But that is the good old induction problem. We have no logically compulsory ground to believe that these regularities will continue.
Right.
Of course the opposite is also true: we have no logically compulsory ground to believe that these regularities will not continue.
This is what we disagree about. So if I assume nature is not restricted so that it follows past regularities in the future there are logical grounds for assuming it almost certainly will not.
Bear in mind I'm using assume in relation to knowledge. So I can't know this message will get through to you if nature is not restricted to continue to folllow past regularities, because it almost certainly will not, so my belief cannot be justified in the right way to have knowledge.
To assume nature will continue to follow past regularities only makes sense if we also assume nature is restricted so that it will probably do so.
So at every moment there is a chance past regularities will cease. I say that’s what it means to say nature is not restricted.
We don’t know what the probability is but again if it is very small that’s saying nature is restricted so that there is only a very small chance of it ceasing to follow past regularities.
So at every moment there is a chance past regularities will cease. I say that's what it means to say nature is not restricted.
We don't know what the probability is but again if it is very small that's saying nature is restricted so that there is only a very small chance of it ceasing to follow past regularities.
While nature has infinite potential (degrees of probability), some potentials will never become reality, even as they may lay latent forever. IMO, nature is restricted to the physical expression allowed by the probabilty function. As I understand it, you are proposing that there will be future instances of "spontaneous symmetry breaking", which IMO, is highly unlikely, unless one accepts the possibility of a multi-universe, where chemicals have different structures and our "constants" do not apply.
So at every moment there is a chance past regularities will cease. I say that's what it means to say nature is not restricted.
We don't know what the probability is but again if it is very small that's saying nature is restricted so that there is only a very small chance of it ceasing to follow past regularities.
While nature has infinite potential (degrees of probability), some potentials will never become reality, even as they may lay latent forever. IMO, nature is restricted to the physical expression allowed by the probabilty function. As I understand it, you are proposing that there will be future instances of "spontaneous symmetry breaking", which IMO, is highly unlikely, unless one accepts the possibility of a multi-universe, where chemicals have different structures and our "constants" do not apply.
I basically agree with you I think nature is restricted.
I think to say it isn't and to expect past regularities to continue is a contradiction.
So at every moment there is a chance past regularities will cease. I say that's what it means to say nature is not restricted.
We don't know what the probability is but again if it is very small that's saying nature is restricted so that there is only a very small chance of it ceasing to follow past regularities.
Stephen, I think you have not enough insight in how fundamental the laws of nature are. There is no 'chance' that they will change. See e.g. wikipedia about physical laws], especially this].
The most basic physical laws are derived from very basic principles:
- the law of energy conservation is based on the fact that the same experiment some time later will give the same result, i.e. is based on time symmetry, or if you want on the uniformity of time, or invariance of time, or invariance against the time scale you are applying
- the law of momentum conservation is based on the fact that an experiment I do here gives the same result when I do it at another place, i.e. is based on space symmetry, or invariance for space, or the coordinate system you are using
- special relativity is based on the fact that it does not matter with which uniform speed I am moving, i.e. symmetry for rotation in spacetime, or invariance of 'spacetime-length', or what speed I define as 'being at rest'
- general relativity is based on the symmetry of inertial and gravitational mass
etc.
So nature behaving according these laws is as natural as natural can be. There is no restriction, there is just nature developing in uniform spacetime. To suppose that the regularities do not hold is saying that spacetime is not uniform, that dependent on the coordinate system I use, nature would behave differently. There are no restrictions, particles and fields just are what they are, and develop as they do.
So at every moment there is a chance past regularities will cease. I say that's what it means to say nature is not restricted.
We don't know what the probability is but again if it is very small that's saying nature is restricted so that there is only a very small chance of it ceasing to follow past regularities.
While nature has infinite potential (degrees of probability), some potentials will never become reality, even as they may lay latent forever. IMO, nature is restricted to the physical expression allowed by the probabilty function. As I understand it, you are proposing that there will be future instances of "spontaneous symmetry breaking", which IMO, is highly unlikely, unless one accepts the possibility of a multi-universe, where chemicals have different structures and our "constants" do not apply.
I basically agree with you I think nature is restricted.
I think to say it isn't and to expect past regularities to continue is a contradiction.
This my intuitive take on it also. IMO, the nature of the universe is both conditionally permissive for some expression in reality, but also conditionally restrictive in the forms of those expression at the same time.
An atomic explosion is an expression of E=Mc^2 (a permission), but it requires an initial externally created implosion to get the process started, or nothing will happen (a restriction).
However if a star is large enough, its internal gravity is causal to the implosion (collapse) of the star, resulting in a nova. OTOH, if a star is not large enough (our sun) the forces are not powerful enough to initiate the nuclear process and that star burns out to form a red dwarf. Clear examples of permissiveness of action and restrictions in forms of action.
An atomic explosion is an expression of E=Mc^2 (a permission), but it requires an initial externally created implosion to get the process started, or nothing will happen (a restriction).
However if a star is large enough, its internal gravity is causal to the implosion (collapse) of the star, resulting in a nova. OTOH, if a star is not large enough (our sun) the forces are not powerful enough to initiate the nuclear process and that star burns out to form a red dwarf. Clear examples of permissiveness of action and restrictions in forms of action.
You are confusing initial conditions with 'restrictions'. If I understand Stephen correctly, then he sees laws of nature as restrictions, and not initial conditions.
An atomic explosion is an expression of E=Mc^2 (a permission), but it requires an initial externally created implosion to get the process started, or nothing will happen (a restriction).
However if a star is large enough, its internal gravity is causal to the implosion (collapse) of the star, resulting in a nova. OTOH, if a star is not large enough (our sun) the forces are not powerful enough to initiate the nuclear process and that star burns out to form a red dwarf. Clear examples of permissiveness of action and restrictions in forms of action.
You are confusing initial conditions with 'restrictions'. If I understand Stephen correctly, then he sees laws of nature as restrictions, and not initial conditions.
yes, but the initial conditions dictate the potential permisision or restriction of action. If the initial conditions do not dictate future action we lose Determinism. Determinism, IMO, is a form of natural selection; some potential of the initial condition becomes reality, other potentials of the same condition remain latent.
H2O has the potential to become expressed as a gas, a liquid, or a solid. The external condition (temperature) dictates which potential becomes expressed, while the other potentials remain latent. In different geographical areas on earth, H2O can exist simultaneously in all three states, depending on its location. As a geyser in Yellowstone, a lake in Michigan, or a glacier at the North pole. Most revealing is the fact that a partially frozen lake with a hotspring at one end (causing steam to rise from the surface) can display these potentials even under the exact same initial condition, except for temperature.
I can understand that one might argue that ultimate "permission" is a result of "natural restrictions", but is a permission nonetheless.Thus my viewpoint that the nature of Natural is both permissive and restrictive.
If taken hierarchically, the Wholeness is fundamentally permissive of action. I see this as without any restriction. Example, the BB where everything happened in the same place at the same time (inflationary epoch), creating our physical universe and its attendant potentials and its conditionally restrictive/permissive laws.
OTOH, evolution of constructs are in accordance with these laws which restrict the way the constructs may form. When all restrictions are met, permission for a specific action and expression in reality is granted (by default?). Hence my dualistic take.
Stephen, I think you have not enough insight in how fundamental the laws of nature are.
True. I think debating helps which is the reason to do it.
There is no 'chance' that they will change.
Saying there is no chance certain past regularities will change in the future is saying past regularities have to continue into the future. Saying they have to, is saying nature is restricted to behave in certain ways, it seems to me.
There are no restrictions, particles and fields just are what they are, and develop as they do.
With no chance of doing anything else. So in other words particles and fields just are what they are and develop as they must do given they are what they are.
Saying there is no chance certain past regularities will change in the future is saying past regularities have to continue into the future. Saying they have to, is saying nature is restricted to behave in certain ways, it seems to me.
No, it means consistency in character. There is no force, no restriction, no limit, no motive, no reason, no law, no cause, no will, no meaning...
With no chance of doing anything else. So in other words particles and fields just are what they are and develop as they must do given they are what they are.
They must not. It is their character. There is no .....
yes, but the initial conditions dictate the potential permisision or restriction of action.
Nothing is dictated. That is an anthropomorphism. Nature does what it does because it is what it is.
I used the term "dictate" not as an antromorphism, but in the abstract.
From Webster's: dictate (noun): "a rule or principle that guides something." I don't see why using that term invalidates the observation.
Nature does what it does because it is what it is and what it is dictates how it does what it does.
I used the term "dictate" not as an antromorphism, but in the abstract.
From Webster's: dictate (noun): "a rule or principle that guides something." I don't see why using that term invalidates the observation.
But 'a rule or principle that guides something' is an anthropomorphism too. Webster is a good dictionary. :)
Saying there is no chance certain past regularities will change in the future is saying past regularities have to continue into the future. Saying they have to, is saying nature is restricted to behave in certain ways, it seems to me.
No, it means consistency in character.
The problem is you're not only claiming nature is consistent in character, you're claiming you have good reason to believe it. And your good reason is there is "no chance" of it not being consistent in character.
What does "no chance" mean, if not it can't be other than consistent in character? And what does can't be other than consistent in character mean, other, than it is physically restricted to that logical possibility only?
There is no force, no restriction, no limit, no motive, no reason, no law, no cause, no will, no meaning...
Which has no relevance.
They must not. It is their character. There is no .....
What you're saying is you know it is their character because you know there is no chance of their character changing. You know their character can't change.
What I'm saying is without any reason to believe past regularities will hold they almost certainly will not. You say there is no chance they will not. And say that is not a restriction. And this "no chance" is your solution to the problem of induction. You think you're right to believe past regularities will continue to hold because you have reason to believe there is no chance they will not.
To believe past regularities will hold with good reason you have to believe nature is restricted, or in your words there is "no chance" they will not hold. or in other words they can't not hold.
You affirm and deny this and I am interested to see if you can resolve that problem.
I used the term "dictate" not as an antromorphism, but in the abstract.
From Webster's: dictate (noun): "a rule or principle that guides something." I don't see why using that term invalidates the observation.
But 'a rule or principle that guides something' is an anthropomorphism too. Webster is a good dictionary. :)
Yes, I use it often. But should my use of an anthromorphism be incorrect if used in context?
A dam dictates the volume of waterflow in the river. The direction of waterflow is guided by the channel. Anthromorphisms? Wrong??
Stephen,
I gave my grounds here] and here].
To speculate that laws of nature could change, is just that: a speculation. To derive from this speculation that laws of nature restrict events is then just as speculative. One could also say that laws of nature are the instruments for the objects in the universe to be causally effective. Without nature’s laws a proton could never attract an electron. The laws of nature are not restrictors, they are enablers! They make atoms possible.
From observation we know that the laws of nature are stable since about 13.6 billion years. What is your observation that they could change?
A dam dictates the volume of waterflow in the river. The direction of waterflow is guided by the channel. Anthromorphisms? Wrong??
Not wrong as long as you see that the language is metaphoric. Is the dam giving orders to the water not to pass? They are definitely anthropomorphisms, and as long as you do not derive metaphysical claims from them there is no problem. But e.g. Stephen does it. Laws of nature restrict nothing. They describe.
A dam dictates the volume of waterflow in the river. The direction of waterflow is guided by the channel. Anthromorphisms? Wrong??
Not wrong as long as you see that the language is metaphoric. Is the dam giving orders to the water not to pass? They are definitely anthropomorphisms, and as long as you do not derive metaphysical claims from them there is no problem. But e.g. Stephen does it. Laws of nature restrict nothing. They describe.
But are you not falling in the same semantic trap? Humans "describe", Nature "functions in specfic ways" which we have described with equations, IMO.
GdB, you seem to have circled around in a semantical rabbit trail, in regards to anthropomorphic terminology, as you yourself, said Laws of Nature have a “character” and that they “describe”, and that Nature “dictates”, and the Laws of Nature are “enablers”. Perhaps it is best to get back on the main trail.
Laws of Nature don’t act. But everything that acts, does so in accordance with them.