Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Jfrsmth]

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?

 

[Gene2memE]

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?

Please describe to me how the laws of nature are metaphysical.

 

[KCfromNC]

How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical, come into being from un-directed, random materialistic processes?

Why are you presuming randomness?

 

[Gracchus]

The "laws of nature" are observations that seem to be consistent. Reality simply is. We can, within limits, observe how it functions and sometimes determine, tentatively, why it functions as it does. The "laws of nature" can't be any different because they are what they are. If they could change, they wouldn't be laws. Reality may be counter-intuitive. Thus, time is just a differential between dimensions, between physical properties and phenomena. Time does not exist apart from physical change.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's possible there is no alternative. The 'laws' are the only consistent way that things can be.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Please describe to me how the laws of nature are metaphysical.

They are without material form or substance. They are abstract as opposed to material / matter.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Why are you presuming randomness?

It is not my presumption. It is a presumption based on a purely natural, un-directed, materialistic worldview without supernatural influence.

 

[durangodawood]

They are without material form or substance. They are abstract as opposed to material / matter.

Then maybe they dont exist.
Maybe they are just descriptions we make of the way matter behaves.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Then maybe they dont exist.
Maybe they are just descriptions we make of the way matter behaves.

Yes, I agree with your comment: they are descriptions of what we observe in the universe. We could name them anything we want, but they are still the same. They are constants; fundamental rules of nature that are not broken. Thus, how did these rules get there?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, I agree with your comment: they are descriptions of what we observe in the universe. We could name them anything we want, but they are still the same. They are constants; fundamental rules of nature that are not broken. Thus, how did these rules get there?

I dont think they "got there" or "came from" anywhere. There's matter/energy, and thats it for the naturalistic universe. (There may also be a supernatural realm, but I dont know.)
The idea of "rules" is just a convenience for us.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, I agree with your comment: they are descriptions of what we observe in the universe. We could name them anything we want, but they are still the same. They are constants; fundamental rules of nature that are not broken. Thus, how did these rules get there?

I don't think you understood what durangodawood meant:

They are descriptions of how matter behaves. They are not commands that tell matter how to behave. In that, they do not exist without matter. They are not "metaphysical", they are part of the physical.

A (non-physical, but mathematical) example: the sum of angles in a plane triangle is equal to half of a plane circle (180°). This is constant. A fundamental rule of nature that cannot be broken.

But this is one attribute of what a triangle is, what we observe it is. It is part of "being a triangle".

If that was a rule that had to "get there" from somewhere, you would have to be able to ask the question: what was the sum of angles in a plane triangle before that rule existed? And that is obviously nonsense.

 

[Jfrsmth]

They are descriptions of how matter behaves. They are not commands that tell matter how to behave. In that, they do not exist without matter. They are not "metaphysical", they are part of the physical.

The laws themselves are not physical, we cannot touch them (hence metaphysical); they govern how matter behaves in the universe.

"A fundamental rule of nature that cannot be broken." Yes, thank you. So, that is my question. How did that come to be from "nothingness"; from un-directed, purely materialistic, and natural processes which supposedly brought our universe into existence?

 

[durangodawood]

The laws themselves are not physical, we cannot touch them (hence metaphysical); they govern how matter behaves in the universe.

I dont know if they govern, or if they describe.
How would you tell the difference?

 

[Jfrsmth]

I dont know if they govern, or if they describe.
How would you tell the difference?

I would say that we describe them, but that they govern, regardless of what we say about them.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is not my presumption. It is a presumption based on a purely natural, un-directed, materialistic worldview without supernatural influence.

How do you get from those premises to random? Please be specific.

 

[Doveaman]

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?

So the question is which came first, the nature or the laws that govern it?

If nature came first, then the laws came randomly since nature was not governed.

But if the laws came first, then nature came intelligently since laws that govern could not have come randomly.

 

[Doveaman]

I dont know if they govern, or if they describe.
How would you tell the difference?

Day and night is governed by the earth's rotation relative to the sun.

The only reason we can describe this governing is because it is already happening.

Did this governing randomly occur?

 

[durangodawood]

Day and night is governed by the earth's rotation relative to the sun.

The only reason we can describe this governing is because it is already happening.

Did this governing randomly occur?

Day and night results from the earths rotation. "Governing" seems almost too much of a personification.

 

[timewerx]

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?

Fate it seems

 

[Freodin]

The laws themselves are not physical, we cannot touch them (hence metaphysical); they govern how matter behaves in the universe.

"A fundamental rule of nature that cannot be broken." Yes, thank you. So, that is my question. How did that come to be from "nothingness"; from un-directed, purely materialistic, and natural processes which supposedly brought our universe into existence?

Isn't a "process" also something that we cannot touch, and therefore "metaphysical"?

The gist of it: if there is "something" - even undirected, purely materialistic and natural processes - it has to be and behave in "some way". You cannot have one without the other.

Thus my question (the one I asked in the post you quoted and didn't answer ): "what was the sum of angles in a plane triangle before that rule existed?"
Or to generalize: how did anything behave before it was commanded how to behave?

If you consider this question, and recognize that its premise is nonsensical, you will start to understand our position.


What you can of course ask is the question for the origin of anything - how did that come to be from "nothingness"? (which is something different from un-directed, purely materialistic, and natural processes).

My general answer: I don't know.
A more special answer: I think that the concept of "nothingness" is inherently flawed and self-contradicting. Something didn't come from "nothingness"... something came from something that is completely different from everything we know.