Do you hold that such a naturalistic explanation must entail a bottom-up explanation from a lower level of, let’s say, bosons? If so, do you hold that this is in principle possible? — Querius
What does the fact that the universe is ever-changing — cyclic or otherwise — tell us about the nature of immutable laws? — Querius
Does an ever-changing universe (cyclic or progressively expanding) have bearing on the idea that physical processes determine the laws and not vice versa? If the universe is ever-changing, and processes determine the laws, would that not necessarily result in ever-changing laws — contrary to what we find?The cyclic nature of the Universe doesn't really have that much bearing on the idea of the immutability of natural laws.
— Wayfarer
If those laws are not contingent, but exist necessarily, does that scenario exclude the possibility that those laws are determined bottom-up by physical processes? It seems to me that ‘wildly different’ physical processes cannot produce the same laws.I mean, it's possible to conceive of those laws in such a way that they will hold in any possible worlds, even if in some other respects those worlds are wildly different.
— Wayfarer
If all the talk about laws simply comes down to quantum mechanics, then there are no laws, since quantum mechanics limits itself on what it can know and predict. It is merely a probabilistic description of what might happen within a narrowly defined system. — Rich
Quantum mechanics is a limited description (it has self imposed limits) on how ca system of particles may behaved depending upon a system being observed. There is no precision and it is very limited in what it can say. It's not a law. It's just a way of viewing quanta for limited purpose - and our understanding changes as our knowledge changes. — Rich
I like your circle metaphor. However, how does one get from “unlawfulness” to a (perfect) circle?
Also I don’t see how the circle metaphor elucidates the existence of various fundamental constants, which could have been very different; see the multiverse hypothesis. IOWs in many cases the existence of limits (a la the circle form) is not apparent. — Querius
And what's a law? My suggestion is that a law just is a description. So if there's a description then ipso facto there's a law. — Michael
My suggestion is that a law just is a description. — Michael
The perfect circle though cannot be a real, or natural figure, and this is indicated by the irrational nature of pi. — Metaphysician Undercover
To rephrase, what is gravity if not the law of gravity? Are you defining it as the actual behavior, or is it a real tendency or habit that governs that behavior without being reducible to it? — aletheist
Successful, precise predictions never occur. — Rich
This is why I prefer Sheldrake's preferred use of habit as opposed to law, allowing for approximate repetitive events but not precisely what is predicted. — Rich
Suppose that I am holding a stone. If I were to let go of it, then it would fall to the ground. This proposition is true, regardless of whether I ever actually let go of the stone. It expresses a tendency or habit - a conditional necessity - that really governs the stone's behavior in an inexhaustible continuum of possible cases, so it is not reducible to any actual occurrence or collection thereof. — aletheist
There v is no law of gravity, there are just some tentative equations which may be useful for synchronizing clocks. — Rich
I don't see how a counterfactual can be considered a physical-law-as-habit. — Michael
Do you deny the truth of the proposition, "If I were to let go of a stone, then it would fall to the ground"? If not, how do you explain it? — aletheist
What else would "a physical-law-as-habit" be, if not this kind of conditional necessity?
That would be a description of the law of gravity.There is a speculative mathematical description of how gravity behaves ....
Indeed. A description of a thing is not the thing itself.However, this description is not gravity.
From 'descriptions of the law of gravity are not the real thing’ it does not follow that there is no actual law of gravity.Gravity is something we feel and affects objects. There v is no law of gravity, there are just some tentative equations which may be useful for synchronizing clocks.
Useful mathematical equations are not actual laws of nature, but that simple fact does not tell us that there are no laws of nature.… we just have useful mathematical equations but certainly no laws.
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.