Where did the laws of nature come from?

[[serious]]

While I'm not totally convinced, I see no reason why schools shouldn't be forced to teach the controversy.

I have a theory little demons just quickly attach invisible rubber bands to everything we throw in the air. Do I get equal time too?

 

[[serious]]

It would. The natural laws determine the stability of atomic nuclei. Without those laws, nuclei would spontaneously decay, or spontaneously fuse, with unknown energies.

Even that doesn't work. It assumes that the weak force is still functioning, right? Even the concept of things happening doesn't work since it assumes principles of causation.

 

[durangodawood]

Even that doesn't work. It assumes that the weak force is still functioning, right? Even the concept of things happening doesn't work since it assumes principles of causation.

I'm skeptical that there are "principles" in addition to, or before, or apart from, the things these principles describe.
---
I think these principles might just be us projecting our model-making back onto the universe.

 

[Jfrsmth]

In a heavy rain birds, planes, & insects are all directed downward
toward the lowest point allowed by earth. Wind can direct all things upward.
No intelligence is implied.

Without doing much research on that comment, I should think that they are following some natural law.(?)

 

[Jfrsmth]

Are you saying that natural processes could produce physical laws?

I'm of the mind that natural processes could not produce natural laws that we find in the universe. They are patterns of behavior for matter in the universe. So, I started this thread in order to hear the arguments against it.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Not unless you think gravity is intelligent.

That did not answer my question.

 

[Jfrsmth]

But natural laws aren't random, so I don't see the connection.

I agree. So, my point: how could random (mindless), materialistic processes produce the natural laws we find in the universe. Is that a plausible argument to say that natural laws are the result of materialistic processes?

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting said: ↑
In a heavy rain birds, planes, & insects are all directed downward
toward the lowest point allowed by earth. Wind can direct all things upward.
No intelligence is implied.

Without doing much research on that comment, I should think that they are following some natural law.(?)

So when it comes to the formation of life, the reason it persists
and the reason it strives to reproduce, adapt, and survive, I'd
would like to know what natural force is responsible for that.

 

[SkyWriting]

I agree. So, my point: how could random (mindless), materialistic processes produce the natural laws we find in the universe. Is that a plausible argument to say that natural laws are the result of materialistic processes?

That is plausible.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have a theory little demons just quickly attach invisible rubber bands to everything we throw in the air. Do I get equal time too?

I think I've read that one before. It's somewhat close to string theory.
The Rubber Band (Dark Energy) Theory of the Universe -

 

[KCfromNC]

I have a theory little demons just quickly attach invisible rubber bands to everything we throw in the air. Do I get equal time too?

Sure. Everyone's invited!

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree. So, my point: how could random (mindless)

These two words don't mean the same thing. Which do you mean - random or mindless?

 

[KCfromNC]

That did not answer my question.

It should have. Gravity directs things, gravity isn't intelligent, therefore the answer to your question is no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you know they meant something different? How did you gain that understanding?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who said it did. I was just pointing out that gravity directs the paths of objects without anyone claiming that there's intelligence involved. Or are you advocating for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling here?

Gravity is part of the laws we are referring to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you know they meant something different? How did you gain that understanding?

This site claims that this is a quote of my post, but I do not see what post you are responding to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If the stuff remained, wouldn't that be natural laws like the strong force continuing to function?

I mean if the laws went away but the stuff remained.

The stuff is what it is because of the laws. Matter, energy, space and even time are all part of the laws of which we speak. If for instance if matter was even one grain of sand heavier or lighter the universe on one hand would not exist and on the other we wouldn't. The same holds for gravity, if gravity's pull was even the slightest bit different "stuff" wouldn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This site claims that this is a quote of my post, but I do not see what post you are responding to.

The post where you claimed I posted an erroneous comparison of how the Old Testament used the Name Father for God and how Christians do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The post where you claimed I posted an erroneous comparison of how the Old Testament used the Name Father for God and how Christians do.

The error was on your part because you used a phrase that could have more than one meaning. You assumed that it meant the same for Jews as it does for Christians without any supporting evidence. That is an equivocation error. Do you understand your error yet?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm of the mind that natural processes could not produce natural laws that we find in the universe.

What led you to that conclusion?

They are patterns of behavior for matter in the universe. So, I started this thread in order to hear the arguments against it.

The biggest argument against your claims is that you haven't supported them with evidence.