That, if everything I said is true, implies that humans too, being composed of matter and energy, must obey the laws of nature — TheMadFool

Right. If you and a rock fall out the window, you will hit the ground at the same time, all things being equal. However, you might regret it, while the rock cannot.

By universal I mean the laws of nature apply to any and all without exception. — TheMadFool

Curios to see where this question leads. It could be a really abrupt dead-end.

Do you take the laws of thought to be laws of nature?

I'd like to strike-through the word "thought" in "laws of thought", but I can't. But to be explicit, I'm here considering the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and, possibly, the law of the excluded middle. I'm here also supposing that these laws of thought do apply to any and all without exception - which is about as good a supposition as any (other?) law of nature.

And, granting that these three laws of thought hold ubiquitous application:

If not, why not? We - the ones aware of these laws of thought - are but energy and matter, right?

The impression I get from science, what I know of it, is that the so-called laws of nature are universal. — TheMadFool

They are not the true laws of nature, which are unknown, and they are not universal either. These laws only exhibit an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe.

They are not the true laws of nature, which are unknown, and they are not universal either. These laws only exhibit an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe. — alcontali

...and at this time period.

This is a paradox because how is it that the laws of nature, universal in scope produces humans whose interactions, necessarily derived from the universal laws of nature, have exceptions? — TheMadFool

It could be that at certain, stable or semi-stable levels of nature's compositions, such as atoms, molecules, cells, etc., these higher and higher level events gain emergent properties, making some of the lower levels not as relevant in the higher level's specific realm of law but still necessary.

Similar to a literary composition, too, like a forum post, with paragraphs doing more than sentences doing more than phrases doing more than words doing more than phonemes doing more than letters of the alphabet… unto a divergence of combinations.

So, then, like a prosaic/poetic universe…

I'll take ethics as an example. We all know that all ethical theories are "incomplete" in the sense that there are exceptions which cause them to fail. — TheMadFool

We do not know this.

Not only are there simply principles, such as the law-of-non-contradiction (as @javra mentions) that we probably would agree we don't want to make exceptions to, but even less simple ethical principles, if we find an exception, we can just amend the theory, add it as a qualifier of the principle and so it's not a problem. For instance, there is nothing that prevents resolving the "murderer at the door" issue by amending our principle of "not to lie" with "don't lie, unless there's a murderer at the door".

Now, more importantly for your particular issue, whether physical laws are universal or not, our ethical theories are compatible with our here-and-now physical laws by definition! No matter how incoherent they are. Anything anyone does is compatible with the physical laws: breaking an ethical rule in whatever ethical system (even the system that all actions whatsoever are unethical) does not break a physical law. Was the action then "determined by physical laws" is the free-will question, but you don't seem to be discussing that here. Your issue seems to be simply that physical laws we all must "obey" (in a sense) are not the same category of thing as moral principles where we have a choice (to decide what our idea of moral principles are, tolerate internal contradictions or not, and decide which one's we'll follow on any occasion); but, either way, ethical theories don't "all have exceptions that cause them to fail", there are not only complicated theories with no internal contradictions it's easy to make simple theories such as "all decisions are moral; random actions are fine, doing what you feel is fine too" that have no exceptions by definition (everything is moral, no exceptions).

Right. If you and a rock fall out the window, you will hit the ground at the same time, all things being equal. However, you might regret it, while the rock cannot — Wayfarer

This is a good point. All the known exceptions to universalizing attempts are mental objects. The mind is what's disrupting the pattern, that of universality to be specific. There's something about the mind that injects the nature's otherwise uniformity with "unexpected" variations, exceptions.

If not, why not? We - the ones aware of these laws of thought - are but energy and matter, right? — javra

The laws of nature are relevant only in two respects:

1. Their universal nature; no exceptions
2. We're all made of the same stuff

Therefore, it must be that everything that follows from them must also share this property - universality. This isn't the case as I've tried to demonstrate using moral theories.

They are not the true laws of nature, which are unknown, and they are not universal either. These laws only exhibit an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe. — alcontali

What do you mean? Have you seen anything defy gravity? Is there anything that breaks the laws of thermodynamics?

Nice try. Thanks.


To all

The exceptions I refer to are simply my finger pointing at the obvious chaos we see in human interactions. By chaos I refer to the many exceptions in our attempts at setting down rules (patterns) of social interaction. I chose morality in my OP because it's the best example that clearly exposes both an effort at laying down universal laws, just like mother nature and also the various exceptions that resist such an effort. There are no exceptions to the laws of nature.

I like what @javra said. He pointed out that the laws of thought are universal. Despite his intentions for doing that not being clear to me it brings to relief the fact that nature's patterns are, if anything, universal in character.

I think we can actually ask a simple question: "Why don't we think alike?"

Sociologists and psychologists may interject to say that the minds of people are actually not different but are same - we're all logical, we cry and laugh for the same reasons, etc. However, this I think is confirmation bias and ignores the many ways that we're different and that hinder universalization of social interaction by throwing exceptions at it.

Your valuable comments...

I think we can actually ask a simple question: "Why don't we think alike?" — TheMadFool

If you're trying to connect this question to the law of physics, then it's the same as "why aren't all molecules alike"; i.e. why is there any differentiation at all.

As for our;

effort at laying down universal laws, just like mother nature and also the various exceptions that resist such an effort. There are no exceptions to the laws of nature. — TheMadFool

Moral inquiry arises precisely because there are exceptions to principles we can follow. We don't call gravity a moral principle precisely because we can't avoid following it's dictates, if we could then the question would arise as to whether we "should" feel the force of gravity, let G have its way with us, or not.

If I make a choice it implies that there was some alternative.

Your question is perfectly valid from an ontological perspective, the "big questions" of why we're here? Why is there discord among us? Why is there suffering?

If the physical laws being coherent is just a starter to contrast with our many incoherent sayings and doings as a society as a whole, then I have no qualms. This is what I understand of your last post, as you emphasize that you are not saying a contradiction arises about our behaviour from the laws-of-physics per se, is this accurate?

But if so, this seems another angle into the free-will debate, or is your intention to avoid that or then focus on something related but adjacent to it?

This is a paradox because how is it that the laws of nature, universal in scope produces humans whose interactions, necessarily derived from the universal laws of nature, have exceptions? — TheMadFool

People claim things to be universal that are no such thing. That's the simple problem there.

"Everything is relative" is a universal.

Whether that's the case or not, I wasn't saying anything like that.

He was talking about exceptions to supposed universals. I said that the problem is that people claim that x is a universal when it isn't at all.

For example, if someone were to claim that "No tuba players can sing." That would be claiming a universal that's not at all a universal.

↪Terrapin Station

"Everything is relative" is a universal. — Harry Hindu

No. "everything is relative" is a theory borne out by the fact that nothing has yet been coherently demonstrated to be a universal.

The aspect that I want to focus on is that the laws of nature are UNIVERSAL i.e. there can be no exception. [...] It's "obvious" that humans and whatever they do must obey the laws of nature. — TheMadFool

There are no laws of nature, in the sense that these laws must be obeyed. The universe acts according to its nature, and this is unavoidable. But there are no laws. There are simply things that will happen whether we want them to or not. There is no law of gravity, which all matter must obey. But localised concentrations of matter will always attract one another, as they always have. There is no law that compells them to act this way. It is their nature to do so, and it is inescapable.

The "laws of nature" are human-created descriptions of how the universe works, and they are not in any sense binding. But the universe behaves according to its nature - it cannot do otherwise - and there are no exceptions. Are we mistaking the map (the 'laws of nature') for the territory (the universe)? I think we are.

If you're trying to connect this question to the law of physics, then it's the same as "why aren't all molecules alike"; i.e. why is there any differentiation at all. — boethius

I'm focusing on one particular aspect of how nature works, universality, and inferring, rightly or not, that it should pervade al levels of reality. Given that it does not, as manifested through the lack of a complete watertight moral theory (the best example of humans trying to achieve something like a universal law and failing because of exceptions), we have an intriguing puzzle on our hands. Why is this so?

You mention differences in molecules and I accept that variety exists in matter AND energy. The point is these differences don't matter when it comes to interactions between them. We can actually say that the magic occurs when matter-energy interact. All conceivable/perceivable phenomena are interactions and these are subject to universal laws.

If the physical laws being coherent is just a starter to contrast with our many incoherent sayings and doings as a society as a whole, then I have no qualms. This is what I understand of your last post, as you emphasize that you are not saying a contradiction arises about our behaviour from the laws-of-physics per se, is this accurate? — boethius

I gave it some thought and all I can say at the moment is that an exception is a contradiction but a contradiction needn't be an exception. What do I mean? For x to be an exception there must be a law, a series of previous occurrences that confirm the law and then when x occurs and contradicts the series it becomes an exception. However a contradiction can be a one-off event without the need for a law to contradict.

People claim things to be universal that are no such thing. That's the simple problem there. — Terrapin Station

I think the laws that science informs us of is incomplete rather than wrong/nonexistent. There has to be general patterns/laws to this universe because the alternative is chaos which I think won't be conducive to life and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Everything is relative" is a universal. — Harry Hindu

Are you going somewhere with that? This is a contradiction but as I explained above to boethius doesn't constitute an exception which is really my point.

By chaos I refer to the many exceptions in our attempts at setting down rules (patterns) of social interaction. — TheMadFool

Are you trying to contrast (coercive) human laws, made to govern humans, with (descriptive) 'laws of nature'? The former are for us to manage exceptions, if our coercion is disobeyed; the latter simply describe how the universe appears to us to work, and have no coercive force whatever.

What do you mean? Have you seen anything defy gravity? Is there anything that breaks the laws of thermodynamics? — TheMadFool

These scientific patterns have an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe. Still, they are not the true laws of nature, because that would be the theory of everything (ToE):

A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, together, most closely resemble a TOE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc.

The Theory of Everything would be the real construction logic of the universe, and not just some patterns that somehow resist falsification (for the time being).

I like what javra said. He pointed out that the laws of thought are universal. Despite his intentions for doing that not being clear to me it brings to relief the fact that nature's patterns are, if anything, universal in character. — TheMadFool

Yup, that was my intention.

I think we can actually ask a simple question: "Why don't we think alike?" — TheMadFool

So, given that the laws of thought are universal, in this sense alone, we do all think alike.

But I get it, you're asking why there are variations in our thoughts. And, I acknowledge, my previous train of thought can't address this.

Continuing, we know that every aspect of humanity, everything we do, has a pattern "resembling" the laws of nature — TheMadFool

Before confirming or denying that, the question of whether there is a human nature needs to be asked. If one posits that the language that has developed through the idea is actually a misguided interpretation of other elements, then what is understood to be "natural" is not the same nature as the one described as a special set of conditions that pertain to our species.

I expect, therefore, that the laws of nature reflect a fundamental fact about the universe and everything it contains. The aspect that I want to focus on is that the laws of nature are UNIVERSAL i.e. there can be no exception. — TheMadFool

UNIVERSAL NATURAL LAW,
AND THEN ITS VIOLATIONS

Don’t try to fool Mother Nature;
You will always be caught,
So don't even give it a thought.

The violation of universal natural law
Is the cause of our problems, all,
Of everything that becomes rife
That plagues individual and national life,
These stresses only leading to more strife,
From lowlifes leaving their wife, for the wildlife
Of nightlife, to cutting someone with a knife.

So stem problems of national health,
Crime, the economy, education, wealth,
And the black environmental sins,
All of them having their origin
In a widespread law violation
By some portion of the population.

Universal Natural Law is very terse
In governing the entire universe,
It being the orderly principles
That regulate physical events/processes.

Science defines the universal law of nature,
A precise description of how nature matures.

Universal law pervades everything,
Of all that is in passage and being,
From the motion of particles
To the evolution of life’s articles—
Operating at every scale:
The subatomic, atomic,
Molecular, biological, geological,
Astrophysical, and cosmological.

The universe is structured, hence,
In these many layers of existence
As worlds within worlds,
Distinguished and not only furled
By vastly different time and distance scales,
But that every level has its own set of details;
For example, an electron/nucleus system
Is not analogous to that of a planet/sun.

The more superficial macroscopic levels of nature
Can be seen as fragmented expressions, for sure,
That are manifested from the more unified laws
Governing deeper levels with their scrimshaws—
The reflections of the dazzling symmetries
Of what once were inaccessible mysteries.

The outer ‘becomes’ are based on inner ones,
The only fountainhead of all the rhythms.
And the converse is not true.

Nature’s governance is maximally efficient,
For it is frugal, as not a spendthrift—
It following The Principle of Least Action
In all of its action and protraction.

This is why a ray of light refracts
When going from air to water’s tract,
Minimizing the time
And saving every dime.

From this maximal economy of nature,
All classical behavior can be scriptured.

Entropy is a count of quantum states
Accessible to a macroscopic system’s estate,
This available number ever increasing;
The nature of life is to grow, ever reaching.

The path of least action’s welcome
Is just the macroscopic outcome
Of the simultaneous superposition
Of multiple coexisting paths’ auctions
At the microscopic level,
The outcome ever of the least income.
The law to which all must succumb.

All is rooted in the verses
Of the Constitution of the Universe.

Life takes advantage and cause
Of the universal natural laws,
Even such as in merely walking,
Which is an immensely complex undertaking.

We employ technology
In all of its variety.

Everything that we fail to accomplish
Is but due to the total failure
To apply universal natural law effectively,
This being the source of all difficulty.

In the absence of knowledge of a lever,
The simple task of moving a boulder
Becomes complex and arduous to the shoulder.

Not learning gravity has caused non-mild
Injuries to many a young child;
The old uses of radiation caused cancer tumults;
The use of DDT had many adverse results.

Smoking cigarettes, heavy drinking, being out late,
And other addictive obsessions surely violate
Universal natural law, at whatever rate,
Resulting in negative consequences,
While psychological violations dispense
Stress directly in a sequence immense.

While fulfillment of desire can bring happiness,
It also raises the scope and standardness
Of future desires, making the duress
Of frustration an inevitable process.

Over time this causes psychological stress,
Which in turn impairs creativity’s success,
Stalling future desires
By watering their fires
And also leads to problems of health,
These then causing further stealth
And violations of universal natural law—

Resulting in the nonsense
Of a life out of balance—
Leading to aggression, anxiety,
Impulsive violent behavior, hostility
And substance abuse—
A vicious cycle of refuse
That, among other effects,
Fills up the prisons to correct.

Are you trying to contrast (coercive) human laws, made to govern humans, with (descriptive) 'laws of nature'? The former are for us to manage exceptions, if our coercion is disobeyed; the latter simply describe how the universe appears to us to work, and have no coercive force whatever. — Pattern-chaser

Only one aspect of the laws of nature is of concern - that they are universal in scope. Shouldn't then any other pattern, law if you will, derived from these overarching laws of nature? Humans spend a lot of time thinking about patterns, as your handle suggests. The reason we've evolved this way is because there are patterns in the way the world works and these patterns are what we call the laws of nature.

Given this is the case we're hardwired to build our lives too around patterns/laws. If humanity is to function well as a group we need laws covering every possible combination of social interaction so that the engine of society runs as smoothly as possible. And so we have put in place many laws to that purpose. However, unlike the laws of nature which tolerates no exceptions, the laws of society have to be actually adjusted to accommodate exceptions. It's this that I find baffling.

What is the spanner in the works here? What is unique/different about humans that causes society to have exceptions to every rule/law that is created to facilitate its smooth operation?

The Theory of Everything would be the real construction logic of the universe, and not just some patterns that somehow resist falsification (for the time being). — alcontali

I understand that the Theory of Everything is expected to cover all physical phenomena. That human group interactions always has exceptions to any law designed for it indicates either that there can't be a theory of everything or that the mind is not physical.

So, given that the laws of thought are universal, in this sense alone, we do all think alike.

But I get it, you're asking why there are variations in our thoughts. And, I acknowledge, my previous train of thought can't address this. — javra

Yes, the differences in the way we think is the stuff that makes exceptions.

Before confirming or denying that, the question of whether there is a human nature needs to be asked. If one posits that the language that has developed through the idea is actually a misguided interpretation of other elements, then what is understood to be "natural" is not the same nature as the one described as a special set of conditions that pertain to our species. — Valentinus

Please read javra's post on how logic is universal.

To All

My basic point is:

The laws of nature cover 100% of the universe (no exceptions). The laws of man cover less than 100% of humanity. This shouldn't be the case because the universality property of the laws of nature should pervade all levels of the universe, including us and what we do. The laws of nature have no exceptions but the laws of men are actually devised to handle exceptions.

I have a few explanations why this is the case. Allow me to use moral theory as the preferred example.

1. There exists laws that can be applied universally, without exception, to human interaction. We just haven't discovered them yet and that exceptions or special cases are symptoms of our error. We all know the fallacy of the accident. What bears mentioning is the difference between a rule and a law. A rule is general which captures its nature - close to a 100% but not quite. A law is universal - 100% and no exceptions.

So, my question can be framed as: "Why do we have rules when in fact we should be having laws?"

If you look carefully you'll realize that some acts are clear and unambiguous and they fall within the purview of laws. Others are vague and ambiguous and for them we have rules. This is linked to what I have to say below:

2. There actually are no exceptions and what we see as special cases/exceptions are actually illusions. An analogy may help here. We know for sure that gravity will not allow heavier-than-air objects to fly but we have planes, helicopters and rockets. To a man, ignorant of aerodynamics and rocketry, these flying machines will be exceptions to the law of gravity. However those who know the technology will realize that its lift created by the wings or the exhaust of rockets that make heavier-than-air fligth possible. It's a case of one law of nature being used to overcome another law of nature.

A similar situation, where one law is pitted against law, may explain the apparent chaos in human interactions. To continue using moral theory as an example we see that many of the exceptions to a given moral theory are cases of one perfectly acceptable principle being opposed by another perfectly acceptable principle.

In conclusion, if I got it right, the property of universality is definitely all-pervasive insofar as the laws of nature are concerned. Exceptions/special cases are simply cases of one law of nature opposing another law of nature with unexpected results.

The OP misunderstands the nature of universality at play in the 'laws of nature'. The so-called laws must be understood negatively, as limits which cannot be crossed. To dumb it down, they say something like: "you can do almost whatever you want, but you can't do this". The 2nd law of thermodynamics is exemplary: in a closed system, entropy can never decrease. All well and good. But this says nothing about what actually happens in those systems: it just says that whatever does happen, it can't happen such that entropy decreases. The philosopher of science Nancy Cartwright puts it best:

"Covering-law theorists tend to think that nature is well-regulated; in the extreme, that there is a law to cover every case. [Instead,] natural objects are much like people in societies. Their behaviour is constrained by some specific laws and by a handful of general principles, but it is not determined in detail, even statistically [by those laws]. What happens on most occasions is dictated by no law at all. ... God may have written just a few laws and grown tired". (Cartwright, How The Laws of Physics Lie)

'Universality' simply means that nothing can contravene those laws, not that the laws determine "everything". A stop sign must always be obeyed: but not everything you do is governed by the stop sign.

The OP misunderstands the nature of universality at play in the 'laws of nature'. The so-called laws must be understood negatively, as limits which cannot be crossed. To dumb it down, they say something like: "you can do almost whatever you want, but you can't do this". The 2nd law of thermodynamics is exemplary: in a closed system, entropy can never decrease. All well and good. But this says nothing about what actually happens in those systems: it just says that whatever does happen, it can't happen such that entropy decreases. The philosohoper of science Nancy Cartwright puts it best:

"Covering-law theorists tend to think that nature is well-regulated; in the extreme, that there is a law to cover every case. [Instead,] natural objects are much like people in societies. Their behaviour is constrained by some specific laws and by a handful of general principles, but it is not determined in detail, even statistically [by those laws]. What happens on most occasions is dictated by no law at all. ... God may have written just a few laws and grown tired". (Cartwright, How The Laws of Physics Lie)

'Universality' simply means that nothing can contravene those laws, not that the laws determine "everything". A stop sign must always be obeyed: but not everything you do is governed by the stop sign. — StreetlightX

What a fascinating insight: A delimiting boundary but freedom within those boundaries.

Thank you.

This, as you said, is the laws of nature viewed negatively. I don't quite fully agree with this though. Newtonian mechanics or laws determine what objects do and not just what they must not do.

If the laws of nature are, as you say, just defining the limits/boundaries (like stop lights) then we wouldn't be able to send spacecrafts to space and our knowledge would be limited to "objects can't travel faster than light".

I understand that the Theory of Everything is expected to cover all physical phenomena. That human group interactions always has exceptions to any law designed for it indicates either that there can't be a theory of everything or that the mind is not physical. — TheMadFool

In his lecture, Gödel and the end of physics, Stephen Hawking argued that it is Gödel's incompleteness theorems that prevent the discovery of the theory of everything (ToE):

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate.

Existing scientific knowledge is not one unified theory that builds on the true construction logic of the universe, and therefore, does not represent the true laws of nature. Existing scientific knowledge is rather some kind of Platonic shadow of the true laws of nature.

Newtonian mechanics or laws determine what objects do — TheMadFool

There's no reason to treat this 'determination' in a different way than laws: whatever objects do, their behaviour must abide by such and such inviolable dictates (e.g. Newton's first law of inertia: any object in motion or at rest will continue to be in motion or at rest unless impinged upon by an external force), without this 'determination' exhaustively determining the behaviour of the object.

A popular term that captures how to think about all this is the language of constraints. Laws and mechanics function as constraints on what is possible. The important and interesting thing about constraints that they are not merely negative, but also positive: the appearance of constraints make things possible that were not there before. A six sided die can only land in six ways, compared to a sphere, but this limitation makes the die alot more useful. The constraints placed on the sounds we make allow us to speak language, rather than just make inchoate noises.

Actually language is a useful model here: everything we say is bound by the ‘rules of language’, but this doesn’t mean that ‘language determines what we say’. You can study the rules of language till you’re decomposing, and nothing there will account for what people speak (although it might account for certain aspects of how they speak). The same holds true, mutatis mutandis, for physical law. Everything abides it, it is universal in scope, and it determines everything that happens. But not all of it.

:chin:

The same holds true, mutatis mutandis, for physical law. Everything abides it, it is universal in scope, and it determines everything that happens. But not all of it. — StreetlightX

Can you give me an example that proves the statement I put in bold above?

You said constraints can be positive. Isn't this like saying restriction = freedom, a contradiction? Please kindly clarify this for me. I have something to add to this but I'll wait for your reply.

Thanks.

Please read javra's post on how logic is universal. — TheMadFool

I was not contesting the notion that "nature" demonstrates universals through the expression of individual beings being whatever they are according to some order that is given through the fact of them being because they are caused to be. So, when you ask:

So, my question can be framed as: "Why do we have rules when in fact we should be having laws?" — TheMadFool

It seems that you want to frame what is peculiarly human against a background of an existence that is ordered without provision for that possibility. A freaking fluke accident, if you will.

'Universality' simply means that nothing can contravene those laws, not that the laws determine "everything". — StreetlightX

Laws backed by experimental testing -- no matter how extensive the testing -- cannot guarantee that nothing will contravene them.

That is a core characteristic of the falsificationist framework of science. It is the the very epistemology of science that prevents it from being truly universal.

Furthermore, deviations into scientism are often caused by forgetting or even wilfully ignoring the falsificationist nature of science. At that point, science can easily degenerate into the object of a strange kind of religion that seeks to worship its fake certainties, the kind of which has recently been killing tens of thousands of people in the opioids crisis. Scientism is therefore even a murderous delusion.

It seems that you want to frame what is peculiarly human against a background of an existence that is ordered without provision for that possibility. A freaking fluke accident, if you will. — Valentinus

Beautifully worded but there are no accidents in nature hence we have the laws of nature.