Immanuel Kant presents us with a surprising and seemingly absurd alternative: we ourselves are the source of physical laws. Seemingly absurd, because we cannot influence the laws of nature. — Pez
Are they merely descriptions, or are they presuppositions concerning what things are and how they behave? — Joshs
In other words, "physical laws" are invariants in the structure of physical models which attempt to explain regularities experimentally observed in the physical world. To the degree such models themselves are objective, the "physical laws" derived from them are objective.'Physical laws' are features of physical models and not the universe itself. Our physical models are stable, therefore 'physical laws' are stable. If in current scientific terms, new observations indicate that aspects of the universehave changed[differ from previous observations], then, in order to account for suchchanges[differences], we will have to reformulate our current (or conjecture new) physical models which might entail changes to current (or wholly different) "physical laws". E.g. Aristotlean teleology —> Newtonian gravity —> Einsteinian relativity —> — 180 Proof
Are they merely descriptions, or are they presuppositions concerning what things are and how they behave?
— Joshs
You can't pre-suppose the world. Maybe a creator god can, but humans are in and of the world. They can't suppose anything that they don't already know something about — Vera Mont
Presuppositions are the products of human-world interactions. They are guides to future interactions based on ways of organizing previous interactions, and subject to change as the way we modify our environment by interacting with it feeds back into these presuppositions. — Joshs
i.e. that which has not yet been observed and analyzed.a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action
How does one organize previous interactions? Surely, it's only an image, memory or concept of them that can be organized - presumably for reference. Organize, how? Form a mental model? Classify as to type? How does this process differ from describing the interactions themselves and deducing natural laws? — Vera Mont
. In my dictionary, a "presupposition" is
a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action
i.e. that which has not yet been observed and analyzed — Vera Mont
It depends what the expression "the laws of nature" is referring to. It could be referring to "the laws of nature" existing as concepts within the human mind, or it could be referring to the laws of nature existing outside the human mind and independently of the human mind. — RussellA
The "laws of nature" are just descriptions of how things behave. — Michael
Acceptance of the lack of certainty, and the lack of any need for it, alters the conception of natural law. The most interesting view of natural law I've come across is the "evolutionary view" of natural law favored by C.S. Peirce. It happens that the universe evolved the way it did, and as a consequence certain "habits" developed on which we can rely (statistically, but not as absolute laws), but in other respects the universe remains subject to inquiry and undetermined. — Ciceronianus
In other words, "physical laws" are invariants in the structure of physical models which attempt to explain regularities experimentally observed in the physical world. To the degree such models themselves are objective, the "physical laws" derived from them are objective. — 180 Proof
I don't understand what you're saying here. Please reformulate and clarify....these concepts are actually the respective world we live in and beyond our world-view and in abstraction from it there is definitely nothing left we could talk about – — Pez
More simply put, my position is ↪180 Proof: nature does not "comply" with "physical laws"; rather our best, unfalsified models conform via physical laws (i.e. generalizations of transformations of phenomena) to the observable, objective regularities of nature. — 180 Proof
Now the question is: are we in the position of these chicken or can we rely on being fed every day? — Pez
Now the question is: are we in the position of these chicken or can we rely on being fed every day? — Pez
Language does us a great disservice when we use terms like 'laws' of logic or 'laws' of nature in as much as for many this word implies a 'lawmaker', — Tom Storm
Kant was rightfully claiming that we can never attain to a knowledge of things surrounding us per se i.e. independent of us? — Pez
I don't interpret Kant as implying that human observers create the laws of nature. What we do is to mathematically define the apparent necessities*1 of Nature. We observe "regularities" of cause & effect, then describe the process as-if it was imposed on nature by the Initial Influencer : The Prime Mover or The Impetus*2. So, humans are indeed the "source" of the formal & mathematical definitions, that we then use to predict statistically certain future outcomes of accurately formalized current conditions.Immanuel Kant presents us with a surprising and seemingly absurd alternative: we ourselves are the source of physical laws. Seemingly absurd, because we cannot influence the laws of nature. — Pez
Nature doesn't 'comply' to anything — Vera Mont
I tend to look at maunderings of these kinds as a kind of affectation — Ciceronianus
Every scientific law is based on induction i.e. inference from particular observations. But all observations are unique in time and place. No observations can be repeated at the same space at the same moments. Therefore the ground of scientific laws are contingent i.e. not absolute. They can be disproved any time when the physical factors change in the universe, or new discoveries and observations reveal the new facts.Does this mean that transcendental idealism is in the end unavoidable and there is no realistic alternative to this world-view? And is the possibility and success of science proof, that Kant was rightfully claiming that we can never attain to a knowledge of things surrounding us per se i.e. independent of us? — Pez
...these concepts are actually the respective world we live in and beyond our world-view and in abstraction from it there is definitely nothing left we could talk about – — Pez
I don't understand what you're saying here. Please reformulate and clarify. — 180 Proof
do we discover these laws of nature or do we just invent them. — Pez
The expression was chosen deliberately, I could have used 'obey' as well. The implicit question here is: what is the difference between the so-called laws of nature and civil law, that is: do we discover these laws of nature or do we just invent them. — Pez
Sorry, that You can see these questions as mere 'maundering'. I am interested in serious discussion, so, if You can, come up with something less idle talk. — Pez
But their happy guesses of something that is underlying nature: actual natural law. Several philosophers (Armstrong, Sosa, Tooley are the best known) have proposed Law Realism: the notion that there exist actual laws of nature. Under this theory, laws of nature are relations between universals (IOW, they are not mere abstractions: platonic equations that exist in a "third realm").There have been some attempts to return to a realistic view of the world. But neither of them seems to me very convincing. For example Karl Popper: all physical laws brought forward by science are only more a less happy guesses and can be falsified any time by a crucial experiment. — Pez
Well I disagree with this antirealist suggestion, Pez – "concepts" do not "change" themselves, we change our concepts in order to adapt. Turning on house lights at night in an unfamiliar house does not change the house, rather you change only your capability for orienting yourself within that unfamiliar house. Likewise, given that we inhabit the world, the 'models (i.e. pictures, maps, simulations) of the world' which we make conform with varying degrees of fidelity to the world and thereby inform our expectations of how we can adapt to the world. For instance, GR & QM were as true about the physical world in Aristotle's day and in Newton's day as they are today even though Aristotle, Newton and their contemporaries, respectively, were completely ignorant of them. Thus, changing our concepts of reality, in effect, only changes us and not reality itself.These concepts change and so does the world we live in. — Pez
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.