Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Michael]

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

I'm not sure that makes the laws of nature "metaphysical" however, particularly since we can empirically test those laws repeatedly. For instance, the basic "law" in nature that is related to energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. That law of nature is simply a consistent observation we've seen over and over again in terms of how physical things interact energetically. It's not really "metaphysical" in any way since it describes physical processes.

"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?

The concept of our physical universe coming from "nothingness" is a tad misleading. Some form of energy has necessarily always existed in some form or another. That law about energy conservation in all energy exchanges requires that to be the case.

 

[pshun2404]

Star formation is generally described as matter in stellar clouds made up of or containing interstellar gas and dust, at or near absolute zero, tend to clump together into higher and higher densities forming stars. This is happening today, but because when there were not stars yet, and the first ones were forming, this activity was the only potential process by which stars would form (today we use IR and radio-telescopes to study this phenomena).


The increasing densities increase gravitation causing the light gases (Heium, Hydrogen, etc.), to fall very rapidly in toward the core and the quickly infalling gases release kinetic energy causing heat in the gases and the temperature and pressure in the core increases continually as more and more matter is imploded. The temperature eventually reaches 1,000s of degrees and voila’, at some point it ignites a thermonuclear fusion process moving outward (producing what we know as solar wind).

So the problem only arises if one accepts or does not accept that the Universe had "a beginning". Beginning means that at this time, the first stars and planets would have formed according to these guiding principles and "laws" (call them processes if you like). We know the process is lawful and reliable because it is how all stars initially form everywhere we can determine (and to this day still follow this plan of formation). Therefore IF the Universe had a beginning the lawfulness precedes agreegation which appears to follow a specific process and set of stages.

Unless the Universe IS eternal and thus one cannot say where or when such processes first began...but yid id hard to fathom if indeed these formation processes obeyed natural laws because the laws would have had to be there for them to adhere and conform to (even if it is just a consistent reliable lawfulness regarding how matter/energy behaves)

 

[Papias]

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

This is like asking if the fact that 1+1=2 came about from un-directed, random materialistic processes? Or did it that law require a lawgiver?

 

[Jfrsmth]

This is like asking if the fact that 1+1=2 came about from un-directed, random materialistic processes? Or did it that law require a lawgiver?

Wouldn't 1+1=2 be considered a part of mathematical law? So, my assertion is that yes, there had to be a lawgiver, as opposed to laws "becoming" by chance.

 

[Jfrsmth]

I'm not sure that makes the laws of nature "metaphysical" however, particularly since we can empirically test those laws repeatedly. For instance, the basic "law" in nature that is related to energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. That law of nature is simply a consistent observation we've seen over and over again in terms of how physical things interact energetically. It's not really "metaphysical" in any way since it describes physical processes.

The concept of our physical universe coming from "nothingness" is a tad misleading. Some form of energy has necessarily always existed in some form or another. That law about energy conservation in all energy exchanges requires that to be the case.

In Christian theology and evolutionary thinking, everything came from nothing.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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.

Gracchus, thank you for that post, but I'm still not able to wrap my brain around that.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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?

This is a good point Doveaman.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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?

Sorry, sometimes I don't catch everything in the threads.

I think you have an excellent point here. Yes, I find it difficult to even imagine that the "triangle rule" you mentioned may have happened through purely physical, un-directed processes.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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

What term might you use to describe it?

I used the term govern, because it implies that matter must behave within the boundaries of these laws. Govern indicates boundaries. No personification intended.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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

I'm basing my comment on a naturalistic / materialistic worldview where there is no supernatural influence.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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.

But, whatever we call it, matter behaves in predictable ways (i.e. laws).

 

[joshua 1 9]

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 are two laws, one for classic physics for the macro world. Then you have quantum physics and the micro world. They would like to reconcile them with the theory of everything, but they have failed to do that so far.

The first quarks appeared about 10^minus 12 seconds after the universe was formed, in the same era where the weak force (which today is the basis for some radioactivity) separated from the electromagnetic force. The antiparticles of quarks appeared around the same time.

Quarks are almost to small to investigate so we do not know where the quarks came from. The laws began when the universe first began to exist. This we are told is when time grabbed a hold of substance or solid matter.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Wouldn't 1+1=2 be considered a part of mathematical law? So, my assertion is that yes, there had to be a lawgiver, as opposed to laws "becoming" by chance.

Well, where you get mixed up is confusing the internal and logical projection as a "reality out there", which we can't generally verify objectively.

Whatever you see as a "law" is the consistency that you perceive with your mind, thus you have to assume that such consistency IS the way reality really is. But, we don't really, and can't really know how reality is... and especially how it is. We can make pragmatic models, which we then derive some consistency we call "laws", but these are not prescriptive and not universal.

We have no way of knowing, and shouldn't assume that outside of context of our experience all of the constants that we observe here and now were always the same, or are uniformly the same everywhere in existence.

Again, "laws" is a linguistic label we give to help people understand certain scientific concept. It doesn't mean that there's a written "law" somewhere that all matter must obey. We simply measure consistencies, and then codify these for some predictive and pragmatic use.

 

[Butterfly99]

If you're wanting to use this question to prove the existence of God to nonbelievers it will not work unless they're dumb, & I don't think most of the nonbelievers here are.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Natural-law_argument

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure that makes the laws of nature "metaphysical" however, particularly since we can empirically test those laws repeatedly. For instance, the basic "law" in nature that is related to energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. That law of nature is simply a consistent observation we've seen over and over again in terms of how physical things interact energetically. It's not really "metaphysical" in any way since it describes physical processes.



The concept of our physical universe coming from "nothingness" is a tad misleading. Some form of energy has necessarily always existed in some form or another. That law about energy conservation in all energy exchanges requires that to be the case.

IF energy didn't exist in this universe until the universe existed, where would it necessarily always exist?

 

[Dre Khipov]

IF energy didn't exist in this universe until the universe existed, where would it necessarily always exist?

1) The poster mentioned that the energy likely existed in some other form. Energy is a relational concept in physics.

2) Universe is a very slippery concept, especially when we are talking about any kind of "before universe". In philosophical terms, Universe is synonymous with "everything". In some shape or form everything was. The inalienable attribute of existence is that it can't "not exist". There is no such thing as "absolute nothing" philosophically.

When we are talking about Universe with its inception, we generally are talking about Universe as it is now. Discussing how and why it was before is a meaningless question. It's like asking "Why the sky is blue". The only proper answer to that question is "How the sky is blue". In science "How and Why" tend to be synonymous.

 

[Job8]

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

The answer should be obvious. There cannot be any laws without a Lawgiver.

 

[Gene2memE]

and there can't be any reality without a Realtor.

 

[Jfrsmth]

The answer should be obvious. There cannot be any laws without a Lawgiver.

It does appear obvious.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Well, where you get mixed up is confusing the internal and logical projection as a "reality out there", which we can't generally verify objectively.

You are saying I'm mixed up, but what I can see of your statement, it is more of a philosophical/epistemological question.

Whatever you see as a "law" is the consistency that you perceive with your mind, thus you have to assume that such consistency IS the way reality really is. But, we don't really, and can't really know how reality is... and especially how it is. We can make pragmatic models, which we then derive some consistency we call "laws", but these are not prescriptive and not universal.

"A law of physics is a pattern that nature obeys without exception" and are true throughout the universe.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html

Newton's law of universal gravitation
Newton's first law of motion
Ohm's Law
Law of conservation of matter
Mendel's law
Law of cause and effect
etc.

These laws are independent of my thinking.

It doesn't mean that there's a written "law" somewhere that all matter must obey.

Above.