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

  • #46
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    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.
    It is the human constructed 'Laws of Science' that are descriptive using human languages and math. It is the ultimate Laws of Nature, which are inherent to the nature of our physical existence. You can call them anything you want, but science considers them a brute fact of the nature of our physical existence.


    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.
    . . . because of themselves?!?!?!?! not a coherent statement, and tinged with anthropomorphism.

    I said, 'Science deals with the matter of fact existence of matter and energy, and the [ultimate] Laws of Nature,' which is about all that can be say without falling off the edge.

    Not a meaningful way to approach this discussion. Simply 'If nothing exists, therefore nothing exists,' is not coherent.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-12-2017, 09:11 AM.
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      It is the human constructed 'Laws of Science' that are descriptive using human languages and math. It is the ultimate Laws of Nature, which are inherent to the nature of our physical existence. You can call them anything you want, but science considers them a brute fact of the nature of our physical existence.




      . . . because of themselves?!?!?!?! not a coherent statement, and tinged with anthropomorphism.

      I said, 'Science deals with the matter of fact existence of matter and energy, and the [ultimate] Laws of Nature,' which is about all that can be say without falling off the edge.

      Not a meaningful way to approach this discussion. Simply 'If nothing exists, therefore nothing exists,' is not coherent.
      But I didn't say if nothing exists, I said if nature didn't exist, in other words if the fundemental substance of the material world didn't exist, if matter and energy didn'texist, then neither would what we call physical laws exist. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I'm reading you is that you believe that the physical laws are something that have existence in their own right regardless of whether the physical world itself exists.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        But I didn't say if nothing exists, I said if nature didn't exist, in other words if the fundemental substance of the material world didn't exist, if matter and energy didn't exist, then neither would what we call physical laws exist.
        This is no more coherent and roughly equivalent to if nothing exists, therefore nothing exists. Back up your going over the edge.

        Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I'm reading you is that you believe that the physical laws are something that have existence in their own right regardless of whether the physical world itself exists.
        No, careful on wording. Let's backup. The ultimate nature of the 'Laws of Nature' simply exist as a brute fact. They are not 'dependent on any thing.'

        My quote and that of Boxing Pythagoras, is as about as far as you can go.

        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.
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          This is no more coherent and roughly equivalent to if nothing exists, therefore nothing exists. Back up your going over the edge.


          No, careful on wording. Let's backup. The ultimate nature of the 'Laws of Nature' simply exist as a brute fact. They are not 'dependent on any thing.'

          My quote and that of Boxing Pythagoras, is as about as far as you can go.

          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.
          Okay, sometimes I feel as though I have to drag out of you, what it is that you actually believe Shunya. So, I will just ask you straight out, do you believe that the physical laws are self existing things that govern matter, or are they just human language desciptions of the behavior of matter itself? In other words do you believe that the laws have some kind of platonian existence of their own apart from the material world?

          Comment


          • #50
            I believe I have been very clear and specific, and fully agree with Boxing pythagoras's beliefs. He is more eloquent and explains it better.

            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Okay, sometimes I feel as though I have to drag out of you, what it is that you actually believe Shunya. So, I will just ask you straight out, do you believe that the physical laws are self existing things that govern matter, or are they just human language desciptions of the behavior of matter itself?
            First, Natural Laws are not things as Boxing Pythagoras agrees.

            Second, there are two different concepts, which I have clearly described. First is the ultimate Laws of Nature which are believed to exist as a brute fact of the nature of our physical existence, and the scientific Laws of Nature, and the scientific theories which are indeed human constructions based Methodological Naturalism on our conception of the ultimate Laws of Nature.

            In other words do you believe that the laws have some kind of platonian existence of their own apart from the material world?
            'Some kind of Platonian existence' is hardly an adequate description for the 'ultimate Natural Laws' that determine the nature and behavior of matter and energy. Plato has often been misinterpreted and misunderstood in the modern context and philosophy. The concept of Plato as an advocate compatible with the contemporary philosophy of science, is what Boxing Pythagoras and I would describe the ultimate Laws of Nature as from a Platonic view, but I do not simply leave it at that. Science just simply consider the ultimate Laws of Nature as a brute fact of the nature of our physical existence that determines the nature of our physical existence, which we base the human developed scientific laws of nature and theories on.
            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


            • #51
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I believe I have been very clear and specific, and fully agree with Boxing pythagoras's beliefs. He is more eloquent and explains it better.



              First, Natural Laws are not things as Boxing Pythagoras agrees.

              Second, there are two different concepts, which I have clearly described. First is the ultimate Laws of Nature which are believed to exist as a brute fact of the nature of our physical existence, and the scientific Laws of Nature, and the scientific theories which are indeed human constructions based Methodological Naturalism on our conception of the ultimate Laws of Nature.



              'Some kind of Platonian existence' is hardly an adequate description for the 'ultimate Natural Laws' that determine the nature and behavior of matter and energy. Plato has often been misinterpreted and misunderstood in the modern context and philosophy. The concept of Plato as an advocate compatible with the contemporary philosophy of science, is what Boxing Pythagoras and I would describe the ultimate Laws of Nature as from a Platonic view, but I do not simply leave it at that. Science just simply consider the ultimate Laws of Nature as a brute fact of the nature of our physical existence that determines the nature of our physical existence, which we base the human developed scientific laws of nature and theories on.
              Okay, if I read you correctly then I think we agree, accept for the fact that you sometimes word it in a way that makes it seem that you believe the laws are rules that nature follows, rather than them being simply descriptive of what nature does, as if they, the laws, have an existence of themselves, prior to, and apart from, matter itself. There are hypothesis out there that conjecture the universe, the material world, to have been born of nothing other than pre-existing laws. Not absolutely sure where you stand on that point.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Okay, if I read you correctly then I think we agree, accept for the fact that you sometimes word it in a way that makes it seem that you believe the laws are rules that nature follows, rather than them being simply descriptive of what nature does, as if they, the laws, have an existence of themselves, prior to, and apart from, matter itself. There are hypothesis out there that conjecture the universe, the material world, to have been born of nothing other than pre-existing laws. Not absolutely sure where you stand on that point.
                First,careful on terminology. What you call pre-existing laws, I view as the ultimate laws which simply exist eternally, science considers a brute fact of the nature of our physical existence, and do not 'pre-exist.' Science develops our laws of nature and theories of our universe based on the assumption of the existence of the ultimate Laws of Nature. The 'nothing' term here, of course, does not mean 'nothing,' because it is something that our universe and all possible universe form in and from. It is controversial and remains basically unknown exactly what this 'nothing is.'

                There is, of course, some controversy as to the ultimate laws, and the laws of different possible universes. Some propose that there is a wide range of values and constants in different universe based on the 'uncertainty principle' in Physics. I believe this is unknown and the constants and values do not necessarily vary significantly, and remain relatively uniform in all possible universes.

                Here we step into the philosophy of the unknown, which we have some theories through Quantum Mechanics. My belief is that this 'something' often awkwardly described as 'nothing,' is the eternal matrix of our physical existence that forms the matter and energy of all possible universes. Our universe and all possible universes form as bubbles in the matrix, which may appear similar to bubbles in soda water, or in other words multiverses.
                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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                  And if they do, how? Are they some material substance? I don't really see how they can exist under a materialist paradigm.
                  Laws are descriptions of patterns in nature. They are not things in and of themselves. That's the biggest mistake people make.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    "Meaning" is a function of description. If a description is cogent, it is not meaningless.
                    Yes. But before we existed, the description did not exist. Therefore, the meaning didn't exist before we existed. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about things that happened before we existed. Since nothing had description (and thus, not meaning ) before we existed. Or does B-theory play a role here?
                    -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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                      Laws are descriptions of patterns in nature. They are not things in and of themselves. That's the biggest mistake people make.
                      Ok. So the fundamental substance has observable physical properties that make them act the way they do?
                      -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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                        Yes. But before we existed, the description did not exist.
                        True, the descriptive Laws developed by science did not exist, but the ultimate Laws of Nature that the descriptive laws are based on have always existed.

                        Therefore, the meaning didn't exist before we existed. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about things that happened before we existed. Since nothing had description (and thus, not meaning ) before we existed. Or does B-theory play a role here?
                        False, the ultimate Laws of Nature have always existed since matter and energy existed. There is obvious objective verifiable evidence that this is true.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          True, the descriptive Laws developed by science did not exist, but the ultimate Laws of Nature that the descriptive laws are based on have always existed.



                          False, the ultimate Laws of Nature have always existed since matter and energy existed. There is obvious objective verifiable evidence that this is true.
                          . . . have always existed . . .
                          Two things about this phrase. One, "have always" is a metaphysical claim. And two, non-material things have existence.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                            Ok. So the fundamental substance has observable physical properties that make them act the way they do?
                            The fundamental substances (whatever they are) have observed behavior that we describe as the laws of physics/nature.
                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                              The fundamental substances (whatever they are) have observed behavior that we describe as the laws of physics/nature.
                              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 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


                              • #60
                                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?
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                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