Laws of Nature

[untermensche]

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.

You won't even try to make an argument to support your position?

All that is needed is an argument showing how "rules" are not necessary for regularity to exist.

If you have no argument I can understand. There isn't one.

 

[Ahab]

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

If they are moved then they move.

The pieces are not moved by the rules. They are moved by the player.

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

 

[untermensche]

If they are moved then they move.

The pieces are not moved by the rules. They are moved by the player.

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

They move in accordance with the rules.

Having a player move them is just the mechanism of action.

 

[Ahab]

The pieces are not moved by the rules. They are moved by the player.

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

They move in accordance with the rules.

Having a player move them is just the mechanism of action.

The rules are a human creation. The player knows what the rules are. The player is following the rules. The player is acting in accordance with the rules.

I think Fast is correct. You are trying to use terms like "following the rules" and "acting in accordance with the rules" in an unconventional manner. Makes it difficult for those of us trying to understand your argument.

And Juma is correct in pointing out that you have so far failed to provide an adequate definition of the terms you've placed in scare quotes.

 

[untermensche]

They move in accordance with the rules.

Having a player move them is just the mechanism of action.

The rules are a human creation. The player knows what the rules are. The player is following the rules. The player is acting in accordance with the rules.

Yes.

And the pieces move in accordance to the rules. You can pretend this isn't true but of course it is.

I think Fast is correct. You are trying to use terms like "following the rules" and "acting in accordance with the rules" in an unconventional manner. Makes it difficult for those of us trying to understand your argument.

There is nothing unconventional about it.

Some get their panties ruffled when you point thing like this out. They think you are building an argument to support these imaginary entities called gods.

And their brain freezes.

And Juma is correct in pointing out that you have so far failed to provide an adequate definition of the terms you've placed in scare quotes.

I've provided it many times. People just don't like it, see above.

A "rule" is what governs any existence or movement. You cannot have existence or movement except existence or movement according to some "rules". Things cannot just "be". That is irrational.

 

[Ahab]

The rules are a human creation. The player knows what the rules are. The player is following the rules. The player is acting in accordance with the rules.

Yes.

And the pieces move in accordance to the rules. You can pretend this isn't true but of course it is.

I think Fast is correct. You are trying to use terms like "following the rules" and "acting in accordance with the rules" in an unconventional manner. Makes it difficult for those of us trying to understand your argument.

There is nothing unconventional about it.

Some get their panties ruffled when you point thing like this out. They think you are building an argument to support these imaginary entities called gods.

And their brain freezes.

And Juma is correct in pointing out that you have so far failed to provide an adequate definition of the terms you've placed in scare quotes.

I've provided it many times. People just don't like it, see above.

A "rule" is what governs any existence or movement. You cannot have existence or movement except existence or movement according to some "rules". Things cannot just "be". That is irrational.

Apparently you think rules can just be.

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

And the pieces move in accordance to the rules. You can pretend this isn't true but of course it is.

I think Fast is correct. You are trying to use terms like "following the rules" and "acting in accordance with the rules" in an unconventional manner. Makes it difficult for those of us trying to understand your argument.

There is nothing unconventional about it.

Some get their panties ruffled when you point thing like this out. They think you are building an argument to support these imaginary entities called gods.

And their brain freezes.

And Juma is correct in pointing out that you have so far failed to provide an adequate definition of the terms you've placed in scare quotes.

I've provided it many times. People just don't like it, see above.

A "rule" is what governs any existence or movement. You cannot have existence or movement except existence or movement according to some "rules". Things cannot just "be". That is irrational.

Apparently you think rules can just be.

Finally a good point.

But it is only a question, not any kind of answer.

Since "rules" are necessary, how do they arise?

Who knows?

 

[Ahab]

Yes.

And the pieces move in accordance to the rules. You can pretend this isn't true but of course it is.

I think Fast is correct. You are trying to use terms like "following the rules" and "acting in accordance with the rules" in an unconventional manner. Makes it difficult for those of us trying to understand your argument.

There is nothing unconventional about it.

Some get their panties ruffled when you point thing like this out. They think you are building an argument to support these imaginary entities called gods.

And their brain freezes.

And Juma is correct in pointing out that you have so far failed to provide an adequate definition of the terms you've placed in scare quotes.

I've provided it many times. People just don't like it, see above.

A "rule" is what governs any existence or movement. You cannot have existence or movement except existence or movement according to some "rules". Things cannot just "be". That is irrational.

Apparently you think rules can just be.

Finally a good point.

But it is only a question, not any kind of answer.

Since "rules" are necessary, how do they arise?

Who knows?

Another question: Since you seem to think rules are necessary beings did they exist before everything else?

This isn't a trick question. I am sympathetic to the view that there are necessary beings. But I do have difficulty seeing why rules fall into that category.

 

[untermensche]

Another question: Since you seem to think rules are necessary beings did they exist before everything else?

This isn't a trick question. I am sympathetic to the view that there are necessary beings. But I do have difficulty seeing why rules fall into that category.

I'll ask you a similar question.

The universe exists. How did this happen?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The regularity of the electrons' behaviour in atoms has the same ontological status as the regularity of the characteristics of electrons and said atoms.

I don't have a clue what this means.

But if there is an electron it is following a set of "rules".

That is how it is known as an electron.

These regularities are understood as characteristic of reality.

The "rules" are what leads to the characteristics. Things don't just have characteristics for no reason.

Just like things don't just have structure. There must be "rules" to define scope and limit to have any structure.

To have objects made of atoms there must be "rules" to define first the atoms and then the ability of the atoms to bond together to form what to our eye appears as a 3D object.

...Yet, if nature is regular...

Nothing is just "regular".

To have regularity many conditions need to be met. Like, there must be structure of some kind to have regularity.

Ok, I guess I understand that your point is that something exists that explains the regularities we observe. I don't see how calling this something "rules" helps at all. As far as you know it could be anything, including God, so why chooose to call that "rules". If that interpretation is correct then I agree with you that there must be something if regularities apply to the whole of reality, which we don't know that they do, and personally I don't think that's the case. But assuming it is, there is something. As far as I understand it, that's precisely the metaphysical objective of science to find out if at all possible. For the moment, the scientific pantheon of existing things is limited to force fields and does not feature any kind of "rules". I don't even understand what you think these "rules" would look like. You have no idea probably. Your "rules" are just as likely to look like a big bubble as anything else. In fact you probably talk of "rules" by analogy to "laws of nature". They would be the cause of regularities without being spelt in latin alphabet like we like to think of the laws of nature would be.

So, I would grant you the point but only on substance, definitely not on form. That is, you are right there must be something (if regularities apply through and through) but you are wrong to call this something "rules". There's a simple word instead that cover all the bases: cause. Don't you agree?
EB
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Apparently you think rules can just be.

Finally a good point.

But it is only a question, not any kind of answer.

Since "rules" are necessary, how do they arise?

Who knows?

I already provided an answer to that: meta-rules.
It's rules all the way down.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Finally a good point.

But it is only a question, not any kind of answer.

Since "rules" are necessary, how do they arise?

Who knows?

I already provided an answer to that: meta-rules.
It's rules all the way down.
EB

I think this is actually a valid argument against my position.

Since it does create this absurdity there may be some flaw.

But then the position we would be stuck with would be that structure and thus the chance for regularity could exist entirely on its own somehow. It could create itself whole. The "rules" of quantum dynamics could just create themselves.

Another absurdity.

 

[untermensche]

Ok, I guess I understand that your point is that something exists that explains the regularities we observe. I don't see how calling this something "rules" helps at all. As far as you know it could be anything, including God, so why chooose to call that "rules".

You call it "rules" because you don't know what it is.

But if you look at any structure it must have scope. It must be what it is. It also must have limits. This goes with scope. If you have a specific scope you also have specific limits.

It is a simple question.

How do you have scope and limits that form a structure without "rules" or something responsible for the scope and limits?

You might be able to have one structure without "rules". You could possibly have one electron by sheer chance.

But to have many with identical properties is to have "rules" governing the scope and limits of the structure.

For the moment, the scientific pantheon of existing things is limited to force fields and does not feature any kind of "rules".

So an electron can behave in any manner?

 

[fromderinside]

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".

Wow. You present an analogy. One critical component of that analogy is moving for which you supplied a chess player, a person with free will I suspect.

Now you go all "of course a chess piece needs something to move it" then you drop back and punt. You insert, instead of a chess player, and make it like a rock. It moves things on its own but it can only move things on its own according to the rules governing the thing. Smell any bait and switch. I do and it stinks to high heaven. All you did was enable the universe to move on its own making a circular argument amounting all things are governed by rules. We know that by the universe moving on its own pieces will move but only by those rules.

How does the universe move on its own? Seems all you have done is move from a chess player using choice to a universe moving things on its own except it can't do anything outside the rules.

hmmm.

A chess player moving a chess here or there on a move or a mindless force acting on its own moving a chess piece here or there. The problem is you haven't resolved how the piece is moved either here or there rather than here or another there. You need to address how a chess player addresses moving the chess piece either here or there.

You are in a sinking field there bud.

 

[fromderinside]

But then the position we would be stuck with would be that structure and thus the chance for regularity could exist entirely on its own somehow. It could create itself whole. The "rules" of quantum dynamics could just create themselves.

Another absurdity.

How can chance be an absurdity? Just explained some symmetries were eliminated because totals of opposites weren't exactly equal. There were originally more electrons that there were positrons so as a result positrons ultimately disappeared. Not absurd at all. Seems to me this is sufficient along with limitations in size, energy, spin, etc., that a reasonable outcome could be depending on observer either a wave or a particle is observed which cannot be predicted with the rules.

Its either something like what I describe or its something like Speakpigeon opines. Explaining regularity needn't be reduced to the absurd.

 

[Ahab]

Another question: Since you seem to think rules are necessary beings did they exist before everything else?

This isn't a trick question. I am sympathetic to the view that there are necessary beings. But I do have difficulty seeing why rules fall into that category.

I'll ask you a similar question.

The universe exists. How did this happen?

I don't know. However, we both agree that the universe does exist. I am not yet convinced that these rules you keep referring to actually exist.

While I would agree that rules do exist, I think they are a human invention. So they clearly are not the kind of rules you are talking about.

If, as you claim, rules are necessary beings, I would assume you would answer my question with a yes. I only asked it with the intent of understanding your position more clearly.

 

[Ahab]

I already provided an answer to that: meta-rules.
It's rules all the way down.
EB

I think this is actually a valid argument against my position.

Since it does create this absurdity there may be some flaw.

Looks to me like a fatal argument to your position. Rules would require other rules in order to exist. I think the only way out would be to acknowledge what is implied by your view: that there is a God who creates these rules. I would still not agree with your position but I would at least think it a coherent and possible one.

But then the position we would be stuck with would be that structure and thus the chance for regularity could exist entirely on its own somehow. It could create itself whole. The "rules" of quantum dynamics could just create themselves.

Another absurdity.

It is not an absurdity if one realizes that the rules are our way of explaining and predicting what happens in the world. That doesn't entail that those rules we use can exist independently of us.

 

[untermensche]

But then the position we would be stuck with would be that structure and thus the chance for regularity could exist entirely on its own somehow. It could create itself whole. The "rules" of quantum dynamics could just create themselves.

Another absurdity.

How can chance be an absurdity? Just explained some symmetries were eliminated because totals of opposites weren't exactly equal. There were originally more electrons that there were positrons so as a result positrons ultimately disappeared. Not absurd at all. Seems to me this is sufficient along with limitations in size, energy, spin, etc., that a reasonable outcome could be depending on observer either a wave or a particle is observed which cannot be predicted with the rules.

Its either something like what I describe or its something like Speakpigeon opines. Explaining regularity needn't be reduced to the absurd.

Again, for there to be an electron there needs to be "rules" that "define" the properties of that electron.

You cannot have all these electrons with the exact same properties arise by chance.

You might be able to get one.

 

[untermensche]

I'll ask you a similar question.

The universe exists. How did this happen?

I don't know. However, we both agree that the universe does exist. I am not yet convinced that these rules you keep referring to actually exist.

While I would agree that rules do exist, I think they are a human invention. So they clearly are not the kind of rules you are talking about.

If, as you claim, rules are necessary beings, I would assume you would answer my question with a yes. I only asked it with the intent of understanding your position more clearly.

How do electrons all have the same properties unless they have specific "rules" that "define" those properties?

 

[Juma]

I don't know. However, we both agree that the universe does exist. I am not yet convinced that these rules you keep referring to actually exist.

While I would agree that rules do exist, I think they are a human invention. So they clearly are not the kind of rules you are talking about.

If, as you claim, rules are necessary beings, I would assume you would answer my question with a yes. I only asked it with the intent of understanding your position more clearly.

How do electrons all have the same properties unless they have specific "rules" that "define" those properties?

Let me put it this way: in what way is your hypotesis of "rules" useful?