Law vs Rules vs Codes

BrianW

And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. — Captain Barbossa - Pirates of the Caribbean (movie)

This small quote belongs to one of my favourite sayings. Anyway, my point is, there's a difference between how we perceive laws, rules and codes, their meanings (or implications and applications) and our relation to them.
I will not give proper definitions nor delineate them semantically. However, I will attempt to venture into how we have perceived and applied them in our lives as observed in various events in the narratives of our collective past. And, from that, give a sort of abstract and overview deduction on their apparent significance to us.

Firstly, what are these laws that we dare not break? This makes one wonder, are the ten commandments laws, rules or codes? When taught in religious context, they are accompanied with the threat of punishment should they not be followed. However, I think the very fact that they could be ignored excludes them from our understanding of law. This is evident in the way religion is practiced in contrast to laws such as those we call natural. By this, I mean that, it is evident when we refer to natural laws, we imply conditions that must be adhered to and are unavoidable because our inherent 'natures' or 'characters' do not allow us to act against them. For example, gravity - even when we employ the use of flying machines, it is because we factor in its influence and act according to parameters which offer cooperation to its operation. That is, we don't oppose gravity, we work with or according to it.
Anyway, laws are quite unique, in that, they can never be biased nor can we bias ourselves against them - They don't ignore and they can't be ignored.

Secondly, what are the rules of the game? (Metaphorically speaking.) By this I refer to those guidelines or directions which we follow in order to accomplish our objectives. Of them, we know they are not laws because, even though they endure, they are fluid in terms of their application/operation. Often we can work around them, modify them and even discard them in favour of others depending on our progression towards our goals. Because of such characteristics it makes them fluid in nature thus, alike to water which takes on the shape of the vessel containing it, these rules often reflect the operation of their operators (they execute according to their executors) and that makes them relative (biased) since the agents of their activities are always relative (biased). In this category belong the mechanisms we employ to manipulate nature to serve us. In other words, we use rules to navigate through and harmonise with the laws. (Scientific laws or principles could be included here because they are more often than not expressions of these rules.)

Thirdly, why is it important to pledge and keep allegiance or compliance to the code? By code I refer to those limits, instructions, agreements, etc, which we foster mutually (even if partially or short-lived) for the sake of unity and harmony, which are, in themselves, catalysts and media (mediums) for all the benefits we wish to extract from this shared existence. In this category we find common sense, the moral guidelines, the constitutions, the school rules, sports rules, the bro code, etc, etc, which we have to enforce by ourselves because otherwise they have no inherent meaning or means to sustain themselves. In other words, they exist only by our efforts. However, because they are in service to unity and harmony, they become tools which aid us in the operation of the "game" rules and, consequently, in cooperating with the laws.

*So, from all the above, I would conclude that: Our lives involve setting up codes which make it easier to operate rules in such a way that we cooperate with laws (and this takes considerable understanding).

Does this make sense?
(This is a sort of partial sketch of a thesis on "the evolution of conscience" which I hope to finish someday. Therefore, any input, critique or counter argument is most welcome.)

BrianW

* The asterix above shows a change made several minutes after the initial statement, Please bear with it.

leo

Interesting train of thought.

To make sure I understand you correctly, "law" is often defined as a "system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties", you would classify that as a code and not as a law right?

Another thing, in your view what's the difference between natural law and scientific law? It seems that you classify "natural laws" as laws, and "scientific laws" as rules. For instance why would gravity be considered a natural law and not a scientific law? Are you saying for instance that Newton's law of gravitation and Einstein's general relavity are scientific laws and not natural laws, whereas the observations we make that things tend to fall to the ground count as a natural law and not a scientific law? I don't see a difference myself, in both cases observations are compiled and generalized into a principle. Also, the terms "scientific law" and "natural law" are often used interchangeably by some people.

Regarding "rules" you said: "Often we can work around them, modify them and even discard them in favour of others". Newton's law of gravitation does fit the description, it can be said to have been modified or discarded in favour of other scientific laws, whereas the underlying concept of gravity has perdured, so you might say this is what makes gravity a "law" and Newton's gravitation a "rule". But it is not inconceivable that in the future we might manage to create some anti-gravity device, and then gravity would stop being "unavoidable" and so it would stop being a law the way you defined it. So it seems to me that we can't really know whether we're dealing with a "law" or a "rule", maybe what we interpret as a law will turn out to be a rule, and maybe what we interpret as a rule will turn out to be never modified or discarded, which would make it a law. So maybe the distinction you make between law and rule is not warranted.

Terrapin Station

Legally, codes are laws. I'm not sure what alternate sense of "code" you might be thinking of--I suppose something like the set of principles that some organizations have? In that sense, codes are the same as rules.

If you break a law or rule, it usually results in some form of punishment, up to excommunication (from society, from a place of employment, from an organization, etc.). It's up to each individual whether they want to risk the punishment in question.

Pattern-chaser

↪BrianW

There are 'laws', as you say, that we invent, and we get punished if we break them. And there are 'natural laws' that describe how the universe works, according to our understanding of it, of course! These are opposites. The first type of laws bind us to behave in a particular way. The second type of law is bound by the universe, and if the universe should change, the laws must change to reflect it. Be careful not to confuse the two, or misunderstanding is sure to result! :wink:

BrianW

To make sure I understand you correctly, "law" is often defined as a "system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties", you would classify that as a code and not as a law right? — leo

Right.

Another thing, in your view what's the difference between natural law and scientific law? It seems that you classify "natural laws" as laws, and "scientific laws" as rules. — leo

Yeah, this is pretty flimsy on my part. However, I used "scientific laws" because that's how they are designated. However, they are not laws in the sense of natural laws.

For instance why would gravity be considered a natural law and not a scientific law? Are you saying for instance that Newton's law of gravitation and Einstein's general relavity are scientific laws and not natural laws, whereas the observations we make that things tend to fall to the ground count as a natural law and not a scientific law? I don't see a difference myself, in both cases observations are compiled and generalized into a principle. Also, the terms "scientific law" and "natural law" are often used interchangeably by some people. — leo

Newton's and Einstein's laws of gravity are not complete by themselves. While they do refer to the operation of gravity, they only designate the part which we understand. For example, the new investigations into dark matter and dark energy hint that these may actually be the fundamental aspects which determine the action of gravity in nature. So far, science can only teach us gravity as we have encountered it, but our experiences are too limited. We know there's more to gravity than we have discovered but we can only work with it to certain extent. This is why I refer to the scientific as rules or principles while the natural are laws. Don't think of my explanations as definitive, they are just a means of expressing the difference. Bottom line is, language can use one word for as many meanings as is acceptable.

Newton's law of gravitation does fit the description, it can be said to have been modified or discarded in favour of other scientific laws, whereas the underlying concept of gravity has perdured, so you might say this is what makes gravity a "law" and Newton's gravitation a "rule". But it is not inconceivable that in the future we might manage to create some anti-gravity device, and then gravity would stop being "unavoidable" and so it would stop being a law the way you defined it. So it seems to me that we can't really know whether we're dealing with a "law" or a "rule", maybe what we interpret as a law will turn out to be a rule, and maybe what we interpret as a rule will turn out to be never modified or discarded, which would make it a law. So maybe the distinction you make between law and rule is not warranted. — leo

It will be impossible to do away with gravity (the law of nature), however, Newton's laws of gravity (which I designate as rules) have already been modified especially with respect to quantum mechanics. Our scientific rules will always be improved on because our knowledge is never perfect/absolute. That is a certainty.

BrianW

Legally, codes are laws. I'm not sure what alternate sense of "code" you might be thinking of--I suppose something like the set of principles that some organizations have? In that sense, codes are the same as rules.

If you break a law or rule, it usually results in some form of punishment, up to excommunication (from society, from a place of employment, from an organization, etc.). It's up to each individual whether they want to risk the punishment in question. — Terrapin Station

I get it, and as I said, my explanations may not be semantically appropriate or definitive, especially with the multiple meanings we assign to some words. The difference in my use of the words law, rules and codes is just to express perspective. Again, my explanations are not definitive. However, I can be certain that it is possible to break the laws of a country and escape punishment. The same does not apply to natural law because its consequences are immediate and inevitable. Action and reaction, according to natural law, are instantaneous.

Terrapin Station

However, I can be certain that it is possible to break the laws of a country and escape punishment. — BrianW

Sure, which is why I brought up the notion of risk.

I wasn't thinking that you might be thinking of "natural law." Re natural laws, they simply can't be broken, as it's not possible. If it were possible, then whatever was claimed to be a natural law actually wasn't a natural law.

BrianW

↪Terrapin Station

So, we're in agreement. Right... ?

Terrapin Station

↪BrianW

It looks like it. ;-)

BrianW

There are 'laws', as you say, that we invent, and we get punished if we break them. And there are 'natural laws' that describe how the universe works, according to our understanding of it, of course! These are opposites. The first type of laws bind us to behave in a particular way. The second type of law is bound by the universe, and if the universe should change, the laws must change to reflect it. Be careful not to confuse the two, or misunderstanding is sure to result! — Pattern-chaser

By my understanding, natural laws operate the universe and can change the universe without the laws themselves changing. In fact, I do not think the natural laws change at all. Is there an instant of natural laws changing?

Pattern-chaser

natural laws operate the universe — BrianW

I think the natural 'laws' simply describe the universe. The universe operates without the need for outside help. It just does it. Only if the universe changes can these natural 'laws' change. For the universe is the master, and the 'laws' merely description (of the master, or some aspect thereof).

BrianW

↪Pattern-chaser

The universe is always changing with respect to the configuration of its components, are its laws always changing in the same regard? Or, in what way could the universe and its laws change?

leo

Newton's and Einstein's laws of gravity are not complete by themselves. While they do refer to the operation of gravity, they only designate the part which we understand. For example, the new investigations into dark matter and dark energy hint that these may actually be the fundamental aspects which determine the action of gravity in nature. So far, science can only teach us gravity as we have encountered it, but our experiences are too limited. We know there's more to gravity than we have discovered but we can only work with it to certain extent. This is why I refer to the scientific as rules or principles while the natural are laws. — BrianW

But you could assume that Einstein's theory of gravity is complete, it is precisely this assumption that leads astrophysicists/cosmologists to suppose the existence of dark matter and dark energy, the fact that without them Einstein's gravity doesn't match what we observe in galaxies, but with them it does.

So maybe what you mean is that what is going to happen is already written into nature as natural laws, whereas our scientific theories are only approximations of these laws and are potentially faillible?

It will be impossible to do away with gravity (the law of nature) — BrianW

But what if in the future we manage to create a device that makes two planets repel one another instead of attract one another, that means we could do away with gravity. How would we know that this is impossible? And then how would we know what is law and what isn't?

The universe is always changing with respect to the configuration of its components, are its laws always changing in the same regard? Or, in what way could the universe and its laws change? — BrianW

It could be that gravity works in some specific way now, and that at some point in the future it will start working differently. But then you could always say that the true law specifies how it works throughout the history of the universe, and that a law that doesn't always work is not a real law. But there is still the problem of determining what is law and what isn't, unless you're ok with saying that there are laws but we don't know what they are? Otherwise if we knew these laws, then some scientific theories (rules) would actually be laws.

BrianW

But you could assume that Einstein's theory of gravity is complete, it is precisely this assumption that leads astrophysicists/cosmologists to suppose the existence of dark matter and dark energy, the fact that without them Einstein's gravity doesn't match what we observe in galaxies, but with them it does. — leo

Not quite. Einstein's theories are still highly hypothetical since he gave no definitives on the relations between quantum phenomena, time, gravity, etc. In fact, this aligns with the OP's idea of rules having a fluid nature and depending on our application of them. And, also, of rules helping us cooperate with laws of nature.

So maybe what you mean is that what is going to happen is already written into nature as natural laws, whereas our scientific theories are only approximations of these laws and are potentially faillible? — leo

* [~~potentially fallible~~ limited]
I believe this is another way to express my opinion.

But what if in the future we manage to create a device that makes two planets repel one another instead of attract one another, that means we could do away with gravity. How would we know that this is impossible? And then how would we know what is law and what isn't? — leo

The device would still not alter gravity. Machines (rockets) which move against the Earth's gravity have not disabled gravity, merely employed the use of certain operations allowed within the purview of the law of gravity. I am certain that, even in that supposed repulsion, gravity would still be at work and any momentary hitch in such a function would be met by the corresponding response from the present influences of gravity.

It could be that gravity works in some specific way now, and that at some point in the future it will start working differently. But then you could always say that the true law specifies how it works throughout the history of the universe, and that a law that doesn't always work is not a real law. But there is still the problem of determining what is law and what isn't, unless you're ok with saying that there are laws but we don't know what they are? Otherwise if we knew these laws, then some scientific theories (rules) would actually be laws. — leo

By laws of nature I mean the operations which establish reality/existence. Reality/existence is absolute, therefore its laws must be absolute, too. I get what you're asking, "what if gravity is not absolute?" To that I can only say that, If gravity is not absolute, then it must be a function of an absolute law. This just means that, we are bound to discover greater and/or more comprehensive operations with respect to gravity which would still essentially retain the distinction between laws and rules stated in the OP.

leo

The device would still not alter gravity. Machines (rockets) which move against the Earth's gravity have not disabled gravity, merely employed the use of certain operations allowed within the purview of the law of gravity. I am certain that, even in that supposed repulsion, gravity would still be at work and any momentary hitch in such a function would be met by the corresponding response from the present influences of gravity. — BrianW

But is your certainty on this a rule or a law? And if it is a rule, how can you know that gravity is a law, and thus that we will never find a way to disable gravity in the future?

By laws of nature I mean the operations which establish reality/existence. Reality/existence is absolute, therefore its laws must be absolute, too. — BrianW

What do you mean exactly by reality/existence is absolute? There are plenty of things we used to call reality that we now call imagination, and plenty of things that we used to called imagination that we now call reality, and different people have different views on what is real and what isn't.

I wouldn't say it is impossible that we live in a world governed by absolute laws, but do you acknowledge that if we live in such a world we can't know what these laws are? Otherwise if we know what they are, that means we know that they will keep being valid in the future, and how could we know that? So if we can't know what they are, is it useful to make a distinction between laws and rules? And if somehow we can know what they are, that means we have scientific principles (rules) that are in fact laws, and then again is it useful to make a distinction between laws and rules?

BrianW

But is your certainty on this a rule or a law? And if it is a rule, how can you know that gravity is a law, and thus that we will never find a way to disable gravity in the future? — leo

Like I said in the succeeding statements,

If gravity is not absolute, then it must be a function of an absolute law. — BrianW

Also,

Of them, we know they are not laws because, even though they endure, they are fluid in terms of their application/operation. Often we can work around them, modify them and even discard them in favour of others depending on our progression towards our goals. — BrianW

Therefore, gravity still remains gravity, no matter what.

What do you mean exactly by reality/existence is absolute? There are plenty of things we used to call reality that we now call imagination, and plenty of things that we used to called imagination that we now call reality, and different people have different views on what is real and what isn't. — leo

The fundamental truth must be that, "REALITY/EXISTENCE IS." (Others would substitute reality/existence with other identities or designations, but that truth holds regardless.) This is because, contrary to that truth, no amount of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy, science, language, etc, etc, could have a foundation with which to begin or operate. Therefore, the laws which establish reality/existence (which I refer to as laws of nature or natural laws) are absolute because they express that fundamental state.

Imagination is, fundamentally, a part of reality. It only differs from reality when we assign different meanings or applications to those words. What I mean is that, imagination is a function of our mental faculty, which is real. There are no illusions outside of reality/existence because every activity, function, operation, etc, is tied to some aspect of reality/existence as an expression of that reality/existence.

I wouldn't say it is impossible that we live in a world governed by absolute laws, but do you acknowledge that if we live in such a world we can't know what these laws are? Otherwise if we know what they are, that means we know that they will keep being valid in the future, and how could we know that? So if we can't know what they are, is it useful to make a distinction between laws and rules? And if somehow we can know what they are, that means we have scientific principles (rules) that are in fact laws, and then again is it useful to make a distinction between laws and rules? — leo

We know what they are because they are identical in the smallest (most limited) as they are in the greatest sense (the absolute). They operate in us just as they do the whole universe. Though, we cannot match the activity or operation of those laws in terms of quantity, we can certainly improve the quality expressed through us. Also, we don't need to know everything, just to accept what is. For example, the art of propelling projectiles had been mastered to quite a significant degree even before the science of gravity. We don't need to know everything in the universe, just enough about what is in our environment to be able to develop the capacity to navigate everywhere else. And, paramount to that, are lessons on what and how to learn. I think Kant expressed it as,

Know Thyself.

We can't run marathons before we learn to walk, and we can't uncover the mystery of the birth of our universe before we understand our own. I think that would be obvious if ambition didn't blind us. Also, before we learn rules, we must be able to develop codes of interrelation and operation, that is, discipline (of which, science is one of those; just as are the moral guidelines, the constitutions, etc). After that, we can work to understand how to operate rules and principles regarding extracting utility from the resources around us, with respect to greater unity and harmony. And as we improve our deftness at that, then absolute laws will become more and more apparent. It is no coincidence that in a world with greater moral values and realisation of human unity and harmony, as ours is in comparison to one or two millennia ago, there would be greater advances in knowledge. However, we are still a ways to go towards achieving the goals we have set out to -> end world hunger, eliminate bias such as gender bias, eradicate diseases and physical suffering, etc, etc.

What I'm saying is, if you don't see the interconnection between the laws, rules and codes, as I have stated, then you are bound to have a problem with them. There is no real separation from each other and they kind of build into one another from different perspectives as reality/existence operates. The absolute laws express quantity (relativity) through processes I designate as rules which in turn can only be of value in our lives through the discipline of codes. In turn, our understanding ("quality") develops in reverse from the codes to the rules to the laws. They all work together from the fundamental/absolute state towards the limited/relative states and then back again in response towards the absolute.

T Clark

I think the natural 'laws' simply describe the universe. The universe operates without the need for outside help. It just does it. Only if the universe changes can these natural 'laws' change. For the universe is the master, and the 'laws' merely description (of the master, or some aspect thereof). — Pattern-chaser

I agree. Natural or scientific laws are abstract descriptions of how the universe behaves. It doesn't have to, it just does. I looked on the web but couldn't find who's idea it was to start calling scientific principles laws. Maybe they started calling them "laws" as a metaphor because they thought they were established by God.

leo

If gravity is not absolute, then it must be a function of an absolute law. — BrianW

The fundamental truth must be that, "REALITY/EXISTENCE IS." (Others would substitute reality/existence with other identities or designations, but that truth holds regardless.) This is because, contrary to that truth, no amount of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy, science, language, etc, etc, could have a foundation with which to begin or operate. Therefore, the laws which establish reality/existence (which I refer to as laws of nature or natural laws) are absolute because they establish that fundamental state. — BrianW

I don't necessarily agree with that though.

Let's say that in this 'reality', there are no laws that are set in stone, but rather some beings have created these laws through their will, and they can change them through their will. Then gravity would be a function of the will of these beings. If that will is unconstrained, then in what sense could gravity be said to be a function of an absolute law? Gravity would be a function of a will that doesn't follow any law. Maybe at some point in the future that 'will' will decide to modify or remove gravity in a lawless way.

But that wouldn't imply that for instance philosophy or language are impossible, these could have as a foundation temporary laws that are not functions of absolute laws.

Basically my point is that if the laws are created and can be modified in lawless ways then they aren't absolute laws.

We know what they are because they are identical in the smallest (most limited) as they are in the greatest sense (the absolute). They operate in us just as they do the whole universe. Though, we cannot match the activity or operation of those laws in terms of quantity, we can certainly improve the quality expressed through us. — BrianW

If we know what they are then what are they? Do you have a list, or they can't be expressed in words?

Note that I am not trying to contradict you at all costs, I think you say interesting things, but you said in your first post that you were welcoming critiques and counter arguments, so I think what I say could be constructive to you, and there are some things you say I do disagree with, things you see as obvious or as certainties while they aren't necessarily so in my view.

For instance the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern existence is not necessarily true in my view, I think existence could be fundamentally lawless and that there are only apparent laws that have a limited validity. And then the distinction between 'laws' and 'rules' would not be warranted, there would simply be 'rules' that are more or less accurate.

Pattern-chaser

Maybe they started calling them "laws" as a metaphor because they thought they were established by God. — T Clark

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Plausible too.... :chin:

:up:

BrianW

Let's say that in this 'reality', there are no laws that are set in stone, but rather some beings have created these laws through their will, and they can change them through their will. — leo

Reality/existence begins with those beings themselves.

If we know what they are then what are they? Do you have a list, or they can't be expressed in words? — leo

From a different thread I posted this:

I think if one finds the characteristics that are ever-present in reality/existence then one gets a much better definition of what that reality/existence is. So far I have - identity, activity, force/influence, form/space, time.

[1.] Identity - Basically, we can't deny something and we can't affirm nothing. Therefore, every conversation, information, knowledge or understanding about anything begins with the identity of a something.

[2.] Activity - At the very least, the something that is fundamental to everything, call it energy/god/life or whatever, must be performing the action of being. It must be representing itself to itself (internal characteristics) and to others (external influences). Else, there would be no such considerations.

[3.] Force/Influence - This is just the ability and capacity to be and to express that being-ness.

[4.] Form/Space - This is defined by the field, range or extent of activity or force/influence by any identity.

[5.] Time - This is the rate of activity or relative activity. It could be current activity vs past activity, a particular designation of form/space in comparison to another, certain configurations relative to others, etc. — BrianW

The above is according to my own investigations. And, I think there could be a way to state them in terms of the laws manifest in those characteristics/qualities. For example, a law of identity, activity, space, etc.

Bottom line is, you don't have to accept my opinions but I hope they help you to formulate yours.

Shushi

↪BrianW

Hi brian, I believe another category you should add to your initial question are principles, which several analogies are used to describe it like teaching a man how to fish for life rather than fishing for him, which laws, and dictation fall under legalism (sort of like a catechism or rule book that suffers from the death of a million qualifications)

BrianW

↪Shushi

I think it's more of a translation of a greater underlying rule.

Law vs Rules vs Codes

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions