No regularities seem chaotic. It would be difficult to learn from evidence (or experiences, assuming there could be any). — jorndoe

I doubt there could be any. If sometimes electrons and protons repel each other, and sometimes attracted to each other, and if the strong nuclear force sometimes bound nuclei together and sometimes didn't, and matter sometimes warped space-time and sometimes didn't...

So now, we can say we make laws out of descriptions. There appears to be some kind of structure to these descriptions we’ve made. Call them law-like, descriptions. Why are these descriptions orderly, or, describing something a certain way to function as descriptions? — Fire Ologist

I think that's a better question.

I'd say it's because we noticed something that fits with our notion of orderliness.

In a way what I'd say is that there is no more mystery to the regularities of nature than there is to any other description. Why is the red cup red? Why are the regularities I care about regular?

Because we went looking for them and whenever something didn't fit within our notion of orderliness -- usually specified by technological achievement to do what we've done before, but better -- we threw it out.

Rather than an ontological mystery I'd just say "Cuz that's what you went looking for, and found it" -- so sure there are regularities in nature. But to go so far as to say these regularities are laws seems to interpret nature in the form of our government -- where there's some body which creates laws that follow the subject-predicate form and our guesses in science are trying to match what those laws passed by that body "says".

Be it a book of nature ala Galileo or the Mind of God ala Kant there's some order in nature which is mind-shaped, but not ours, and we're trying to "match" that mind-shape with our mind-shapes in order to comprehend nature as a whole.

At least, these are the sorts of thoughts that come to mind when someone says "law of nature" -- there are no laws of nature in the manner that you mean. There are some regularities we notice, but we never comprehend the whole such that we can "match" the shape that reality is with our mind.

That's true. But, what else can and side we do? — Patterner

Nothing. It's just interesting.

The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

In the 17th century, it seemed natural to think of the rational regularities and mathematical principles of the universe as Divine Laws, by analogy with the political & civil laws of royalty-ruled human societies. They imagined animals & savages as lawless, ruled by internal impulse instead of external regulations. But some modern thinkers have posited that nature has just accidentally fallen into regular habits that seem law-like to us law-abiding humans. But that no-reason postulation is just as unverifiable as the divine law notion.

Isaac Newton set the example by defining three laws of motion, plus gravitation & thermodynamics. And our modern science would be stuck in the dark ages without such understanding of a logical structure to the natural order. So, whether you call that structure "laws" or "habits" or "regularities", without such reliable forces & logical limits, the Big Bang would have been a flash-in-the-pan, like 4th of July fireworks. Therefore, regardless of how you imagine the lawmaker, the notion of natural limits on causation & change provides a framework for understanding how & why the world works as it does.

But the natural anarchy notion, applied to the non-human world, would make modern Science a blind groping in the dark. So, like it or not, we rational humans seem to be born into a logically-organized world, not a meaningless maze of unpredictable random change. But any answer to your "why?" question will be contentious due to our differing worldviews (frameworks). :smile:


"Natural anarchy," or the idea that societal order can arise without imposed governance, is a complex concept explored in various anarchist philosophies. It suggests that humans and other living things naturally tend towards cooperation and mutual aid, and that societal structures like government are artificial impositions that disrupt this natural order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

Nothing. It's just interesting. — RogueAI

Ah! Ok. I thought you were getting at something specific.

:D

Yes indeed.

The universe is shaped like the consummation of a human male and a human female.

I think electrical description is particularly prone to seeing the world like a clockwork mechanism -- but it's a good example to get at what I'm thinking. The digital nature of electricity is very much something we constructed. There were regularities there of some kind, of course, but before we shaped copper into circuits with strict yes/no conditions they were not. We had to go out and look for them, imagine what might be and make guesses with some kind of shared criteria for evaluating those guesses over generations.

We wanted electricity to behave like pressure pumps. It was imagined to flow from the positive to the negative, and that description was close enough to purpose.

But now we believe that the flow from positive to negative is, in fact, the opposite -- at least in terms of the description of the flows of electrons.

But back then that didn't matter.


It's in this way that we can observe a regularity which we observe but which is not, strictly, true of the world -- and we can get by all the while feeling like we really do know what it's all about.

Maybe we could say that nature lends itself to description because of embedded similarities? — jorndoe

We could, though that might still start looking like "law-speak" again.

What I'm aiming to say is that the description works because there are some conditions by which we judge the description as true -- namely pragmatic ones that deal with technology -- but that does not then warrant an inference from these regularities to an ontological justification of regularities.

Rather than treating the regularities like a cause or a law or logical connection between events they're just as plain as asking "How is it that we describe things?" -- though, perhaps, that's not exactly "plain" after all, I'm hesitant to give ontological justification to scientific work. There's something that it tracks, but there's no checking the thing-in-itself to really make sure that we are tracking this time.

There were regularities there of some kind, of course — Moliere

That's what I took to be the point of the OP. There are regularities, patterns, consistencies.

Why would we be machines of that nature? I would think because it's a successful strategy. If so, why would seeking patterns/meaning/connections in a universe where there aren't any be successful? — Patterner

I'm not saying there are no patterns, it's about how we tend to perceive things and that our predictive model change over time and may not map onto something we call reality. We tend to fall back on predictions to cope with our world. So if it rains after we pray or do a special dance, we'll keep doing it to try to bring rain again.

As an electrical engineer... — wonderer1

Ah... there's your problem... what is the expression? If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Bad paraphrase of Maslow. (And I'm just joking BTW)

do you have any explanation for why scientific frameworks would be useful for predicting if there were no reliable regularities to how things occur in nature which are described by such frameworks? — wonderer1

I am not saying we can't make predictions and find them useful, we can see predictive success as a contingent outcome of practices of inquiry, experimentation, and consensus, but not as proof of any intrinsic order in nature.

A model can be useful even if it isn't true. For instance, the miasma theory of disease turned out to be false, but it worked to some extent, it helped people notice a connection between sewage and illness. Promoted the use of fresh air and isolation to manage disease, which proved effective, even if the underlying model was incorrect. Who knows where understanding will be in 200 years? Who knows which laws of physics will still be standing?

Of course, I can't expect someone without my background knowledge to see things the same way, but I still find it somewhat baffling that you hold such a perspective. — wonderer1

Our knowledge and preconceptions can also hold us back. Being baffled may be the start of a breakthrough...

I’m not saying to ignore science or stop using tools based on predictions, that would be a misunderstanding of the point. I’m simply suggesting (and there’s no way to establish this conclusively) that humans use predictions and metaphysical models to anticipate outcomes. Because we can make accurate predictions, we assume the model maps onto reality in some way. But we don’t actually know this. My intuition is that we don’t need to know if the model truly corresponds to reality; what matters is that it works well enough for our purposes. Instead of searching for some ultimate, final truth, we should focus on the usefulness of our concepts and tools and how they help us cope in the world.

So coming back to the OP, are there laws of nature, or apparent regularities which are produced by how we perceive the world, but not a product of reality itself? We can’t really demonstrate either, although it is instructive to see over time how models of reality seem to change.

I'm not saying there are no patterns — Tom Storm

I thought you were saying that, particularly when you said, "At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. What we call "order" is not something we discover in the universe but something we attribute to it through our descriptive practices."

it's about how we tend to perceive things and that our predictive model change over time and may not map onto something we call reality. We tend to fall back on predictions to cope with our world. So if it rains after we pray or do a special dance, we'll keep doing it to try to bring rain again. — Tom Storm

Certainly, our perceptions, and guesses regarding the meaning, of the universe's regularities and patterns change over time. Hopefully becoming more accurate, though Donald Hoffman might say not. But I take 's OP as asking why there are regularities and patterns at all.

I thought you were saying that, particularly when you said, "At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. What we call "order" is not something we discover in the universe but something we attribute to it through our descriptive practices." — Patterner

Yes, my language is sloppy and I'm writing in the gaps of other activities. (I should also write "may not" rather than "is") I'm saying there are patterns, we see them and use them, sometimes successfully. But I don't know if these patterns map onto the world and say anything about the nature of reality, or if they are produced contingently by our ways of seeing and describing nature.

The question for me is: are the patterns external, or are they the product of our cognitive apparatus? To call a pattern a law of nature reifies it, or at least risks mistaking a useful human construct for something intrinsic to reality itself.

:up:

Yeah, there's two views here that might seem antithetical.

The one is that there are ordered laws of nature, and they are there becasue god said so.

Now this is not much of an explanation, since whatever way the universe is, this view explains it.

The other is that the universe just is this way, that there is no reason for it being this way rather than some other.

And the same point applies: no mater how the universe is, this view works, so it doesn't serve to explain anything.


Indeed, they amount to much the same view...

Indeed, they amount to much the same view... — Banno

Well -- how are we supposed to fight about who is right now?

Maybe a virtual group hug instead?

well, ask a silly question...


We could all go learn some physics?

Heh, yeah.

:wink:

I’d guess that humans are pattern seeking, meaning making machines. We see connections everywhere and this often helps us manage our environment. — Tom Storm

How does it help if these connections are only in our head and have nothing to do with the environment in which we live? How could we even exist in and of a world that lacks any order? For that matter, how do you come to any conclusions about the world, even such skeptical conclusions as you make?

How does it help if these connections are only in our head and have nothing to do with the environment in which we live? How could we even exist in and of a world that lacks any order? For that matter, how do you come to any conclusions about the world, even such skeptical conclusions as you make? — SophistiCat

I am suggesting a constructivist view. Even the notion of "order" itself is a contingent human artifact. My instinct is that our knowledge, meaning, and order are contingent products of human interpretation, language, and culture. The world exists independently but is indeterminate or (as Hilary Lawson would argue) "open in itself"; order and meaning don’t exist “out there” waiting to be discovered but arise through our way's of engaging with the world.

So, in this view (which I think has some merit), we never arrive at absolute truth or reality; everything we hold is contingent and constantly changing. We don’t really have knowledge that maps onto some kind of eternal, unchanging foundational truth. What we have instead are provisional frameworks, interpretive tools and perspectives, that help us navigate and make sense of our experience, always open to revision and reinterpretation. Now, this either resonates with people or (especially if they are foundationalists and empiricists) will seem vague.

The question for me is: are the patterns external, or are they the product of our cognitive apparatus? — Tom Storm

I think this brings me back to my original question. If the patterns are not external, why would our cognitive apparatus produce them?

To call a pattern a law of nature reifies it, or at least risks mistaking a useful human construct for something intrinsic to reality itself. — Tom Storm

"Law" is an unfortunate word, but it's the one we've been using for ... well, quite a while. No, I wouldn't think the inverse square law is a thing that demands or forces the gravitational attraction between two objects to be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Nevertheless, the gravitational attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Maybe the science world should start using new words.

we can see predictive success as a contingent outcome of practices of inquiry, experimentation, and consensus, but not as proof of any intrinsic order in nature. — Tom Storm

How about we take out “proof of any intrinsic”. Throw that baggage away. Nothing proven. Nothing certain. Nothing intrinsic discovered. And just say “order in nature.” Why is “order in nature” such a bugaboo? Why mist consensus always be given priority over that which is agreed upon?

we noticed something that fits with our notion of orderliness — Moliere

That speaks of “something” noticed, and separately, “our notion of orderliness”.

Two separate directions to inquire into.

Why are the regularities I care about regular?

Because we went looking for them — Moliere

So this now clarifies further that the regularities as we think them to be regular, are only regularized because of our thinking, not because we’ve “noticed something” or “noticed something that fits” or discovered orderliness in the world.

So are we noticing something, or not? When saying “orderliness” are we ever basing it off of something seen in the world, or only merely constructing it?

Let’s start over, again.

Is there order in nature?
We can easily say the orderliness has been rigged by us the order makers.

But is that how communication between two people actually works? We can’t point to something in the world and rename it every time we point. Orderliness must have a world component to it to function as ordering. Pointing over and over to the same thing and renaming it would be one way of disorganizing the world.

If I say something and you hear it. And then you respond to what I said and I hear it as logically following the order that I started. And then I say something else in response to your response and you hear it. And you hear it as logically following the orderliness you were following/building - haven’t we both found orderliness in the world in our eyes that read words and ears that hear sounds? The world is still functioning as the conduit for the orderliness we fabricate. Why does THAT function? What is a communication between order-makers in itself? It seems to me there must be some sort of orderliness IN THE WORLD, apart from we order-makers, in order for our fabrications to function as communications. We can’t forget there is an internet connecting us here, for instance. That is order in the world, we’ve fabricated but then let loose in the world, necessary to sustain order, regardless of how crazy I might go off the rails when I post here. We can fix the world and order it, because the world can contain order in itself.

may not map onto something — Tom Storm

That is a massive, pregnant statement. Maps (amazing figments) that map onto (by impossible epistemological processes) something (like ‘reality’ for instance, or something else - incredible).

Don’t we have to be able to map onto things at all just to determine whether something does or does not map onto something in particular? Why would you think you can question whether our maps are maps of reality or not? The answer is, because mapping has to do with connecting our minds with the world. There wouldn’t be a map to wonder if it connects to the world without a mind AND a world. We may be wrong about the world, most of the time, but we can’t be wrong all of the time and make any sense to each other, because we are all still (forever only) dealing with the same world.

there's two views here that might seem antithetical.

The one is that there are ordered laws of nature, and they are there becasue god said so.

Now this is not much of an explanation, since whatever way the universe is, this view explains it.

The other is that the universe just is this way, that there is no reason for it being this way rather than some other. — Banno

First I would note that whether the view is “because god said so” or because “just is this way”, neither is much of an explanation “since whatever way the universe is, this view explains it.”

So let’s throw away the “why” of it. Who cares how or why order comes to be for now. Let’s just focus on “is there order” at all? And regardless of the motivation or reason for this order, where is this order found?

I don’t see how you retain science, physics, even math and language, without some sense of order existing apart from minds, in the world. Perhaps “order” isn’t the best word for what is in the world. And I agree “laws” in the world apart from minds doesn’t make sense. But do we have no use for observation and merely listening and sensation to discern order and educate the mind? And again, if there is no ordered conduit between two minds, communication must fail. But it occasionally succeeds.

Let me cash out what I’m trying to say:

X says “Ptolemy was wrong, the earth is not the center of the universe.”

Y then says: “I see that too, because I see the day happens because the sun is fixed and the earth spins on an access.”

X then says: “yes, and the spring moves to summer and fall and winter because the spinning earth revolves all the way around the sun at varying distances and angles.”

Y then says: “So the sun is at the center.”

So where is the source of order here? Both men could claim it was a new consensus they were ordering. But they are both pointing to the sun and the functions of a solar system. Each separately pointing to separate aspects of the sun’s relationship to the earth, but each extending and agreeing in an orderly fashion. They are not pointing merely to each other and building a coherent map. They are building a map that is coherent because it mimics the order they are pointing to in the world.

We may one day learn this was all wrong too, that there is no such thing as a sun, but then, the reason this new description might be understood by X and then followed by Y who extends it with whatever follows, would be because of new evidence to point to in the world. We can’t avoid the world completely and discount its own order, nor discount our ability to map our minds to it as much as we map it to our minds, and further, call all of our communications between minds about the world “world-order-fabrications” using the world as conduit to communicate.

Maybe we are order makers because, we, haling from the universe, are like the universe which has order in it.

I think this brings me back to my original question. If the patterns are not external, why would our cognitive apparatus produce them? — Patterner

Well peopel like Hilary Lawson would likely argue that the world is inherently open and indeterminate, so our minds create patterns to impose some order on that complexity. These patterns aren’t discoveries of fixed external laws but constructs that arise from our engagement with an otherwise uncertain reality. We engage with an open and indeterminate reality by constructing tentative models that help us navigate and make sense of it, knowing these models are provisional and will eventually be replaced as our understanding evolves. In thsi way we had Newton's laws of motion and gravity replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity and now what? QM? And after that? But hey, I'm not a metaphysician or academic and this is just what my intuition leads me into tentatively holding.

Nothing certain. Nothing intrinsic discovered. And just say “order in nature.” Why is “order in nature” such a bugaboo? Why mist consensus always be given priority over that which is agreed upon? — Fire Ologist

Reification fascinates me and mainly because my philosophical journey and intuition has a focus on the idea that we make many assumptions. I find it fascinating to contemplate how much of what we call reality may be co-created, a product of our experience. This, from the smattering I know of it, is a rich theme in phenomenology and postmodernism, and of course, it is hotly resisted by many who prefer foundationalist models. That’s all.

Maybe the science world should start using new words. — Patterner

Could be. But maybe conceptual frameworks need renewal too. If by science we hold the belief that the universe is intelligible and that science mirrors reality. Hey - I'm not sayign I'm correct on this (correct is problematic of itself) just that it's a perspective I have sympathy for and want to pursue.

we make too many assumptions. I find it fascinating to contemplate how much of what we call reality may be co-created, a product of our experience. — Tom Storm

I agree assumptions are what we must be looking for the most when we ask questions. You said “co-created”. That implies two sources of creation. I think that is accurate. Our minds are full of co-creations. I am just as fascinated by how much we contribute to the creation as some co-creator does.

I am interested in your response to this, because this speaks of both elements in the co-creation:

X says “Ptolemy was wrong, the earth is not the center of the universe.”

Y then says: “I see that too, because I see the day happens because the sun is fixed and the earth spins on an access.”

X then says: “yes, and the spring moves to summer and fall and winter because the spinning earth revolves all the way around the sun at varying distances and angles.”

Y then says: “So the sun is at the center.”

So where is the source of order here? Both men could claim it was a new consensus they were ordering. But they are both pointing to the sun and the functions of a solar system. Each separately pointing to separate aspects of the sun’s relationship to the earth, but each extending and agreeing in an orderly fashion. They are not pointing merely to each other and building a coherent map. They are building a map that is coherent because it mimics the order they are pointing to in the world. — Fire Ologist

Well, I think your example points to the perspectival nature of beliefs. I would not accept that they have identified order outside themselves. More likely a conceptual structure or model that might pragmatically deliver some results.

I might say the Earth is the center of the universe as metaphorical description, indicating the centrality of our planet in all our priorities and values. And this would be true in a sense.

I wonder to what extent all knowledge and language are best understood as metaphor. Ways of managing our experince for a time. Some metaphors work better for certain purposes than others, right? Not sure I have much more on this today.

We engage with an open and indeterminate reality by constructing tentative models that help us navigate and make sense of it, knowing these models are provisional and will eventually be replaced as our understanding evolves. — Tom Storm

As our understanding of what evolves?

Our ongoing and tentative understanding of our situation. I would suggest this amounts to a range of evolving inter subjective agreements. But I suspect you’re not on board.

I suspect I am not, although I don't really understand. It seems to me that you're sometimes saying there are consistencies/regularities/patterns in the universe, and sometimes saying there are not. How can we make sense of the indeterminate, beyond knowing it is indeterminate? What I mean is, what greater understanding of it can exist beyond the fact that it is indeterminate? If, for no rhyme or reason, something changes its shape, size, state (solid, liquid, gas), and everything else we can think of, each at its own random interval, isn't that all we can understand about it?