Patterns are why we can ask why, not the other way around.

Physics has shown us the universe has many laws or rules by which it operates; gravitational constant, conservation laws, uncertainty principle, thermodynamics etc. — Benj96

Those are the laws of physics, which do not necessarily mean laws of nature.

But why? Why have any consistency to anything? Why not have a gravitational force that changes constantly or a conservation law that works "most" of the time. — Benj96

According to David Hume and a lot of philosophers, the laws of nature are contingent and can change.

If the laws we see in the universe are the only laws that a universe can have this gives fuel to the deterministic philosophy in which things have to/ will occur a certain way rather than completely by chance. — Benj96

Can you prove that the laws of physics are the only way the world can be?

If the laws we see in the universe are the only laws that a universe can have.... — Benj96

What right do we have to say that? We see the laws because we put them there, in order to understand the operation of the universe according to our kind of intelligence. Anything else is anthropomophism.

:up:

the universe has many laws ... uncertainty principle — Benj96

Erm..

If the laws we see in the universe are the only laws that a universe can have — Benj96

Whoa, like ten different random assertions there. Not random of course. Mainstream belief, which is dynamic and always changing. You even say yourself the difference between "the" and "a" universe. Always the best place to start.

If the laws we see in the universe are the only laws that a universe can have this gives fuel to the deterministic philosophy in which things have to/ will occur a certain way rather than completely by chance. — Benj96

There may always be universal laws which we do not know about, or only understand approximately. It is important to distinguish our current or best future impressions of physical law from the actual laws apparently governing our universe.

As to why the universe obeys rules at all, there are several possibilities. One is that the laws are properties of universes generally. Another is that laws are variable, and its just blind luck that tgis universe has these laws, a statistically feasible scenario since the universe was created once. Another is that there are many universes so one like ours was likely. Another is that universes procreate via black holes, giving rise to selection criteria for laws.

All of these possibilities assume universes to have laws though. Most laws pertain to certain symmetries or assymetries in the universe. For instance, conservation of energy and momentum (basically Newton's laws) are due to their being no special places or times in the universe. However even this is only correlates such laws: it doesn't explain their origin. (It is as true to say that it doesn't matter where or when an event occurs because of Newton's laws.)

It's worth imagining what a universe would be like without laws. Things could just vanish or appear, in violation of conservation of energy and information. Things would move around for no reason, in violation of conservation of momentum. Anything could turn into anything else at a moment's notice. It would be like dreaming, but more extreme, and not possible because you wouldn't exist. It's also a bit comparable to the quantum vacuum, where things really can pop into and out of existence. Maybe at root, order is just the thing that ordering minds can perceive within a universe that is more pluralistic. Maybe it's all just a dream.

Sorry, this is really strong weed.

Sorry, this is really strong weed. — Kenosha Kid

:fire:

There are many things in the universe that, at the level of description we would use for them, aren’t law like. In fact probably most things. But then when we examine either the things those things are made of or the systems if which they are a part, we do find laws. Laws are just the patterns we find in the phenomena we experience, and if we look hard enough we can always find someone pattern somewhere at some level of description.

At least, we can never tell the difference a world with no patterns or laws, and a world with ones we just haven’t figured out yet.

Patterns are why we can ask why, not the other way around. — fdrake

And where, exactly, are the patterns? What even is a pattern?

But why? Why have any consistency to anything? Why not have a gravitational force that changes constantly or a conservation law that works "most" of the time. — Benj96

My guess : You can't have a dynamic universe without organization. And that requires a single whole system with lots of sub-functions. What we call "Laws" are merely structural patterns that link the parts into a whole system. Those inter-relationships are stable, but flexible, in order to allow change. So, the "consistency" of the universe is due to its logical structure, but the "dynamic" aspect of the universe is due to the energy (change) flowing through the structure, both physical and logical. On the macro level of human observation, large-scale structural change occurs via evolution. But on the quantum scale, and on the cosmic scale, the universe, as a system, remains essentially the same over time.

Change only occurs in the moving parts of the "machine", so to speak. The system itself would fall apart if its laws (structure, organization, mechanism) were inconsistent. The "moving parts" are the things we observe evolving over time. Presumably, our world system will eventually "fall apart" when all the dynamic Energy is converted into static Entropy. Then the structure of the universe, like a dead body, will decay back into the unreal potential*1 from whence it came. :nerd:

System : 1. a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.
2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.

Mathematical Logical Structure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_(mathematical_logic)

*1 Potential : what I call EnFormAction, the power to create and to cause change

If the laws we see in the universe are the only laws that a universe can have this gives fuel to the deterministic philosophy in which things have to/ will occur a certain way rather than completely by chance. — Benj96

The irony here is that "complete chance" must arrive at a lawful statistical conformity. If nature tried to do absolutely anything and everything all at once, almost everything would cancel out. Every zig left would get zeroed by a zag right ... leaving zero as the now stable outcome. In the same way, flip a coin and in the long run it must tend towards a stable 50:50 outcome ... with also a powerlaw distribution of excursions or runs of either head or tails.

This metaphysical-strength insight is what is behind the deepest insights of fundamental physics such as the least action principle or the quantum sum over histories. If nature is freely exploring every possibility, it will find the shortest possible route - the "straight line" - between two energy states.

So physics itself already explains the emergence of generalised law as just a result that if every possibility tries to get expressed, then most of it must self-cancel, leaving only that which can't be cancelled out of existence.

The problem that fundamental physics has is then to explain why just about everything gets cancelled, yet not absolutely everything. And here symmetry breaking comes into play. A zig left has to be - for some reason of symmetry - a little more probable than a zig right. Some grain of difference has to exist that puts an ultimate floor under reality and its emergent statistical regularity.

So laws can be simply the emergent constraints of the Cosmos - the regularities that even a chaos cannot avoid as it must conform to a statistical attractor.

But laws are then tied to fundamental constants - some ultimate grain that prevents everything just cancelling to nothing.

Is there an emergent story for them too? Probably. Why not? Especially if - like mathematical constants - they are simply ratios that emerge from a convergent series. A "growth of cosmic regularity" scaling factor. :smile:

Physics has shown us the universe has many laws or rules by which it operates; gravitational constant, conservation laws, uncertainty principle, thermodynamics etc.

But why? Why have any consistency to anything? Why not have a gravitational force that changes constantly or a conservation law that works "most" of the time. — Benj96

This is one of those times where you must ask yourself, "why ask why?". If the universe worked some other way, we'd still be asking why it doesn't work another way.

Patterns are why we can ask why, not the other way around. — fdrake

So randomness/chaos cannot be a reason to ask why? Hmm...

Chaos is more like war, and is cancelled by peace, harmony. A pattern is emerging before your eyes of the greater mind game, however surely this pattern is split into beauty and SFX.

Those are the laws of physics, which do not necessarily mean laws of nature. — Wheatley

True. Granted ...the scientific paradigm is in constant flux and reevaluation while "nature" remains to be fully grasped. But it seems despite not having a definitive set of laws, we can see at the very least that there are certain aspects to the universe which are fundamentally consistent or typified well by laws; frequency, rhythm, finitude/ quantifiability etc.

So to me....whether you are descrining then through physics, biology, geology, chemistry etc is more or less irrelevant to the fact that they no less exist - that is to say there is a sense/logical approach that mathematics is useful for in describing some of the phenomena in nature and I ask why such patterns or consistency should ever exist? Is a pattern a natural outcome of chaos or is chaos a natural outcome of patterns?

Can you prove that the laws of physics are the only way the world can be? — Wheatley

Probably not considering I am such a phenomenon which arose from a set of conditions (laws of physics) and am subject to them, therefore cannot disprove them or give evidence to a contrary version. It has circular implications which would limit me. Unless I could create another mini stable universe with different conditions but I doubt that's very likely haha

I ask why such patterns or consistency should ever exist? Is a pattern a natural outcome of chaos or is chaos a natural outcome of patterns? — Benj96

You might have better luck asking a scientist. Do you believe philosophy can answer these questions?

What right do we have to say that? — Mww

What right was I asserting exactly? I dont believe I indicated that we were necessarily correct. I was only hypothesizing that there is a possibility that we may be or eventually will be. Hence the word "if". And "if" it were such a case that our methods were sufficient to describe the universe generally ... then I would imagine the implications would be seemingly deterministic. If we realised that even the fundamental aspects of the universe change... then nothing could be deterministic

It's also a bit comparable to the quantum vacuum, where things really can pop into and out of existence. Maybe at root, order is just the thing that ordering minds can perceive within a universe that is more pluralistic. — Kenosha Kid

I was going to mention quantum vacuum Haha. Perhaps you're right. Maybe order in the universe is more of a description of the observers function rather than something intrinsic. But I have a nagging feeling that chaos must by probability cause order and that order by necessity must have chaotic tendency - conflict between states of order. So who knows really

You might have better luck asking a scientist. Do you believe philosophy can answer these questions? — Wheatley

I believe philosophy is interdisciplinary and relies on logical argument/reason therefore I see no reason why it shouldn't be able to contribute. Can you define the boundaries of philosophy as something that doesnt strongly overlap with science?

The problem that fundamental physics has is then to explain why just about everything gets cancelled, yet not absolutely everything — apokrisis

Perhaps the sum of all possibilities has to be an odd number. Haha. Maybe even infinitely odd rather than infinitely even so that always there is something that does not get cancelled out

Can you define the boundaries of philosophy as something that doesn't strongly overlap with science? — Benj96

Philosophy doesn't collect data.

Physics has shown us the universe has many laws or rules by which it operates; gravitational constant, conservation laws, uncertainty principle, thermodynamics etc. — Benj96

No such thing.

Math and physics are what we humans use to make a model for ourselves of what the world is and how it works.

There's no reason to think our limited model is the real thing.

I express it thus.

There's a forest somewhere, and in that forest are trees, and one of those trees has branches and leaves, and on one of those leaves there's a caterpillar. The caterpillar knows when it's night and when it's day. It knows to go toward what it likes to eat; and away from what likes to eat it. It knows, deep in its DNA, that someday it will ascend to become a beautiful butterfly.

In short: That caterpillar has a metaphysics.

Just as we do. One would have to claim we are the highest level of consciousness ever in the history of the universe; and not only that, but that we are so clever we've discovered the ultimate nature of reality.

Surely that's not tenable. One, there could be higher levels of awareness and intelligence out there that are to us as we are to a caterpillar on a leaf. And two, even if we have a pretty good approximation to what's going on, that's not at all the same as what's going on. The mathematical nature of physics might be telling us more about ourselves than about the universe. We see what we're capable of seeing. We know what we're capable of knowing.

It's the height of arrogance to think that we, of all creatures, know the truth of the universe.

A universe without rules/laws doesn't entail a contradiction. Ergo, such a universe is possible but we're not in one.

A thing to note is that a universe that lacks rules/laws isn't one that can sustain life. My opinion on the matter is that life, to persist, as opposed to emerge, requires some degree of stability.

The theory of evolutoion explicitly asserts that life evolves as a coping strategy to changes in the environment but each such change must persist for a certain amount of time to allow time for life to adapt. If environmental change happens in quick succession, life wouldn't be able to keep up with it and will, in all likelihood, be killed off.

It's because there are rules/laws in our universe that we exist persist long enough to ponder on the question "why does the universe have rules?" Basically, in a universe that doesn't have rules/laws, life wouldn't exist persist long enough to allow any questioning let alone this particular line of inquiry unless... :chin:

There's no reason to think our limited model is the real thing. — fishfry

I like this attitude, but we can ask if the real thing functions here as more than our expectation that we'll have to live in a different model. What I am thinking of here is the 'total model' of culture-world and not just mathematical physics.

There's a forest somewhere, and in that forest are trees, and one of those trees has branches and leaves, and on one of those leaves there's a caterpillar. The caterpillar knows when it's night and when it's day. It knows to go toward what it likes to eat; and away from what likes to eat it. It knows, deep in its DNA, that someday it will ascend to become a beautiful butterfly.

In short: That caterpillar has a metaphysics. — fishfry

Good stuff!

One, there could be higher levels of awareness and intelligence out there that are to us as we are to a caterpillar on a leaf. — fishfry

While I agree, I am fascinated by this analogy. This 'higher level intelligence' seems to have to exist for us (for our limited understanding) as a vague promise of more.

To really grasp what we mean by higher intelligence, it seems we'd have to already possess it.

But why? Why have any consistency to anything? Why not have a gravitational force that changes constantly or a conservation law that works "most" of the time. — Benj96

Great question. Have you looked at Hume's version?

I agree with others that patterns allow us to ask why in the first place.

At the same time, confessedly immersed in and dependent on our linguistic patterns, it still feels right to ask why, even if every answer may have a form that allows for the next why, perhaps the same why.

I like this attitude, but we can ask if the real thing functions here as more than our expectation that we'll have to live in a different model. What I am thinking of here is the 'total model' of culture-world and not just mathematical physics. — Yellow Horse

I don't believe we'll ever find ultimate reality either in physics or in metaphysics. I read Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory some years back and disagree with the premise. We are not just around the corner from a theory of everything that's "final" and we never will be.

There's a forest somewhere, and in that forest are trees, and one of those trees has branches and leaves, and on one of those leaves there's a caterpillar. The caterpillar knows when it's night and when it's day. It knows to go toward what it likes to eat; and away from what likes to eat it. It knows, deep in its DNA, that someday it will ascend to become a beautiful butterfly.

In short: That caterpillar has a metaphysics.
— fishfry

Good stuff! — Yellow Horse

I am so glad you like my caterpillar story.

One, there could be higher levels of awareness and intelligence out there that are to us as we are to a caterpillar on a leaf.
— fishfry

While I agree, I am fascinated by this analogy. This 'higher level intelligence' seems to have to exist for us (for our limited understanding) as a vague promise of more.

To really grasp what we mean by higher intelligence, it seems we'd have to already possess it. — Yellow Horse

No, we merely need to argue by analogy. My cat has more intelligence than a caterpillar and I have more than my cat, though my cat would not agree. At each level we have a metaphysics and we know as much as we're able to. But there's always another level UNLESS you are willing to claim that we are the "crown of creation" and that, having produced the 8 billion of us, nature is done with improvement. This, I cannot believe; especially after glancing at the headlines.

The intellectual history of humanity is to find out that we're not the center. We're not the center of the universe, we're not the center of the solar system, we're not different from the animals. It seems incredibly unlikely that we are the tippy top of intelligence and that there ain't no more. The caterpillar and the cat both believe the same thing too.

Physics has shown us the universe has many laws or rules by which it operates; gravitational constant, conservation laws, uncertainty principle, thermodynamics etc — Benj96

The so called laws are not separate from nature. They are merely a description of nature. The electron is not obeying a law that is imposed on it from outside. The law is the electron; it is its nature. Nature is consistent - as far as we can tell - so we formulate this consistency in terms of abstract laws. But there is only nature; it is natural for the electron to behave as it does and what we call law is intrinsic to the electron, it is its nature.

The speed limit is one “rule” I would like to know the reason for. Sorry about ending a sentence with a preposition.