Laws of Nature

[fast]

The discoverable regularities that exist in nature independent of our observations of them is one thing, hereby denoted as something (regularities) belonging to the left hand.

The human invented observation dependent explanations that describe the regularities is a second thing, hereby denoted as something (explanations) belonging to the right hand.

So, in the left hand, we have regularities, and in the right hand, we have explanations.

The question being posed in this thread is simple. Does the term, "Laws of nature" refer to the regularities that exist in nature or our explanations of the regularities?

My belief is that the three worded term refers to the regularities.

 

[another1]

Fast, God made the laws of nature and you're being evil, but if you ask me hypothetically I'd say that everything is an explanation, and regularities are made by explanations. Explanations are made by regularities from other things which are made by explanations. Left and right are the same thing in that sense, and all that is, is God. Thank God nature is so balanced and neat. Simply impossible to be randomly occurring in any way, and in in way explained the presence of God is undeniable.

 

[Kharakov]

 Scientific law  Physical law

I tend to think language is determined by prevailing usage...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Simply impossible to be randomly occurring in any way, and in in way explained the presence of God is undeniable.

I deny it.

More to the point, i deny that you have any evidence that it's impossible to have occurred without an intelligent designer.

 

[another1]

Darn I just posted an incredible response and lost it, Keith. I'm out of practice. I called you a mystic for not believing that reality was unmolested by God. Something like that. I don't blame you for being a mystic. I am pretty mystical in the way I think, too.

 

[fast]

 Scientific law  Physical law

I tend to think language is determined by prevailing usage...

Yes, meaning (that is, lexical meaning) is a function of our usage. To be more specific, the lexical meaning of words is a function of our collective fluent usage of words. That's why stipulative usage doesn't necessarily count as lexical usage, as individual usage need not accord with collective usage.

Fluency is also important, and notwithstanding the impact it has on the evolution of meaning, we must also be mindful of the impact of a tendency for writers to couch their findings in language, sometimes not consciously making the relevant distinction.

Just as we keep in mind the distinction between a word and a word's meaning, so too should we not confuse the meaning of a word and the referent of a word. I'd even go so far as to not allow meaning to be conflated with definition.

What's important is that we keep our eye on the ball. Consider a written explanation that has been formulalized. It's still a creature belonging to the right hand, but much prevailing inconsistency surrounds us, sometimes seemingly treating it as if it refers to regularities in nature--and sometimes not.

 

[bilby]

Fast, God made the laws of nature and you're being evil, but if you ask me hypothetically I'd say that everything is an explanation, and regularities are made by explanations. Explanations are made by regularities from other things which are made by explanations. Left and right are the same thing in that sense, and all that is, is God. Thank God nature is so balanced and neat. Simply impossible to be randomly occurring in any way, and in in way explained the presence of God is undeniable.

Which God? There are fucking thousands of them (and not a single one that has the necessary characteristics to be non-fiction).

Invoking 'God' - even if you specify which God - doesn't actually explain anything at all. If I ask 'How was this chair made', the answer 'Dave made it' doesn't provide a single shred of information on how the chair was made. It doesn't even tell me who made it - because there are lots of people called Dave.

Equally, even if we all agree which God you are talking about, and even if we accepted as true the unfounded and unsupported assertion that 'God made the laws of nature', this assertion does absolutely nothing to address the question: "Does the term, "Laws of nature" refer to the regularities that exist in nature or our explanations of the regularities?"

If I asked "Does the term, "Chair" refer to the chairs that exist in nature or our experiences of chairs?", then the answer "Dave made the chairs" is clearly not even wrong - it doesn't have anything at all to do with the question. Whether or not the chairs really were made by Dave, that information is totally fucking valueless with respect to the question.

Your 'God' would be completely irrelevant here, even if He were not fictional.

 

[fast]

Fast, God made the laws of nature and you're being evil, but if you ask me hypothetically I'd say that everything is an explanation, and regularities are made by explanations. Explanations are made by regularities from other things which are made by explanations. Left and right are the same thing in that sense, and all that is, is God. Thank God nature is so balanced and neat. Simply impossible to be randomly occurring in any way, and in in way explained the presence of God is undeniable.

I am not being evil, nor have I denied that God is (in His goodness) responsible for the laws of nature. I'm asking a linguistic question--a question about language. It has to do with philosophy of language. Let me give you an introductory example:

It's what's referred to as the "use/mention" distinction. Most often in discussions, we use (use, I say) words. For instance, "I need to feed my cat." I used the words in that sentence. Now, consider this sentence: "the word, "cat" has three letters. Yes, technically, I used (in the lamen sense) the word, "cat," however, in philosophy circles, we call that mentioning the word. The minor point here is that when we're talking about the word itself and not the meaning or it's referent, it's considered to have been mentioned.

This distinction is important, as many philosophical discussions often come down to semantics, and a common confusion (in much need of avoidance) is between whether the topic has turned to words themselves versus their meaning and referents. I can feed, pet, and care for my cat, but none of those things can be done to the word, "cat."

I have a cat, and it's name is, "crooked tail kitty." That is a name, and in this instance stands as a single term. It's a three-worded term. If I talk about what the term refers to, then I'm talking about what can be fed, petted, and cared for. Notice that in this thread, I'm talking about the term, "laws of nature." Granted, I'm interested in what it refers to, but never once did I say anything about how the regularities in nature came to be.

You said everything is an explanation. Is an explanation, you say. Well, that doesn't come across as quite right to me. Perhaps everything that is has an explanation, but that (to me) sounds a bit different. Consider the Moon. We may have an explanation for why it orbits our planet, but to say that the moon itself is an explanation, well, doesn't appear to accord with how we typically speak.

 

[another1]

Oh I understand now, sorry. Well I think language is living and it has processes that work with components of reality to confuse and deter. Since language creates reality in so many ways, I think it needs those properties to maintain the world around us. I've thought something like this for decades and to me it reinforces the idea that something intelligent is responsible for the traits of reality, if not reality as a whole. Same page, different language.

 

[another1]

It was irrelevant bilby. I shouldn't have mentioned God at all. Not right out the gate anyway.

 

[fast]

Oh I understand now, sorry. Well I think language is living and it has processes that work with components of reality to confuse and deter. Since language creates reality in so many ways, I think it needs those properties to maintain the world around us. I've thought something like this for decades and to me it reinforces the idea that something intelligent is responsible for the traits of reality, if not reality as a whole. Same page, different language.

You say that you think language is living. I disagree. Or, do I? I think language is dynamic, so much so that I agree with what you mean (even if I don't agree with the letter of how you say it). That just so happens to highlight the fact that words used linguistically have a meaning independent of our own individual usage. We know what the child means, for example, when he points to a zebra (while at the zoo) and says, "hey ma, look at the horse." The meaning of the word, "horse" would not all of a sudden change to match that of "zebra."

You also said, "to" when you said, "[...] to confuse and deter." You've dug up in my mind the idea of purpose. If I use language and it results in confusion, it's not necessarily because I purposely tried to induce confusion. So, and in the same vein, even if everything else you said is true when you said, "Well I think language is living and it has processes that work with components of reality to confuse and deter," I would not also think it's 'to' confuse and deter--just because it does (if it does) confuse and deter.

By the way, I may have spoken too soon when I said that I disagree about whether or not language is living. It depends. It depends on what you mean, but not wholly so. First, it's customary to use single quotes when using words in alternative or unusual ways. For example, when Loretta Lynn (in one of her songs speaks of her husband catting around with a kitty), she uses words that are in discord with their corresponding definitions. Thus, there are cats (those that meow), and (also), there are 'cats'--pretty one's, I would imagine. Second, words are ambiguous (not to be confused with being vague) and therefore have more than one lexical meaning, so if by chance you can show that there is an actual lexical meaning of the word, "living" that can be correctly used to describe language, then I would agree with you. The key point is to not lose sight that meaning (linguistic meaning, that is) is not derivative of individual meaning (or stipulative meaning, as its called.)

You say that language creates reality. This can get sticky, and I prefer to keep it old school when speaking of reality. I make what I think is an important distinction--a distinction between realty (what is) and our own individual mental perceptions of reality (perceptions of what is). They don't always match, so most certainly, they are not the same--not even if they did or do match. If you think that language helps shape our perceptions of reality, I'll refrain from arguing.

 

[DBT]

Thank God nature is so balanced and neat. Simply impossible to be randomly occurring in any way, and in in way explained the presence of God is undeniable.

Thank God that such complexity as a God, the creator of complexity, could not have occurred without a Creator.....

 

[Speakpigeon]

The discoverable regularities that exist in nature independent of our observations of them is one thing, hereby denoted as something (regularities) belonging to the left hand.

The human invented observation dependent explanations that describe the regularities is a second thing, hereby denoted as something (explanations) belonging to the right hand.

So, in the left hand, we have regularities, and in the right hand, we have explanations.

The question being posed in this thread is simple. Does the term, "Laws of nature" refer to the regularities that exist in nature or our explanations of the regularities?

My belief is that the three worded term refers to the regularities.

Words don't mean or refer. Instead, we use them to mean. So different people will use the expression "laws of nature" to mean different things. I decided long ago that the expression was confused so I decided to use "regularities" instead.

That being said, I believe that most articulate people use the expression "laws of nature" to refer not to explanations but to what may be the causes of the regularities we observe. Which is a properly metaphysical perspective.

Physicists probably refer to (their own) explanations of these regularities when they use the expression "the laws of physics". More precisely, scientific explanations consitute physics, i.e. physics is a set of explanation. The laws of physics are then the mathematical formulae that are part of these explanations. I suspect that most scientists are agnostic as to whether the laws of physics, or the laws of nature for that matter, likely refer or not to something in nature.
EB

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It was irrelevant bilby. I shouldn't have mentioned God at all. Not right out the gate anyway.

It's always amusing when Christians don't follow the "judge not lest ye be judged" rule. Pretty sure calling someone evil is judging. Also don't act like you're so high and mighty, no one cares. The fact that you feel like you have to express yourself by disparaging others only demonstrates that you have deep seated insecurities.

 

[untermensche]

Even to say "regularity" is to add something human to it.

There is data and there is interpretation of data.

The interpretation is what humans make of the data.

So it depends on what you think humans are capable of.

Some seem to think humans are capable of fully understanding the data. They see mathematics as ultimate truth.

I don't think that. Humans are apes that talk.

 

[another1]

Well said and polite, fast. I think Language helps create reality with other mechines like talking. Talking is a machine in bodies, which are machines that are in imagination. Imagination is a machine inside bodies but it is also bodies. The machines are shifty and they can't be figured out from within machines. Like there are these crazy machines inside machines, and they all do machine things (because God) so that reality happens. I point out language as one of the biggies because it is really important.

 

[another1]

Lets not make this about God, Genesis.

 

[fast]

The discoverable regularities that exist in nature independent of our observations of them is one thing, hereby denoted as something (regularities) belonging to the left hand.

The human invented observation dependent explanations that describe the regularities is a second thing, hereby denoted as something (explanations) belonging to the right hand.

So, in the left hand, we have regularities, and in the right hand, we have explanations.

The question being posed in this thread is simple. Does the term, "Laws of nature" refer to the regularities that exist in nature or our explanations of the regularities?

My belief is that the three worded term refers to the regularities.

Words don't mean or refer. Instead, we use them to mean.

I can most certainly appreciate where you're coming from with that. I once came close to thinking that myself. What talented creatures they must be (those words) I used to self-sarcastically ponder, but once I accepted that it's acceptably apart of the range of language to couch our discussions as if words have power, it's easier to accept that it is not therefore false (since it is indeed apart of language) to consider true that (oh say) words have definitions, meaning, reference, etc--they do because we (in essence) say they do--it's the function we bestow upon them.

To illustrate, consider the proposition, "words denote meaning." It's neutral. It's not to imbue them with skill, and it's not to personify them as engaging in action. It's not as if they are 'doing' something. To counter argue that words don't denote meaning but instead we denote meaning with words is to presume personification. That's not what's going on when we say that words refer. It's not to imply that words are actually doing something, as if they are making conscious decisions to act. It's apart of language to couch words as having power.

 

[fast]

Even to say "regularity" is to add something human to it.

I think that's jumping the gun a little bit there. We may be using a human concept to describe our interpretation of the thing in nature we have observed, but that which exists independent of our very own existence is the very thing that's in the left hand. We shouldn't commingle our attempts to describe that which exists for the describing. The moon orbits the Earth. To articulate the event as orbiting may involve the human understanding of what it is for a celestial body to orbit a planet, but the event is factual independent of our human understanding--and so too is the articulation of it.

 

[another1]

It is possible that things are so hard to explain because language is alive. All concepts in physical understanding like light and gravity, as well as cognitive and communicative things like language... alive. They're alive and they do their thing to confuse consciousness (another living thing) into believing the things that appear to transpire are actually transpiring. The main purpose of all living things could be convincing other living things that reality is occurring, yet some living things aren't aware of it.