me, because I do not think that it is even possible to make any statements about that. I like to call it "primal chaos", but that is just a name for a very weird concept.

You don't think God is complex enough?

Not quantitatively, qualitatively. As I said, the only perfect description/idea of a thing is the thing itself. Pantheism would be the only theistic belief to fit here... and not many Christians are pantheists.

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

For the reasons I explained above and in earlier posts.

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

"Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction;contingent solely upon one's discretion." That's what I got from dictionary.com - and that's how I used this term.
No human design or "creation" can be arbitrary in that sense... we are always subjected to the reality of the existing world. In fact, human design and creation relies on that contingency... we do not need "perfect" descriptions or ideas. We can submit a basic frame, and reality takes care of all the detail work.
For divine design or creation, this framework of existing reality does not exist.

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

Oh, but it does! It must! Else there would be only one electron at all. You are just looking at the wrong differences.

Yet we know that order to chaos is the natural way rather than chaos to order.

That is not quite correct. Too simplistic, and that is what leads you astray here.
First of all, entropy - the concept that is referred to when talking about "order" and "chaos" is discussions like that - isn't a measurement of disorder. It is quite different, and a lot more complicated than that.
Second, this is not what we know is the natural way. Even if we use this (incorrect) description of "order to chaos", we see opposite effects in nature. Someone else said it here in the thread: fridges wouldn't work if order to chaos was all there was. Why, we wouldn't work if that was all there was to "the natural way".
Third, I am referring to a mathematical concept of chaos / randomness and order here. Stochastically you can show that in every set that is truly random / chaotic, there must be subsets that are ordered. The question left is the size of the initial set.
And if we start of with an infinite set, it is a mathematical given that there exist subsets of the size of the universe.

 

[Willis Gravning]

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?

There was a book entitled 'The Vital Vastness' that I kind of liked. It suggested that life is the primary physical law which governs all others. I kind of take this to mean that the universe is something of a living thing. I like this because it seems to answer the fine tuning question as well.

 

[Jfrsmth]

There was a book entitled 'The Vital Vastness' that I kind of liked. It suggested that life is the primary physical law which governs all others. I kind of take this to mean that the universe is something of a living thing. I like this because it seems to answer the fine tuning question as well.

Care to share more as it relates to the OP?

 

[Willis Gravning]

Care to share more as it relates to the OP?

Well I guess it in some way opposes the idea that the laws of nature are random materialistic processes. That nature is not chaotic but symphonic. I don't know this with certainty but to me seems to have a ring of truth.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

Actually, I don't see that mathematics is very relevant to the main topic. But Euclidean geometry depends entirely on the 5 axioms that Euclid chose to use. Based on those axioms/assumptions, the Pythagorean Theorem follows inevitably.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Well I guess it in some way opposes the idea that the laws of nature are random materialistic processes. That nature is not chaotic but symphonic. I don't know this with certainty but to me seems to have a ring of truth.

Oh, I see. So, it seems to support an orderly universe. Thanks for sharing.

 

[[serious]]

One interesting thought is taking this train of logic a step further. If we assume that the way things are (as described by natural laws) must have been set by some entity, then likewise the way that enforcing entity is must in turn be set by something. Unless we accept that some things just are, we end up with an infinite regression of causes. If we accept that something can simply be as it is, we can accept that the natural laws just are as they are without a causer.

 

[Willis Gravning]

One interesting thought is taking this train of logic a step further. If we assume that the way things are (as described by natural laws) must have been set by some entity, then likewise the way that enforcing entity is must in turn be set by something. Unless we accept that some things just are, we end up with an infinite regression of causes. If we accept that something can simply be as it is, we can accept that the natural laws just are as they are without a causer.

.
We don't necessarily end up with an infinite regression. Perhaps it comes to something profoundly simple...best described by the number 1. Singularity, Grand Unity, The One.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not sure what you mean. When did natural laws not exist?

Matter, energy, space and time came into existence right after the big bang. If they came into existence they didn't exist before they existed.

Not a response to what I wrote. When time began is irrelevant to something that does not exist within time.

See above.

The whole discussion is adding something extra. For the knowable duration of the universe, there have been natural laws that things appear to follow. Trying to assign an origin to them is something extra. Trying to assign a diety in addition to that is two things extra.

That is adding something extra, they came into existence shortly after the big bang, thus, they didn't exist until they came into existence. Nothing really was nothing because those laws of physics didn't exist until the time they existed...along with matter, energy, space and time.

We don't add God willy nilly. We know God exists, thus we know that what is said in the Bible about God creating the universe is true. In fact, it is more logical to come to that conclusion from all the evidence in our lives and in the universe itself than to simple shrug our shoulders and say it is because it is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One interesting thought is taking this train of logic a step further. If we assume that the way things are (as described by natural laws) must have been set by some entity, then likewise the way that enforcing entity is must in turn be set by something. Unless we accept that some things just are, we end up with an infinite regression of causes. If we accept that something can simply be as it is, we can accept that the natural laws just are as they are without a causer.

God is the first Cause.

 

[quatona]

Matter, energy, space and time came into existence right after the big bang. If they came into existence they didn't exist before they existed.

I´m always amazed how easily the phrase "before time" rolls off some people´s tongues.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank you! I know I could rely on you.


"Something", in both a general and a special way.
"Something" in general, because non-theists will most likely admit that they don't have the data to make further statements about it.
"Something" especially for me, because I do not think that it is even possible to make any statements about that. I like to call it "primal chaos", but that is just a name for a very weird concept.


Not quantitatively, qualitatively. As I said, the only perfect description/idea of a thing is the thing itself. Pantheism would be the only theistic belief to fit here... and not many Christians are pantheists.


For the reasons I explained above and in earlier posts.


"Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction;contingent solely upon one's discretion." That's what I got from dictionary.com - and that's how I used this term.
No human design or "creation" can be arbitrary in that sense... we are always subjected to the reality of the existing world. In fact, human design and creation relies on that contingency... we do not need "perfect" descriptions or ideas. We can submit a basic frame, and reality takes care of all the detail work.
For divine design or creation, this framework of existing reality does not exist.


Oh, but it does! It must! Else there would be only one electron at all. You are just looking at the wrong differences.

That is not quite correct. Too simplistic, and that is what leads you astray here.
First of all, entropy - the concept that is referred to when talking about "order" and "chaos" is discussions like that - isn't a measurement of disorder. It is quite different, and a lot more complicated than that.
Second, this is not what we know is the natural way. Even if we use this (incorrect) description of "order to chaos", we see opposite effects in nature. Someone else said it here in the thread: fridges wouldn't work if order to chaos was all there was. Why, we wouldn't work if that was all there was to "the natural way".
Third, I am referring to a mathematical concept of chaos / randomness and order here. Stochastically you can show that in every set that is truly random / chaotic, there must be subsets that are ordered. The question left is the size of the initial set.
And if we start of with an infinite set, it is a mathematical given that there exist subsets of the size of the universe.

I want to spend some time on this and right now that time is not available. Be back to respond to this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I´m always amazed how easily the phrase "before time" rolls off some people´s tongues.

What? You do realize that as we have looked back to the earliest moments of our universe that it has been shown that there was no matter, energy, space or time...right?