Laws of Nature

[untermensche]

Actually all you did was pass it forward.

I was talking about the nature of mathematics.

It may not be all that amazing that the universe can be modeled using mathematics. It may be due more to the nature of mathematics than the nature of the universe.

 

[fromderinside]

Laws of nature may nothing like humans represent them so it would not surprise me that if human laws of nature look more like humans would devise mathematics since bot are human bound. We are still taking pictures very rapidly as broadly as we know how then attempting to infer something about what we record using our dimension limited technology about nature that is lawful IAC with our systems. The nature of human mathematics may more reflect human nature that it is capable of modelling nature simply our version of mathematics is human limited. This is not to say that mathematics, unbound by human constraints, cannot model nature and provide answers as to its lawfulness, including human nature related to them.

Conveniently this brings us back to your Benjamin Franklin.

 

[untermensche]

Laws of nature may nothing like humans represent them....

Tell me how that might be possible since the models are based on experimental data not the imagination.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

IMHO the term 'laws' is misleading. Philosophers deal with deduction and induction. An example of deduction is 2+2+4. An example of induction is gravity. Induction is when we recognise a pattern in nature, and rely on it. But is a pattern a law? Well, so far gravity has held up as a reliable pattern but there is no evidence (apart from the pattern) that it will continue to hold up. If gravity changes or fails then we will have witnessed a wider pattern, unfortunately.

It is most unlikely that we have witnessed everything about the universe, so all the patterns in the universe are vulnerable to the problem of induction, just as Russell's chicken would be if it expected to be fed through the Xmas season.

Alex.

 

[Juma]

Laws of nature may nothing like humans represent them....

Tell me how that might be possible since the models are based on experimental data not the imagination.

The data is human representations.

 

[untermensche]

Tell me how that might be possible since the models are based on experimental data not the imagination.

The data is human representations.

It has to be expressed, as all things must, in human terms, but the data is the data, not a human invention.

A stone accelerates at 9.8m/s2 when dropped. This is only how humans express the acceleration BUT it represents something "real", something out there. The acceleration is "real", not imaginary.

 

[Juma]

The data is human representations.

It has to be expressed, as all things must, in human terms, but the data is the data, not a human invention.

A stone accelerates at 9.8m/s2 when dropped. This is only how humans express the acceleration BUT it represents something "real", something out there. The acceleration is "real", not imaginary.

The data is the human respresentation of the measurement. It is the numbers in the data file + a model of the measurement.
The actual fact measured is not the data.

 

[untermensche]

It has to be expressed, as all things must, in human terms, but the data is the data, not a human invention.

A stone accelerates at 9.8m/s2 when dropped. This is only how humans express the acceleration BUT it represents something "real", something out there. The acceleration is "real", not imaginary.

The data is the human respresentation of the measurement. It is the numbers in the data file + a model of the measurement.
The actual fact measured is not the data.

Sure, the data is a representation of "something" out there.

So if there are "laws" they are out there, not our representations of what is out there.

 

[fromderinside]

Laws of nature may nothing like humans represent them....

Tell me how that might be possible since the models are based on experimental data not the imagination.

Consider that the several dimensions we can't measure are the essential ones for understanding the laws of nature.

 

[untermensche]

Tell me how that might be possible since the models are based on experimental data not the imagination.

Consider that the several dimensions we can't measure are the essential ones for understanding the laws of nature.

The "laws" are what they are in all contexts, if not they are not "laws", even the context of looking them in the scale and manner we look at them.

We are still recording the ways the "laws" are acting within our context. Even if our context is not universal.

 

[Juma]

Consider that the several dimensions we can't measure are the essential ones for understanding the laws of nature.

The "laws" are what they are in all contexts, if not they are not "laws", even the context of looking them in the scale and manner we look at them.

We are still recording the ways the "laws" are acting within our context. Even if our context is not universal.

Exactly what is it you referto by "laws" here? The universe is what it is. We see regularities but these are picked out from all the rest of universal behaviour by how we works. To think about the universe , to simulate the universe in computers, etc WE need to formulate laws.
The universe doesnt need any laws.

 

[untermensche]

The "laws" are what they are in all contexts, if not they are not "laws", even the context of looking them in the scale and manner we look at them.

We are still recording the ways the "laws" are acting within our context. Even if our context is not universal.

Exactly what is it you referto by "laws" here? The universe is what it is. We see regularities but these are picked out from all the rest of universal behaviour by how we works. To think about the universe , to simulate the universe in computers, etc WE need to formulate laws.
The universe doesnt need any laws.

If the universe has behavior then the laws are the cause of that behavior.

You can't have behavior without a cause behind it.

 

[Juma]

Exactly what is it you referto by "laws" here? The universe is what it is. We see regularities but these are picked out from all the rest of universal behaviour by how we works. To think about the universe , to simulate the universe in computers, etc WE need to formulate laws.
The universe doesnt need any laws.

If the universe has behavior then the laws are the cause of that behavior.

You can't have behavior without a cause behind it.

Cause and effect are human categories.
The universe just is as it is.

 

[fromderinside]

Think of what humans call laws are what is found to be regular the atmosphere close to earth. Think for a moment that the forces behind earth quakes, meteors, and celestial mechanics are beyond our ability to measure. Then you would have a paradigm like the one I describe for dimensions beyond the three or four we can use and measure. Then we would need imply sources for heat and cyclonic activity which we see and measure in the atmosphere. Our predictions would look a lot like that of the astrologers and philosophers of old before we gained access to tools to look into stuff beyond the atmosphere.

Oh we would have descriptions and laws but they would be further from what we now think we know than the distance I believe remains before we can say the world is lawful or no.

Wat about that heavy Boson possibility?

 

[untermensche]

If the universe has behavior then the laws are the cause of that behavior.

You can't have behavior without a cause behind it.

Cause and effect are human categories.
The universe just is as it is.

The ball falls to the ground: The effect.

Gravity: The cause.

None of this was invented by humans. It is clearly seen.

Some people squirm and start sweating when the idea of cause and effect are discussed. They see it as a doorway into that world of the ultimate "first cause".

But a first cause makes as much sense as any effect without a cause.

 

[Juma]

Cause and effect are human categories.
The universe just is as it is.

The ball falls to the ground: The effect.

Gravity: The cause.

None of this was invented by humans. It is clearly seen.

Some people squirm and start sweating when the idea of cause and effect are discussed. They see it as a doorway into that world of the ultimate "first cause".

But a first cause makes as much sense as any effect without a cause.

"Cause" and "effect" is tainted with human connotations. And that is those connotations that leads the theists astray.

Gravity is circumstance. The falling of the ball is a behavior.

 

[fast]

Exactly what is it you referto by "laws" here? The universe is what it is. We see regularities but these are picked out from all the rest of universal behaviour by how we works. To think about the universe , to simulate the universe in computers, etc WE need to formulate laws.
The universe doesnt need any laws.

If the universe has behavior then the laws are the cause of that behavior.

You can't have behavior without a cause behind it.

If a law is something we create, then what we create isn't the cause for the behavior.

I think we do create laws (that is, formulate mathematical expressions based on observations), but I think to use the term, "laws of nature" as if it's a kind of law we create (or formulate) is a misuse of the term. I think laws of nature are independent of our creations (or formulations). It's just not the kind of law we create.

 

[untermensche]

The ball falls to the ground: The effect.

Gravity: The cause.

None of this was invented by humans. It is clearly seen.

Some people squirm and start sweating when the idea of cause and effect are discussed. They see it as a doorway into that world of the ultimate "first cause".

But a first cause makes as much sense as any effect without a cause.

"Cause" and "effect" is tainted with human connotations. And that is those connotations that leads the theists astray.

Gravity is circumstance. The falling of the ball is a behavior.

You're using the word "behavior" abstractly.

The ball has no choice, but things with "behavior" are different because they all behave differently.

A ball is trapped by circumstance, a thing with behavior acts appropriately to circumstance but is not forced to act.

I think I know what you mean. Every cause is actually an effect.

But if you isolate one effect and abstractly see it as a cause then you can see that for there to be an effect there must be a "cause", or more accurately there must be a previous effect.

 

[Juma]

"Cause" and "effect" is tainted with human connotations. And that is those connotations that leads the theists astray.

Gravity is circumstance. The falling of the ball is a behavior.

You're using the word "behavior" abstractly.

The ball has no choice, but things with "behavior" are different because they all behave differently.

A ball is trapped by circumstance, a thing with behavior acts appropriately to circumstance but is not forced to act.

I think I know what you mean. Every cause is actually an effect.

But if you isolate one effect and abstractly see it as a cause then you can see that for there to be an effect there must be a "cause", or more accurately there must be a previous effect.

Exactly: the illusion of "cause and effect" is the result of an observer in a similar way as numbers is the result of an observer identifying and isolating items.

 

[fromderinside]

You're using the word "behavior" abstractly.

The ball has no choice, but things with "behavior" are different because they all behave differently.

A ball is trapped by circumstance, a thing with behavior acts appropriately to circumstance but is not forced to act.

I think I know what you mean. Every cause is actually an effect.

But if you isolate one effect and abstractly see it as a cause then you can see that for there to be an effect there must be a "cause", or more accurately there must be a previous effect.

Exactly: the illusion of "cause and effect" is the result of an observer in a similar way as numbers is the result of an observer identifying and isolating items.

Do many observations of a feather drifting across one's field of view or even rising cause one to pause regarding untermenche's proposition, or, at least to think about other considerations required?