Natural Order and Science

[Alex K]

We should not overlook a simple fact:

When particles collide nearly at the speed of light in Large Hadron Collider they burst into clouds full of exotic subatomic particles. All those subatomic particles have physical properties which made them detectable.


However, virtual particles are not detectable by any mean and for that reason in the world of physics they are called “virtual.” They are mathematical objects which scientists have invented for the purpose of calculations of interactions between real particles

It's not quite that simple. They weren't "put in" to calculate interactions, they are a result of the same theory which describes the "real particles". But let me ask you: how do you detect a "real particle"?

[little_monkey]

Reducing reality to simple rules like, "everything needs a cause" is just making a massive unfounded assumption. "In my experience things have needed a cause" is what the person is actually saying, and is then trying to extrapolate that to all of reality, including reality itself. This is garbage, and it's why this kind of thing never produces any meaningful results. What use is it?

Logic can accurately represent the true nature of reality. Beginning with simple descriptions of particular things, we can eventually assemble our information in order to achieve a comprehensive view of the world.

Logic is a tool used to iron out inconsistencies. It may reflect reality, but not necessarily so. For instance, the following syllogism will illustrate my point:

- All fire-breathing dragons are mortal

- My pet is a fire-breathing dragon

- Therefore my pet is mortal.


Though the syllogism is correctly constructed, it doesn't reflect reality, unless I can prove that fire-breathing dragons do exist. Is logic important? Very important but by itself, it is not sufficient to guarantee that I have a set of statements that describes reality. I need to investigate empirically if the content of my statements have any reality basis -  in this case, the existence of fire-breathing dragons.

[paulpablo]

Ok, I'm no expert on the subject but none of the points you're making here point to laws actually controlling anything, as I said before scientific laws are statements and predictions based on observations, they aren't a force themselves, I'm assuming you agree with that since you haven't made a counter argument, you've just given a vague definition of law.

Additionally I'm assuming your argument is for theism, I still don't see the significance of laws in relation to the possibility of God.

All forces in the universe are acting on the line of some pattern or principle. Take away those principles and those forces will start acting randomly which in result bring nothing productive. Forces acting without certain principles are like a moving car but without a driver. Therefore, although laws are not forces in themselves however they are crucial in maintaining order and harmony in any activity.

A scientific law is a statement/description based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe.

This is what a scientific law is.

Statements are the things people say.  Descriptions are things people say that describe things.  So a scientific law is what scientists say, and what they are saying things about is things in this universe.  And they are based on experiments/observations. 

The things people say about things don't control those things.  If I say my car can go fast my words aren't making it go fast, it's the motor inside the car making it go fast.

And surely you aren't saying that just because patterns exist then that's a sign of god.  That's like pre civilization mentality.  Like a caveman who notices it get's hotter than usual once a year and begins to worship the yellow ball in the sky that seems to make it hot.

If you say something again which makes me think you still don't understand what a scientific law is then I'm just going to assume you're being deliberately deceptive or you have a such a low IQ that explaining it to you again will be futile and you understand what a scientific law is will be impossible.  I've repeated many times that I don't know about scientific theories much at all  but I know enough to try and explain what one is to you and I've got to the stage where it's like I'm trying to explain it to a child.

[robvalue]

You haven't explained anything about infinite regression. You've just said it's impossible because you say so. Basically you can't imagine it. The fact that you've said it "ends in nothing" means you can't conceptualise it. It doesn't end, or else it wouldn't be infinite.

And no, logic does not teach us about reality on its own. It must be combined with evidence, or else you're exploring an abstract model in your imagination and nothing more. It's why all this kind of stuff has no real world applications ever. It doesn't teach us anything.

[IATIA]

However, virtual particles are not detectable by any mean and for that reason in the world of physics they are called “virtual.” They are mathematical objects which scientists have invented for the purpose of calculations of interactions between real particles and it is absolutely inappropriate to treat them as a different category of real physical particles which are detectable.

There is no such thing as a 'particle'.  What is referred to as particles are 'regular' fluctuations of a field, whereas "virtual particles' are irregular fluctuations of a field.  And they are both real and detectable.  Else how would we know they are there?

Virtual Particles: What are they?

[Neo-Scholastic]

"A scientific law is a statement/description based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe."...This is what a scientific law is. Statements are the things people say.  Descriptions are things people say that describe things.  So a scientific law is what scientists say, and what they are saying things about is things in this universe.  And they are based on experiments/observations.

You're right descriptions are after-the-fact accounts. When someone asks, why did x, y, and z happen, they are not asking for an after-the-fact description of x, y, and z. They want to know what thing made x, y, and z happen, regardless of how that thing is described.

[bennyboy]

"A scientific law is a statement/description based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe."...This is what a scientific law is. Statements are the things people say.  Descriptions are things people say that describe things.  So a scientific law is what scientists say, and what they are saying things about is things in this universe.  And they are based on experiments/observations.

You're right descriptions are after-the-fact accounts. When someone asks, why did x, y, and z happen, they are not asking for an after-the-fact description of x, y, and z. They want to know what thing made x, y, and z happen, regardless of how that thing is described.

Yes, that's a good point.  The Big Bang as an answer to "where did the Universe come from," for example, is pretty unsatisfying.  If you can explain why there was a Big Bang, then you're getting somewhere.

[robvalue]

It was God shooting himself. He was really bored! He'd existed timelessly for an infinite amount of non-time.

The Big Bang theory, ladies and gentlemen.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Logic can accurately represent the true nature of reality. Beginning with simple descriptions of particular things, we can eventually assemble our information in order to achieve a comprehensive view of the world.

Logic is a tool that we created to represent reality. We have different forms of logic that we can choose to use depending on what we want to describe. For example, propositional logic is no good for describing intelligence which is why some people created fuzzy logic for example. The same has happened with different branches of Maths. We have statistics, calculus, geometry, probability, all kinds of weird numbering systems etc. Each tool is limited to a certain scope. A scientific law is merely another tool we use to describe an aspect of reality.

You are mistaking the language used to describe something with what it is actually describing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Infinite regress is a problem for logic, not for the universe.  We can't reach a conclusion out of infinite regress, by definition. That's what's impossible...more accurately, not infinite regress itself. In that context and that context -alone- is infinite regress a problem of any kind. Claiming that infinite regress, itself, is impossible or a problem for the universe, is analogous to claiming that because your hammer failed to drive a nail...there's something wrong with the universe.