(November 19, 2012 at 11:20 am)Rhythm Wrote:(November 19, 2012 at 10:14 am)Daniel Wrote: The universe doesn't work on the laws we give it, it has its own. The laws of physics are what we invented (theorized) they're not something we derived as absolute universal truth.We don't "give it" laws, we discover the laws. The theories that we leverage to explain the laws are not the laws themselves ie - the "theory of gravity" is not the "law of gravity". We "invented" these laws and theories as much as we "invented" flight...which is to say not at all. I've always loved that word, "invention"...it lays bare a sort of hubris about our actions and accomplishments that to my mind..is not entirely warranted. Nevertheless it's a useful word, and generally speaking we use it in a context where it's application isn't entirely disagreeable. However, on the subject of natural law and it's attendant theories the term has gone well past it's breaking point, imho. Nothing in science is advertised as a "universal truth"..so mentioning that they are no such thing is superfluous.
I suppose a generous reading could grant that your point, Rhythm, is approximately the same point Daniel was making in the post you selected. It wasn't expressed as precisely -we all know that trade off- but I think he meant mostly to remind us that the 'laws' are not known in their entirety and the best current theory can yet be incomplete. As you say, the patterns in nature are ours to theorize about. It isn't a bad point to bring up from time to time when we encounter someone arguing the relevant laws of nature are settled factoids obvious even to a child.
