And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. — Captain Barbossa - Pirates of the Caribbean (movie)
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
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
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 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
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
However, I can be certain that it is possible to break the laws of a country and escape punishment. — 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
natural laws operate the universe — BrianW
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
It will be impossible to do away with gravity (the law of nature) — BrianW
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
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
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
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
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
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
By laws of nature I mean the operations which establish reality/existence. Reality/existence is absolute, therefore its laws must be absolute, too. — 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
Also,If gravity is not absolute, then it must be a function of an absolute law. — BrianW
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
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
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
Know Thyself.
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
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
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
Maybe they started calling them "laws" as a metaphor because they thought they were established by God. — T Clark
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
If we know what they are then what are they? Do you have a list, or they can't be expressed in words? — leo
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.