Laws of Nature

[untermensche]

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.

We can look at some specific property, say the freezing point of water.

Since under the same external conditions water freezes at the same temperature every time obviously this behavior is following "rules". It is stuck. It must freeze because the "rules" which "define" it's properties dictate it's behavior.

 

[fromderinside]

So I get some water and put it into a flask and put a stopper over it. I withdraw most of the air from the flask then I turn on a Bunsen burner and place it under the flask. I bring the heat of the flask to 0^o .Whoa the water is bubbling, there's ice and there seems to be gas there.

Didn't you say rules must be obeyed? Very careful. Water at room temperature brought down to 0^o using air evacuation and a Bunsen burner. check.

See: water, boiling water, gas, and ice. Aren't some of those things supposed to happen 212 ^oF apart?


Love those rules.

BTW there's a lesson on rules there for you sir.

 

[untermensche]

So I get some water and put it into a flask and put a stopper over it. I withdraw most of the air from the flask then I turn on a Bunsen burner and place it under the flask. I bring the heat of the flask to 0^o .Whoa the water is bubbling, there's ice and there seems to be gas there.

Didn't you say rules must be obeyed? Very careful. Water at room temperature brought down to 0^o using air evacuation and a Bunsen burner. check.

See: water, boiling water, gas, and ice. Aren't some of those things supposed to happen 212 ^oF apart?


Love those rules.

BTW there's a lesson on rules there for you sir.

That's one specific external condition.

And water will behave the same way every time.

Because it can't break the "rules".

 

[Ahab]

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.

We can look at some specific property, say the freezing point of water.

Since under the same external conditions water freezes at the same temperature every time obviously this behavior is following "rules". It is stuck. It must freeze because the "rules" which "define" it's properties dictate it's behavior.

You haven't answered how it is following rules.

By watching the chess game we can derive the rules being used for the movement of the chess pieces. A pawn has the property of movement to the square in front of it. A bishop has the property of movement in a diagonal direction. But the chess pieces are not following the rules, it is the player moving the chess piece who is following the rules.

 

[untermensche]

We can look at some specific property, say the freezing point of water.

Since under the same external conditions water freezes at the same temperature every time obviously this behavior is following "rules". It is stuck. It must freeze because the "rules" which "define" it's properties dictate it's behavior.

You haven't answered how it is following rules.

If it is doing the same thing every time then it must be following some kind of "rules".

Not written rules in a book somewhere.

But the idea of rules applies.

 

[Ahab]

You haven't answered how it is following rules.

If it is doing the same thing every time then it must be following some kind of "rules".

Why? The chess pieces are not following any rules. It is the chess player following the rules.

Not written rules in a book somewhere.

But the idea of rules applies.

But you have yet to show how the rules are applied. Until you can do so, I see no reason to accept your assertion as true. And the chess example provides me with a good reason for thinking your assertion to be false.

 

[Juma]

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.

Because that is the real world!

The concept of rules arise because we observe how the world behaves and make models for it. These models need rules because they are models. The real world is not a model.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Because that is the real world!

The concept of rules arise because we observe how the world behaves and make models for it. These models need rules because they are models. The real world is not a model.

I'm not exactly sure how the concept of "rules" arises. I only know where it applies.

And it would apply in any consistent dynamic system. You can't have any consistency without "rules".

If you see that every water molecule observed behaves the same way under the same conditions you can conclude that there are underlying "rules" governing it's behavior.

 

[untermensche]

If it is doing the same thing every time then it must be following some kind of "rules".

Why? The chess pieces are not following any rules. It is the chess player following the rules.

The chess pieces are following "rules".

But not following in a willful manner or with any knowledge of their movement or knowledge of the rules.

But you have yet to show how the rules are applied...

That is complete mystery.

But if there is consistent behavior then "rules" are being followed.

 

[Ahab]

Why? The chess pieces are not following any rules. It is the chess player following the rules.

The chess pieces are following "rules".

But not following in a willful manner or with any knowledge of their movement or knowledge of the rules.

 

[fast]

The chess pieces are following "rules".

But not following in a willful manner or with any knowledge of their movement or knowledge of the rules.

 

[untermensche]

The chess pieces are following "rules".

But not following in a willful manner or with any knowledge of their movement or knowledge of the rules.

This is not a very convincing argument.

Are you claiming the pieces are not following "rules" during a game of chess?

If not that means they can be moved in any manner.

 

[fast]

This is not a very convincing argument.

Are you claiming the pieces are not following "rules" during a game of chess?

If not that means they can be moved in any manner.

Well, you know chess pieces, they can be quite disobedient at times, coinicidentially, the time chess players try to cheat when no one is looking.

 

[untermensche]

This is not a very convincing argument.

Are you claiming the pieces are not following "rules" during a game of chess?

If not that means they can be moved in any manner.

Well, you know chess pieces, they can be quite disobedient at times, coinicidentially, the time chess players try to cheat when no one is looking.

That isn't chess.

And of course it is only an analogy.

Nothing can cheat in terms of the working of the universe.

 

[Ahab]

This is not a very convincing argument.

Are you claiming the pieces are not following "rules" during a game of chess?

If not that means they can be moved in any manner.

The pieces don't follow any rules. It is the chess players who are following the rules. Of course the players can fail to follow the rules either through ignorance of the rules or by an honest mistake or (as Fast correctly pointed out) by cheating.

 

[untermensche]

This is not a very convincing argument.

Are you claiming the pieces are not following "rules" during a game of chess?

If not that means they can be moved in any manner.

The pieces don't follow any rules.

Sure they do. They move according to the rules.

If it is chess.

 

[fromderinside]

So I get some water and put it into a flask and put a stopper over it. I withdraw most of the air from the flask then I turn on a Bunsen burner and place it under the flask. I bring the heat of the flask to 0^o .Whoa the water is bubbling, there's ice and there seems to be gas there.

Didn't you say rules must be obeyed? Very careful. Water at room temperature brought down to 0^o using air evacuation and a Bunsen burner. check.

See: water, boiling water, gas, and ice. Aren't some of those things supposed to happen 212 ^oF apart?


Love those rules.

BTW there's a lesson on rules there for you sir.

That's one specific external condition.

And water will behave the same way every time.

Because it can't break the "rules".

Its not an external condition. Water is subject pressure, volume, temperature rules which makes simple statement of water rules moot. Since we are about discovering the rules, thermodynamics as one aggregate system comes to mind, it is silly to make 'the rules' paramount, central, relevant, whatever. If things aren't constant for instance, the rules keep changing as time, pressure, volume, mass, proportions of positrons and electrons, whatever change.

So spouting off about the rules when the rules can't be fixed is a dramatic illustration that the rules construct is not basic.

 

[untermensche]

That's one specific external condition.

And water will behave the same way every time.

Because it can't break the "rules".

Its not an external condition. Water is subject pressure, volume, temperature rules which makes simple statement of water rules moot. Since we are about discovering the rules, thermodynamics as one aggregate system comes to mind, it is silly to make 'the rules' paramount, central, relevant, whatever. If things aren't constant for instance, the rules keep changing as time, pressure, volume, mass, proportions of positrons and electrons, whatever change.

So spouting off about the rules when the rules can't be fixed is a dramatic illustration that the rules construct is not basic.

You confuse the "rules" with the behaviors caused by those "rules".

The "rules" don't change but the system is dynamic so the expression of those "rules" changes.

This is where we have to look at something like Wolfram and his exploration of complexity and how simple rules can lead to great complexity.

 

[Juma]

Its not an external condition. Water is subject pressure, volume, temperature rules which makes simple statement of water rules moot. Since we are about discovering the rules, thermodynamics as one aggregate system comes to mind, it is silly to make 'the rules' paramount, central, relevant, whatever. If things aren't constant for instance, the rules keep changing as time, pressure, volume, mass, proportions of positrons and electrons, whatever change.

So spouting off about the rules when the rules can't be fixed is a dramatic illustration that the rules construct is not basic.

You confuse the "rules" with the behaviors caused by those "rules".

The "rules" don't change but the system is dynamic so the expression of those "rules" changes.

This is where we have to look at something like Wolfram and his exploration of complexity and how simple rules can lead to great complexity.

You have yet do define "rules".

 

[untermensche]

You confuse the "rules" with the behaviors caused by those "rules".

The "rules" don't change but the system is dynamic so the expression of those "rules" changes.

This is where we have to look at something like Wolfram and his exploration of complexity and how simple rules can lead to great complexity.

You have yet do define "rules".

Like chess has rules to define movement the universe has underlying "rules" that too "define" movement of all things. Things cannot move in any way they choose. They must move according to the "rules".

But in the case of the universe the "rules" can't be broken.

But of course the universe is more than movement, it is movement of stuff. And that "stuff" needs rules to "define" it's properties too. You can't just have "charge". There needs to be underlying "rules" that bring "charge" into existence. Things that exist don't "define" their own existence. They must exist in a manner allowed by the "rules".

I say these "rules" don't change but that may not be true. It may be possible that the rules evolve and change, but then there would need to be other "rules" that "define" the possible limits and manner of that change.