Laws of Nature

[fast]

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.

There are processes in nature underlying the formation of snowflakes, and if we astutely analyze our observation of these processes close enough, we may be able to formulate a mathematical formula allowing us to correctly predict snowflake formation. These formulas, human-made rules, or scientific laws, if correct, will not be the causes themselves, but rather a model of the causes (for snowflake formulation).

If we use the term, "rules," to signify these human made mathematical formulas, I would not put them in quotes. If you want to signify the processes with the use of the term, I'd use single quotes. The difference between 'rules' and rules, then would be the difference between A) the functioning processes in nature giving rise to the regularities we observe and B) the mathematically formulated models created by man to capture these happenings in nature.

I think we should be careful in how we say the things we do, for it can get very misleading to use words that imply awareness. That was the biggest gripe I had with, "abide."

 

[Ahab]

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.

Certainly humans would need rules if they wanted to make a structure. Looks like you are arguing for some sort of intelligent designer responsible for the regularities observed by us.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

I don't know what you mean by "a priori plan". Plans is what human beings have in mind, not things that anybody has observed as existing out there.

Usually we talk about regularities in what we observe, and in this case in doesn't follow that there is a regularity in reality, beyond the observations. Now, if you assume that there is some regularity in reality, through and through, all we have is still only apparent regularity. We can make successful predictions, yes, but there is still no plan other than what we make of our observations because we in fact still don't know that there is a regularity through and through. Based on our observations, we will expect our predictions to succeed and they will but we will still don't know in advance that they will. This is because we don't actually observe the whole of reality and so we still don't know if any apparent regularity reccurs throughout reality. While human beings follow the plan the have in mind based on limited observation of reality, that doesn't mean there is a plan out there in reality beyond reality itself. Any regularity occurring in reality, through and through, is only a characteristic of reality, not something outside reality that would somehow force reality to be this or that way. I don't see any reason to assume that because reality is regular that this regularity is somehow imposed on reality, i.e. from the outside. And if not, then there's no use talking about regularities as if they were somehow more than a characteristic or an aspect of reality.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

FDI looks in wonderment as untermenche vehicle runs through Speakpigeon valley smack into QED.

 

[untermensche]

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.

NO you merely assumed the existence of structure to begin with.

And didn't even notice you did it.

 

[untermensche]

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.

There are processes in nature underlying the formation of snowflakes, and if we astutely analyze our observation of these processes close enough, we may be able to formulate a mathematical formula allowing us to correctly predict snowflake formation. These formulas, human-made rules, or scientific laws, if correct, will not be the causes themselves, but rather a model of the causes (for snowflake formulation).

I don't care about prediction. If there is snowflake formation it is because of the properties, "rules", of water.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Certainly humans would need rules if they wanted to make a structure. Looks like you are arguing for some sort of intelligent designer responsible for the regularities observed by us.

I am putting the word in quotes to say it is not a human made rule.

If you have an electron you have one because the entity follows certain "rules". It has a scope and limits to it's behavior. That scope and those limits are the "rules" of the electron.

What the implications of this are debatable but a designer would also need something to design it and so on. It is not an answer to anything.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know what you mean by "a priori plan". Plans is what human beings have in mind, not things that anybody has observed as existing out there.

I mean non-human conditions of any kind that would cause regularity to exist.

Usually we talk about regularities in what we observe, and in this case in doesn't follow that there is a regularity in reality, beyond the observations.

We also talk about regularity in properties. In the objects of reality themselves, not our minds.

The regularity of the behavior of an electron or the regularity of a water molecule.

These regularities allow chemists to make molecules at will.

 

[Juma]

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

NO you merely assumed the existence of structure to begin with.

And didn't even notice you did it.

? We know that there are regular structures (atoms etc) we know that there are other regular structures behind these (quarks etc).
Thus we have already observed that structure results in structure.
No-one has ever observed a "rule".

 

[untermensche]

NO you merely assumed the existence of structure to begin with.

And didn't even notice you did it.

? We know that there are regular structures (atoms etc) we know that there are other regular structures behind these (quarks etc).
Thus we have already observed that structure results in structure.
No-one has ever observed a "rule".

We have never observed a dimension.

But we logically conclude that if objects exist there must be at least 3 dimensions.

A dimension would be a "rule". Something defining the scope and enforcing the limits of an entity.

To have regularity requires structure of some kind.

Another logical conclusion, unless you can show how regularity can arise in the complete absence of structure.

 

[fast]

Word choice is a bitch. That's not directed at anybody.

 

[Juma]

? We know that there are regular structures (atoms etc) we know that there are other regular structures behind these (quarks etc).
Thus we have already observed that structure results in structure.
No-one has ever observed a "rule".

We have never observed a dimension.

But we logically conclude that if objects exist there must be at least 3 dimensions.

A dimension would be a "rule". Something defining the scope and enforcing the limits of an entity.

To have regularity requires structure of some kind.

Another logical conclusion, unless you can show how regularity can arise in the complete absence of structure.

As I said in a earlier post: you usage of your concept of "rule" is vacous as it is covers ANY reason for structure. can you specify a (non religious) mechanism for regularity that is not covered by "rules"?

 

[untermensche]

We have never observed a dimension.

But we logically conclude that if objects exist there must be at least 3 dimensions.

A dimension would be a "rule". Something defining the scope and enforcing the limits of an entity.

To have regularity requires structure of some kind.

Another logical conclusion, unless you can show how regularity can arise in the complete absence of structure.

As I said in a earlier post: you usage of your concept of "rule" is vacous as it is covers ANY reason for structure. can you specify a (non religious) mechanism for regularity that is not covered by "rules"?

It is not vacuous, it is intentionally as broad as possible. Since I do not claim to know all the possibilities.

It is not meaningless. It is without a specific meaning but it is good enough for this kind of discussion.

To dispute it all you have to do is demonstrate the existence of a regularity without structure of any kind.

 

[Juma]

To dispute it all you have to do is demonstrate the existence of a regularity without structure of any kind.

So you agree that your "rule" concept is nothing but structure? Or have you forgot some negation?

 

[untermensche]

To dispute it all you have to do is demonstrate the existence of a regularity without structure of any kind.

So you agree that your "rule" concept is nothing but structure? Or have you forgot some negation?

No.

I said, to have structure of any kind there must be underlying "rules" that both define the scope and limits of that structure.

 

[Ahab]

Certainly humans would need rules if they wanted to make a structure. Looks like you are arguing for some sort of intelligent designer responsible for the regularities observed by us.

I am putting the word in quotes to say it is not a human made rule.

If you have an electron you have one because the entity follows certain "rules". It has a scope and limits to it's behavior. That scope and those limits are the "rules" of the electron.

What the implications of this are debatable but a designer would also need something to design it and so on. It is not an answer to anything.

It is beginning to appear to me that you are projecting a human activity upon nature. Humans use plans and rules to make structures. They can even use rules and plans to mimic what happens in nature. It doesn't follow that there are "rules" and "plans" that are in some mysterious way making the structures in nature.

 

[Ahab]

So you agree that your "rule" concept is nothing but structure? Or have you forgot some negation?

No.

I said, to have structure of any kind there must be underlying "rules" that both define the scope and limits of that structure.

Humans define the scope and limits of a structure. How can nature define anything?

 

[untermensche]

No.

I said, to have structure of any kind there must be underlying "rules" that both define the scope and limits of that structure.

Humans define the scope and limits of a structure. How can nature define anything?

I am using the word "define" broadly.

The "rules" of the electron "define" its behavior.

For there to be something with structure, like an electron, there must be "rules" that "define" the scope and limits of that structure.

 

[Juma]

So you agree that your "rule" concept is nothing but structure? Or have you forgot some negation?

No.

I said, to have structure of any kind there must be underlying "rules" that both define the scope and limits of that structure.

Since structure -> structure you dont need anything but structure.

 

[Ahab]

Humans define the scope and limits of a structure. How can nature define anything?

I am using the word "define" broadly.

The "rules" of the electron "define" its behavior.

For there to be something with structure, like an electron, there must be "rules" that "define" the scope and limits of that structure.

The camera I use at the hospital for scanning has a laser light on it that is used to enable the camera to move very close to the patient without touching him. When I explain to the patient what will happen during the procedure I often say the camera can 'see' how close it is to him. Of course, the camera cannot really see the patient. It is just a metaphorical usage of the word "see". It is, however, not a very good usage if one wanted to describe or explain how the camera is able to stop moving just before touching the patient.

I think you usage of "define" and "rules" amounts to no more than a metaphorical way to describe the regularities we observe in nature. So I question its explanatory usefulness.