Laws of Nature

[Juma]

How do you know it is abiding?

If behavior can be predicted then it must be abiding.

1) no, doesnt have to.
2) assume that it is abiding then the law is separate from that that is abiding. This means that there must be some sort of law entities that is the law and some sort of mechanism communicating the law to the abiding entities... But these "law entities" must themselves follow laws and thus needs "law entities of themselves etc....

 

[Malintent]

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.

The term is used to refer to either, depending on context.

 

[Malintent]

Evolution is not process of best it is a process of good enough.

Not true at all. Evolution must use what is available, and what is available is available by chance, but it is a process which takes what is available and makes it efficient at something.

The eyes are incredibly efficient. The legs are incredibly efficient.

But as communication, language is not.

This is all completely untrue, with respect to 'efficiency'. "good enough (for survival)" is the correct term. "efficient (with respect to what??)" is meaningless in this context.

Legs are not efficient at all. They are EFFECTIVE... but Wheels would be WAY more efficient today. so where are the wheeled people? (standby for the picture of a person in a wheelchair from random poster)...

Eyes are EXTREMELY inefficient. they are useless half the time (in the dark), and only work on a ridiculously narrow band of radiation.

Language, on the other hand, gives me the ability to embed thoughts directly into your brain from incredible distances (both spatially, and temporally). Amazing!

 

[untermensche]

Not true at all. Evolution must use what is available, and what is available is available by chance, but it is a process which takes what is available and makes it efficient at something.

The eyes are incredibly efficient. The legs are incredibly efficient.

But as communication, language is not.

This is all completely untrue, with respect to 'efficiency'. "good enough (for survival)" is the correct term. "efficient (with respect to what??)" is meaningless in this context.

Legs are not efficient at all. They are EFFECTIVE... but Wheels would be WAY more efficient today. so where are the wheeled people? (standby for the picture of a person in a wheelchair from random poster)...

Eyes are EXTREMELY inefficient. they are useless half the time (in the dark), and only work on a ridiculously narrow band of radiation.

Language, on the other hand, gives me the ability to embed thoughts directly into your brain from incredible distances (both spatially, and temporally). Amazing!

Legs are incredibly efficient for locomotion. They can take you where wheeled vehicles can't.

Saying eyes aren't efficient in the absence of light, since they are organs that create "mental images" from light, is not much of an argument.

And language is just as likely to be misunderstood from a distance. Not very efficient at all.

 

[fast]

Has anybody claimed that non-sentient agents can willingly choose to act in opposition to a law (or a rule) of nature?

Per the OED definition of "agent":

Hence in mod. Science: Any natural force acting upon matter, any substance the presence of which produces phenomena, whether physical as electricity, chemical as actinism, oxygen, medicinal as chloroform, etc.

So when hydrochloric acid burns your skin when it comes in contact with it, it can be described as an agent acting upon you. It is acting in accordance with the laws of nature. If perchance a miracle occurred and your skin was not burned then such an act would be described as a violation of the laws of nature.

The main point of contention I have with him is in his use of the word, "abide." I would be as argumentative had he said the universe is obedient to the laws of nature. People abide, not objects.

Oh, and I did not use the word "agency" as you are using the word, "agent." A chemical agent is an agent of a different kind.

It is still an agent. And that use is quite appropriate when discussing the laws of science (or the laws of nature). And it is quite correct usage according to the OED.

And Merriam-Webster does not agree with your view that objects cannot be described as abiding.
One example it gives of the use of the word "abide":

… Cocos Island, a mountainous chunk of barely penetrable rain forest that abides in watery solitude 300 miles off Central America's Pacific coast. Eighteen square miles in area, it is considered the world's largest uninhabited tropical island. —Tom Koppel, Travel, November 1989

That usage actually gives me reason to take pause and consider the possibility of an obscure usage that gives rise to ambiguity of the term.

 

[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.

This is dependent on what the speaker believes as to the existence or not of "Laws of Nature" that would be independent of our views on Nature. The word "regularities" convey the idea that there is a regularity in a set of measures without entailing an intrinsic regularity in the actual phenomenon measured, if any. Except perhaps for the scientific understanding of it, the expression "Laws of Nature" usually suggests a characteristic of Nature, not just of how we see Nature.
EB

 

[Ahab]

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.

Does the term "rules of chess" refer to the moves a player makes in a game of chess or does it refer to content that can be found in a chess manual?
I would think the latter.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Does the term "rules of chess" refer to the moves a player makes in a game of chess or does it refer to content that can be found in a chess manual?
I would think the latter.

But if we observe people playing chess and derive the rules, what is the difference between the given rules and the rules we derive?

 

[Ahab]

Does the term "rules of chess" refer to the moves a player makes in a game of chess or does it refer to content that can be found in a chess manual?
I would think the latter.

But if we observe people playing chess and derive the rules, what is the difference between the given rules and the rules we derive?

None that I can see. After all, we don't have to read the chess manual to learn to play chess. We could also ask the players and learn the rules. In any case, the term "rules of chess" would still refer to content that can be found in a manual of chess, wouldn't it?

 

[fromderinside]

That sort of reasoning gets one to "Barlow's face detector cell" in cats. If the cell a cat's brain abides by signalling consistently that Barlow's face is present it is de facto a Barlow face detector. Not at all lawful but abiding satisfied.

Again, a vivid imagination.

Where is this cell that signals constantly?

Uh, the cell fires consistently when the cat is looking at Harry Barlow or an image of him.

Got to get the terms right both when presenting them and when responding to them otherwise you just talk to yourself. Is this an appearance of one of untermenche's laws of his nature.

Since you asked, where is this cell that fires constantly? What does it have to do with abide or the laws of nature?

 

[untermensche]

But if we observe people playing chess and derive the rules, what is the difference between the given rules and the rules we derive?

None that I can see. After all, we don't have to read the chess manual to learn to play chess. We could also ask the players and learn the rules. In any case, the term "rules of chess" would still refer to content that can be found in a manual of chess, wouldn't it?

So in terms of the OP, there could in theory be no difference between "the regularities" in nature and our "models".

 

[Ahab]

None that I can see. After all, we don't have to read the chess manual to learn to play chess. We could also ask the players and learn the rules. In any case, the term "rules of chess" would still refer to content that can be found in a manual of chess, wouldn't it?

So in terms of the OP, there could in theory be no difference between "the regularities" in nature and our "models".

Not sure I understand you here. I still think there is a difference between the playing of a game of chess and the rules of chess.

However, describing something as a "regularity" is one way of modelling what is being described, isn't it?

 

[untermensche]

So in terms of the OP, there could in theory be no difference between "the regularities" in nature and our "models".

Not sure I understand you here. I still think there is a difference between the playing of a game of chess and the rules of chess.

However, describing something as a "regularity" is one way of modelling what is being described, isn't it?

The rules can be derived from observing the playing.

And if the given rules are the same as the derived rules then, if this analogy holds up, the observed regularities would be "the given rules" and our models "the derived rules".

So, in theory, they could both be the same thing.

 

[Juma]

Not sure I understand you here. I still think there is a difference between the playing of a game of chess and the rules of chess.

However, describing something as a "regularity" is one way of modelling what is being described, isn't it?

The rules can be derived from observing the playing.

And if the given rules are the same as the derived rules then, if this analogy holds up, the observed regularities would be "the given rules" and our models "the derived rules".

So, in theory, they could both be the same thing.

And how do you relate this to "laws of nature"? To me the chess example is a goid argument that the "laws of nature" is just a way to model regularities in nature. Not any laws in nature.
Rules if chess is only in our minds.

 

[untermensche]

The rules can be derived from observing the playing.

And if the given rules are the same as the derived rules then, if this analogy holds up, the observed regularities would be "the given rules" and our models "the derived rules".

So, in theory, they could both be the same thing.

And how do you relate this to "laws of nature"? To me the chess example is a goid argument that the "laws of nature" is just a way to model regularities in nature. Not any laws in nature.
Rules if chess is only in our minds.

To have a game of chess the rules must exist a priori and exist in more than the minds of the players. The rules must have an existence beyond the players, otherwise they are just playing a game of their own creation, not chess.

To have an electron, the "rules" for electrons must exist a priori.

 

[Ahab]

Not sure I understand you here. I still think there is a difference between the playing of a game of chess and the rules of chess.

However, describing something as a "regularity" is one way of modelling what is being described, isn't it?

The rules can be derived from observing the playing.

And if the given rules are the same as the derived rules then, if this analogy holds up, the observed regularities would be "the given rules" and our models "the derived rules".

So, in theory, they could both be the same thing.

I think they are the same thing. One could learn the rules of chess by reading the manual, learning the game from a friend or simply observing the playing of the game. The rules are the rules.

However, it looks like you've reversed things in your interpretation of the chess analogy. The observing of the playing (observed regularities) are "the derived rules" and the chess manual (our models) are "the given rules".

 

[fast]

The rules can be derived from observing the playing.

And if the given rules are the same as the derived rules then, if this analogy holds up, the observed regularities would be "the given rules" and our models "the derived rules".

So, in theory, they could both be the same thing.

I think they are the same thing. One could learn the rules of chess by reading the manual, learning the game from a friend or simply observing the playing of the game. The rules are the rules.

However, it looks like you've reversed things in your interpretation of the chess analogy. The observing of the playing (observed regularities) are "the derived rules" and the chess manual (our models) are "the given rules".

We see certain things happening in the real world, and there are real world causes for why those things are happening, and when we look closely, we see that some of those real world happenings are repeating with regularity, and there is an underlying real world cause for those regularly repeating real world happenings. It is my belief that the term, "laws of nature" refers to those real world causes that serve as the foundation for the repeated regularities that man has come to observe.

So, before man enters the scene and starts observing the effects of the laws of nature, there are already laws of nature giving rise to the unobserved regularities. Once man sits up and takes notice, he sees not the laws of nature but rather the consequences of their existence--the regularities that become observed.

It's only after we have observed the effects of the laws of nature that we begin to study and finally write down our formulations that help us explain the cause for why we observe what we do. When we ordinarily speak of laws, we speak of that which we, man, has formulated and written, but such is not the case with with the laws of nature. That is not a law born of man subsequent to observations but rather a 'law OF nature' born before our own existence.

 

[Ahab]

I think they are the same thing. One could learn the rules of chess by reading the manual, learning the game from a friend or simply observing the playing of the game. The rules are the rules.

However, it looks like you've reversed things in your interpretation of the chess analogy. The observing of the playing (observed regularities) are "the derived rules" and the chess manual (our models) are "the given rules".

We see certain things happening in the real world, and there are real world causes for why those things are happening, and when we look closely, we see that some of those real world happenings are repeating with regularity, and there is an underlying real world cause for those regularly repeating real world happenings. It is my belief that the term, "laws of nature" refers to those real world causes that serve as the foundation for the repeated regularities that man has come to observe.

So, before man enters the scene and starts observing the effects of the laws of nature, there are already laws of nature giving rise to the unobserved regularities. Once man sits up and takes notice, he sees not the laws of nature but rather the consequences of their existence--the regularities that become observed.

It's only after we have observed the effects of the laws of nature that we begin to study and finally write down our formulations that help us explain the cause for why we observe what we do. When we ordinarily speak of laws, we speak of that which we, man, has formulated and written, but such is not the case with with the laws of nature. That is not a law born of man subsequent to observations but rather a 'law OF nature' born before our own existence.

Laws and rules are mind and language dependent. As far as I can see, it is incoherent to think you can describe reality "as it is in itself" without a mind and without a language.

 

[Ahab]

I think they are the same thing. One could learn the rules of chess by reading the manual, learning the game from a friend or simply observing the playing of the game. The rules are the rules.

However, it looks like you've reversed things in your interpretation of the chess analogy. The observing of the playing (observed regularities) are "the derived rules" and the chess manual (our models) are "the given rules".

We see certain things happening in the real world, and there are real world causes for why those things are happening, and when we look closely, we see that some of those real world happenings are repeating with regularity, and there is an underlying real world cause for those regularly repeating real world happenings. It is my belief that the term, "laws of nature" refers to those real world causes that serve as the foundation for the repeated regularities that man has come to observe.

.......

If you don't mind my asking, why do you keep referring to the world as 'the real world' rather than simply 'the world'? It strikes me as being completely unnecessary to add the word "real" to modify "world" given that we are only talking about the world we all live in.

 

[fast]

We see certain things happening in the real world, and there are real world causes for why those things are happening, and when we look closely, we see that some of those real world happenings are repeating with regularity, and there is an underlying real world cause for those regularly repeating real world happenings. It is my belief that the term, "laws of nature" refers to those real world causes that serve as the foundation for the repeated regularities that man has come to observe.

.......

If you don't mind my asking, why do you keep referring to the world as 'the real world' rather than simply 'the world'? It strikes me as being completely unnecessary to add the word "real" to modify "world" given that we are only talking about the world we all live in.

I don't ordinarily. But, since you ask, I was avoiding the terminology of "mind-independent."

I believe there are material, physical, chemical, scientific, kind of functioning processes at work in the outside the mind REAL world, hence nature, that serve as the underlying cause for the regularities that repeatedly occur. Those processes (that I believe exist independent of our minds) are themselves what is referred to by the term, "laws of nature."