My thesis is summarized in my title, ‘No God, No Laws’: the concept of a law of Nature cannot be made sense of without God. It is not as dramatic a thesis as it might look, however. I do not mean to argue that the enterprise of modern science cannot be made sense of without God. Rather, if you want to make sense of it you had better not think of science as discovering laws of Nature, for there cannot be any of these without God. — Nancy Cartwright
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...... — Nickolasgaspar
So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48
IIRC, natural regularities are observed (i.e. "discovered") and then mathematically described-encoded (i.e. "invented") as invariant features of physical models for specified aspects of nature.Assuming laws are discoverd, not invented... — ZzzoneiroCosm
I think this description of Natural Laws makes an important point. The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, in part by analogy to human intentions & choices. The logical organization of Nature "implies" the rational intention to create Causes that produce Effects that can be detected & manipulated by rational methods to result in desirable ends. In other words, the ability to choose between Good & Evil.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." ___Wikipedia — Alkis Piskas
linking causes & effects is valuable for survival in a dynamic world, where effects can be either Good or Bad. — Gnomon
The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never. — Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality
I find Hoffman's notion that we don't see Reality-as-ding-an-sich plausible. However, I was referring to the useful, yet imperfect, mental ability to perceive the mathematical logic in Nature. That talent for seeing invisible (implicit) links gives us a fitness advantage over animals (by making the logic explicit). Reason & Logic may be our substitute for fangs & fleetness.we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality
I agree.The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, — Gnomon
Good point. I never thought about that. Most probably because Physics is not my cup of tea ...Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. — Gnomon
Biblical morality assumes that the world was created perfect, with ideal laws, but was corrupted by a couple of freed nature-slaves, who learned how to distinguish between Good & Evil. I take a different perspective though. According to Big Bang theory, our universe began from a formless spec of nothing (Chaos??), and has evolved -- apparently in accordance with innate rules -- into a vast complex Cosmos. Unfortunately for inquisitive creatures, the BBT gives us no insight into where those organizing rules (laws of physics) originated.Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!). — Agent Smith
My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is an attempt to answer that pertinent question. It traces the lawful order of the physical world back to the Big Bang, and beyond . . . Since Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 : EnFormAction [my term], I have concluded that some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos*2 : creative Causation within formless Chance. And the "where" is out there beyond the bounds of our finite Cosmos.For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...
Your whole description is quite interesting. — Alkis Piskas
2) Universe then habits (not laws)
If the “laws” of physics are in reality habits of physics, then they are descriptive; that is, they simply describe what has occurred in the past every time we looked. So, we notice what a brick habitually did in the past, and we assume the brick will behave in the same way in the future. — Art48
The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 — "Gnomon
This is logical but not necessary. We don't have enough information about that chaos, and if indeed there was a chaos. Maybe this "apparent" or "initial" chaos contained a kind of order in itself, a state of being settled down, etc. For example, when you throw a dice, there is a chaos in its movement and at some point it stops moving, becoming inert. The cause for that inertia is gravitation. (I guess, I'm not good in Physics.) Likewise, the chaos produced by the Bing Bang containd gravitational forces in itself or has produced then iself. I can't say, of course if this could ba a possibility or not.some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos — "Gnomon
Attributing a hypothetical Mind to the Big Bang, is a logical extrapolation from the cutting-edge of Information Theory. Claude Shannon removed Mind & Meaning (semantics) from General Information, in order to make it abstract & mechanical (syntax)). But, since then, physicists have discovered that Information is the essence Energy & Matter, as noted in the PDF. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1.The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course. — Alkis Piskas
I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". Yet, I would be really surprised if that could be proved and become part of our reality. Because there are too many things that don't make sense in it, which I mention below.Information is the essence Energy & Matter. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1 — "Gnomon
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.