What are Laws of Nature?

[polymath257]

I think the basic distinction is between the laws of nature and our understanding of those laws.

The laws of nature are the consistent patterns of behavior of things in the world around us. The expectation is that such patterns actually exist.

Our understanding, though, comes from observation and testing and should *always* be seen as an approximation of the *actual* laws of nature. The goal, over time, is to get better and better approximations.

One issue is how the term 'approximation' is defined.

For example, Newton's laws are quite different philosophically than the laws Einstein proposed. Even the concept of 'straight line' in the OP is modified in the Einsteinian description (to a geodesic).

But, in any particular case, say the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the Newtonian description gives theoretical predictions that are very good approximations of what can be observed. The description by Einstein gives a *better* approximation.

So, the expectation in science is that we will get better and better approximations to the 'correct natural laws'. To be a better approximation means that in any repeatable situation the sequence of predictions converges to the actual behavior observed. This emphatically does NOT mean that there is any sort of 'philosophical convergence'.

The question of the existence of 'correct' natural laws is supported by the results that we *do* seem to be getting better approximations over time as we change our theories.

So, I reject the idea that we have *no* contact with the 'ultimate reality' since it is precisely that reality that determines what we observe. And yes, part of the issue is that we are also part of the ultimate reality, which means we need to learn when our observations can lead us astray (optical illusions, for example).

---

Well regularity theorists only want to talk about what we observe with regularity as being essential to something being a law of nature. They think that a "fundamental reality" behind such observations is a "metaphysical hangover"... a way we used to think about things in say, Newton's time. But something we have largely outgrown.

Our intuitions say that there actually is some fundamental reality causing these observations, but again: metaphysical hangover. The empiricist wants to say that even if there were such a fundamental reality, we could never confirm it or say anything factual about it. The only thing we can confirm or say something factual about is our observations. And when speaking of observations we can only say what we observe with regularity and what we do not.

Observations seem rather late, epistemologically speaking, compared to sensations, apprehensions, perceptions, and even conceptions and interpretations. I see a lot of heavy lifting needed to justify observation as fundamental basis for knowledge.

And the realization that observation *should* be the basis came quite late. Plato rejected it outright (because our senses can mislead us).

The other 'bases' were tried and failed to deliver. So, by observation, observation is the test to be used.