A Simple Question...or 3!

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, my point is that a lof of things we consider "laws" may just be "features". A feature is something interesting that happens as a part of the process.

A rose by any other name my love. Call them "widgets" if you like but that won't change their contents or measure of accuracy (however we may care to measure either).

Why don't you explain to me why I should consider "hubble's law" a fundamental scientific law, especially in light of the fact that everybody now agrees quasars are "exempt" from the law (but they weren't when the law was "discovered")!

What you "should" do is your own business, but I can tell you -why- something is called a natural law by others even if you choose to withhold the term yourself. A natural law is a statement based upon repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the universe. If you're interested enough in quasars to ask this question then it seems strange to me that you wouldn't have been equally as interested in the explanations (and observations) made to explain this effect (essentially, why we continue to leverage Hubble's Law). As before, it seems as though the important bit is to feel that you are qualified to impeach any given finding, to say "what if we're wrong"...and while I could never argue that it isn't possible for us to be wrong, I can explain why this comment (leveraged so broadly..though I appreciate this post..much more specific) leaves you in a position bereft of any ability to offer another explanation or conclusion.

If, for example, you state that the notion of a universe "self starting" is absurd...you do so by reference to those very same laws which you feel break down beyond their frame of reference...those very same laws which you feel might more aptly be called features. This, in effect, is chopping off both your hands before you attempt to lift a ball. You've impeached your own conclusion so thoroughly that it becomes a incoherent proposition. What may or may not have existed or have been operating as a mechanism before the universe existed is beyond the frame of reference of the laws that lead to the conclusion..and furthermore..."you may be wrong" even about those laws that have led to this conclusion from within their frame of reference. You have no experimental observations to back this conclusion (and it wouldn't matter if you did, because as the conclusion falls to these two axes you've swung so too does observation itself). If, on the other hand, you wish to persist in this claim then you'll have to concede that you have done so by reference to natural laws (and their frame of reference), and under the assumption that they are accurate...at which point, attempting erode either when someone offers a rebuttal is exceedingly bad form. You argue not just against them, but also yourself. The scorched earth approach.

Newton imagined a linear universe, and his laws reflected how his worldview was.

Newtons laws reflected both his observations, what was known to him at the time, and yes...his personal bias. Unfortunately for Ole Newt, his observational apparatus was (by comparison) meager, the body of knowledge with which he could draw on (by comparison) scant, and he was lacking a framework or method such as the one we enjoy that would help to insulate him against his bias. Considering these things, his work was impressive.