The nature of natural law

Philosophy
41
To speculate that laws of nature could change, is just that: a speculation.
GdB, if you think past regularities must continue because they couldn't change, you are a type of necessitarian re natural laws. And this is your solution to the problem of induction. You don't expect past regularities to change because you think you are justified in thinking they can't. I agree b.t.w.
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?
What does it even mean to say regularities which have been stable for 13.6 billion years could not change? They could change meaning it's logically possible. So what restricts the logically possible from being actually?
42

Mathematics?

43

Mathematics is the language of description, not prescription. The laws of nature do not prescribe, but describe, events. As Norman Swartz has argued, the idea of “laws” of nature is a hangover of the theistic idea of a law giver. Dispense with the law giver, and we can dispense with the laws.

44
Mathematics is the language of description, not prescription. The laws of nature do not prescribe, but describe, events. As Norman Swartz has argued, the idea of "laws" of nature is a hangover of the theistic idea of a law giver. Dispense with the law giver, and we can dispense with the laws.
But the mathematics describes what? Not merely what does happen since we couldn't apply the maths in any way.
45
Mathematics is the language of description, not prescription. The laws of nature do not prescribe, but describe, events. As Norman Swartz has argued, the idea of "laws" of nature is a hangover of the theistic idea of a law giver. Dispense with the law giver, and we can dispense with the laws.
But the mathematics describes what? Not merely what does happen since we couldn't apply the maths in any way. I don't understand what you mean by this. Certainly, the maths do describe what happens. What else could they do? It is observed that light always travels at velocity c in a vacuum. From this we can derive special and general relativity and E=mc2 and so on. But does light obey a law that says it must travel at c? Are there cosmic gendarmes to enforce this law if light gets uppity and decides it wants to travel slower or faster than c?
46
Mathematics is the language of description, not prescription. The laws of nature do not prescribe, but describe, events. As Norman Swartz has argued, the idea of "laws" of nature is a hangover of the theistic idea of a law giver. Dispense with the law giver, and we can dispense with the laws.
And what analogy would you use instead? Are there no mathematical laws in universal mathematics? I understand that how we write the equations (descriptions) of these laws is for our convenience. But regardless of "old days", I don't visualize a mathematician who made these laws. They are inherent in the mathematical fabric of spacetime, IMO.
47
don't understand what you mean by this. Certainly, the maths do describe what happens. What else could they do?
It describes what would happen if.. too. And imagine mathematics describing what happens in one case but not in others. So sometimes light travels at one speed and sometimes others and there was no pattern to it. Then there would be no laws of nature.
But does light obey a law that says it must travel at c? Are there cosmic gendarmes to enforce this law if light gets uppity and decides it wants to travel slower or faster than c?
If light can travel at different speeds then it's almost certainly just the case that although it hasn't yet, it will do. So I think it does it because it has to.
48
Mathematics is the language of description, not prescription. The laws of nature do not prescribe, but describe, events. As Norman Swartz has argued, the idea of "laws" of nature is a hangover of the theistic idea of a law giver. Dispense with the law giver, and we can dispense with the laws.
But the mathematics describes what? Not merely what does happen since we couldn't apply the maths in any way. I don't understand what you mean by this. Certainly, the maths do describe what happens. What else could they do? IMO, they describe the way nature functions. These laws existed before man was able to observe them, and in potential form perhaps even before the universe itself.
It is observed that light always travels at velocity c in a vacuum. From this we can derive special and general relativity and E=mc2 and so on. But does light obey a law that says it must travel at c? Are there cosmic gendarmes to enforce this law if light gets uppity and decides it wants to travel slower or faster than c?
Yes, but light does not necessarily travel at "c" in a medium other than a pure vacuum (in theory). We may never have observed the actual speed of light at all. Have we ever observed a true vacuum? I understand that there is no such thing as mediumless vacuum in this universe. Perhaps photons cannot exist in a pure vacuum? How would we know? But, IMO, your question why light travels @ c may rest with the ability of reality to become manifest. It occurred to me that quantum events require an amount of time and as a photon is a massless quanta of energy it is impossible to travel faster than "c" and still obey the laws of QM and GR, as we know them to be. Superluminal quanta cannot exist in our dimensions.
Most physicists think that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics.[3][4] If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon We are only observers and any equations are derived from our observation and translation into our mathematical "language". We don't make the laws, we only convert them into mathematical symbols for our use. The Universe acts, we observe and write down what we think we see. But the Universe doesn't give a hoot what language we use. 5 = fingers on one hand, 5 beads on an abacus, a 5 dollar bill, 5 meters, 5 feet, etc. IMO, as a retired bookkeeper, I believe our language of mathematics is the most sophisticated and uniform of any other language. I also think the US should adopt the metric system as the practical standard for mathematical expression of any measurement.
49
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.
It seems to me that you do not recognise my way of arguing: I want to show Stephen that the idea that laws of nature 'restrict' nature is absurd by showing I could just as well apply an 'active vocabulary' instead of a 'passive'. Laws of nature, as you say, do not act, but they do not restrict either. They are our descriptions how natural kinds] interact, and how systems of them develop in time. Any description that takes anthropomorphism too serious leads to funny kinds of metaphysics: laws of nature do not restrict, they do not force, but they also do not strive ('the gravity of the sun forces planets in elliptical orbits, every system strives for the lowest possible energy). I think Stephen needs these way of seeing laws of nature to make his point that we are victims of past events. But you can see just just as well as active factors in nature. But in fact the laws of nature do no such thing at all: laws of nature just describe what we are doing, as they do with any other process in nature.
50
GdB, if you think past regularities must continue because they couldn't change, you are a type of necessitarian re natural laws. And this is your solution to the problem of induction. You don't expect past regularities to change because you think you are justified in thinking they can't.
No, not justified that they can't. But a fantasy about laws of nature changing is no ground to think they really could, if we know they did not change for 13.6 billion years.
What does it even mean to say regularities which have been stable for 13.6 billion years could not change? They could change meaning it's logically possible. So what restricts the logically possible from being actually?
Physics is not logic, Stephen. It is logically possible that matter suddenly becomes a repulsive force. It is impossible that gravity is repulsive and attractive at the same time. But logically possible does not mean that I must reckon with the possibility that the laws of nature can change in any moment.
51
Mathematics is the language of description, not prescription. The laws of nature do not prescribe, but describe, events. As Norman Swartz has argued, the idea of "laws" of nature is a hangover of the theistic idea of a law giver. Dispense with the law giver, and we can dispense with the laws.
As a note, the Greek word 'logos', as description of ultimate nature, was in Latin translated as 'lex', as the Hebrew word 'thora'. But lex really means law, as human made laws. But logos in this context would be better translated as 'how the world is', it is more like a a kind of 'structured, knowable, tao', with which it is wise to live according it. Heraclitus]:
This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this Logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (DK 22B1) For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the Logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (DK 22B2)
52
don't understand what you mean by this. Certainly, the maths do describe what happens. What else could they do?
It describes what would happen if.. too. And imagine mathematics describing what happens in one case but not in others. So sometimes light travels at one speed and sometimes others and there was no pattern to it. Then there would be no laws of nature.
But does light obey a law that says it must travel at c? Are there cosmic gendarmes to enforce this law if light gets uppity and decides it wants to travel slower or faster than c?
If light can travel at different speeds then it's almost certainly just the case that although it hasn't yet, it will do. So I think it does it because it has to. Suppose that tomorrow, at noon, light stopped traveling at c in a vaccuum, and instead slowed to a crawl: ten miles a minute, for example. How different would the world suddenly look? Are you sure it would look different? A related question might be: Suppose that at noon tomorrow, everything in the universe instantly doubled in size. If that happened, would you know it? How would you know it? You say light "has to" travel at c in a vacuum. But the truth is, everything travels at c! That ray of light, that rock rolling down the hill, you, me, the president of the United States, everyone and everything, travels at c. What a stupid statement! You say. But it all makes sense when you realize that we do not "travel" through space alone. We "travel" through spacetime. The only difference between the ray of light and you and me is this: The photons have all of their velocity through space, and none of it through time. You and I, by contrast, have some of our velocity through space, and some of it through time. But you, me, and the light ray, are all traveling at c. And if light suddenly slowed down or speeded up, nothing would look different. Velocity c is just a convention, an artifact of our coutning system. Another way to look at this is: there is no velocity at all. Everything just is (Parmedides). Light does not move, you do not move, I do not move. We are just static world lines in an existent 4D spacetime. Now someone asks why this is. And if I say, "It's this way because spacetime obeys laws x, y, and z," how have I explained anything? How is this any different from saying, "It's that way, because God did it"? Saying that "the world is the way that it is because it obeys laws x, y, and z," is precisely as explanatorially empty as saying "God did it." As GdB notes, logos = "how the world is," and the introduction of "law" is a corruption, a conflation with human-made laws or the presumption of God-made laws.
53
... Another way to look at this is: there is no velocity at all. Everything just is (Parmedides). Light does not move, you do not move, I do not move. We are just static world lines in an existent 4D spacetime. Now someone asks why this is. And if I say, "It's this way because spacetime obeys laws x, y, and z," how have I explained anything? How is this any different from saying, "It's that way, because God did it"? Saying that "the world is the way that it is because it obeys laws x, y, and z," is precisely as explanatorially empty as saying "God did it." As GdB notes, logos = "how the world is," and the introduction of "law" is a corruption, a conflation with human-made laws or the presumption of God-made laws.
What I bolded above is incoherent. So the rest of the argument falls apart.
54
... Another way to look at this is: there is no velocity at all. Everything just is (Parmedides). Light does not move, you do not move, I do not move. We are just static world lines in an existent 4D spacetime. Now someone asks why this is. And if I say, "It's this way because spacetime obeys laws x, y, and z," how have I explained anything? How is this any different from saying, "It's that way, because God did it"? Saying that "the world is the way that it is because it obeys laws x, y, and z," is precisely as explanatorially empty as saying "God did it." As GdB notes, logos = "how the world is," and the introduction of "law" is a corruption, a conflation with human-made laws or the presumption of God-made laws.
What I bolded above is incoherent. So the rest of the argument falls apart. :lol: I'm sorry, but the above is not incoherent, though I understand the need of many message board posters like you to jump on statements that they do not understand, and attack them. And, even if it were incoherent, or just merely wrong, it does not affect the rest of the argument. It's just an aside. Sorry you can't (or won't, as I think) see this. As to the substance of the statement -- an aside, really, as noted -- you should read, for example, the physicist Max Tegmark. He notes that the world can be described at two levels: The frog view, and the bird view. The frog view is of those embedded in spacetime, wherein motion and change seem real. The bird view is the mathematical view "outside of" spacetime, where everything just IS -- as Parmenides intuited some 2,000 years ago. I would also suggest you consult the writings of Julian Barbour and Vasselin Petkov. But, you won't. Thanks for trolling! :lol:
55

Relatvity, Dimensionality, and Existence]
From the above-linked paper by Vesselin Petkov:

In the section ‘Definition of Simultaneity’ of his 1905 paper Einstein discussed the introduction of a common time at two distant points A and B: “We have not defined a common ‘time’ for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ‘time’ required by light to travel from A to B equals the ‘time’ it requires to travel from B to A" [37, p. 40]. This conclusion is a result of a deep analysis and shows that Einstein had re-discovered, after Poincar e,9 the unavoidable conventionality in determining the one-way velocity of light and the simultaneity of distant events. However, that conclusion raises the obvious question “How can the one-way velocity of light be a matter of definition (convention), whereas it appears to be self-evident that in reality the back and forth velocities of light are either the same or not the same?" Had Einstein pursued further his analysis he would have most probably arrived at the conclusion that the impossibility to determine the one-way velocity of light had a profound reason – reality is a four-dimensional world in which light (and anything else) does not travel at all since the whole history of a light signal is entirely realized in the (forever given) light signal’s worldline.
Bold mine. Now, whether you agree or disagree with the above, it is certainly not "incoherent," though you need to read the whole linked paper to understand why it is not. Also, as noted, it was an aside to my main point; but trolls always jump on what they think is the weak link in an argument, because they have nothing of substance to say on their own.
56
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.
It seems to me that you do not recognise my way of arguing: I want to show Stephen that the idea that laws of nature 'restrict' nature is absurd by showing I could just as well apply an 'active vocabulary' instead of a 'passive'. Laws of nature, as you say, do not act, but they do not restrict either. They are our descriptions how natural kinds] interact, and how systems of them develop in time. Any description that takes anthropomorphism too serious leads to funny kinds of metaphysics: laws of nature do not restrict, they do not force, but they also do not strive ('the gravity of the sun forces planets in elliptical orbits, every system strives for the lowest possible energy). I agree with Tim on his last sentence. I also agree there is a danger in semantics, but we are stuck with it due to the variety of phonetic languages and their inherent limitations. The most often used term in describing nature is from the "point of the observer", which of course is a metaphor itself. We can only "speak" allegorically, unless we use the universal language of mathematics which removes the subjective element but requires in-depth knowledge of mathematics. The problem with philosophy is that while it rests on logic (and maths), our limited ability to verbalize "conditions and functions" corrupts the clarity of the proposition. The term "god" is a perfect example of the "confounding of languages". No one knows exactly what is meant by the term as in every culture the word God(s) means a different thing. I checked out Parmenides and the first thing he mentions is a "goddess", at which point I stopped reading to figure out why he used a female god instead of a male god. Was there some inherent functional difference between a female god and a male god which would clarify the metaphor?
57
... Another way to look at this is: there is no velocity at all. Everything just is (Parmedides). Light does not move, you do not move, I do not move. We are just static world lines in an existent 4D spacetime. Now someone asks why this is. And if I say, "It's this way because spacetime obeys laws x, y, and z," how have I explained anything? How is this any different from saying, "It's that way, because God did it"? Saying that "the world is the way that it is because it obeys laws x, y, and z," is precisely as explanatorially empty as saying "God did it." As GdB notes, logos = "how the world is," and the introduction of "law" is a corruption, a conflation with human-made laws or the presumption of God-made laws.
What I bolded above is incoherent. So the rest of the argument falls apart. :lol: I'm sorry, but the above is not incoherent, though I understand the need of many message board posters like you to jump on statements that they do not understand, and attack them. And, even if it were incoherent, or just merely wrong, it does not affect the rest of the argument. It's just an aside. Sorry you can't (or won't, as I think) see this. As to the substance of the statement -- an aside, really, as noted -- you should read, for example, the physicist Max Tegmark. He notes that the world can be described at two levels: The frog view, and the bird view. The frog view is of those embedded in spacetime, wherein motion and change seem real. The bird view is the mathematical view "outside of" spacetime, where everything just IS -- as Parmenides intuited some 2,000 years ago. I would also suggest you consult the writings of Julian Barbour and Vasselin Petkov. But, you won't. Thanks for trolling! :lol: You may be projecting trollishness on to me, Pec. What is incoherent, is not whether it is scientifically, or mathematically supportable. AFAIK, it may be. It is an incoherent stance from which to operate in the world as we perceive it.
58
Relatvity, Dimensionality, and Existence] From the above-linked paper by Vesselin Petkov:
In the section ‘Definition of Simultaneity’ of his 1905 paper Einstein discussed the introduction of a common time at two distant points A and B: “We have not defined a common ‘time’ for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ‘time’ required by light to travel from A to B equals the ‘time’ it requires to travel from B to A" [37, p. 40]. This conclusion is a result of a deep analysis and shows that Einstein had re-discovered, after Poincar e,9 the unavoidable conventionality in determining the one-way velocity of light and the simultaneity of distant events. However, that conclusion raises the obvious question “How can the one-way velocity of light be a matter of definition (convention), whereas it appears to be self-evident that in reality the back and forth velocities of light are either the same or not the same?" Had Einstein pursued further his analysis he would have most probably arrived at the conclusion that the impossibility to determine the one-way velocity of light had a profound reason – reality is a four-dimensional world in which light (and anything else) does not travel at all since the whole history of a light signal is entirely realized in the (forever given) light signal’s worldline.
Bold mine. Now, whether you agree or disagree with the above, it is certainly not "incoherent," though you need to read the whole linked paper to understand why it is not. Also, as noted, it was an aside to my main point; but trolls always jump on what they think is the weak link in an argument, because they have nothing of substance to say on their own.
Are you a proponent of the DeBroglie-Bohm "pilot wave" theory?
59
... there is no velocity at all. Everything just is (Parmedides). Light does not move, you do not move, I do not move. We are just static world lines in an existent 4D spacetime.
What I bolded above is incoherent. So the rest of the argument falls apart. Why would it be incoherent? It could be nonsense, it could be true, you can disagree with it, but why incoherent?
60
I agree with Tim on his last sentence.
I do too.
I also agree there is a danger in semantics, but we are stuck with it due to the variety of phonetic languages and their inherent limitations. The most often used term in describing nature is from the "point of the observer", which of course is a metaphor itself. We can only "speak" allegorically, unless we use the universal language of mathematics which removes the subjective element but requires in-depth knowledge of mathematics.
Yes, it might be nearly impossible to speak about reality without metaphors, or you must express yourself very clumsy ('if a system is in a certain state then its followup state will have less energy', instead of 'the system strives to lower its energy'; or something like that). In general physicists don't have to bother about it, they know what is meant and normally are not in danger of anthropomorphising nature. But when people turn 'metaphysical' they must realise this anthropomorphic character of such language. It is not too difficult, but in certain cases the spell of the language is strong, as we see here with the free will problem. There is no way that the laws of nature force us to do something, the laws of nature just describe what I am doing. Once you really see this, the appeal of thinking that 'it is obvious that determinism contradicts free will' evaporates.