Laws of Nature

[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.

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

Nonsense.

To have structure requires what I said.

To have a snowflake requires all kinds of "rules" that govern the behavior of water. Without those "rules" you have no structure.

 

[Juma]

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

Nonsense.

To have structure requires what I said.

To have a snowflake requires all kinds of "rules" that govern the behavior of water. Without those "rules" you have no structure.

And yet you fail to show that....

 

[untermensche]

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.

It is put in quotes because it doesn't matter what you call it. It's existence is not established by the label. It's existence is rationally derived.

Again, for there to be an electron there must be "rules" that both define it's existence and behavior.

You can't just have an electron. You need those "rules" too.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense.

To have structure requires what I said.

To have a snowflake requires all kinds of "rules" that govern the behavior of water. Without those "rules" you have no structure.

And yet you fail to show that....

I wait for a counter example.

I wait for the logic of a counter example.

There is no logic that can lead from "no rules" to structure. There is only religion.

 

[Juma]

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.

It is put in quotes because it doesn't matter what you call it. It's existence is not established by the label. It's existence is rationally derived.

Again, for there to be an electron there must be "rules" that both define it's existence and behavior.

You can't just have an electron. You need those "rules" too.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense.

To have structure requires what I said.

To have a snowflake requires all kinds of "rules" that govern the behavior of water. Without those "rules" you have no structure.

And yet you fail to show that....

I wait for a counter example.

I wait for the logic of a counter example.

There is no logic that can lead from "no rules" to structure. There is only religion.

You have the burden of proof.

But more: you have not only not provided proof or evidens, you have neither defined "rules". You have really no clue what "rules" is supposed to refer to, expect that it creates structure...

I would say "rules" is just another name you use for god.

 

[untermensche]

It is put in quotes because it doesn't matter what you call it. It's existence is not established by the label. It's existence is rationally derived.

Again, for there to be an electron there must be "rules" that both define it's existence and behavior.

You can't just have an electron. You need those "rules" too.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense.

To have structure requires what I said.

To have a snowflake requires all kinds of "rules" that govern the behavior of water. Without those "rules" you have no structure.

And yet you fail to show that....

I wait for a counter example.

I wait for the logic of a counter example.

There is no logic that can lead from "no rules" to structure. There is only religion.

You have the burden of proof.

But more: you have not only not provided proof or evidens, you have neither defined "rules". You have really no clue what "rules" is supposed to refer to, expect that it creates structure...

You need to demonstrate how regularity can arise in the complete absence of structure first.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

The regularity of the electrons' behaviour in atoms has the same ontological status as the regularity of the characteristics of electrons and said atoms. These regularities are understood as characteristic of reality. You choose to call them "rules", which is rather farfetched, but one is as much a "rule" as the other, thereby voiding the usefullness of your distinction.

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.

The original, and naive, idea of laws of nature, or of "rules" as you use this notion, suggests that these are somehow outside or different from the regularities we may want to infer from observations, as if nature somehow had to comply with something external to itself. Yet, if nature is regular, if it's a characteristic of nature to be regular, of have certain regularities, there's no need for "rules". Nature being regular, in certain aspects, is enough to explain our observations.

We can even conceive of a nature that wouldn't be regular through and through but only apparently regular, in places, and provided we just happen to exist in those regular places, which we would have to, then we would of course observe these apparent regularities, ignore the parts of nature that wouldn't be apparently regular, and infer wrongly from our observations that nature is regular and possibly that there are laws of nature to explain these regularities.

You should also see that there is a parallel between your idea and the idea of a creator of the universe. You impulse to infer "rules" from our observations that there are regularities stems from the same impulse to infer a creator from our observation that there is a universe that exists. People argue that something that exists couldn't have always existed or appeared all by itself and therefore needed a creator. They contradict themselves of course since they in fact accept that something, i.e. the creator, could have indeed either appeared all by itself or have always existed. If they think that's possible, they should also accept that it's possible for the universe (the universe, the world, nature, reality, whatever) either to have appeared all by itself or to have always existed. So your insistence that real regularities necessitate pre-existing rules suggest you should also insist on a creator.
EB

 

[Ahab]

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.

It is put in quotes because it doesn't matter what you call it. It's existence is not established by the label. It's existence is rationally derived.

Again, for there to be an electron there must be "rules" that both define it's existence and behavior.

You can't just have an electron. You need those "rules" too.

I don't understand what your point is. Apparently "rules" is just an empty label.

 

[fromderinside]

So your insistence that real regularities necessitate pre-existing rules suggest you should also insist on a creator.
EB

Making sense. Presume nature exhibits capability to keep itself from dying,continuing to exist, for as long as materially possible. We'll argue materially possible elsewhere. Just take it is a common sense starting point for looking at our problem. Nature is material and we are material operating in it. All things wind down without injection of energy. Yet nature for whatever reason finds ways to minimize, with its material, the rate which that occurs to a mininum, it maximizes its existence. So it is the nature of matter to organize in ways which extend its presence to the greatest extent.

Or does it. We came along just recently so we're seen an end game played out long ago, that living stuff maximizes it continuation in suitable environment to the extent energy permits may be just a long ago realized method for continuing matter as long as possible in the environment in which it exists.

It makes sense that any rules we create will involve matter as we know it therefore never be an adequate solution to the problem since the previous enactment of this drama took place in another kind of material world.

So my answer is it doesn't matter what rule you might devise about regularity in a material world. It will be inadequate to the situation.

Its my view that 'rules' are changing all the time as matter reacts to its 'fate'. If one really wants rules matter begins and matter ends what it does in between is a dance to some end resisting tune.

Why the tune? Who knows.

 

[fast]

The implication of what he says is vastly different from what he means. In his case, I think it's an error to base our interpretations of what he means based on what he says. He reminds me of Jim, a poster from a few years back. It takes strength of focus to unravel what is meant by what is said. Clearly, there are no rules that govern nature, as if to say there is an awareness by nature that abides by non-human rules derivative of nature. Even he would agree to that if not for the detachment from what is meant by what is said.

The key to fully grasping the truth of my declarations is in seeing the agreement that would ensue with neutrality of term usage. In simpler terms, he has a language of his own that (and for whatever reason) denies the implications we readily see that is implicit with the terms we use. To him, (for example) saying that nature abides by rules in no way, shape, or form conveys what we take for granted that such a statement makes, and strangely enough, it's not very much unlike how many people talk when discussing things like evolution, for instance. The gateway for further meaninful discussion isn't in showing the error of his ways through lexical understanding but rather lexical avoidance. We must find neautral ground with word-choice, as a meeting of the minds is otherwise an impasse of what might seem to some a quibbling on the meaning of words.

 

[fromderinside]

The implication of what he says is vastly different from what he means. In his case, I think it's an error to base our interpretations of what he means based on what he says. He reminds me of Jim, a poster from a few years back. It takes strength of focus to unravel what is meant by what is said. Clearly, there are no rules that govern nature, as if to say there is an awareness by nature that abides by non-human rules derivative of nature. Even he would agree to that if not for the detachment from what is meant by what is said.

The key to fully grasping the truth of my declarations is in seeing the agreement that would ensue with neutrality of term usage. In simpler terms, he has a language of his own that (and for whatever reason) denies the implications we readily see that is implicit with the terms we use. To him, (for example) saying that nature abides by rules in no way, shape, or form conveys what we take for granted that such a statement makes, and strangely enough, it's not very much unlike how many people talk when discussing things like evolution, for instance. The gateway for further meaninful discussion isn't in showing the error of his ways through lexical understanding but rather lexical avoidance. We must find neautral ground with word-choice, as a meeting of the minds is otherwise an impasse of what might seem to some a quibbling on the meaning of words.

Hell man. I had just gotten back to Barlow's face detector. That cats see is a fact. That cats see humans is a fact. But do those facts come together in determining a specific face detecting cell be reserved for Barlow. Of course not. Barlow is here for only a few decades. That cell going off when Barlow is present is reflecting some state of recognition of something in Barlow that is see in many others. But since Barlow isn't there to witness it, and he's both the witness and judge of his finding, it is termed Barlow's face detector. Regularities stand independent of instances. Separating the person from the regularity is the real purpose of science. Its why we have replication, verification, peer review. We often say "some process is the purpose of this and that" when we mean This and that explains why that took place.

We don't mean its Barlow's face that causes the cat's eye cell to go off. It goes off regularly when Barlow is there because something in Barlow's face is a common feature cats process in recognition. It only remains to find that feature and to find why that feature is important enough lead cats to evolve a cell which foes off when it is present. Its a feature regularity important to cats for some reason. If it, or a claw detector is also found in Monkeys we have more information about the the nature of the regularity regularities underlying those features.

But, as for laws of nature, I quite agree with Seakpigeon that they are there as a convenience for us in describing why.

 

[fast]

The implication of what he says is vastly different from what he means. In his case, I think it's an error to base our interpretations of what he means based on what he says. He reminds me of Jim, a poster from a few years back. It takes strength of focus to unravel what is meant by what is said. Clearly, there are no rules that govern nature, as if to say there is an awareness by nature that abides by non-human rules derivative of nature. Even he would agree to that if not for the detachment from what is meant by what is said.

The key to fully grasping the truth of my declarations is in seeing the agreement that would ensue with neutrality of term usage. In simpler terms, he has a language of his own that (and for whatever reason) denies the implications we readily see that is implicit with the terms we use. To him, (for example) saying that nature abides by rules in no way, shape, or form conveys what we take for granted that such a statement makes, and strangely enough, it's not very much unlike how many people talk when discussing things like evolution, for instance. The gateway for further meaninful discussion isn't in showing the error of his ways through lexical understanding but rather lexical avoidance. We must find neautral ground with word-choice, as a meeting of the minds is otherwise an impasse of what might seem to some a quibbling on the meaning of words.

Hell man. I had just gotten back to Barlow's face detector. That cats see is a fact. That cats see humans is a fact. But do those facts come together in determining a specific face detecting cell be reserved for Barlow. Of course not. Barlow is here for only a few decades. That cell going off when Barlow is present is reflecting some state of recognition of something in Barlow that is see in many others. But since Barlow isn't there to witness it, and he's both the witness and judge of his finding, it is termed Barlow's face detector. Regularities stand independent of instances. Separating the person from the regularity is the real purpose of science. Its why we have replication, verification, peer review. We often say "some process is the purpose of this and that" when we mean This and that explains why that took place.

We don't mean its Barlow's face that causes the cat's eye cell to go off. It goes off regularly when Barlow is there because something in Barlow's face is a common feature cats process in recognition. It only remains to find that feature and to find why that feature is important enough lead cats to evolve a cell which foes off when it is present. Its a feature regularity important to cats for some reason. If it, or a claw detector is also found in Monkeys we have more information about the the nature of the regularity regularities underlying those features.

But, as for laws of nature, I quite agree with Seakpigeon that they are there as a convenience for us in describing why.

I was talking about untermensche.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The implication of what he says is vastly different from what he means.

How would you guess what he means other than from want he says? All you can say is that he is stretching the scope of particular words so that what he says becomes ambiguous, seeming to imply all sorts of things. But we don't know tat he doesn't mean those things, which is why people poke the inflated meaning to see if something stands out firm and clear. I don't see how we could go any different about it.

In his case, I think it's an error to base our interpretations of what he means based on what he says. He reminds me of Jim, a poster from a few years back. It takes strength of focus to unravel what is meant by what is said. Clearly, there are no rules that govern nature, as if to say there is an awareness by nature that abides by non-human rules derivative of nature. Even he would agree to that if not for the detachment from what is meant by what is said.

The key to fully grasping the truth of my declarations is in seeing the agreement that would ensue with neutrality of term usage. In simpler terms, he has a language of his own that (and for whatever reason) denies the implications we readily see that is implicit with the terms we use. To him, (for example) saying that nature abides by rules in no way, shape, or form conveys what we take for granted that such a statement makes, and strangely enough, it's not very much unlike how many people talk when discussing things like evolution, for instance. The gateway for further meaninful discussion isn't in showing the error of his ways through lexical understanding but rather lexical avoidance. We must find neautral ground with word-choice, as a meeting of the minds is otherwise an impasse of what might seem to some a quibbling on the meaning of words.

We certainly don't need to get hysterical about his use of the word "rules". What seems clear, though, is that he thinks that the existence of actual regularities in nature necessitate the existence of something else, prior to these regularities. Something that would explain these regularities. Something even that would cause these regularities. So the point is, what is the justification for his view? He doesn't say, apparently because he thinks it's obvious. He seems to be unable to conceive that nature is, or even merely appear, regular, all on its own. Let's ignore the case where it would just appear to be regular and assume it really is. So his point is that, in this case, something else, "rules", "a priori plan" or whatever, explains or causes the regularities to exist. As far as we know, it may well be the case that there is this something else, this "cause of regularities". We just don't know because what we observe are the regularities themselves, not their inferred conceivable cause. We also understand why we may be tempted to infer such a cause of regularities. Looking at a watch we infer a watchmaker. Looking at a trail we infer some animal we might be able to hunt and eat. So, survival explains our tendencies to see causes everywhere. But these are natural causes, i.e. causes that preceed their effects in time. There's no denying that it's useful to think in those terms, to unravel the criss-crossing of regularities and try to get our predictions right. But in the case of the causes of natural regularities, the causes themselves would have to be somehow outside nature and therefore outside time and space, so these would be a different kind of causes. So this is stretching our natural inclination to see causes everywhere well beyond its natural usefulness. It's essentially a metaphysical point. We will never know (presumably) and we certainly do not know now, either way, so to adopt a stance of certainty as he does would require justification, which is what we are missing here. We have no justification for the view that regularities necessitate something else, rules, a priori plan, whatever. And we also do not have anything like an explanation of how it would work, how these "rules", being outside nature, could nonetheless force nature to come to feature specific regularities. Or maybe we have to infer the existence of yet something else to explain this. Basically, inferring these causes of regularities would require that we also infer a new dimension where this explanatory mechanism would operate. Then nature as we think of it now would just be a part of a larger reality. I'm not sure why there would be a need then to stop there and not require yet another dimension with meta-rules or something, and repeat ad infinitum, which would be a very cumbersome explanation. Or turn to God of course, who is supposed to be self-explaining. But if we can conceive of something, God, as self-explaining, why not cut the middle man and accept that nature could be self-explaining to. Something has to be, obviously. So, is there any good reason that nature couldn't be self-explaining (I wouldn't say self-caused here)?
EB

 

[untermensche]

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

The regularity of the electrons' behaviour in atoms has the same ontological status as the regularity of the characteristics of electrons and said atoms.

I don't have a clue what this means.

But if there is an electron it is following a set of "rules".

That is how it is known as an electron.

These regularities are understood as characteristic of reality.

The "rules" are what leads to the characteristics. Things don't just have characteristics for no reason.

Just like things don't just have structure. There must be "rules" to define scope and limit to have any structure.

To have objects made of atoms there must be "rules" to define first the atoms and then the ability of the atoms to bond together to form what to our eye appears as a 3D object.

...Yet, if nature is regular...

Nothing is just "regular".

To have regularity many conditions need to be met. Like, there must be structure of some kind to have regularity.

 

[Ahab]

The regularity of the electrons' behaviour in atoms has the same ontological status as the regularity of the characteristics of electrons and said atoms.

I don't have a clue what this means.

But if there is an electron it is following a set of "rules".

That is how it is known as an electron.

Don't we we know what an electron is by its properties?

 

[Juma]

The regularity of the electrons' behaviour in atoms has the same ontological status as the regularity of the characteristics of electrons and said atoms.

I don't have a clue what this means.

But if there is an electron it is following a set of "rules".

That is how it is known as an electron.

These regularities are understood as characteristic of reality.

The "rules" are what leads to the characteristics. Things don't just have characteristics for no reason.

Just like things don't just have structure. There must be "rules" to define scope and limit to have any structure.

To have objects made of atoms there must be "rules" to define first the atoms and then the ability of the atoms to bond together to form what to our eye appears as a 3D object.

...Yet, if nature is regular...

Nothing is just "regular".

To have regularity many conditions need to be met. Like, there must be structure of some kind to have regularity.

What explains the behaviour of a watch? How does a watch keep doing what us does? How does keep follow those rules of a whatch? The structure of its parts.

This the "rules" you search for is simply structure.

 

[untermensche]

I don't have a clue what this means.

But if there is an electron it is following a set of "rules".

That is how it is known as an electron.

Don't we we know what an electron is by its properties?

What are properties beyond the following of "rules"?

 

[untermensche]

What explains the behaviour of a watch? How does a watch keep doing what us does? How does keep follow those rules of a whatch? The structure of its parts.

This the "rules" you search for is simply structure.

Countless things explain the behavior of the watch. Starting with the "rules" followed of quarks all the way to the "rules" followed by metal springs.

Again to me your position amounts to: Things can happen for no reason what-so-ever. It is ridiculous.

 

[Juma]

What explains the behaviour of a watch? How does a watch keep doing what us does? How does keep follow those rules of a whatch? The structure of its parts.

This the "rules" you search for is simply structure.

Countless things explain the behavior of the watch. Starting with the "rules" followed of quarks all the way to the "rules" followed by metal springs.

Again to me your position amounts to: Things can happen for no reason what-so-ever. It is ridiculous.

You seem to think that the universe is some sort of simulation...

 

[Ahab]

Don't we we know what an electron is by its properties?

What are properties beyond the following of "rules"?

I don't know what you mean by "following of rules" in this context. How do properties follow rules?

The chess pieces do not follow rules - it is the human moving the chess piece that is following a rule.

 

[untermensche]

Countless things explain the behavior of the watch. Starting with the "rules" followed of quarks all the way to the "rules" followed by metal springs.

Again to me your position amounts to: Things can happen for no reason what-so-ever. It is ridiculous.

You seem to think that the universe is some sort of simulation...

I don't understand this response.

You see how in a simulation all things must have "rules" to define their existence and behavior. If it is a human made simulation then they are human rules.

I don't know why you think this isn't also required for the external world.

I'm not saying the "rules" are something humans can understand or discover.

I am only saying they are a necessary condition.