Independent of the nature of the universe our "rackets" should be able to produce objective results...if not then we admit that we don't know and can not prove — Nickolasgaspar

Why is that independent on the nature of the universe? It depends on the rackets we use, the balls used, the (presence of an) arbiter, the nature of the field (grass, concrete, gravel, etc.), on our ideas, on the weather, etc. If we investigate nature the stuff we investigate directs us, while we direct the stuff. Its a two-way street. You present it like a dead-end street.

The only rackets that are relevant are those conforming to the rules of logic. Your metaphysics need to originate from a sound starting point...not an assumption that you don't care to demonstrate. — Nickolasgaspar

There is a big collection of rackets to play the game of science, philosophy, or theology. We could play the double game, you holding the logic racket, me holding the science racket, and the opponent double the philosophical racket and theological racket. I would point them out though that they play with my racket.

You don't understand!!!!!!
In order to say that you know the truth or that your claim is reasonable you need your claims to be based on methods(rackets) that can produce Objective results and play with the rules of logic.

You are trying to promote claims as true or reasonable or philosophical without any objective or epistemic justification....by just saying "its metaphysics".
NO it isn't metaphysics, its pseudo philosophy useless to everybody except those who seek comfort in made up answers.
You offer nothing wise or meaningful to the table if your assumptions are all over the place.

You don't understand!!!!!!
In order to say that you know the truth or that your claim is reasonable you need your claims to be based on methods(rackets) that can produce Objective results and play with the rules of logic — Nickolasgaspar

Screaming, dear Nckolas, won't help your case. The thing that is to be understood is not that things in the investigation of the universe don't need proof or confirmation or falsification. They need. Claims about gods or God don't need prove.

You are trying to promote claims as true or reasonable or philosophical without any objective or epistemic justification....by just saying "its metaphysics". — Nickolasgaspar

Again, there is no justifaction needed. At least, not the justification you have in mind. Gods are reasonable in the sense that they provide reason and cause of the universe.

Again! You claim that you are doing Philosophy but you don't know what philosophy is.

Philosophy's goal is to come up with wise claims about the world and expand our understanding.
That is realized by USING logic and constructing Valid Arguments. For the conclusions of those arguments to be wise Our Premises need to be SOUND.
Do you understand what soundness of an arguments is and how it is achieved?
Spoiler alert...by demonstrating the truth value of those premises.

If you keep using unjustified assumptions then you are not doing philosophy or metaphysics.
You are preaching your theology.
Why is this so difficult for you? Making up magical explanations can never expand our understanding..like when a stage magician tells you his trick was magical that explains nothing about it.

Philosophy's goal is to come up with wise claims about the world and expand our understanding.
That is realized by USING logic and constructing Valid Arguments. For the conclusions of those arguments to be wise Our Premises need to be SOUND.
Do you understand what soundness of an arguments is and how it is achieved?
Spoiler alert...by demonstrating the truth value of those premises. — Nickolasgaspar

Logic can be used in philosophy. Of course. I don't deny that. Like I said, the only logical conclusion, if the gaps are closed, is the conclusion that there are gods who created the universe. And just as science is involved in philosophy so is, and should, theology be. The truth value can be demonstrated by the existence of the universe. It's not that I'm throwing in all kinds of arbitrary fantasies. The fantasies are restricted by what we see in the universe.

If you keep using unjustified assumptions then you are not doing philosophy or metaphysics.
You are preaching your theology. — Nickolasgaspar

It's you preaching atheology. The assumptions are fully justifiable. Only within your conception of philosophy this isn't the case. The existence of gods is justifiable because of their existence, which you might claim an unjustified claim, because claims, according to you, are only justified when there is evidence that the claim is true. But like I said, the evidence of the claim is the existence of the universe.

Why is this so difficult for you? Making up magical explanations can never expand our understanding..like when a stage magician tells you his trick was magical that explains nothing about it. — Nickolasgaspar

It's very easy for me. The magical explanation, a universe from a divine hat, is the ONLY explanation (if the gaps are closed). In the magician's case, the trick actually can be known. The trick the gods played can't be known, though we can investigate the material universal and life evolving in it. And learn about the gods and their reasons for creation.

-identifying logical fallacies is not your strong point...right? — Nickolasgaspar

Wikipedia can explain it better than me.

[r Maybe but then again, pointing out that people still insist in using the same heuristics in their philosophy ~500 years AFTER the revolution of the Philosophy of Nature is a Description of a fact, not an conclusion based on unsound premises......

You set the bar too high for me.

I'd rather [sic] selling my car before getting to such roundabout. — Davillar

The only one undermining your efforts ....is you sir. There is nothing that you can't do if you are willing to challenge all your assumptions.

Logic can be used in philosophy. Of course. I don't deny that. Like I said, the only logical conclusion, if the gaps are closed, is the conclusion that there are gods who created the universe. — Hillary

-lol you can not use "logic" and "logical conclusion ....are gods" in the same sentence.
The gaps are there, you just cover them with a magical plug that you made up.

And just as science is involved in philosophy so is, and should, theology be. — Hillary

No. theology has no room in philosophical inquiries. Philosophy has a goal to arrive to wise conclusions through sound arguments while theological conclusions are not the product of/ or interested in sound arguments.
IF they were you would be able to present the facts that verify these theological premises, but you can't.

-" The truth value can be demonstrated by the existence of the universe."
-The existence of the universe can only demonstrate as true the claim : "the universe exists".
You will need additional observations for your gods in order to convince their existence or their role in it.

The fantasies are restricted by what we see in the universe. — Hillary

-Only Unsound arguments and their conclusions are restricted from being used in additional philosophical arguments.
So you didn't answer if you understand soundness and how it is connected to logic and knowledge.

It's you preaching atheology. — Hillary

Theology and atheology are irrelevant to philosophy. Logic took care of that issue. Wisdom need knowledge and logic needs sounds argument.

The assumptions are fully justifiable — Hillary

NO they are not...they are assumptions that can't be verified...thus unjustified to be used as auxiliary assumptions in a new argument.

Only within your conception of philosophy this isn't the case. — Hillary

There is one philosophy.....the intellectual effort to produce sound arguments and wise conclusions.
Theology is not in a condition to provide soundness in philosophy.

The existence of gods is justifiable because of their existence, — Hillary

-Do you know what circular reasoning is?????Rhetorical question, the answer is available above!

which you might claim an unjustified claim, because claims, according to you, are only justified when there is evidence that the claim is true. — Hillary

-According to the Soundness an argument must have in order for its conclusion to be used in a philosophical framework...not according to me lol

But like I said, the evidence of the claim is the existence of the universe. — Hillary

Again the existence of something can only be evidence...for its existence, not your assumed entities.
You will need additional evidence for those. What is assumed without evidence can be dismissed without any.

The magical explanation, a universe from a divine hat, is the ONLY explanation (if the gaps are closed). — Hillary

-That is kindergarten philosophy...argument from personal incredulity. Your claims are nothing more than fallacious conclusions.

In the magician's case, the trick actually can be known. The trick the gods played can't be known, though we can investigate the material universal and life evolving in it. And learn about the gods and their reasons for creation. — Hillary

-You are making a claim about knowledge...so we are off the Philosophical field...you will need to provide objective evidence for that knowledge claim.

The only one undermining your efforts ....is you sir. There is nothing that you can't do if you are willing to challenge all your assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not into rollercoasters! Arigato for those kind words.

lol you can not use "logic" and "logical conclusion ....are gods" in the same sentence.
The gaps are there, you just cover them with a magical plug that you made up. — Nickolasgaspar

What gaps are there then? I'm not aware of them.

That is kindergarten philosophy...argument from personal incredulity. Your claims are nothing more than fallacious conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar

Kindergarten creatures are still free from philosophical and scientific indoctrination. I have a scientific model of the universe, without gaps, and can only logically conclude that gods created the universal ingredients. As I should have participated in for sure, were I one of them.

I know your story now "Hillary". Your ideas are not welcomed in the scientific field...so you are taking your revenge in philosophical forums.

There is one philosophy.....the intellectual effort to produce sound arguments and wise conclusions.
Theology is not in a condition to provide soundness in philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

On the contrary! It provides the most sound arguments.

-You are making a claim about knowledge...so we are off the Philosophical field...you will need to provide objective evidence for that knowledge claim — Nickolasgaspar

Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about!

there is nothing there in these ideas of yours.
They are philosophically and scientifically null, reminiscences of a era when humans saw agency, intention and purpose everyone.
Only when we removed agency and teleology form our philosophy ,we enabled science to experience an epistemic run away success for more than 500 years.
Your assumptions are known to be failed for centuries. Nobody (except some crackpots like Sheldrake and ) uses them in the Academia any more.

know your story now "Hillary". Your ideas are not welcomed in the scientific field...so you are taking your revenge in philosophical forums. — Nickolasgaspar

I can't help it they don't understand my cosmology and I have no intention telling you about it! I have better means than telling that on a philosophy forum! Only some can share my cosmological secrets. You think I'm gonna tell it to everyone? There are a few professors on my side, and they offer better help than you or physics forums do, who only are interested in the status quo.

On the contrary! It provides the most sound arguments. — Hillary

I am not convinced you understand the meaning of the word soundness...

-"Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about! "
As you said....claims. Now you will need to demonstrate their soundness.

there is nothing there in these ideas of yours.
They are philosophically and scientifically null, reminiscences of a era when humans saw agency, intention and purpose everyone.
Only when we removed agency and teleology form our philosophy ,we enabled science to experience an epistemic run away success for more than 500 years.
Your assumptions are known to be failed for centuries. Nobody (except some crackpots like Sheldrake and ) uses them in the Academia any more. — Nickolasgaspar

You're not even able to understand a tiny part of my cosmology. Let alone the big picture. Sorry Nickolas, but you will continue to live in the dark till you die... :lol:

I can't help it they don't understand my cosmology and I have no intention telling you about it! — Hillary

_Why i feel like a dodged a bullet?

I have better means than telling that on a philosophy forum! — Hillary

-that's even better try a new age or a theological forum!

-" Only some can share my cosmological secrets"
-Pls find them...outside from the Philosophical circle.! After all secrets and knowledge do get along well!

-"You think I'm gonna tell it to everyone? There are a few professors on my side, and they offer better help than you or physics forums do, who only are interested in the status quo."
-We don't want any one to steal our Nobel Prize! right!!

You're not even able to understand a tiny part of my cosmology. Let alone the big picture. Sorry Nickolas, but you will continue to live in the dark till you die... :lol: — Hillary

-guilty as charged! I do tend to use the phrase ...I don't know....when I don't!

"Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about! "
As you said....claims. Now you will need to demonstrate their soundness. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm as sound as I can be. You talk and write about sound without having anything to be sound about. Show me one of your sound knowledge claims.

guilty as charged! I do tend to use the phrase ...I don't know....when I don't! — Nickolasgaspar

I don't use the phrase because I do know. The only thing I don't know is where the gods come from and how they created universal matter.

We don't want any one to steal our Nobel Prize! right!! — Nickolasgaspar

Well, I've told it many times already. On physics forums which stick to the status quo or the convention, and here, where little help is offered, except by @universeness and some others, who try to understand at least, instead of throw it away without even inspecting it (as is done on most physics forums). So this seems a good place for it. The philosophy forums are generally more perceptive. Physicists are afraid their standards are attacked.

Can people be banned for trolling?

Can people be banned for trolling? — I like sushi

Are you a troll?

Your OP makes little to no sense.

Note: ‘physics’ as a ‘habit’ of the universe? How is that any different to physics as ‘laws’ of the universe? You do understand that ‘the laws of physics’ are not absolute but rather a ‘striving towards’ the idea that there are definitive laws/rules? Either way, they allow us to navigate in some manner.

It might help more if you look up the term Ontology and perhaps question the validity of asking about ‘beginnings’ or ‘lawgivers’.

To reframe the OP I take your meaning more like this perhaps? :

1) There are a set of rigid principles the universe operates under.
2) There are a set of principles from which the universe has changed over several stages that are fluid rather than rigidly set.

Either way, there is not really a definitive answer to this and either as a definitive answer would only open up more questions.

I like sushi: Note: ‘physics’ as a ‘habit’ of the universe? How is that any different to physics as ‘laws’ of the universe?

Laws are prescriptive; habits are descriptive.

When I taught in college, students would generally take more or less the same seat every class. Some students would sit in the exact same seat throughout the semester. That was their habit. But there was no law that said where they had to sit.

Additionally, law suggests a law giver, perhaps a God outside the universe that constructed the universe to act in certain ways.

Habit suggests that the universe merely does what it does, without any external law giver.

Who can say. But it is fallacious to argue they must come from a lawmaker, because they are laws. — hypericin

:up:

Misled by metaphor!

Where do the laws of physics come from? — Art48

From the human mind.
No law whatsoever --legal, scientific or other-- exist by itself. As rules do not exist by themselves. As theories, systems, axioms, principles, ... do not exist by themselves. They are all created by humans.

Scientific laws, in particular, "describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true". (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-law-basics-of-the-scientific-method)

"Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)

(Highlighting in bold characters is mine.)

So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48

My BothAnd worldview, based in-part on Information Theory, implies that the answer is "yes". The physical universe came into existence with "laws" built-in. Just as a hen is born with all the eggs (stem cells) she'll ever have. Early scientists referred to the consistent regularities in nature as "laws", by analogy with the social laws of humanity, that are intended to regulate behavior. In the metaphor, there is an ultimate authority, not necessarily to design the laws, but to authorize (sanction) them. Yet, the analogy was based on the prevailing system of monarchy. Today, we might as well assume that Nature (Society) established its laws by consensus (about what works). However, since we have no information from the "time before time", the author or lawmaker or systematizer of the fertilized Singularity (cosmic egg) is anybody's guess.

The goal (Final Cause) of systematic regulation is to minimize negative, and to maximize positive, actions & changes --- to keep the system on track toward a desirable future state, or away from undesirable states. But who evaluates those states : the king or the populace, or both? Some "habits" are good (brushing twice a day) and some are bad (inhaling carcinogenic smoke). But both are focused on specific goals -- either short-term pleasure or long-term health. Are natural laws & constants random & arbitrary, or systematic & intentional, and for long or short-term benefits? Is the universe characterized by random noise, or by systematic processes? Science places its bets on the latter.

However, pragmatic Science is usually focused on short-term benefits from understanding Nature. Under the reductive microscope, both good & bad actions are observed. Some organisms consume (good) and others are consumed (bad). And those oppositions tend to cancel-out to a neutral, neither-good-nor-bad, system -- it simply works. But from a telescopic perspective, evolution is known to have begun in an un-promising explosion (expansion) from nothing to something. Yet, the world we now observe has produced finely-tuned (regulated) eco-systems that consistently stave-off dead-end Entropy, by harnessing & regulating the flow of life-enhancing Energy. From the simplicity of a stem-cell Singularity, the universe has matured into a complex organism, that promises to continue extracting order from Entropy into the far-off future.

Therefore, our universe is obviously a self-organizing organism, and evolution is a creative program -- generating animated Life & inquisitive Mind from inert Matter & random Energy. What, then, is the essence of organization : Self-regulation or Serendipity ; Law & Order or Lawless Disorder ; Innovation or Stagnation? Yet, it's also obvious today, that the world is not self-existent. So, both the physical substance and the abstract rules of regulation must have pre-existed. In that case, the philosophical question arises : was that Creative Act Intentional or Accidental? Your answer may reveal your positive or negative attitude toward the social- or eco-system you find yourself inextricably entangled with. :nerd:


PS___It's not a question of either Matter or Laws, but of Both-And. In isolation, Matter is inert, but in conjunction with Rules of behavior, simple substance evolves in a positive direction towards physical Complexity and meta-physical Self-awareness.