Do the laws of the universe exist under materialism?

[JimL]

First, by meaning 'evolved' refers to changes in the human scientific Laws of Nature, and the Theories of science, which are not the same today as they were in times of Newton. Over time the scientific Laws of Nature become more accurate approximations of the ultimate Laws of Nature.

Yes, the ultimate Laws of Nature would exist regardless of whether or not what they describe exists or not. I do believe our physical existence is eternal and has always existed as well as the ultimate Laws of Nature.

Why, why do you believe that the laws themselves exist in their own right?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Others have already said as much, but I'll throw in my two cents, here.

The phrase "laws of the universe" refers to human-language descriptions of observed behaviors within the universe. So, these descriptions don't have physical existence (beyond the physical configurations of the brains conceiving them, if mind-body duality is not true). However, if you are asking whether the behaviors which they describe exist, that seems patently obvious. For example, in this case, to ask if Gravity exists is akin to asking if massive bodies are actually attracted to one another in the real world. The answer to that seems to be "yes."

I'm not sure I understand you, here. If the physical laws exist independently in a Platonic sense, then they do exist independently of mind. If you are a Platonist, and mathematics exists in such a sense, then the mathematical descriptions of physical laws exist in such a sense.

Well the behaviors exist certainly. But why do they exist? Is there some observable physical property that allow (or force?) them to do as they do consistently? Or is it something else?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well the behaviors exist certainly. But why do they exist? Is there some observable physical property that allow (or force?) them to do as they do consistently? Or is it something else?

It would seem that way, at least for some. Using my previous example of Gravity, the behavior which we observe is due to the curvature of spacetime-- or, to be more precise, the curvature of spacetime is the behavior which we observe.

[shunyadragon]

I am including these two posts together, because they both ask the question 'why?.' One from an agnostic/atheist perspective, and the other a Theist perspective.

Well the behaviors exist certainly. But why do they exist? Is there some observable physical property that allow (or force?) them to do as they do consistently? Or is it something else?

Why, why do you believe that the laws themselves exist in their own right?

The question 'why?' and 'is there something else?' are philosophical/theological questions, and science does not, and honestly cannot answer the question. The objective evidence does not address anthropomorphic relationships of what may be 'allowed' or 'forced' concerning the relationship between Laws of Nature and the physical nature of our existence, ie the existence of matter and energy in various forms. Science deals with the matter of fact existence of matter and energy, and the Laws of Nature. I like Boxing Pythagoras's answer, and not much else can be said.

Others have already said as much, but I'll throw in my two cents, here.

The phrase "laws of the universe" refers to human-language descriptions of observed behaviors within the universe. So, these descriptions don't have physical existence (beyond the physical configurations of the brains conceiving them, if mind-body duality is not true). However, if you are asking whether the behaviors which they describe exist, that seems patently obvious. For example, in this case, to ask if Gravity exists is akin to asking if massive bodies are actually attracted to one another in the real world. The answer to that seems to be "yes."

I'm not sure I understand you, here. If the physical laws exist independently in a Platonic sense, then they do exist independently of mind. If you are a Platonist, and mathematics exists in such a sense, then the mathematical descriptions of physical laws exist in such a sense.

[Quantum Weirdness]

It would seem that way, at least for some. Using my previous example of Gravity, the behavior which we observe is due to the curvature of spacetime-- or, to be more precise, the curvature of spacetime is the behavior which we observe.

Ok. So these properties have meanings independent of mind? Or is nominalism true w.r.t. these properties' meanings? Or are the properties their respective meanings themselves? (i.e the curvature of space-time that we observe is the meaning of the curvature of space time.)

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Ok. So these properties have meanings independent of mind? Or is nominalism true w.r.t. these properties' meanings? Or are the properties their respective meanings themselves? (i.e the curvature of space-time that we observe is the meaning of the curvature of space time.)

That which is being described exists independently of the description. The curvature of spacetime exists, whether or not it is described by a mind as "the curvature of spacetime."

[Jedidiah]

It sounds as though some of you think truth exists independent of opinions.

[shunyadragon]

It sounds as though some of you think truth exists independent of opinions.

It sounds as though some of you think truth exists independent of [human] opinions.

[Tassman]

It sounds as though some of you think truth exists independent of opinions.

The facts of the natural universe exist independent of opinions; there is no substantive evidence of anything else existing.

[Jedidiah]

It sounds as though some of you think truth exists independent of [human] opinions.

The facts of the natural universe exist independent of opinions; there is no substantive evidence of anything else existing.

I apologize profusely. It never occurred to me that anyone would fail to see the obvious sarcasm of my post. But you two . . .

[shunyadragon]

I apologize profusely. It never occurred to me that anyone would fail to see the obvious sarcasm of my post. But you two . . .

Most definitely your sarcasm was not evident.The answer remains the same regardless. If it will make you happy consider my response the double sarcasm.

[JimL]

The question 'why?' and 'is there something else?' are philosophical/theological questions, and science does not, and honestly cannot answer the question. The objective evidence does not address anthropomorphic relationships of what may be 'allowed' or 'forced' concerning the relationship between Laws of Nature and the physical nature of our existence, ie the existence of matter and energy in various forms. Science deals with the matter of fact existence of matter and energy, and the Laws of Nature. I like Boxing Pythagoras's answer, and not much else can be said.

If what we call "laws of nature" are inherent to nature itself then they aren't really laws, they are just descriptive human language defining the inherent nature of a thing. If nature didn't exist, then neither would the so called laws, because of themselves, laws have no real existence. Put it this way, an atom doesn't say to itself, Oh its the law so I'd better act accordingly, it just does what it does, it follows its own nature, and we call that a law.

[Quantum Weirdness]

That which is being described exists independently of the description. The curvature of spacetime exists, whether or not it is described by a mind as "the curvature of spacetime."

Ok. But if it doesn't have meaning, then isn't it meaningless to talk about how things happened back then?

[Tassman]

I apologize profusely. It never occurred to me that anyone would fail to see the obvious sarcasm of my post. But you two . . .

Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Ok. But if it doesn't have meaning, then isn't it meaningless to talk about how things happened back then?

"Meaning" is a function of description. If a description is cogent, it is not meaningless.