Laws of Nature

[Juma]

So you no longer think that the universe is goverened by rules?

Calling "rules" regularities changes nothing.

To have a regularity requires a "rule".

I'm not so sure.
Prove it!

 

[Speakpigeon]

In theory yes.

but the analogy breaks up, as all analogies do at some point, here when you accept that we are talking of chess as a game we know the rules of. Another way of saying this is that we regard chess as a closed world where we couldn't possibly get surprised by what we saw in it. The world, the "real" world, as we think of it, is open in the sense that we do expect to be possibly surprised at any time. In other words, we accept, usually, that we don't know the world in it's entirety. Thus, we also accept that observed regularities may not reccur throughout reality ("the universe" and beyond) and that therefore any model we work out may prove wrong in due course and that therefore, if there are "rules", Laws of Nature, above and beyond our models, then we don't actually know what these are. And if we don't, it's just as well not to mention them as if we knew what they are.

So, here, the chess analogy doesn't works.
EB

The real questions are; If the universe does have "rules" from where did they originate? Why are they there?

As far as we know and understand any apparent cause may or may not be fundamental, i.e. prime cause. Every thing may or may not originate in something else. And of course we only know the apparent cause, if that. So I'm not sure what you mean by "real question". Is a question we cannot answer more of a real question than a question we think we have the answer for but maybe we're wrong. The point is, we could be wrong about everything, except the things we know, like pain etc.

Do you realise that the answer to your "real question" is akin to the answer as to whether there is or not something infinite?

But all we really can answer is what the rules appear like to us, here and now.

Well, yes, although maybe that could perhaps change.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you no longer think that the universe is goverened by rules?

Calling "rules" regularities changes nothing.

To have a regularity requires a "rule".

We mostly talk of regularities as long as they are an observed appearance. But we can only observe a small part of the whole reality so we don't actually know whether regularities reccur throughout reality. So, observing regularities is not tantamount to somehow detecting the signature of Laws of Nature or Rules that would exist above and beyond our models of reality.

Further, reality (or the universe if you prefer), may well be regular without Laws of Nature existing above and beyond our models of reality. We do expect fundamental elements to have definite characteristics and we expect that these elements will always interact according to some law. But these characteristics can be seen as a part of the elements and the laws seen as the logical consequence of the characteristics. According to this, the characteristics and the laws of interaction are essentially the same thing, seen from a different perspective, and they are seen as not as something extraneous to the fundamental element but as a part of them. So, of course, the question is Why is reality like that?, but if it wasn't we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation.

There is a consequence to that but I'll put it in my will, just in case.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Calling "rules" regularities changes nothing.

To have a regularity requires a "rule".

I'm not so sure.
Prove it!

Unless there are "rules" you have randomness, formlessness, no regularities.

 

[untermensche]

We mostly talk of regularities as long as they are an observed appearance. But we can only observe a small part of the whole reality so we don't actually know whether regularities reccur throughout reality. So, observing regularities is not tantamount to somehow detecting the signature of Laws of Nature or Rules that would exist above and beyond our models of reality.

Regularity = Predictability

Predictability is to follow a set "plan".

If there is no a priori "plan" that defines and facilitates the predictability it can not occur.

Without such a priori "plans" all you would ever have is formless randomness.

 

[fromderinside]

We mostly talk of regularities as long as they are an observed appearance. But we can only observe a small part of the whole reality so we don't actually know whether regularities reccur throughout reality. So, observing regularities is not tantamount to somehow detecting the signature of Laws of Nature or Rules that would exist above and beyond our models of reality.

Regularity = Predictability

Predictability is to follow a set "plan".

If there is no a priori "plan" that defines and facilitates the predictability it can not occur.

Without such a priori "plans" all you would ever have is formless randomness.

One out of four. Not bad. (smirk)

1. If data exhibits a pattern that is not a plan that is regularity so you are just repeating yourself (tautology?)

2. Since its not a plan but observed observed, I repeat regularity, there is nothing a priori about it.

3. Obviously regularity is not randomness.

I was wrong you were 0 for 4.

Regularity does not equal predictability. Coherent patterns are regular though they may not repeat. Barlow's face detector fallacy demonstrates that point. Regularities required to process faces may be regular between species, but, that doesn't lead to the prediction that a cat's cell responding to Barlow's face is a Barlow face detector.

 

[untermensche]

1. If data exhibits a pattern that is not a plan that is regularity so you are just repeating yourself (tautology?)

There must be an underlying "plan" for any regularity to arise.

I am talking about a regularity arising.

Tell me how a regularity arises from absolutely nothing. (smirk)

 

[Juma]

1. If data exhibits a pattern that is not a plan that is regularity so you are just repeating yourself (tautology?)

There must be an underlying "plan" for any regularity to arise.

I am talking about a regularity arising.

Tell me how a regularity arises from absolutely nothing. (smirk)

If you have quadratic tiles of the same size the form of the shapes that results when laid together side by side will be regular. They will seem to follow rules but the rules is not "in charge". They are just a result of the shape of the tiles.

 

[untermensche]

There must be an underlying "plan" for any regularity to arise.

I am talking about a regularity arising.

Tell me how a regularity arises from absolutely nothing. (smirk)

If you have quadratic tiles of the same size the form of the shapes that results when laid together side by side will be regular. They will seem to follow rules but the rules is not "in charge". They are just a result of the shape of the tiles.

That which gives the tiles shape is what I would call "rules".

How the tiles can move is what I would call "rules".

 

[Juma]

If you have quadratic tiles of the same size the form of the shapes that results when laid together side by side will be regular. They will seem to follow rules but the rules is not "in charge". They are just a result of the shape of the tiles.

That which gives the tiles shape is what I would call "rules"

? Why dont you call it God or "my cat Furillo". Makes equal sense.

 

[untermensche]

That which gives the tiles shape is what I would call "rules"

? Why dont you call it God or "my cat Furillo". Makes equal sense.

So things just can have shape and freedom of movement from nothing?

That sounds more like religion to me.

 

[Juma]

? Why dont you call it God or "my cat Furillo". Makes equal sense.

So things just can have shape and freedom of movement from nothing?

That sounds more like religion to me.

The plates has a certain shape, but there is no reason to call that "rules". It is just how things are. The concept of rules doesnt fit at all.

 

[fast]

1. If data exhibits a pattern that is not a plan that is regularity so you are just repeating yourself (tautology?)

There must be an underlying "plan" for any regularity to arise.

I am talking about a regularity arising.

Tell me how a regularity arises from absolutely nothing. (smirk)

There need not be any plan for there to be regularities. There need not be any "plan" either. A 'plan' perhaps, but neither a plan nor "plan" need be.

 

[untermensche]

So things just can have shape and freedom of movement from nothing?

That sounds more like religion to me.

The plates has a certain shape, but there is no reason to call that "rules". It is just how things are. The concept of rules doesnt fit at all.

If things "just are" such that things have shapes then there are "rules" needed to give them shape.

How does something have shape without structure of some kind?

To have structure is to have "rules" that allow for the existence of that structure.

Without "rules" you cannot have structure. You have the absence of structure.

- - - Updated - - -

There must be an underlying "plan" for any regularity to arise.

I am talking about a regularity arising.

Tell me how a regularity arises from absolutely nothing. (smirk)

There need not be any plan for there to be regularities. There need not be any "plan" either. A 'plan' perhaps, but neither a plan nor "plan" need be.

A "plan" is most definitely needed.

A 'plan' would do.

But a plan would mean something of human origin.

 

[fast]

The plates has a certain shape, but there is no reason to call that "rules". It is just how things are. The concept of rules doesnt fit at all.

If things "just are" such that things have shapes then there are "rules" needed to give them shape.

How does something have shape without structure of some kind?

To have structure is to have "rules" that allow for the existence of that structure.

Without "rules" you cannot have structure. You have the absence of structure.

- - - Updated - - -

There must be an underlying "plan" for any regularity to arise.

I am talking about a regularity arising.

Tell me how a regularity arises from absolutely nothing. (smirk)

There need not be any plan for there to be regularities. There need not be any "plan" either. A 'plan' perhaps, but neither a plan nor "plan" need be.

A "plan" is most definitely needed.

A 'plan' would do.

But a plan would mean something of human origin.

By "plan," I mean the word, "plan". There can be a plan without the word, but we do have the word, but the word is not a necessary condition for there to be a plan.

By plan, I mean just that, the referent to which the term refers (something of human creation, I might add), and that is not necessary, for sure.

By 'plan', I mean the referent to any unusual use one might have for the term.

When you said, "There must be an underlying "plan" for any regularity to arise," I cannot in good faith think you mean that. You might mean what you mean, and that might not accord with what I mean, but I try hard for what I mean to match what I say means, so ruling out the unlikely position that you hold the term is necessary, I'm left between wondering whether you mean a plan is necessary and whether a 'plan' is necessary. If the former, I think you're wrong, and of the latter, it really doesn't matter, as that is just an unusual or alternative use of the term.

 

[Juma]

The plates has a certain shape, but there is no reason to call that "rules". It is just how things are. The concept of rules doesnt fit at all.

If things "just are" such that things have shapes then there are "rules" needed to give them shape.

How does something have shape without structure of some kind?

To have structure is to have "rules" that allow for the existence of that structure.

Without "rules" you cannot have structure. You have the absence of structure.

You are bending the concept of "rule" beyond recognition.
A rule is a statement. Statements are human constructs.

Please describe what the "rules" you speak if are and how they reslut in the corresponding structure.

I strongly suspect that by "rules" you mean anything that results in structures. A usage of the word which makes it meaningless.

 

[untermensche]

You are bending the concept of "rule" beyond recognition.
A rule is a statement. Statements are human constructs.

Please describe what the "rules" you speak if are and how they reslut in the corresponding structure.

I strongly suspect that by "rules" you mean anything that results in structures. A usage of the word which makes it meaningless.

I'm simply using the term "rule" to it's broadest possible extent which is why I'm putting quotation marks around the word.

You just don't like it because you want to imagine regularity without "rules" governing that regularity, which is impossible.

Without some kind of "rule" all you will ever end up with is complete randomness. You will never have structure or shape or any regularity.

 

[Juma]

You are bending the concept of "rule" beyond recognition.
A rule is a statement. Statements are human constructs.

Please describe what the "rules" you speak if are and how they reslut in the corresponding structure.

I strongly suspect that by "rules" you mean anything that results in structures. A usage of the word which makes it meaningless.

I'm simply using the term "rule" to it's broadest possible extent which is why I'm putting quotation marks around the word.

You just don't like it because you want to imagine regularity without "rules" governing that regularity, which is impossible.

Without some kind of "rule" all you will ever end up with is complete randomness. You will never have structure or shape or any regularity.

What I dont like is that your use of the word rule doesnt mean anything. You use it in the meaning "whatever that results in regular structure" which is useles.

I'm interested in what creates regularity and it is definitely not rules. Saying that it is "rules" isnt in any way interesting.

 

[untermensche]

I'm simply using the term "rule" to it's broadest possible extent which is why I'm putting quotation marks around the word.

You just don't like it because you want to imagine regularity without "rules" governing that regularity, which is impossible.

Without some kind of "rule" all you will ever end up with is complete randomness. You will never have structure or shape or any regularity.

What I dont like is that your use of the word rule doesnt mean anything. You use it in the meaning "whatever that results in regular structure" which is useles.

I'm interested in what creates regularity and it is definitely not rules. Saying that it is "rules" isnt in any way interesting.

You claim there can be regularity without any structure.

It is up to you to demonstrate how this is possible.

Because if there is structure there must be "rules" that lead to that structure. You can't have a snowflake without a lot of "rules" governing the formation of that snowflake.

That may be interesting or not but it is a fact.

 

[Juma]

What I dont like is that your use of the word rule doesnt mean anything. You use it in the meaning "whatever that results in regular structure" which is useles.

I'm interested in what creates regularity and it is definitely not rules. Saying that it is "rules" isnt in any way interesting.

You claim there can be regularity without any structure.

It is up to you to demonstrate how this is possible.

Because if there is structure there must be "rules" that lead to that structure. You can't have a snowflake without a lot of "rules" governing the formation of that snowflake.

That may be interesting or not but it is a fact.

Wtf? Read my post one more time. I have already answered this.