Laws of Nature... emergent property of matter or immaterial rules imposed upon matter?

[fast]

Do you think E=Mc^2 is an invention or discovery?

Hint, it's the referent to the equation and not the equation itself that I ask about.

The equivalence is a discovery.

But it is logically strange.

What would it mean to multiply mass by something?

You can break particles apart in a collider.

But how do you multiply them by something?

Well, like you said, there is an equivalency. It's a fact of the world that energy is equivalent to mass times a constant. Nature need not have a mind to act on the equivalency inherent to it. It neither knows nor understands itself for what it is. We, as humans, in order to grasp the relationship between energy and mass rely on the formula and the mathematics involved.

Even if others cannot agree on just what the laws of nature are or from whence they came, that's no reason we cannot grasp which side of the great divide they are on (or would be on--for those deniers). Are they inventions or discoveries (?)--that's a starting point. My position is that they are discoveries and should not be confused as being the inventions of man. To call it a statement (and not grasp the distinction between a statement and what a statement is about) leads us to consider laws of nature manmade--and that I firmly disagree with. Even in most ordinary speech, the laws of nature is a mystery of our world that science is honing in on and unraveling.

Hoping CERN doesn't blow us up first

 

[Kharakov]

When you start talking about things starting to exist you are talking about our furthest and thinnest understanding of things.

You cannot demonstrate that anything ever existed without a cause.

Obviously something always existed in some form or another. If nothing (simple non-existence) was the case, it would be eternal. Nothing is perfectly balanced- it has no forces one way or another, no tendencies to act one way or another. If it had the tendency to form stuff, to act in certain ways (even to act randomly or chaotically), it would be something that existed, with existing characteristics (the tendency to form stuff an/or act randomly/chaotically are characteristics of something, not nothing).

Anyway- the eternal something exists without a cause. It isn't even possible for it to not exist. It might cause other causes, but something was always there. Causing. Waiting. Watching. Hungry. Patient.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to say something similar... that "things" can have causes that themselves are not "things".

Something semantic? I'm curious.

 

[untermensche]

When you start talking about things starting to exist you are talking about our furthest and thinnest understanding of things.

You cannot demonstrate that anything ever existed without a cause.

Obviously something always existed in some form or another.

Nothing obvious about it.

The question of existence is beyond our capacities to explain in any way.

Claims about what is needed and not needed don't have any validity.

They are not testable.

If nothing (simple non-existence) was the case, it would be eternal.

"Nothing" cannot be the cause of anything.

Anyway- the eternal something exists without a cause.

Absolute nonsense.

Why there is existence, how it came about, and what is needed for there to be existence are not known in any way.

People making claims about the necessities for existence are pretending to understand something they do not understand in any way.

 

[Kharakov]

Do you think E=Mc^2 is an invention or discovery?

What would it mean to multiply mass by something?

Energy is information that can be viewed as divided into mass (M), length (300M Km), and acceleration (300M Km per s^2) || or || [mass, length^2, per second^2].

Usage of scientific equations is basically taking information we have and looking at it in particular ways that allow our consciousnesses (which are at leverage points in the information flow) to do meaningful things with the information flow. We're programs that program and seek better programs based on our personal experiences of the program.

You can break particles apart in a collider.

But how do you multiply them by something?

If you know the particles mass, and number of particles you have, you can multiply the value of their mass by the number of particles and arrive at a reasonable estimate of the total mass of the particles (give or take a bit). But multiplication is mathematical, not physical, except in the sense that the act of multiplying causes a physical change to our computational infrastructures (whether they are brains, computers, or whatnot).

 

[fast]

However, I'm arguing that the laws are just descriptions of repeated things we observe in nature- so mass of 10^23 kg will cause a specific acceleration towards it, an electromagnetic field will interact with certain substances in certain ways, etc. The law correlating mass to acceleration is not a "law", but rather a mathematical description of the observed properties of nature.

There is a linguistic nightmare before us. There's more than just ambiguity at play. It's an entirely different nonclemature (sp) at work.

 

[Kharakov]

Obviously something always existed in some form or another.
...
If nothing (simple non-existence) was the case, it would be eternal.
...
Anyway- the eternal something exists without a cause.

"Nothing" cannot be the cause of anything.
...
Why there is existence, how it came about, and what is needed for there to be existence are not known in any way.

Something always existed because if there was nothing, nothing would continue to exist forever, because nothing doesn't have the power to change anything.

 

[Kharakov]

However, I'm arguing that the laws are just descriptions of repeated things we observe in nature- so mass of 10^23 kg will cause a specific acceleration towards it, an electromagnetic field will interact with certain substances in certain ways, etc. The law correlating mass to acceleration is not a "law", but rather a mathematical description of the observed properties of nature.

There is a linguistic nightmare before us. There's more than just ambiguity at play. It's an entirely different nonclemature (sp) at work.

I used "cause" sloppily, instead of the slightly more correct idea "a mass of 10^23 kg has a specific spacetime deformation associated with it".

 

[untermensche]

"Nothing" cannot be the cause of anything.
...
Why there is existence, how it came about, and what is needed for there to be existence are not known in any way.

Something always existed because if there was nothing, nothing would continue to exist forever, because nothing doesn't have the power to change anything.

It's a paradox, not an understanding.

"Nothing" cannot cause something.

And something cannot cause itself.

And the idea of infinite causes extending into the past is absurd.

 

[fast]

There is a linguistic nightmare before us. There's more than just ambiguity at play. It's an entirely different nonclemature (sp) at work.

I used "cause" sloppily, instead of the slightly more correct idea "a mass of 10^23 kg has a specific spacetime deformation associated with it".

Lol, no, I'm talking about the idea that a law is a description. Just kidding, I'm not really talking about an idea at all, so I'm definitely not talking about the idea that a law is a description. Sorry, one-sided humor.

There's a few things going on at the same time. I would submit that "laws of science" contains three separate single-worded terms while "laws of nature" is more interpretable as a single three-worded term. Knowing the meaning of "laws" becomes helpful when trying to ascertain the meaning of "laws of science." However, such is not the case with "laws of nature."

If you want to have a clue what laws of science is, knowing the meaning of the constituent words is helpful, but that's because the individual meaning of the words is relevant. That is not always the case. Take free will for example. That is two-worded term that has an evolved meaning independent of its constituent parts. That's why it's a mistake to merely couple their independent meanings.

Yes, many people do refer to laws as descriptions, but the subject matter at hand when discussing laws of nature is not descriptions at all. It's what descriptions would be descriptions of. I think that mass causes acceleration is amazing. The description, eh, not so much. The laws are beautiful discoveries, but if they are truly nothing more than our mere descriptions, and thus an invented product of man reflecting the wonderous discovery that spawned their creation, then we shouldn't hold them in the same wonder we do.

 

[Kharakov]

"Nothing" cannot cause something.

And something cannot cause itself.

Yeah. Things that don't have a prior cause don't need a cause. They might cause something, but they aren't caused.

And the idea of infinite causes extending into the past is absurd.

No, it isn't. Something that travels an infinite amount of infinitesimal distances a second can travel -1/12 meters each second.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah. Things that don't have a prior cause don't need a cause. They might cause something, but they aren't caused.

What "things" are you talking about?

You have lost any connection to the world that exists where bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon.

This is some imaginary answer. No different from inventing a god.

And the idea of infinite causes extending into the past is absurd.

No, it isn't. Something that travels an infinite amount of infinitesimal distances a second can travel -1/12 meters each second.

That is gibberish.

If we have a string of causes and effects it cannot extend into the past infinitely.

Because for every effect we need a cause and this can never end.

 

[untermensche]

glitz

 

[bilby]

What "things" are you talking about?

You have lost any connection to the world that exists where bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon.

This is some imaginary answer. No different from inventing a god.

And the idea of infinite causes extending into the past is absurd.

No, it isn't. Something that travels an infinite amount of infinitesimal distances a second can travel -1/12 meters each second.

That is gibberish.

If we have a string of causes and effects it cannot extend into the past infinitely.

Because for every effect we need a cause and this can never end.

....aaaaaaand we are back to the old 'untermensche doesn't understand infinity, but refuses to even consider the possibility that his understanding is deeply flawed' discussion. *Yawn*

 

[untermensche]

What "things" are you talking about?

You have lost any connection to the world that exists where bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon.

This is some imaginary answer. No different from inventing a god.

No, it isn't. Something that travels an infinite amount of infinitesimal distances a second can travel -1/12 meters each second.

That is gibberish.

If we have a string of causes and effects it cannot extend into the past infinitely.

Because for every effect we need a cause and this can never end.

....aaaaaaand we are back to the old 'untermensche doesn't understand infinity, but refuses to even consider the possibility that his understanding is deeply flawed' discussion. *Yawn*

We don't have to talk about infinity. Since you claim to know these magic things about it but can't explain them.

We merely need to keep focused on reality and not drift into irrelevant distractions.

If we have a system where every reaction required an action, where every effect requires a cause then we merely need to keep our focus on this system.

Within this system, not some other, we cannot have causes stretching infinitely into the past.

No such system could exist.

If every effect needs a cause then a first cause is needed to get any such system started. If there is never an initial cause there could never be any effect.

Stick to an examination of this and you might learn something.

 

[Juma]

What "things" are you talking about?

You have lost any connection to the world that exists where bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon.

This is some imaginary answer. No different from inventing a god.

No, it isn't. Something that travels an infinite amount of infinitesimal distances a second can travel -1/12 meters each second.

That is gibberish.

If we have a string of causes and effects it cannot extend into the past infinitely.

Because for every effect we need a cause and this can never end.

....aaaaaaand we are back to the old 'untermensche doesn't understand infinity, but refuses to even consider the possibility that his understanding is deeply flawed' discussion. *Yawn*

We don't have to talk about infinity. Since you claim to know these magic things about it but can't explain them.

We merely need to keep focused on reality and not drift into irrelevant distractions.

If we have a system where every reaction required an action, where every effect requires a cause then we merely need to keep our focus on this system.

Within this system, not some other, we cannot have causes stretching infinitely into the past.

No such system could exist.

If every effect needs a cause then a first cause is needed to get any such system started. If there is never an initial cause there could never be any effect.

Lot of wind here... can you at least hint at why? Just you saying so is no proof...

 

[bilby]

What "things" are you talking about?

You have lost any connection to the world that exists where bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon.

This is some imaginary answer. No different from inventing a god.

No, it isn't. Something that travels an infinite amount of infinitesimal distances a second can travel -1/12 meters each second.

That is gibberish.

If we have a string of causes and effects it cannot extend into the past infinitely.

Because for every effect we need a cause and this can never end.

....aaaaaaand we are back to the old 'untermensche doesn't understand infinity, but refuses to even consider the possibility that his understanding is deeply flawed' discussion. *Yawn*

We don't have to talk about infinity. Since you claim to know these magic things about it but can't explain them.

We merely need to keep focused on reality and not drift into irrelevant distractions.

If we have a system where every reaction required an action, where every effect requires a cause then we merely need to keep our focus on this system.

Within this system, not some other, we cannot have causes stretching infinitely into the past.

No such system could exist.

If every effect needs a cause then a first cause is needed to get any such system started. If there is never an initial cause there could never be any effect.

Stick to an examination of this and you might learn something.

And if there is a first cause, then you don't have a system as described, "where every reaction required an action, where every effect requires a cause".

So if we rule out a first cause, because that's the model you want to consider; And we also rule out infinite regression of causes, because you demand that we must, then we have a paradox whatever we do.

Congratulations, you have proven that the model you describe cannot possibly be correct.

You need to either abandon "every effect requires a cause"; or abandon "we cannot have causes stretching infinitely into the past". It's easy to prove that you cannot have both, without having eternal nothing - and we observe that we currently have more than nothing.

 

[untermensche]

..then we have a paradox whatever we do....

That is my position.

We do not have an understanding. We cannot explain it or understand it.

For a system of cause and effect to exist requires a first cause. Saying there does not need to be a first cause is an unsupportable position.

But a first cause is a violation of such a system.

We do not have to abandon anything except the idea that we can make sense of it.

 

[bilby]

..then we have a paradox whatever we do....

That is my position.

We do not have an understanding. We cannot explain it or understand it.

For a system of cause and effect to exist requires a first cause. Saying there does not need to be a first cause is an unsupportable position.

But a first cause is a violation of such a system.

We do not have to abandon anything except the idea that we can make sense of it.

Well the alternative would be to abandon the idea that we are not wrong about any of the premises - I know you find the idea that you might be wrong utterly inconceivable, but it is a possibility that smart people are prepared to entertain.

 

[untermensche]

That is my position.

We do not have an understanding. We cannot explain it or understand it.

For a system of cause and effect to exist requires a first cause. Saying there does not need to be a first cause is an unsupportable position.

But a first cause is a violation of such a system.

We do not have to abandon anything except the idea that we can make sense of it.

Well the alternative would be to abandon the idea that we are not wrong about any of the premises - I know you find the idea that you might be wrong utterly inconceivable, but it is a possibility that smart people are prepared to entertain.

Abandoning the premises is to just leave the planet and talk about make-believe nonsense. Like things existing with no cause.

The premises lead to a paradox.

We are stuck with it.

 

[bilby]

Well the alternative would be to abandon the idea that we are not wrong about any of the premises - I know you find the idea that you might be wrong utterly inconceivable, but it is a possibility that smart people are prepared to entertain.

Abandoning the premises is to just leave the planet and talk about make-believe nonsense. Like things existing with no cause.

The premises lead to a paradox.

We are stuck with it.

Not if the universe has an infinite past, or if some things just spontaneously happen without cause. It's not proven that either is untrue; The entire universe might be a spontaneous quantum fluctuation, or the past could be infinite. Your personal distaste for these positions is not evidence of anything.