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, 11:43 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What are Laws of Nature?
#11
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 20, 2022 at 6:34 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: 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.

laws of nature are things humans get sent to jail for regardless of whether humans decide they are laws.

what humans think are laws of nature are human attempt to deduce the reasons for which they keep getting sent to jail.
Reply
#12
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 20, 2022 at 6:48 pm)Istvan Wrote:
(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.

Sure, the people who decided to call them "laws of nature" didn't make the normative/descriptive distinction we do now.  They thought they were normative, imposed by a god, for order. Still get plenty of those people here, on the boards, today.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#13
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 21, 2022 at 6:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure, the people who decided to call them "laws of nature" didn't make the normative/descriptive distinction we do now.  They thought they were normative, imposed by a god, for order.  Still get plenty of those people here, on the boards, today.
Just as plentiful are people who say there's no God but still think there's a God's-eye view.
Reply
#14
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
IDK, I doubt that a poll here would bear that one out - though it may be true somewhere of someone. I suspect it's more the case that you believe something other people hold (to) amounts to such a thing, regardless of whether they'd see it as such or agree even in principle. Particularly in the example of laws of nature and misapprehensions as to what they imply conceived of as normative. Descriptive laws are very much a worms eye view - to continue with the semantics.

I suspect that a great deal of the confusion about this is a product of the time in which the terms arose. We might not even call them laws of nature if we were the first at bat. I'm trying to wrap my head around what a gods eye view would be - but it's a pregnant notion. It seems it would have to be more than just what we can observe. More than just what some other more competent but equally contingent being can observe. We don't have anything like that, or, if we do, I'm unaware of it. What would you give as an example of something like that?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#15
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
If a tree falls in the forest (on earth) and there are no humans around does it make a sound?

A decibel meter says yes. Not everything is a head game.

(somebody please move this to philosophy, that's where it's headed)
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#16
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 21, 2022 at 7:15 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I doubt that a poll here would bear that one out
I'd take that bet.

You count how many times people in these kinds of discussions chant slogans like Science is true no matter what you believe, use the term "science" as if it's synonymous with "reality," and declare that anyone who doubts that our scientific knowledge corresponds to the nature of the physical universe is some kind of lunatic.

And I'll count how many times people say that science is a human construct with all the biases and cultural influences that entails, admit that scientific progress is inextricably linked to war, politics and business, and that our knowledge is merely imposing order on the chaos of phenomena to make it comprehensible to humans.

You really think there's a question as to whose bucket fills up first?
Reply
#17
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
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).

(March 20, 2022 at 6:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(March 20, 2022 at 6:04 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: 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. Smile
Reply
#18
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
Plato, of course, also argued for circular motion, albeit at different speeds for different groups of planets.
Reply
#19
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
(March 21, 2022 at 9:01 am)Istvan Wrote:
(March 21, 2022 at 7:15 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I doubt that a poll here would bear that one out
I'd take that bet.

You count how many times people in these kinds of discussions chant slogans like Science is true no matter what you believe, use the term "science" as if it's synonymous with "reality," and declare that anyone who doubts that our scientific knowledge corresponds to the nature of the physical universe is some kind of lunatic.

And I'll count how many times people say that science is a human construct with all the biases and cultural influences that entails, admit that scientific progress is inextricably linked to war, politics and business, and that our knowledge is merely imposing order on the chaos of phenomena to make it comprehensible to humans.

You really think there's a question as to whose bucket fills up first?

Slogans are a short and striking memorable phrase, usually used in advertising. I don't think you'll find many people here who think they're statements of 100% accuracy. I think it's highly questionable whose bucket will fill up first here if the choices are

'Science is true no matter what you believe'

and

'Science is a human construct with all the biases and cultural influences that entails'
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
#20
RE: What are Laws of Nature?
Great poll question! I opt for #1.
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 7902 September 24, 2010 at 10:52 am
Last Post: Jaysyn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)