Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Do the laws of the universe exist under materialism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I think you are making the mistake of thinking that something external to matter, i.e. laws, are making matter behave the way it does. The way that matter behaves is inherent to its own nature and we describe that behavior as the laws of physics. The behaviors are predicted because the behaviors are observable, not because the equations are existing observable things in themselves.
    Ok. So there is some inherent property of matter that makes it behave the way it does. Can we see this property like we see the behavior it causes? Is it like shape (which is observable)?
    -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
    Sir James Jeans

    -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
    Sir Isaac Newton

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
      Yes, their behaviors are observed. What makes them behave like this? Is that property observable?
      For example, certain behaviors are predicted by equations. Are these equations (or some equivalent) observable?
      The laws of nature are based upon observation of our universe. None can be absolutely validated or proven to be true – only tentatively validated. But they have been verified to the extent that we can confidently act as if they are true. E.g. one wouldn’t jump off a high building to see whether or not ‘gravity’ still works.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
        Ok. So there is some inherent property of matter that makes it behave the way it does. Can we see this property like we see the behavior it causes? Is it like shape (which is observable)?
        Yes, the property is observable, because the property and the behavior are one and the same thing. There is nothing making matter behave the way it does, its determined to act according to its own nature.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
          Yes, their behaviors are observed. What makes them behave like this? Is that property observable?
          For example, certain behaviors are predicted by equations. Are these equations (or some equivalent) observable?
          We don't know exactly why a particular atom behaves the way it does. A scientific theory of everything may resolve that, or maybe not. Equations are not observable, they again, are just the descriptions of physical patterns in mathematical form.

          But at some point when you keep asking "Why?" questions, you will have to hit a brute fact, as it's unavoidable - even if you believe god exists.
          Blog: Atheism and the City

          If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
            Yes, their behaviors are observed. What makes them behave like this? Is that property observable?
            We can only observe how constants and “laws” of nature behave; we can’t answer why they behave the way they do, but there’s nothing to suggest some sort of outside, non-natural agency at work. And to argue that because we don’t know, “therefore God” is merely an argument from ignorance.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Yes, the property is observable, because the property and the behavior are one and the same thing. There is nothing making matter behave the way it does, its determined to act according to its own nature.
              Yes. Its own nature. Now, certainly, its nature exists. What is its nature, then?

              Some definitions of nature I found.

              Nature and the Essence of a Thing
              The philosophical tradition that traces back to Aristotle employs the idea of nature to explain that which defines the essence of a thing.

              One of the most fundamental metaphysical concepts, the essence indicates those properties that define what a thing is. The essence of water, for instance, will be its molecular structure, the essence of a species, its ancestral history; the essence of a human, its self-consciousness or its soul. Within the Aristotelian traditions, hence, to act in accordance with nature means to take into account the real definition of each thing when dealing with it. See here.
              And

              Nature, according to Aristotle, is an inner principle of change and being at rest (Physics 2.1, 192b20–23). This means that when an entity moves or is at rest according to its nature reference to its nature may serve as an explanation of the event. We have to describe how—to what extent, through what other processes, and due to what agency—the preconditions for the process of change or being at rest are present, but once we have provided an account of these preconditions, we have given a complete account of the process. The nature of the entity is in and of itself sufficient to induce and to explain the process once the relevant circumstances do not preempt it.
              See here
              According to the Oxford dictionary, one definition of nature is:

              The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.
              See here.
              These define nature in terms of :
              -essence (which is defined in terms of properties)
              -an "inner principle of change and being at rest" and inner principles are properties
              -characteristics, which are properties

              Perhaps I am confused here. What distinguishes something's nature from its properties?
              -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
              Sir James Jeans

              -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
              Sir Isaac Newton

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                We don't know exactly why a particular atom behaves the way it does. A scientific theory of everything may resolve that, or maybe not. Equations are not observable, they again, are just the descriptions of physical patterns in mathematical form.


                But at some point when you keep asking "Why?" questions, you will have to hit a brute fact, as it's unavoidable - even if you believe god exists.
                Well, I'm not just talking about atoms, but the fundamental substance. Why do the physical patterns emerge from the fundamental substance (i.e. one which cannot be reduced)? The physical patterns are behaviors of the substance and hence, come about because of the fundamental substance and its properties.Therefore, the behaviors are not brute facts. The pattern is regular and hence, the substance behaves regularly. Assuming materialism, the substance may have some properties that make it behave the way it does. If it doesn't have such properties, then we would have difficulty explaining the regularity of the patterns. That this substance exists with its properties may indeed be a brute fact, though behaviors cannot be brute facts.
                -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                Sir James Jeans

                -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                Sir Isaac Newton

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  The laws of nature are based upon observation of our universe. None can be absolutely validated or proven to be true – only tentatively validated. But they have been verified to the extent that we can confidently act as if they are true. E.g. one wouldn’t jump off a high building to see whether or not ‘gravity’ still works.
                  Ok.

                  We can only observe how constants and “laws” of nature behave; we can’t answer why they behave the way they do, but there’s nothing to suggest some sort of outside, non-natural agency at work. And to argue that because we don’t know, “therefore God” is merely an argument from ignorance.
                  .
                  Well we were talking about the fundamental substance's behaviors, not the behaviors of the laws.
                  -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                  Sir James Jeans

                  -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                  Sir Isaac Newton

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                    Ok.

                    Well we were talking about the fundamental substance's behaviors, not the behaviors of the laws.
                    What do you mean by "fundamental substances"? Are you referring to the Aristotelian/Thomistic notion of 'accidents and substance'?
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      What do you mean by "fundamental substances"? Are you referring to the Aristotelian/Thomistic notion of 'accidents and substance'?
                      The stuff that makes up the universe and cannot be broken down any further.
                      -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                      Sir James Jeans

                      -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                      Sir Isaac Newton

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                        The stuff that makes up the universe and cannot be broken down any further.
                        That would be the world of Quantum Mechanics.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          Yes. Its own nature. Now, certainly, its nature exists. What is its nature, then?

                          Some definitions of nature I found.

                          And

                          According to the Oxford dictionary, one definition of nature is:

                          These define nature in terms of :
                          -essence (which is defined in terms of properties)
                          -an "inner principle of change and being at rest" and inner principles are properties
                          -characteristics, which are properties

                          Perhaps I am confused here. What distinguishes something's nature from its properties?
                          Humans have always attempted to define and categorize things. It's a futile pursuit. Ideas like 'essence' and 'nature vs properties' are indicative of this, but it's easy to see how quickly they fail.

                          Nothing distinguishes something's nature from its properties. They're simply different ways of talking about the same thing. Patterns and behaviors are more of the same, with the frequent addition of relationship to other things.


                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          Well, I'm not just talking about atoms, but the fundamental substance. Why do the physical patterns emerge from the fundamental substance (i.e. one which cannot be reduced)? The physical patterns are behaviors of the substance and hence, come about because of the fundamental substance and its properties.Therefore, the behaviors are not brute facts. The pattern is regular and hence, the substance behaves regularly. Assuming materialism, the substance may have some properties that make it behave the way it does. If it doesn't have such properties, then we would have difficulty explaining the regularity of the patterns. That this substance exists with its properties may indeed be a brute fact, though behaviors cannot be brute facts.
                          There is no fundamental substance. Behaviors can be brute facts as much as they rely on properties being brute facts. I think your entire approach here is off.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                            The stuff that makes up the universe and cannot be broken down any further.
                            The universe is made up of elementary particles, as studied by quantum mechanics, and these cannot be broken down any further. There is no essential “substance” underlying this “stuff”.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              The universe is made up of elementary particles, as studied by quantum mechanics, and these cannot be broken down any further. There is no essential “substance” underlying this “stuff”.
                              Although elementary particles are naught but ripples in a field, which would make the field more fundemental. So what is a field?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Although elementary particles are naught but ripples in a field, which would make the field more fundemental. So what is a field?
                                Quantum behavior of the basic particles of matter. This is the present limits of our present knowledge of Quantum Mechanics.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X