An object in motion tends to stay in motion. Sure. That's a fact about the natural world. But what do we mean when we say that this is a fact about the natural world? What is a law of nature, really?
In one respect, you could say that "laws of nature" don't actually exist. They are human interpretations of sense data. Psychological inventions, so to speak.
And, yes, that's true to a certain extent. But there is an element of laws of nature that suggests that they are something "out there" waiting to be discovered. In other words, they relate to objective reality.
It is this aspect of the laws of nature that I'd like to discuss here. Even if you want to press the point that laws of nature have an undeniably human element, one must also concede that they say something accurate about the universe, whether humans exist or not. But what do they actually say about the universe? That's my question.
If you assume that laws of nature are (in some capacity) something "out there" waiting to be discovered, there are two main theories as to what laws of nature actually are:
Regularity Theory:
Laws of nature are simply universal statements about nature that have always been observed to be true. ("Observed" being the operative word here. This theory is preferred by empiricists.)
Necessitarian Theory:
Laws of nature are fundamental realities. (This is kind of what we "assume" laws of nature are when we first learn about them. "An object stays in motion..." is a brute fact about the universe. And a good law of nature communicates this fact. But I think regularity theory does a good job of casting suspicion on this view.)
Here is a (very interesting) lecture on the subject:
What do you think? Do laws of nature simply describe what we see? Or are they fundamental realities, so to speak?
In one respect, you could say that "laws of nature" don't actually exist. They are human interpretations of sense data. Psychological inventions, so to speak.
And, yes, that's true to a certain extent. But there is an element of laws of nature that suggests that they are something "out there" waiting to be discovered. In other words, they relate to objective reality.
It is this aspect of the laws of nature that I'd like to discuss here. Even if you want to press the point that laws of nature have an undeniably human element, one must also concede that they say something accurate about the universe, whether humans exist or not. But what do they actually say about the universe? That's my question.
If you assume that laws of nature are (in some capacity) something "out there" waiting to be discovered, there are two main theories as to what laws of nature actually are:
Regularity Theory:
Laws of nature are simply universal statements about nature that have always been observed to be true. ("Observed" being the operative word here. This theory is preferred by empiricists.)
Necessitarian Theory:
Laws of nature are fundamental realities. (This is kind of what we "assume" laws of nature are when we first learn about them. "An object stays in motion..." is a brute fact about the universe. And a good law of nature communicates this fact. But I think regularity theory does a good job of casting suspicion on this view.)
Here is a (very interesting) lecture on the subject:
What do you think? Do laws of nature simply describe what we see? Or are they fundamental realities, so to speak?
