Laws of Nature

[Ahab]

The pieces don't follow any rules.

Sure they do. They move according to the rules.

If it is chess.

They are moved according to the rules. It is the player following the rules.

 

[Ahab]

Its not an external condition. Water is subject pressure, volume, temperature rules which makes simple statement of water rules moot. Since we are about discovering the rules, thermodynamics as one aggregate system comes to mind, it is silly to make 'the rules' paramount, central, relevant, whatever. If things aren't constant for instance, the rules keep changing as time, pressure, volume, mass, proportions of positrons and electrons, whatever change.

So spouting off about the rules when the rules can't be fixed is a dramatic illustration that the rules construct is not basic.

You confuse the "rules" with the behaviors caused by those "rules".

The "rules" don't change but the system is dynamic so the expression of those "rules" changes.

This is where we have to look at something like Wolfram and his exploration of complexity and how simple rules can lead to great complexity.

Wolfram? Is he the inspiration for your views?

 

[Juma]

You have yet do define "rules".

Like chess has rules to define movement the universe has underlying "rules" that too "define" movement of all things. Things cannot move in any way they choose. They must move according to the "rules".

But in the case of the universe the "rules" can't be broken.

But of course the universe is more than movement, it is movement of stuff. And that "stuff" needs rules to "define" it's properties too. You can't just have "charge". There needs to be underlying "rules" that bring "charge" into existence. Things that exist don't "define" their own existence. They must exist in a manner allowed by the "rules".

I say these "rules" don't change but that may not be true. It may be possible that the rules evolve and change, but then there would need to be other "rules" that "define" the possible limits and manner of that change.

This is in no way a definition of "rules".

This is exactly as stupid as:

Plants needs "raisers" pushes them up through the ground. If there wasnt "raisers" the plants could never get up thorigh the ground....

Etc....

 

[fromderinside]

You have yet do define "rules".

Like chess has rules to define movement the universe has underlying "rules" that too "define" movement of all things. Things cannot move in any way they choose. They must move according to the "rules".

But in the case of the universe the "rules" can't be broken.

But of course the universe is more than movement, it is movement of stuff. And that "stuff" needs rules to "define" it's properties too. You can't just have "charge". There needs to be underlying "rules" that bring "charge" into existence. Things that exist don't "define" their own existence. They must exist in a manner allowed by the "rules".

I say these "rules" don't change but that may not be true. It may be possible that the rules evolve and change, but then there would need to be other "rules" that "define" the possible limits and manner of that change.

Assume a beginning of a universe as a model. Near the beginning of this particular universe there were as many positrons as there were electrons. Time passes and the sight plurality of electrons leads to all electrons. Singularity is broken. New rules.

It doesn't take a great thinker to realize this sort of thing over great dimensional expanses happens over and over and over again. Just a small test. What are the rules for predicting observation of wave or particle in an optical comb or edge test? Why is there indeterminacy? Rules break down. Decision points do not a system make (Wolfram stabbed in the heart).

 

[untermensche]

Sure they do. They move according to the rules.

If it is chess.

They are moved according to the rules. It is the player following the rules.

If they are moved then they move.

Wolfram? Is he the inspiration for your views?

No. I said he did studies looking at how simple "rules" can lead to great complexity.

That is all I said about him.

 

[fromderinside]

They are moved according to the rules. It is the player following the rules.

If they are moved then they move.

Fine pieces were moved according to rule. Now explain how rules govern one making choices about where the pieces are moved. There are several thousand options to get to seven moves in a chess game. Why a player would vary from the optimum, given there is an optimum, needs explaining too. Why are all your 'examples so full of holes or missing pages in the rule books?

 

[untermensche]

Like chess has rules to define movement the universe has underlying "rules" that too "define" movement of all things. Things cannot move in any way they choose. They must move according to the "rules".

But in the case of the universe the "rules" can't be broken.

But of course the universe is more than movement, it is movement of stuff. And that "stuff" needs rules to "define" it's properties too. You can't just have "charge". There needs to be underlying "rules" that bring "charge" into existence. Things that exist don't "define" their own existence. They must exist in a manner allowed by the "rules".

I say these "rules" don't change but that may not be true. It may be possible that the rules evolve and change, but then there would need to be other "rules" that "define" the possible limits and manner of that change.

This is in no way a definition of "rules".

This is exactly as stupid as:

Plants needs "raisers" pushes them up through the ground. If there wasnt "raisers" the plants could never get up thorigh the ground....

Etc....

Of course plants need mechanisms to grow and move. You can call these mechanisms "raisers" if you want. It isn't inaccurate.

 

[untermensche]

Like chess has rules to define movement the universe has underlying "rules" that too "define" movement of all things. Things cannot move in any way they choose. They must move according to the "rules".

But in the case of the universe the "rules" can't be broken.

But of course the universe is more than movement, it is movement of stuff. And that "stuff" needs rules to "define" it's properties too. You can't just have "charge". There needs to be underlying "rules" that bring "charge" into existence. Things that exist don't "define" their own existence. They must exist in a manner allowed by the "rules".

I say these "rules" don't change but that may not be true. It may be possible that the rules evolve and change, but then there would need to be other "rules" that "define" the possible limits and manner of that change.

Assume a beginning of a universe as a model. Near the beginning of this particular universe there were as many positrons as there were electrons. Time passes and the sight plurality of electrons leads to all electrons. Singularity is broken. New rules.

No. The same "rules", just applied to different existing conditions.

 

[untermensche]

If they are moved then they move.

Fine pieces were moved according to rule. Now explain how rules govern one making choices about where the pieces are moved. There are several thousand options to get to seven moves in a chess game. Why a player would vary from the optimum, given there is an optimum, needs explaining too. Why are all your 'examples so full of holes or missing pages in the rule books?

You're claiming the analogy is a perfect match with reality.

It isn't.

Of course a chess piece needs something to move it.

The universe just moves on it's own. But it can only move according to the "rules".

 

[Juma]

This is in no way a definition of "rules".

This is exactly as stupid as:

Plants needs "raisers" pushes them up through the ground. If there wasnt "raisers" the plants could never get up thorigh the ground....

Etc....

Of course plants need mechanisms to grow and move. You can call these mechanisms "raisers" if you want. It isn't inaccurate.

But there isnt any specific entities that can be called "raisers" and there are no entities that can be called "rules".

And you have still not defined "rules".

 

[untermensche]

Of course plants need mechanisms to grow and move. You can call these mechanisms "raisers" if you want. It isn't inaccurate.

But there isnt any specific entities that can be called "raisers" and there are no entities that can be called "rules".

And you have still not defined "rules".

There are many mechanisms that could be called "raisers". Any mechanism involved in growth could be labeled as such.

And I have defined "rules". The "rules" are what "define" the way things can exist and can move.

What I haven't done is tell you what the "rules" are, but that is actually what science is doing, looking for the "rules" of the game.

 

[Juma]

But there isnt any specific entities that can be called "raisers" and there are no entities that can be called "rules".

And you have still not defined "rules".

There are many mechanisms that could be called "raisers". Any mechanism involved in growth could be labeled as such.

So you mean "rules" doesnt mean anything else than 'brings regularity"? That anything that brings regularity is a "rule"?

 

[untermensche]

There are many mechanisms that could be called "raisers". Any mechanism involved in growth could be labeled as such.

So you mean "rules" doesnt mean anything else than 'brings regularity"? That anything that brings regularity is a "rule"?

The specific regularities we might find only exist because of "rules".

You can't have regularity without "rules" of some kind.

This is a logical position, not an empirical one.

And to show it is wrong what is needed is an argument showing how regularity could exist without any "rules" at all.

 

[Juma]

So you mean "rules" doesnt mean anything else than 'brings regularity"? That anything that brings regularity is a "rule"?

The specific regularities we might find only exist because of "rules".

You can't have regularity without "rules" of some kind.

This is a logical position, not an empirical one.

And to show it is wrong what is needed is an argument showing how regularity could exist without any "rules" at all.

Do you realize that you defined "rules" as ANY cause for regularity?
Thus you just go in circles.

That is why I say that you havent defined "rules".

Your concept of "rules" is exactly as useful as the god of gaps.

 

[untermensche]

The specific regularities we might find only exist because of "rules".

You can't have regularity without "rules" of some kind.

This is a logical position, not an empirical one.

And to show it is wrong what is needed is an argument showing how regularity could exist without any "rules" at all.

Do you realize that you defined "rules" as ANY cause for regularity?

Again, I say that "rules" are necessary for regularity to exist.

And await some argument that demonstrates that regularity could exist without "rules".

You have avoided trying to make this kind of argument and instead distort mine over and over.

 

[Juma]

Do you realize that you defined "rules" as ANY cause for regularity?

Again, I say that "rules" are necessary for regularity to exist.

And await some argument that demonstrates that regularity could exist without "rules".

You have avoided trying to make this kind of argument and instead distort mine over and over.

Yes, you say that, but since you DEFINED "rules" to be this then that isnt really saying anything at all.
Dont you understand why i compare it to thr gods of gaps?

 

[untermensche]

Again, I say that "rules" are necessary for regularity to exist.

And await some argument that demonstrates that regularity could exist without "rules".

You have avoided trying to make this kind of argument and instead distort mine over and over.

Yes, you say that, but since you DEFINED "rules" to be this then that isnt really saying anything at all.
Dont you understand why i compare it to thr gods of gaps?

You are the one talking about miracles and things that happen for no reason.

Again, please make the argument that demonstrates "rules" are not necessary for any regularity to exist.

 

[Juma]

Yes, you say that, but since you DEFINED "rules" to be this then that isnt really saying anything at all.
Dont you understand why i compare it to thr gods of gaps?

You are the one talking about miracles and things that happen for no reason.

Again, please make the argument that demonstrates "rules" are not necessary for any regularity to exist.

You do realize that you are making the exact same mistake as the idiots that says that the universe must have been created? Think about that for a while.

The reality is this: we dont know why the reality is regular. When we model the behaviour of the world we use the language of laws. That doesnt mean that the reality "follows rules".

I have explained before and I explaine ot again; the concept of rules is a model where there are 1) rule entities, 2) entities to be controlled and 3) a controlling mechanism4) means for the controlling mecganism to steer the entities.

Neither of this is observed in nature. Thus there are no evidens of "rules".

Your concep of "rules" are so busted.

 

[untermensche]

You are the one talking about miracles and things that happen for no reason.

Again, please make the argument that demonstrates "rules" are not necessary for any regularity to exist.

You do realize that you are making the exact same mistake as the idiots that says that the universe must have been created? Think about that for a while.

You are dismissing an argument based on bad conclusions made by others. Irrational.

The reality is this: we dont know why the reality is regular. When we model the behaviour of the world we use the language of laws. That doesnt mean that the reality "follows rules".

We do know. We know that for any regularity to exist there must be "rules" that lead to that regularity.

You are claiming that regularity can be somehow self-generating.

Just like some say that their god always existed.

Neither of this is observed in nature.

In nature you see the results of the "rules", not the "rules" themselves. Just like you see the rules expressed in a game of chess, not the rules themselves.

 

[Juma]

You do realize that you are making the exact same mistake as the idiots that says that the universe must have been created? Think about that for a while.

You are dismissing an argument based on bad conclusions made by others. Irrational.

The reality is this: we dont know why the reality is regular. When we model the behaviour of the world we use the language of laws. That doesnt mean that the reality "follows rules".

We do know. We know that for any regularity to exist there must be "rules" that lead to that regularity.

You are claiming that regularity can be somehow self-generating.

Just like some say that their god always existed.

Neither of this is observed in nature.

In nature you see the results of the "rules", not the "rules" themselves. Just like you see the rules expressed in a game of chess, not the rules themselves.

I give up. If you doesnt recognize that the concept you are using is useless and doesnt show any intetest in making it useful then its no use discussing.