Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

I have no problem with the idea that matter behaves consistently,
nor that we can discover that behavior,
nor that we can conveniently call it "law".

But there's no evidence at all for the "law" existing in some physical or metaphysical sense. "Law" is simply the behavior of matter/energy codified by us. Its the way we talk about matter and energy. There's no justification for projecting our model-making habits back onto the universe.

Does our model making habits bring about gravity and the way it behaves?

 

[durangodawood]

Does our model making habits bring about gravity and the way it behaves?

No.
Our models dont make reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

Does our description of them alter in any way the way they work?

Generally,no. I'd imagine there are exceptions in cases where we're talking about psychology or neuroscience, maybe.

If we were not here to observe and describe them, would that mean they didn't exist?

The laws wouldn't. The behavior they describe would, minus again the ones that talk about humans.

No more circular than to claim that the natural laws behave the way they behave because we observe them behaving that way.

Is anyone saying that? Why bring it up rather than just address the content of what I posted?

 

[KCfromNC]

If we could validate a model which shows how these values come about and a probability for their values we would not be having this discussion. However, we are at a stand still at the moment as there has not been a theory of everything that provides that model.

Fair enough. Given that situation some of us are content to say that we don't know. Others seem to want to claim it provides evidence for their particular religion. I'm not all that impressed with the latter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No.
Our models dont make reality.

You would then say that the way all the universe behaves in certain ways universally, consistently and do not depend on our models or descriptions that they are obeying or behaving in accordance with the ordinances that govern them?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fair enough. Given that situation some of us are content to say that we don't know. Others seem to want to claim it provides evidence for their particular religion. I'm not all that impressed with the latter.

You are free to be satisfied with I don't know, but that doesn't mean that what Christians claim is untrue. Having laws that govern the universe is completely consistent within the Christian worldview and explains the universe having these laws in a logical way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Generally,no. I'd imagine there are exceptions in cases where we're talking about psychology or neuroscience, maybe.

The chemistry laws are well documented as well in psychology and neuroscience, I don't know what exceptions those would entail.

The laws wouldn't. The behavior they describe would, minus again the ones that talk about humans.

The behavior is what happens when there is a law that governs how the subject behaves.

Is anyone saying that? Why bring it up rather than just address the content of what I posted?

That is not what you are saying?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No.
Our models dont make reality.

Exactly.

 

[durangodawood]

Exactly.

The "laws" are our models.

 

[durangodawood]

You would then say that the way all the universe behaves in certain ways universally, consistently and do not depend on our models or descriptions that they are obeying or behaving in accordance with the ordinances that govern them?

Is that exactly what you intended to write?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The "laws" are our models.

No, our models explain or describe them. The reality are the laws and we discover, observe and describe them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that exactly what you intended to write?

Would you say then, the universe behaves in certain ways universally, consistently and do not depend on our models or descriptions and are obeying or behaving in accordance with the ordinances that govern them?

Sorry was muddled.

 

[durangodawood]

Would you say then, the universe behaves in certain ways universally, consistently and do not depend on our models or descriptions and are obeying or behaving in accordance with the ordinances that govern them?

Sorry was muddled.

Yes, i would say that.
But its wrong to say we know there are "laws" that have any kind of existence of their own.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, i would say that.
But its wrong to say we know there are "laws" that have any kind of existence of their own.

Really? What kind of existence do they have?

 

[durangodawood]

Really? What kind of existence do they have?

Their only existence that we know of are as descriptions of reality that we make.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Their only existence that we know of are as descriptions of reality that we make.

We don't know gravity except for the descriptions of it? Whether or not we can describe it, we can jump off a 3 story building and we will fall according to free falling at 9.8 m/s/s. No matter the weight, size or distance of the object falling we will always have this set free falling result. Now if we could not describe it, (we didn't have the ability to mathematically describe it) it would still be the reality...the law of gravity.

 

[durangodawood]

We don't know gravity except for the descriptions of it? Whether or not we can describe it, we can jump off a 3 story building and we will fall according to free falling at 9.8 m/s/s. No matter the weight, size or distance of the object falling we will always have this set free falling result. Now if we could not describe it, (we didn't have the ability to mathematically describe it) it would still be the reality...the law of gravity.

Not necessarily.
Gravity would still be a good description for how matter behaves.
We would still go splat.
But there's no "law" that exists, as far as we know.

We might be talking at cross purposes.
I do agree that matter behaves predictably (with certain exceptions).
I do agree that we can describe this behavior in terms we call "laws"

I do NOT agree that "laws" necessarily have any existence of their own (except as models made by us).
And no one can show us that they do.

 

[Freodin]

Touche'. This is where worldview has much to do with how we look at the universal laws that matter, energy, space and time obey or are governed by. I find it much more consistent to conclude that the laws which are non-physical dictates working on physical elements are products of a Logical, mathematical mind of God opposed to the view that no such mind exists and the laws either are just descriptions of observations (which they are, but would be there whether we observe them or not).

That is what we (our side) tried to explain to you (your side) all over the thread: it does make absolutely no sense to see "laws" independently from "objects" in regard to natural laws.

The valid problem that you simple refuse to adress: if a "natural law" is something that "dictates" how physical elements work... then what does a physical element do without that law?

The distinction that you try to focus on - the "physical" and the "material" and the "mind"... these are just human made up categories here.

There are "objects", which we can observe and these observations can abstracted as "natural laws".

It is all these observations, all these combined, that make a "physical object". All the observations that you might not connect to a "single" physical object are in fact only observations of a greater physical object... up to "the universe".

You just cannot seperate a "physical object" from the "non-physical laws".

I just don't agree that it solves that question.

If fear it is just that you don't understand how it solves the question.

Even if an object is "identical" to another object, it isn't the same object. You agreed to that.
An object that can be distinguished from from another object - say, by calling one the "ide in God's mind" and the other "the realization of that idea" means that they are not the same.

But the only "perfect description" of an object is the object itself. All other - concepts, ideas, descriptions - are abstractions in at least some point and therefor lacking.
Thus the "idea" of the universe cannot be the perfect description of the universe.

Not that I am aware of.

So fridges work on what you call "natural laws". They work on observations made and implemented. And they don't go from (simplified, not very scientifically phrased) "from order to chaos. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps if you were to explain why you make these statement, instead of just throwing them out and letting me trying to figure what your objections are, we might get better results.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not necessarily.
Gravity would still be a good description for how matter behaves.
We would still go splat.
But there's no "law" that exists, as far as we know.

The gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. would be the same whether or not we could describe it or not, whether we could put it into numerical symbolism or not. Yes, we put the labels in numerical symbolism on the observation but it is a reality and consistently holds whether or not we observe it. Gravity's behavior that something that free falls accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s is the law that we describe and observe. It is the reality...it is the "law" of gravity that governs how objects will fall all the time, anywhere, whether light or heavy.

We might be talking at cross purposes

.
I do agree that matter behaves predictably (with certain exceptions).

What exceptions?

I do agree that we can describe this behavior in terms we call "laws"

Why are they termed as laws? If the natural phenomena of the behavior obeying certain principles or dictates universally, consistently and proven by millions of experiments was labeled something else what would it be labeled and why? We label in accordance with the language that that is agreed upon no matter what language or culture observes it. Law is something that one is suppose to obey, the laws of nature obey...we obey the laws of nature. Can we violate any of the natural laws that we describe? Can we free fall at a different rate than 9.8 m/s/s? Can we violate the speed of light? If a human is unable to violate or alter any "law" it is truly a law and not just a description labeled a law.

I do NOT agree that "laws" necessarily have any existence of their own (except as models made by us).
And no one can show us that they do.

This is something you believe and no one can show us they don't. WE have no reason or no reason has been discovered or proven why the universe is governed by the laws of physics, why there is this order that applies to every avenue we experience...Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Cosmology and so on?

 

[Freodin]

Why are they termed as laws? If the natural phenomena of the behavior obeying certain principles or dictates universally, consistently and proven by millions of experiments was labeled something else what would it be labeled and why? We label in accordance with the language that that is agreed upon no matter what language or culture observes it. Law is something that one is suppose to obey, the laws of nature obey...we obey the laws of nature. Can we violate any of the natural laws that we describe? Can we free fall at a different rate than 9.8 m/s/s? Can we violate the speed of light? If a human is unable to violate or alter any "law" it is truly a law and not just a description labeled a law.

Perhaps you should think about exactly the last sentence.

Any "law" - the laws that are decreed - can be violated. That's why we have terms like "breaking the law" or "law enforcement". Because laws aren't setting a behaviour... they are setting a goal for a behaviour.