Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 9:40 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What are Laws of Nature?
#1
What are Laws of Nature?
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?
Reply
#2
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
Ordered regularities aren't a fundamental reality?
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 20, 2022 at 5:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Ordered regularities aren't a fundamental reality?

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. We can't speak of necessity.
Reply
#4
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 20, 2022 at 5:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Ordered regularities aren't a fundamental reality?

Do they have sufficient reason to be what they are?
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#5
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
Quote:Do they have sufficient reason to be what they are?
Yes
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
#6
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
Laws of nature are things humans observe and decide are laws.

Nature could give a fuck for less what we think.

Stuff on this rock are going to fall at 33 feet per second per second with or without our puny approval.
Reply
#7
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 20, 2022 at 5:48 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: 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.
They certainly suggest that we can have stable knowledge of phenomena. But calling them laws demonstrates that this isn't about epistemic prudence, it's about imposing order on reality. Metaphors relating to domination and authority are what make scientific inquiry seem important to cultures obsessed with control and power.
Reply
#8
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 20, 2022 at 6:04 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(March 20, 2022 at 5:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Ordered regularities aren't a fundamental reality?

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.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#9
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
I think this is basically taking a drunkard's walk around Hume's point that we don't see causes and effects, only correlations -- regularities. I think if I read you correctly, not having watched the video, regularity people want to say that's an unsurpassable barrier to saying anything more about what we see. I'm not sure Hume is right, but I think it's another one of those things in philosophy like knowledge or truth around which there is room for debate because nobody's broken through to a compelling description of what is actually happening. Nobody has 'nailed it', so to speak. We've got the important bits, but the special sauce that would make our conceptions rigorous and cogent is missing. Scientists want to say that they can identify cause and effect, but if you press them for what more than correlation is required to show causation, they tend to get irritable.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
The "laws" of nature are human understanding of the underlying behaviours of the universe. Effectively they're theories that have been tested to destruction so frequently that it's pretty much absurd that the universe could work any other way. Right up to the moment when some Swiss patent clerk gets funny notions about space-time being bendy and shifts your paradigm out the door, down the hall, and into the crapper. But that's merely the limitations of our knowledge.

As we currently understand it the universe seems to behave in certain predictable ways. We may not understand them all and certainly don't understand them all very well, but the physical underpinnings of these "laws" appear to be real. This is possibly down to the fact that at its basis all reality is the interaction of some very fundamental particles, math, and logic. In a logical system, contradictions result in explosion of the system. In a physical system based on logic a physical contradiction might have similarly dire consequences. In a reality where momentum were not conserved it's easy to see how that might get into an ugly feedback loop with the outcome that everything either grinds to a stop or races off over the horizon. It may not be possible to have a stable, long-lived reality without some self-regulating framework at its base. This would bode poorly for the "supernatural".

On the other hand, if you want to invoke the multiverse and a little eternal chaotic inflation then it's easy to explain all these "laws" away with the weak anthropic principle. The bulk of the universe may well be a lawless wild west of wild and unpredictable behaviours, but only in the "small", well-regulated pockets where "laws" emerge by chance from the chaos will sentient life arise to observe it. The universe appears to be axiomatic because those are the conditions that favour life, sentience, and observation.

And on the gripping hand, our universe may well be evolved. Much like living creatures, universes that are well-regulated may well be better at spawning copies of themselves. Universes that lack internal self-regulation may be more likely to be prone to going "Boom", "Crunch", "Pffft", or any mix thereof before they can reproduce.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The laws of thermodynamics LinuxGal 10 1539 November 25, 2022 at 8:12 pm
Last Post: brewer
  T-violation and conservation laws cosmology 0 499 December 29, 2017 at 12:40 am
Last Post: cosmology
  Does Physics now have a complete description of Nature? Jehanne 32 4361 April 10, 2017 at 11:14 am
Last Post: dyresand
  Possible 5th force of nature? Kosh 3 937 August 19, 2016 at 8:18 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Nature of Energy Panatheist 36 5665 March 17, 2016 at 2:45 am
Last Post: Panatheist
  Scientists Claim Laws Of Physics Change Throughout The Universe solja247 21 7901 September 24, 2010 at 10:52 am
Last Post: Jaysyn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)