Laws of Nature

[fromderinside]

So two boys went to Toys-R-US. One bought Lincoln logs, took them home and began to play with them. The other admired his naval, went home with the other boy and marveled at how he made things from the parts in the Lincoln log box.

The marveling boy kept exclaiming how the Lincoln log boy was using Lincoln rules.

"What are those asked the Lincoln log boy?"

"Lincoln logs follow rules" exclaimed marveling boy.

"What?"

"Obviously there are rules" said marveling, "Otherwise you wouldn't be able to build things."

...and the argument began ....

 

[untermensche]

So two boys went to Toys-R-US. One bought Lincoln logs, took them home and began to play with them. The other admired his naval, went home with the other boy and marveled at how he made things from the parts in the Lincoln log box.

The marveling boy kept exclaiming how the Lincoln log boy was using Lincoln rules.

"What are those asked the Lincoln log boy?"

"Lincoln logs follow rules" exclaimed marveling boy.

"What?"

"Obviously there are rules" said marveling, "Otherwise you wouldn't be able to build things."

...and the argument began ....

As usual the real issue evades you.

The only question in this thread is: Do "rules" exist?

And the answer is; Of course, they must.

 

[untermensche]

So everyone elected you to spew this psycho babble?

I am so sorry, I wasn't aware that you had exclusive rights to spewing psycho babble...

I know, I am constantly spewing nonsense about motivations, like a senile grandmother. Go look you will see all my discussion of your need for masturbation in public.

Not at all. I am addressing your posts by pointing out that they are not even arguments at all. I know exactly what I am saying, and I am saying your 'arguments' are worthless crap.

A child crying that they can't see the use in simple truths.

Again, worthless.

 

[fromderinside]

So two boys went to Toys-R-US. One bought Lincoln logs, took them home and began to play with them. The other admired his naval, went home with the other boy and marveled at how he made things from the parts in the Lincoln log box.

The marveling boy kept exclaiming how the Lincoln log boy was using Lincoln rules.

"What are those asked the Lincoln log boy?"

"Lincoln logs follow rules" exclaimed marveling boy.

"What?"

"Obviously there are rules" said marveling, "Otherwise you wouldn't be able to build things."

...and the argument began ....

As usual the real issue evades you.

The only question in this thread is: Do "rules" exist?

And the answer is; Of course, they must.

As far as evading goes no one holds a candle to untemenche. Its laws of nature not rules. I believe we can all agree there are rules. Now can there be rules successfully applied to nature. Its laws (rules) of nature, its not just rules.

As soon as man becomes part of the process we are reduced to finding first whether one can successfully say man thinks. Following that its can man's thought up rules apply to nature. Your bar is so low as to be trivial. You see we need to cross over that reality barrier both with respect to our capabilities to use what we think up, Then we need to extend to does our reality approximate that of the world in which we live. Then we need to verify whether what we construct as rules actually describe is is there.

'Its rules' it just a slogan without connections to existence and reality.

- - - Updated - - -

I am so sorry, I wasn't aware that you had exclusive rights to spewing psycho babble...

I know, I am constantly spewing nonsense about motivations, like a senile grandmother. Go look you will see all my discussion of your need for masturbation in public.

Not at all. I am addressing your posts by pointing out that they are not even arguments at all. I know exactly what I am saying, and I am saying your 'arguments' are worthless crap.

A child crying that they can't see the use in simple truths.

Again, worthless.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt worthless to worthless is worthless.

 

[untermensche]

Its laws of nature not rules. I believe we can all agree there are rules. Now can there be rules successfully applied to nature. Its laws (rules) of nature, its not just rules.

Not human rules, but "rules" of a non-human origin are necessary. Whether the human is clever enough to find them or apply them is another thing.

Your bar is so low as to be trivial.

The bar is determining if "rules" are necessary, if that bar can be surpassed then the question is answered, and it is not trivial.

And to claim they are not necessary all one has to do is show how consistency can exist without "rules", how it is possible for two separate yet incredibly similar electrons to exist without something that specifies the properties of an electron, distinct from an electron.

How does an electron know what to be? It has no brain. It is a complete slave. A slave to its "rules".

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt worthless to worthless is worthless.

You certainly are entitled to bad opinions.

 

[fromderinside]

Not human rules, but "rules" of a non-human origin are necessary. Whether the human is clever enough to find them or apply them is another thing.

Of course. Why didn't I think of that? Because that only moves the post one step further down the path. Why not non human non human rules? Why not (non human)¹⁰ removed rules? Nothing advanced. The same issues remain. How do we know whether the rules or the measurements or both are actually related to reality, or, of the real world? We don't. Separate analysis and evidence is required.

The bar is determining if "rules" are necessary, if that bar can be surpassed then the question is answered, and it is not trivial.

And to claim they are not necessary all one has to do is show how consistency can exist without "rules", how it is possible for two separate yet incredibly similar electrons to exist without something that specifies the properties of an electron, distinct from an electron.

How does an electron know what to be? It has no brain. It is a complete slave. A slave to its "rules".

I've said rules are required,. Regularity is a step in an ordering or organizing schema. Bioth are trivial notions.

Does it matter that human looking at four dimensions determines four dimensional rules can be developed for things if the world is composed of 10 dimensions as some theories suggest? I don't think so. Dark matter and dark energy, not measurable, but, known by some of their effects on the four dimensions we perceive and can measure. They destroy measurements of what we can measure about the world suggesting the world as we 'know' it is wrongly measured or not measurable by us.

Pass that hurdle first, then tell us how rules explain anything. I'm not even asking for your notion of rules because its obvious you can't get there based on your previous posts. Rules are rules is not an argument.

You need to get a bit further into your analysis to even get up to what we are considering today.

I'm saying your philosophy is a large step backwards.

 

[fast]

Its laws of nature not rules. I believe we can all agree there are rules. Now can there be rules successfully applied to nature. Its laws (rules) of nature, its not just rules.

It's so very important that we not let language corrupt our focus. When we disagree over what is meant by what is said, progress need not be a function of word usage. It helps, but when it's a losing proposition, we can circumvent the delimma.

First comes nature, and be what that may, it is not a statement about it. Just as we read from left to right, I denote that which comes first as being on the left and any statements about it as being that which is on the right. In essence, as we speak of nature and what makes it tick is to speak about that which is on the left, and to speak about human dependent statements is to speak about that which is on the right.

If you (you specifically) speak of rules, and if he (untermensche) speaks of rules, there isn't necessarily a meeting of the minds. Such is the case with the term "Laws of nature" as well. I could say a lot more, but if we can muster the strength to be overwhelmingly forgiving by judging what is meant by what is said (by paying very close attention), we can manage to see which side of the divide is being referenced.

The laws of nature is not on the right. It's on the left. All other laws are on the right, but this law is an exception. Rules are on the right just as laws are on the right, but untermensche is not at all talking about the right but rather the left, and if you are referring to the right with both laws of nature and rules while he is always referring to the left, then everyone just needs to be clear with my descriptive divide so that everyone can follow who means what by what they say. Otherwise, with the lack of correct lexical usage and no stipulatively defined terms, there's not much hope of anybody being on the same page.

 

[untermensche]

I've said rules are required,. Regularity is a step in an ordering or organizing schema. Bioth are trivial notions.

To swine pearls have no value.

And you can barely put together a sentence that can be comprehended and are no judge of what is and isn't trivial.

I'm saying your philosophy is a large step backwards.

You mean my points you can't seem to address?

Again; How does an electron know what to be?

You have no answer beyond a bunch of hand waving.

 

[fast]

Again; How does an electron know what to be?

Are you funnin' around?

 

[untermensche]

If you (you specifically) speak of rules, and if he (untermensche) speaks of rules, there isn't necessarily a meeting of the minds. Such is the case with the term "Laws of nature" as well. I could say a lot more, but if we can muster the strength to be overwhelmingly forgiving by judging what is meant by what is said (by paying very close attention), we can manage to see which side of the divide is being referenced.

It is not so much in knowing what the "rules" or the "laws" are.

It is only knowing they are a necessary condition for any ordered existence.

You can't have a bunch of electrons all doing the same thing unless there are "rules" "telling" them what to do.

They are not all by some miracle deciding to do the same thing at once.

To negate the idea of "rules" is to live in a universe of infinite miracles.

- - - Updated - - -

Again; How does an electron know what to be?

Are you funnin' around?

It is a very serious question.

Less rhetorically it would be: How is it that two electrons share the same properties? Why would they do that?

 

[fast]

It is not so much in knowing what the "rules" or the "laws" are.

It is only knowing they are a necessary condition for any ordered existence.

Sounds like you might be speaking of physical necessities.

You can't have a bunch of electrons all doing the same thing unless there are "rules" "telling" them what to do.

They are not all by some miracle deciding to do the same thing at once.

To negate the idea of "rules" is to live in a universe of infinite miracles.

It sounds like you're saying that there are physical occurances causing other physical occurances.

It is a very serious question.

Less rhetorically it would be: How is it that two electrons share the same properties? Why would they do that?

Now, that's a good question! There are no distraction words, unless a smartypants were to imbue "share" as anthromorphic.

Electrons don't actually KNOW anything at all, of course, and I don't suspect you think they do, and I don't think there's something actually TELLING them what to do. Likewise, there are no human made RULES to which they are ABIDING by. Furthermore, there are no human made laws that electrons LISTEN to. You have spoken enough on this that my gripe is not with what you mean; I think it's just a matter of finding some neutral wording that doesn't invoke the common connotation associated with many of these words.

Clearly, there is something going on in this ole world of ours that is responsible for the shared properties between electrons, and if we ever determined what that is, as scientists might well do, my argument is that any mathematical formulas devised by people that allow perfect predictability will not in the technical sense be the actual cause behind the regularities in nature, as that would imply that human made inventions is the causal factor; in other words, I object to the notion that natures events are because of the formulaic rules we have. Rather, natural reoccurring events will be due to what those written rules refer to, which are the things in nature making it so that electrons share the properties they do.

 

[untermensche]

Sounds like you might be speaking of physical necessities.

Not just necessities but necessities that do things like cause the common features of electrons.

You could have existence with no regularities. No two things would share properties.

But when things start sharing properties there is something going on besides the sharing of properties. There are the reasons things that share properties have those specific properties.

...my argument is that any mathematical formulas devised by people that allow perfect predictability will not in the technical sense be the actual cause behind the regularities in nature...

No, nothing written on paper is the cause of anything.

We can get an understanding of the "rules". But that isn't close to an understanding of why they exist.

But science has really given up trying to find the why. It isn't necessary. What is necessary is understanding the "rules" so you can better manipulate the world.

 

[bilby]

It is not so much in knowing what the "rules" or the "laws" are.

It is only knowing they are a necessary condition for any ordered existence.

You can't have a bunch of electrons all doing the same thing unless there are "rules" "telling" them what to do.

They are not all by some miracle deciding to do the same thing at once.

To negate the idea of "rules" is to live in a universe of infinite miracles.

- - - Updated - - -

Again; How does an electron know what to be?

Are you funnin' around?

It is a very serious question.

Less rhetorically it would be: How is it that two electrons share the same properties? Why would they do that?

They DON'T share the same properties. They have some shared properties, and some not shared. Position, momentum, polarisation, etc. can all be different.

The ONLY reason why two electrons share the same properties with regards to charge, rest mass, etc. is because if they didn't, we wouldn't label them 'electrons'.

Two particles that have different masses and charges are not two electrons at all; they are an election and a proton. Only our descision to call all of the different particles with equal values for charge and mass 'electrons' makes them all electrons. They are electrons because that's what we call them.

Your entire argument here is totally pointless. Particles vary. We group them for our convenience; but that doesn't make them identical. All fermions share certain characteristics. All bosons share certain characteristics. All electrons share certain characteristics. This is fundamental to the way humans classify shit; but it has fuck all to do with the shit being classified.

The 'rules' are a human construct.

 

[Ahab]

Clearly, there is something going on in this ole world of ours that is responsible for the shared properties between electrons, and if we ever determined what that is, as scientists might well do, my argument is that any mathematical formulas devised by people that allow perfect predictability will not in the technical sense be the actual cause behind the regularities in nature, as that would imply that human made inventions is the causal factor; in other words, I object to the notion that natures events are because of the formulaic rules we have. Rather, natural reoccurring events will be due to what those written rules refer to, which are the things in nature making it so that electrons share the properties they do.

The rules we have devised help to explain and predict the regularities in nature. If they refer to anything it is to those regularities. They don't refer to "the things in nature making" the regularities. If they did then you would also need rules to explain why those causal powers have the regular effects they have. To do that more rules would have to be devised. And so on ad infinitum.

Rules are not causal powers. We employ and devise rules to help us create regularities. And, as bilby points out, those rules are arbitrary in the sense that we categorize phenomena in the world according to our needs.

 

[fast]

We classify things, and we could classify the things we do differently, but in either case, it would be reflective of the relationships between the things themselves. The human created classification refers to the human independent arrangements.

 

[Ahab]

We classify things, and we could classify the things we do differently, but in either case, it would be reflective of the relationships between the things themselves. The human created classification refers to the human independent arrangements.

We also classify relationships and arrangements. These are mind and language dependent also.

 

[fast]

We classify things, and we could classify the things we do differently, but in either case, it would be reflective of the relationships between the things themselves. The human created classification refers to the human independent arrangements.

We also classify relationships and arrangements. These are mind and language dependent also.

The point is to distinguish the observed from the observer. The universe and all its parts (including electrons) can be classified in numerous ways. It won't be classified in any way without someone to do it, but the classifications devised by humans need not exist for there to be a classifiable universe.

 

[Ahab]

We also classify relationships and arrangements. These are mind and language dependent also.

The point is to distinguish the observed from the observer. The universe and all its parts (including electrons) can be classified in numerous ways. It won't be classified in any way without someone to do it, but the classifications devised by humans need not exist for there to be a classifiable universe.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Nothing can be classifiable unless there are beings with minds and language.

In any case, you still have not addressed the point I made earlier about rules having causal powers. How do you explain those causal powers causing regularities?

 

[fast]

The point is to distinguish the observed from the observer. The universe and all its parts (including electrons) can be classified in numerous ways. It won't be classified in any way without someone to do it, but the classifications devised by humans need not exist for there to be a classifiable universe.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Nothing can be classifiable unless there are beings with minds and language.

In any case, you still have not addressed the point I made earlier about rules having causal powers. How do you explain those causal powers causing regularities?

Rules, with that being creatures of man, do not in any way have causal powers. Notice where untermensche said, "nothing written on paper is the cause of anything." We both agree that rules made by man does not cause regularities in nature. When he talks of rules, he talks about the same thing we do, and we're all three in agreement.

When he talks about 'rules' (a creature not born of man), he is not in any way talking about rules. It's 'rules' (not rules) that he mostly speaks of, and that is what he says have causal powers.

 

[fast]

The point is to distinguish the observed from the observer. The universe and all its parts (including electrons) can be classified in numerous ways. It won't be classified in any way without someone to do it, but the classifications devised by humans need not exist for there to be a classifiable universe.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Nothing can be classifiable unless there are beings with minds and language.

In any case, you still have not addressed the point I made earlier about rules having causal powers. How do you explain those causal powers causing regularities?

I understand what you're saying about classifiability. Maybe an analogy will help. The ground is something that can be walked upon. But, what if there is no creature that can walk? Does this mean that the ground is not walkable because there is no creature that can walk? Now perhaps, but the potential is there. So, if the ground is not already something that could potentially be walked on, I wouldn't say the ground is walkable. If there were no humans to classify electrons, we wouldn't classify them, but they (without human existence) have the potential for classification because certain facts about electrons exist in nature as they do without our classification of them.

The referent of the word, "electron" is not human dependent, just like the referent of the word, "moon" is not human dependent.