Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Loudmouth]

Belief is a strong word because it leaves little room for doubt and is difficult to defend. No one knows with certainty why the universe is the way it is. The universe is certainly a wonder.
I have ideas but wouldn't classify them as a beliefs because I know they may not be correct.

What I curious about is the journey that led to your current position. I suspect that you started with a belief that God created this or that which forms the foundation for your rejection of other possible explanations. I also suspect that you really haven't done much research into what you describe as processes based on chance.

Skeptics have a big advantage in debates like this because they don't really have to bring any ideas to the table. They can just throw stones at ideas others present then retreat to 'lack of belief' such as I just did.

The problem is that others are not bringing ideas to the table.

What do you think is the ultimate truth of the universe and life within it?

Ultimately, I think the universe is completely indifferent and unaware of our existence. What meaning we find in life is meaning that we invent.

 

[Willis Gravning]

What I curious about is the journey that led to your current position. I suspect that you started with a belief that God created this or that which forms the foundation for your rejection of other possible explanations. I also suspect that you really haven't done much research into what you describe as processes based on chance.



The problem is that others are not bringing ideas to the table.



Ultimately, I think the universe is completely indifferent and unaware of our existence. What meaning we find in life is meaning that we invent.

The universe is not completely indifferent and unaware of our existence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The universe is not completely indifferent and unaware of our existence.

How so?

 

[Willis Gravning]

The universe isn't just stars and galaxies, it is also us.

 

[Loudmouth]

The universe isn't just stars and galaxies, it is also us.

What percentage of the universe is us?

The orbits of comets and meteors are what they are. They don't change just because they might hit the Earth and wipe out humans. Stars will go supernova, even if they are too close to Earth and could destroy humanity. That's the truth of it.

In the grand scheme of things, some people are like a tiny bacterium in a huge hotel, thinking that the whole hotel must have been made just for us simply because we exist inside of it. At least to me, it seems rather silly to think that the universe was made for us.

 

[Willis Gravning]

What percentage of the universe is us?

The orbits of comets and meteors are what they are. They don't change just because they might hit the Earth and wipe out humans. Stars will go supernova, even if they are too close to Earth and could destroy humanity. That's the truth of it.

In the grand scheme of things, some people are like a tiny bacterium in a huge hotel, thinking that the whole hotel must have been made just for us simply because we exist inside of it. At least to me, it seems rather silly to think that the universe was made for us.

We are not so insignificant that we can quit our day job. We have our family and friends and we should use our short time here to bring some beauty into our respective corners of the world. We don't know how long we will be here. Just last week my wife and I were having lunch at Wendy's when we were approached by a homeless man who asked me for 50 cents. I gave him a five dollar bill. Two days later my wife texted a link asking if that wasn't the guy from Wendy's. And there was his picture. He was murdered the very next day. :-(

 

[Loudmouth]

We are not so insignificant that we can quit our day job.

If we did quit our day jobs, would you be able to notice from even the next group of stars, much less the next galaxy or the next galaxy cluster?

We have our family and friends and we should use our short time here to bring some beauty into our respective corners of the world. We don't know how long we will be here. Just last week my wife and I were having lunch at Wendy's when we were approached by a homeless man who asked me for 50 cents. I gave him a five dollar bill. Two days later my wife texted a link asking if that wasn't the guy from Wendy's. And there was his picture. He was murdered the very next day. :-(

These are meaningful things that we have invented, but aren't derived from the universe at large. Like I said, we invent meaning in life, and I don't see why that is a bad thing.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Off topic sorry.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/blogs/jonathanellis/2016/01/28/my-lunch-murder-victim/79433550/

 

[Willis Gravning]

If we did quit our day jobs, would you be able to notice from even the next group of stars, much less the next galaxy or the next galaxy cluster?



These are meaningful things that we have invented, but aren't derived from the universe at large. Like I said, we invent meaning in life, and I don't see why that is a bad thing.

Almost everything is out of our control but not quite everything. I think we should be mindful of that which is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Almost everything is out of our control but not quite everything. I think we should be mindful of that which is.

Since you asked for ultimate truths, it seemed that you weren't asking for trivial or irrelevant truths. Ultimately, the universe would chug on without us. Nothing in it's operation seems to indicate that it cares about our existence.

So, what do you think?

"I will tell you what I think is correct if you will do the same."--Willis Gravning

 

[Willis Gravning]

Since you asked for ultimate truths, it seemed that you weren't asking for trivial or irrelevant truths. Ultimately, the universe would chug on without us. Nothing in it's operation seems to indicate that it cares about our existence.

So, what do you think?

"I will tell you what I think is correct if you will do the same."--Willis Gravning

I think the universe is life.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the universe is life.

Based on what definition of life?

 

[Willis Gravning]

Based on what definition of life?

The standard high school biology definition is so full of uncertainty and exceptions that it can not not be applied rigorously. A simpler solution, IMHO, is there is no line. The universe is completely alive. All of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, that is correct. But that is not what you said before, and what I responded to in my post.

"Does an object free falling fall at the rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s as we observe or without this law would it free fall at a rate of acceleration of 10.7 m/s/s and then sometimes 5.5 m/s/s and then sometimes 20.5 m/s/s? We can imagine a universe that this might be possible. Why is it not possible?"

I try to give you a lot of leeway with such statements, but I cannot read you mind. I can only respond to what you tell me.

Sorry, your intelligence does have its limits...mind reading.

I really don't know how I can make you see the problem with your reasoning here.

I think we are both in that position.

Yes, what you say is basically correct: our universe would not be "our" universe if it were different. When we - hypothetically - start to play around with different physical constants, we most often arrive at a universe that doesn't contain anything of what we like to see as "basic" and we need to exist.

BUT! All this reasoning depends on all these laws of nature existing, unchallenged and unchallengable. This view basically has your God saying: "This is the way I must create a universe. The laws of nature demand it this way, and no other would work."

It hasn't anything of the sort. It could have God saying: "This is the way I created the universe; the laws of nature are those in which I set forth to govern what I created by way of the most opportune position, with the parameters that will foster life in the image of myself, and that which can be studied and understood by them".

First, we don't know that. Without any knowledge of "what lies outside", there is no way to determine a chance.
Second, this still doesn't get rid of the problem that it assumes that this "inside" is based on the rules that exist "inside". When you don't have these rules, there is no need to assume that the existence of this "inside" universe is unlikely.

We may not know what "lies outside" but according to those who have studied this universe have commented that knowing what we know of the "inside" the "inside" being as it is could not have just happened by a chance act or by accident.

I would tentatively agree with you here... but you might have noticed that I don't argue for that position.
So I find it a little harsh that you would tell me i am "ignoring" something here.

Getting sensitive now a days?

According to some creationists, the existence of the universe is evidence that God created it. If that reasoning is valid, it is as valid to conclude that life comes from non-life, because life exists. I do not accept both versions as valid.
But there is a reasoning that is equally valid as what you posted here: there is no evidence whatsoever in our universe for a deity creating life.

I guess that depends on what one considers evidence and whether or not one accepts certain concepts of the natural world or not.

Because we don't have "nothing".

What do we have?

That is false. There is evidence. Just not for the "man from mud" that creationists demand.

Evidence of what?

That is definitly false and is mathematically proven.

Source?

But we are not talking about something "within the universe". We - at least you - are talking about an eternal, non-material, "spiritual", omnipotent? deity from "beyond".

Can't you see the flaw in the reasoning? You assume a "cause" and "design", because our universe needs causes and designs to work internally.
But if you conclude that the need to exist externally, because you need them internally... why don't you conclude the same need for your external existence?

Because I have enough convincing evidence that has proven to me that the Christian God exists and created the universe and has given us information that He has always existed and has no cause or beginning.

"Mathematical by nature"... what does that even mean? How did the "intelligent mind purposely designing a universe" get "mathematical"? Did it discover mathematics? Or did it "decree" it?

Mathematics is an attribute that comes from God's logic/mind.

Stochastics. Order from randomness. Great numbers.
The universe doesn't work the way humans think it works. But mathematics does... because humans invented it. And mathematics gives us a rather good way to approximate the way the universe works... and it comes down to "very good approximations" and stochastics.

I disagree, mankind discovered mathematics we didn't invent it. Ask a mathematician and they will concur.

Yes. I said that.
By your bolding I assume that you say that "we" didn't... but someone else did. That is the assertion that you need to defend, not the question of whether the "laws" would exist without us to describe them.

But on the other hand: no, the "laws" would not exist without us to describe them. Because the "laws" are human approximations of observed conditions, not "rules given by a ruler".

So gravity would not exist without us describing it? That is nonsensical.

Even laws that do not change can be broken.

Examples?

And I see that you - again - chose to evade my question about the fridge. As well as my direct question: "
Statements like "the way of nature is order to chaos". What do you mean by that?"

I mean that even when we think we are seeing chaos we find an underlying order. We have no evidence of chaos in the universe becoming order in the beginning.

Beauty is not an attribute. It is a human evaluation. "Red" on the other hand is an attribute. Yet it doesn't matter if someone "sees red in the same way". "Red" is not defined by how humans see it.

Now you are being contradictory, your claim is that all things are just our descriptions and labels are what we put on them.

 

[stevevw]

You have yet to present evidence that God even exists.

As I said before that is not necessary for showing design in nature. Whether the design points back to an alien race or a god is not so important to begin with. If you dont believe that there is ID in nature to begin with what is the use of trying to prove a particular designer. Its like saying in court show me the killer before I look to see if there was a crime committed.

Belief is not evidence. Never has been. Believing in something really, really hard does not turn it into a fact.

I agree according to how science tests things. But to the believer it is a part of the evidence to them that allows them to feel confident about their belief. Its not the only thing but its an important part of it.

The whole point is that there are no calculations for the things you are trying to claim.

Yes there is, you just choose to reject them and not even look at them in the first place because you have made the decision that it is all false before hand. If you stop and look at what a God of the bible states compared to what a spaghetti monster will claim and we can exclude the spaghetti monster as being a candidate for consideration of being a possible creative agent for life. But because you have decided that there is no such creative agent in the first place you cant even get past first base to even deduce things down so you can at least have a look at if its possible. You put everything into the same basket and then throw it all out. That is not how science works. It at least looks at the claims and then investigates things.

 

[stevevw]

How did you determine that they were set up for life and not something else? If you find mold in your refrigerator, does that mean you designed your refrigerator to grow mold?

Poor example. If you find a fish tank in a house which has all the right conditions to keep fish you dont immediately think it happened by chance. There are many conditions that are just right for that fish tank which build up into a good case for something going on besides chance. The odds become great for it not happening by chance. Moss may only have a couple of conditions to make it happen so chance are all it needs is temperature and moisture. So its the level of the odds that can make something happen and the fine tuning of life has been calculated as very unlikely odds to happen by chance. As someone had used as an example for one of the constants. Its like flipping a coin and getting heads a 100 times in a row.

First, that is an argument from ignorance.

[Second, you ignore the answers that we do have.

Yes it is but it can at least show us that the type of answer that is needed falls outside what science can possibly find or at least prove. You have to assess all the evidence. Sometimes the answer is up for interpretation. Science can propose an idea (hypothesis) and then needs to prove it. Sometimes they are wrong even when they say they have the evidence. Newtons law of Gravity was incomplete in the bigger picture so it was wrong. Einsteins view of gravity through relativity may also be wrong in the scheme of things with quantum physics. Many scientists propose far fetched ideas that are in the realms of science fiction when it comes to the effects of quantum physics. Ideas like multiverses, time travel, string theory, black holes, hologram dimensions may be good theoretically but they are not verified.

So science can offer ideas that are a little out there and can never be verified as well. Using God or some other intelligent agent as a hypothesis for design in life and to address some of the more difficult things seems like a reasonable proposition. If science can use far fetched ideas that are outside the normal parameters of what is classed as falsifiable evidence then I see no problem with considering ideas like intelligent agents as some do.

That's like saying that science can't deal with the Leprechaun realm. You actually have to demonstrate that certain things exist before you can claim that science can't deal with them.

The problem is when it comes to the effects of the quantum world which now has to be incorporated into things the science can be used to propose many ideas that can never be verified in our reality. It may look good on paper and it may fit some of the criteria and maths that is needed. But as we have seen in the past whats on paper is not necessarily verified in reality. The problem is what is reality. Science may be just making reality fit their preconceived ideas and beliefs. In theory the science can be fudged or manipulated to fit certain ideas.Thats why we keep seeing changing ideas like string theory or hologram theories ect. A good video I watch was the fabric of space series which covers the basics of where science is at with a lot of these ideas.

What evidence?

I think I have posted evidence for this before for you. Talk about ignoring the answers. Here are some again.
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
This paper goes into how self organizing physics cannot make the necessary complex systems, algorithms, codes ect for what we see in life. That there an almost non material or transcendent way things are programmed to work in life and what we have seen in life such as with the complex 3D shapes of proteins are beyond the explanations of science. Science itself has to assume a level of self creating ability without explanation to account for life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
This paper is perhaps the most relevant to this thread. It is best at going into how we use laws of nature to describe things we see. It also talks about the transcendent way things seem designed. It comes from an engineering viewpoint. Humans use engineering techniques in everything we design yet these principles are in nature but to a much greater degree. Systems within systems and complex design that is beyond what science can explain. Humans have put descriptions on things through laws of physics and nature but this doesn't tell us how things were created in the first place.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279
Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?
This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/4/420

The overriding theme form all these paper is that science can put some mathematical description on things but science cant explain how nature came into existence. What we see in existence and life is far beyond the ability of science to explain. It can only describe whats going on. Scientific descriptions through the calculations of maths and laws dont tell us anythings about how something came about and where it may have come from. It has no creative power. It only describes something.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Freodin]

Getting sensitive now a days?

Yes.

It is quite obvious that you are not even trying to understand what I wrote... and if there is something that I cannot stand is to be constantly misrepresented.

It has been nice talking to you again, but I think this conversation has run its course.

 

[Loudmouth]

The standard high school biology definition is so full of uncertainty and exceptions that it can not not be applied rigorously. A simpler solution, IMHO, is there is no line. The universe is completely alive. All of it.

When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Poor example. If you find a fish tank in a house which has all the right conditions to keep fish you dont immediately think it happened by chance.

If you find a lake where fish can survive, you do think that the lake formed through natural processes. You don't have to invoke a deity to explain where lakes come from.

Also, would you say that the house itself is finely tuned for fish?

Moss may only have a couple of conditions to make it happen so chance are all it needs is temperature and moisture.

If moss only exists on one planet out of 10 billion planets in our galaxy, and in only one galaxy out of 10 billion galaxies, why would you ever think the universe was designed for moss?

So its the level of the odds that can make something happen and the fine tuning of life has been calculated as very unlikely odds to happen by chance.

If the odds of life happening in our universe are so low, then this would argue that the universe was not fine tuned for life.

Yes it is but it can at least show us that the type of answer that is needed falls outside what science can possibly find or at least prove. You have to assess all the evidence.

It shows no such thing. 400 years ago we had no scientific explanation for lightning. Did this mean that lightning was produced by a deity? NO!!

Also, you haven't shown us any evidence for the actions of a deity, other than to just assert it.

Science can propose an idea (hypothesis) and then needs to prove it.

You, apparently, just need to believe something without proof in order for it to be considered valid.

So science can offer ideas that are a little out there and can never be verified as well.

That's what science is, trying to find ways to verify hypotheses. Your method appears to be to believe in something without proof and never try to verify it.

Using God or some other intelligent agent as a hypothesis for design in life and to address some of the more difficult things seems like a reasonable proposition.

An untestable and unsupported hypothesis is completely unreasonable, by every measure.

I think I have posted evidence for this before for you. Talk about ignoring the answers. Here are some again.
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
This paper goes into how self organizing physics cannot make the necessary complex systems, algorithms, codes ect for what we see in life.

That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

The Coherence Of An Engineered World

This paper is perhaps the most relevant to this thread. It is best at going into how we use laws of nature to describe things we see. It also talks about the transcendent way things seem designed.

That is pareidolia, not evidence.

Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?
This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/4/420

Where is the evidence for a supernatural nature?

The overriding theme form all these paper is that science can put some mathematical description on things but science cant explain how nature came into existence.

That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

 

[The Cadet]

We are not so insignificant that we can quit our day job. We have our family and friends and we should use our short time here to bring some beauty into our respective corners of the world. We don't know how long we will be here.

There was a great quote a while back about how we are simultaneously completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but extremely meaningful to ourselves. The Universe may not care about us, but we care about us, and we are the scope that matters for us. (If that makes any sense.)

As I said before that is not necessary for showing design in nature.

Oh, we're doing this dance again? Great! Can you propose a condition by which your hypothesis would by falsified? Doesn't have to be anything that actually applies, but it must at least in theory be possible for your idea to be false in some hypothetical reality. What would a hypothetical reality that wasn't designed look like?

I don't think there's really an answer to this question. After all, the designer could be explicitly deceptive, and form a reality that has none of what you consider "hallmarks of design".

Poor example. If you find a fish tank in a house which has all the right conditions to keep fish you dont immediately think it happened by chance.

No, of course not, because all examples of glass/plastic manipulation we have ever observed have come from humans, and no examples have ever come from nature. We can't really pull any analogy to reality as a whole, though, as we have no such basis for comparison. It's not like we've been inside a world factory to watch gods build all kinds of worlds. The comparison doesn't work.

How about a Koi Pond? Imagine you come across a small pond in the wilderness filled with Koi and surrounded by beautiful plant life. How would you go about determining whether this was designed by humans or not?

(Notice how I always say "designed by X". This is because our ability to detect design is necessarily contingent on who the designer is. We can spot design by humans, or design by beavers, or design by honeybees pretty well, but as of yet, I'm not aware of any heuristic to spot design independent of who made the object.)