From where did all the physical laws come?

[Jim_Baur]

From where did all the physical laws come?

Also, to what degree is there agreement among all of the different schools of philosophy?

To what degree do the schools of science agree?

To what do degree do the schools of science agree with the schools of philosophy?

I do not wish to discuss, but would like to hear the different views.

Thanks!

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

The physical laws came,and still comes,from the need to control certain things. Laws is the key element to a organized state or country. Some laws are direct from the religious (Thou shall not kill) rules,some from the need to protect people and some to make the life fair. Rules has always been important,and are so still. One can debate about the need for some of them,but basically they serve us all. I would suggest that you read all five books about Moses. There you will find many interesting things about how religious rules becomes in the end physical. There are also lot of good books about law as it was thousands of years ago and what they are today. One thing is however clear,to maintain a organized system laws are the only way to do so. I wish you many interesting moments of discovery about laws. God bless you.

 

[tonyrey]

From where did all the physical laws come?

If you mean the laws of nature opinions differ. Theists believe they were created by God whereas non-theists believe they just exist for no reason.

Also, to what degree is there agreement among all of the different schools of philosophy?

Very little, although most philosophers agree that total scepticism and solipsism are both untenable views.

To what degree do the schools of science agree?

There is far more agreement in science than philosophy but opinions differ with regard to subjects like determinism and evolution.

To what degree do the schools of science agree with the schools of philosophy?

Philosophy and science are concerned with different aspects of knowledge.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

Sorry. I misunderstood the question. I thought you was meaning the laws that uphold the infrastructure. (Boy do I feel stupid)

 

[Jim_Baur]

This is a quote tonyrey.

I did not use the quote function properly, sorry.

“If you mean the laws of nature opinions differ. Theists believe they were created by God whereas non-theists believe they just exist for no reason.”

Yes I do mean the laws of nature.

non-theists believe they just exist for no reason–Is this chance?

Thanks!

 

[tonyrey]

This is a quote tonyrey.

I did not use the quote function properly, sorry.

“If you mean the laws of nature opinions differ. Theists believe they were created by God whereas non-theists believe they just exist for no reason.”

Yes I do mean the laws of nature.

non-theists believe they just exist for no reason–Is this chance?

Thanks!

If they neither caused nor designed they must be due to chance.

 

[Jim_Baur]

That is my understanding, too.

But is that what they say?

 

[mellestad]

That is my understanding, too.

But is that what they say?

No. This is straight from the atheists mouth, as it were:

Materialists would state that they don’t know why the laws of nature are what they are.

Since we can’t observe what existed before (if before means anything in this context) our universe, speculation is outside of our reference frame. It would be like a person trapped inside a steel box with no tools trying to figure out what was outside the box. No matter how hard they try, they won’t figure it out because they can’t observe anything but what is inside their box.

That isn’t to say scientists and laypeople don’t speculate, but dualistic theists are the only people who claim to know why reality exists. Even if we figure out every detail of every action in this universe, and figure out how to create universes, we’d still likely be stuck with why and how that process works. Who knows, maybe someday there will be an epiphany that gives us new perspective?

Decent article: scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/04/15/where-do-the-laws-of-nature-come-from/

 

[abucs]

Like the founders of Western science i believe that the physical laws, at their base, were created and are sustained by God.

 

[tonyrey]

No. This is straight from the atheists mouth, as it were:

It would be more accurate to state that materialists would state that they don’t know how the laws of nature are what they are because they rule out the possibility of purpose. “why” doesn’t fit their scheme of purposeless things.

Since we can’t observe what existed before (if before means anything in this context) our universe, speculation is outside of our reference frame. It would be like a person trapped inside a steel box with no tools trying to figure out what was outside the box. No matter how hard they try, they won’t figure it out because they can’t observe anything but what is inside their box.

That is why materialists are unjustified in dogmatically stating that everything is derived from matter!

That isn’t to say scientists and laypeople don’t speculate, but dualistic theists are the only people who claim to know why reality exists.

Theist don’t **know **why reality exists; we believe it is absurd to attempt to derive purpose from that which is purposeless and that existence is essentially purposeful.

Even if we figure out every detail of every action in this universe, and figure out how to create universes, we’d still likely be stuck with why and how that process works. Who knows, maybe someday there will be an epiphany that gives us new perspective?

Yes - with the proviso that you rule out one that is not materialistic!

 

[mellestad]

It would be more accurate to state that materialists would state that they don’t know how the laws of nature are what they are because they rule out the possibility of purpose. “why” doesn’t fit their scheme of purposeless things.

That is why materialists are unjustified in dogmatically stating that everything is derived from matter!

Theist don’t **know **why reality exists; we believe it is absurd to attempt to derive purpose from that which is purposeless and that existence is essentially purposeful.
Yes - with the proviso that you rule out one that is not materialistic!

Sigh I’m glad you seem to know more about what I think than I do.

You are sort of correct in your first paragraph. There is no why, only how. Having said that, materialists do not “rule out the possibility of purpose” we say that we’ve seen no evidence for anything non-material, or evidence of “objective” purpose so we operate as though none exists. If someone could figure out how to demonstrate such a thing exists, that would be fine.

Same response to your line about, “dogmatically stating everything is derived from matter”. It isn’t dogmatic, it is operating under probable assumptions. If someone can make a coherent statement about what, exactly, the immaterial is and why it is necessary and how we can demonstrate that it exists, great.

I’m confused about the last two paragraphs. One seems to be claiming theists don’t claim to know why reality exists, combined with an insult about why materialists are silly for not killing themselves? I don’t know, maybe you mean something else?

Then then last line is just the same insult about being dogmatic. shrug OK.​

Honestly though, do you really want to drag this through the mud, or can you just trust me that my response to the OP was meant to give him the answer he asked for, and stop with the sniping? I’m sure there are plenty of materialists on the board who’d be happy to bicker with you about whether or not materialism is right if that’s what you want.

But that isn’t what the OP asked, he asked what a materialist believed.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am the OP.

I am reading and thinking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you!

 

[tonyrey]

You are sort of correct in your first paragraph. There is no why, only how. Having said that, materialists do not “rule out the possibility of purpose” we say that we’ve seen no evidence for anything non-material, or evidence of “objective” purpose so we operate as though none exists. If someone could figure out how to demonstrate such a thing exists, that would be fine.

Do you think your thoughts and decisions are material? Do you behave as if there are no objective purposes in life?

Same response to your line about, “dogmatically stating everything is derived from matter”. It isn’t dogmatic, it is operating under probable assumptions. If someone can make a coherent statement about what, exactly, the immaterial is and why it is necessary and how we can demonstrate that it exists, great.

What makes you assume the material world is the sole reality? All our knowledge is based on what we think, feel and perceive. We infer that material objects exist but we have **direct knowledge **of what occurs in our mind - which is immaterial.

Theist don’t **know **

why reality exists; we believe it is absurd to attempt to derive purpose from that which is purposeless and that existence is essentially purposeful.
Yes - with the proviso that you rule out one that is not materialistic!
I’m confused about the last two paragraphs. One seems to be claiming theists don’t claim to know why reality exists, combined with an insult about why materialists are silly for not killing themselves? I don’t know, maybe you mean something else?

The** belief **that existence is ultimately purposeless has nothing whatsoever to do with killing oneself! The “insult” is imaginary…

No one **knows **why reality exists.

 

[mellestad]

Do you think your thoughts and decisions are material? Do you behave as if there are no objective purposes in life?

What makes you assume the material world is the sole reality? All our knowledge is based on what we think, feel and perceive. We infer that material objects exist but we have **direct knowledge **of what occurs in our mind - which is immaterial.

The** belief **that existence is ultimately purposeless has nothing whatsoever to do with killing oneself! The “insult” is imaginary…

No one **knows **why reality exists.

Well, no-one has ever had a ‘thought’ without a brain, so I don’t have any reason to think they are anything but material.

Again, I ‘assume’ reality is only material because that is all anyone has ever observed. The whole concept of immaterial isn’t coherent anyway, or at least I’ve never seen it described in any way that makes sense.

I agree, no-one knows why reality exists.

 

[tonyrey]

*Do you think your thoughts and decisions are material? Do you behave as if there are no objective purposes in life?

How do you know that no one has ever had a thought without a brain? You can see brains but can you see thoughts?
All we **know **is that thoughts are associated with, but not dependent on, brains.

Again, I ‘assume’ reality is only material because that is all anyone has ever observed.

Do you mean “observed with the senses”? If so can you observe yourself, truth, freedom, justice and love?

The whole concept of immaterial isn’t coherent anyway, or at least I’ve never seen it described in any way that makes sense.

How would you establish that all that exists is material - that matter is the sole reality? Would your attempt at proof be material?

I agree, no-one knows why reality exists.

That is why we cannot afford to be dogmatic about the nature of reality.

 

[mellestad]

How do you know that no one has ever had a thought without a brain? You can see brains but can you see thoughts?
All we **know **is that thoughts are associated with, but not dependent on, brains.

Do you mean “observed with the senses”? If so can you observe yourself, truth, freedom, justice and love?
How would you establish that all that exists is material - that matter is the sole reality? Would your attempt at proof be material?
That is why we cannot afford to be dogmatic about the nature of reality.

Well, if someone can demonstrate a thought without a brain then I’ll pay attention to the idea. Until then I don’t see any reason to do so, since operating under the idea that the brain is responsible for thought seems to work quite nicely. Actually, if there is even a smidge of evidence then I’ll start considering the idea, but there isn’t, all there are is gaps in what we understand, that decrease by the day, and those gaps are filled with dualism for those who are proponents of the idea. But dualism doesn’t solve anything and it is not falsifiable since it is based on gaps in knowledge rather than any actual hypothesis that can be tested. So, I don’t know our minds need brains, but I’m 99.99999% sure that is the case. I’m willing to entertain alternate ideas though.

Well, freedom and justice are concepts we create with our minds, sometimes based on the emotional reactions we have and the intellectual framework we create. Love is a biochemical reaction, an emotion and it is observable.

As to your last point, again, unless something immaterial can be shown to exist I have no reason to seriously consider the prospect. Being rational is about operating on the best information you have available and right now materialism is the best information I have available. If someone can point to an immaterial thing (whatever that means) I’d be happy to entertain the idea.

The only interesting arguments for the immaterial that I’m aware of are arguments about the nature of fundamental logical ‘laws’, but those boil down to “I don’t know”. Some people hit that wall and choose to say, “God”, but that seems dishonest to me because it is an unfalsifiable argument that labels our ignorance as a deity. shrug

I agree we shouldn’t be dogmatic about anything, but I don’t see why we should fill every unknown in our universe by hand-waving in a random mystical concept from our particular culture. It might make us feel better, but it doesn’t actually solve anything or predict anything…it’s just plugging a gap with an assumption until the gap gets plugged by something real, then we move on to the next gap.

As humans, we’ve gone from explaining almost everything with magic to explaining almost nothing with magic (well, there are still people who explain everything with magic, but most people don’t), only now the ideas explained by magic are usually couched in terms that can’t be disproved. I just don’t see the point (well, I do, but I don’t see the point if you’re interested in investigating reality).

If someone ever manages to prove dualism I’ll be thrilled, who doesn’t want to be immortal? If someone ever manages to prove their particular version of deity/afterlife/rules/whatever is real, I’ll be the first in line to do whatever it is that deity wants me to do, I’m not proud. Until that happens though I’m going to live following assumptions that best match the reality I observe using the tools I and others have.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, if someone can demonstrate a thought without a brain then I’ll pay attention to the idea. Until then I don’t see any reason to do so, since operating under the idea that the brain is responsible for thought seems to work quite nicely.

The brain cannot be responsible for anything, let alone thoughts, because it is a lump of tissue in the skull that functions according to biochemical laws. Consequently according to you you have no choice about what to believe or whether to pay attention. “you” don’t even exist! There is just a brain producing messages to a body without knowing what it is doing…

Actually, if there is even a smidge of evidence then I’ll start considering the idea, but there isn’t, all there are is gaps in what we understand, that decrease by the day, and those gaps are filled with dualism for those who are proponents of the idea.

There no gaps for the materialist because materialism is one big gap! It explains nothing about the most important facts of life - such as truth, goodness, freedom and love.

But dualism doesn’t solve anything and it is not falsifiable since it is based on gaps in knowledge rather than any actual hypothesis that can be tested. So, I don’t know our minds need brains, but I’m 99.99999% sure that is the case. I’m willing to entertain alternate ideas though.

Your estimate of probability is worthless because it is based on the assumption that you are a rational being which is contradicted by your assumption that you are merely a biological machine responding to physical stimuli solely in order to survive…

Well, freedom and justice are concepts we create with our minds, sometimes based on the emotional reactions we have and the intellectual framework we create. Love is a biochemical reaction, an emotion and it is observable.

What about truth? Is that created by the brain as well? (According to you there are no minds but only brains!)

As to your last point, again, unless something immaterial can be shown to exist I have no reason to seriously consider the prospect.

What is truth then? Can you tell us where it is located?

Being rational is about operating on the best information you have available and right now materialism is the best information I have available. If someone can point to an immaterial thing (whatever that means) I’d be happy to entertain the idea.

You are obviously unaware that materialism is an **immaterial **theory! Or can you explain it in material terms?

The only interesting arguments for the immaterial that I’m aware of are arguments about the nature of fundamental logical ‘laws’, but those boil down to “I don’t know”. Some people hit that wall and choose to say, “God”, but that seems dishonest to me because it is an unfalsifiable argument that labels our ignorance as a deity.

I’m afraid you’re not entitled to use the term “dishonest” because that is not a material object!

I agree we shouldn’t be dogmatic about anything, but I don’t see why we should fill every unknown in our universe by hand-waving in a random mystical concept from our particular culture. It might make us feel better, but it doesn’t actually solve anything or predict anything…it’s just plugging a gap with an assumption until the gap gets plugged by something real, then we move on to the next gap.

You obviously prefer a random magical (and immaterial!) concept of matter which is ultimately responsible for everything including your ability to derive everything from matter. Hey! You’re going around in circles…

As humans, we’ve gone from explaining almost everything with magic to explaining almost nothing with magic (well, there are still people who explain everything with magic, but most people don’t), only now the ideas explained by magic are usually couched in terms that can’t be disproved. I just don’t see the point (well, I do, but I don’t see the point if you’re interested in investigating reality).

Your version of materialist magic claims to be able in due course to explain everything. The only problem is that you haven’t explained how irrational, purposeless particles have produced rational, purposeful persons… Of course, if you don’t believe such beings exist you’re contradicting yourself because you claim to be rational.

If someone ever manages to prove dualism I’ll be thrilled, who doesn’t want to be immortal?

There are serious disadvantages - especially if you want to have everything your own way…

If someone ever manages to prove their particular version of deity/afterlife/rules/whatever is real, I’ll be the first in line to do whatever it is that deity wants me to do, I’m not proud.

The fact is that now you’re absolutely free to do whatever you like. So you have everything to lose!

Until that happens though I’m going to live following assumptions that best match the reality I observe using the tools I and others have.

In other words you can choose what form of reality you find most convenient!

 

[PJM]

From where did all the physical laws come?

Also, to what degree is there agreement among all of the different schools of philosophy?

To what degree do the schools of science agree?

To what do degree do the schools of science agree with the schools of philosophy?

I do not wish to discuss, but would like to hear the different views.

Thanks!

DARN I wish I had thought to ask this question!

WELL DONE!

I just signed off another site, were an “Anogostic Scientist” spoke of a “Third Way.” Meaning there is the school of “religious thought;” the school of scientific thought"; and now the “third way.”

A “scientific understanding” that there DOES Exist a “force” [unidentifed yet], that is causing certians things to happen or to be in existence. [My understanding of that post].BUT that “science now holds that everything” has [must have implied] a “materialistic underpinning.”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[mellestad]

The brain cannot be responsible for anything, let alone thoughts, because it is a lump of tissue in the skull that functions according to biochemical laws. Consequently according to you you have no choice about what to believe or whether to pay attention. “you” don’t even exist! There is just a brain producing messages to a body without knowing what it is doing…

Well, it can be responsible in as much as any physical thing causes another physical thing to do something. By this reasoning gravity does not cause water to flow downhill, but that seems like an odd stance to take.

As for the second point, I agree, ‘true’ free will is an illusion. That is a bit simplistic though, since our minds are complex enough that , for the foreseeable future, we might as well act like we have free will.

But indeed, our physical state is responsible for our behaviors. If I chemically influence a brain, it will behave differently. I can even hit certain parts of your brain with intense magnetic fields and turn partially disable your ability to make moral decisions. Cool stuff!

tonyrey:

There no gaps for the materialist because materialism is one big gap! It explains nothing about the most important facts of life - such as truth, goodness, freedom and love.

I don’t have any problem explaining any of those so I guess I’m confused as to what your claim is?

tonyrey:

Your estimate of probability is worthless because it is based on the assumption that you are a rational being which is contradicted by your assumption that you are merely a biological machine responding to physical stimuli solely in order to survive…

Why? That seems like saying a computer can’t do math because it is just a machine.

tonyrey:

What about truth? Is that created by the brain as well? (According to you there are no minds but only brains!)

Depends on what you mean by truth. I would call truth ‘reality’. We interpret reality as best we can, and things that are consistent we label as ‘truth’. I’m aware that my perceptions may be flawed, and often are, but that is why I try to rely on things like the scientific method to analyze reality. We can’t even know anything ‘100%’ but we can do the best we can.

Our conscious thoughts are a product of our brains, if that is what you mean.

tonyrey:

What is truth then? Can you tell us where it is located?

As above. Truth is a label, not a thing, unless by truth you simply mean reality, in which case it is everywhere and the only question is our ability to perceive it.

tonyrey:

You are obviously unaware that materialism is an **immaterial **theory! Or can you explain it in material terms?

Thoughts seem to be material, and materialism is a thought.

The alternative is that there is an immaterial ‘thing’ called ‘materialism’ that ‘exists’ without ‘existing’ and we, I don’t know, channel it somehow from the immaterial ‘aether’ into our material world using a material/immaterial bridge that seems to be located in our brains. That theory doesn’t explain anything, it just makes an assumption that leads to a lot of questions.

tonyrey:

I’m afraid you’re not entitled to use the term “dishonest” because that is not a material object!

Now you’re just being silly. I’m not disrespecting your views, I’d appreciate the same courtesy.

tonyrey:

You obviously prefer a random magical (and immaterial!) concept of matter which is ultimately responsible for everything including your ability to derive everything from matter. Hey! You’re going around in circles…

I don’t follow. Could you elaborate on which part of this is magical? And again, the tone isn’t helpful. I can play that game if you want but I’d rather not because it isn’t my style when I’m honestly trying to discuss something.

tonyrey:

Your version of materialist magic claims to be able in due course to explain everything. The only problem is that you haven’t explained how irrational, purposeless particles have produced rational, purposeful persons… Of course, if you don’t believe such beings exist you’re contradicting yourself because you claim to be rational.

I am under no illusions that we will explain everything. Indeed, in many discussions I acknowledge that some things, such as why logic exists, or the root of reality might not be knowable due to our perspective. All I can observe is what I can observe, I’m not scared of telling you I don’t know things that might not be possible to know.

tonyrey:

There are serious disadvantages - especially if you want to have everything your own way…

Why? Christianity is an easy religion, some branches more than others. Trivially easy, if the outcome is eternal reward. I would have no reason not to be a theist. Some theistic ideas are far more difficult to adhere to, but Christianity isn’t one of those.

tonyrey:

The fact is that now you’re absolutely free to do whatever you like. So you have everything to lose!

Sorry, I don’t follow this. Could you elaborate?

 

[mellestad]

tonyrey:

In other words you can choose what form of reality you find most convenient!

Convenient? I’m not sure I would agree with that. It would have been far more ‘convenient’ for me to never have left my religion. I was already baptized, so all I had to do was keep doing everything I do now and perform some occasional rituals. You can’t get more convenient than that. Well, you can, but I wasn’t taught to believe in the religions that have an even easier path to the afterlife. So on a scale of 1-10 I’d rate my birth religion a 4.

Maybe the claim would be that if it was even easier, if I was in a more liberal theism that thought everyone made it to a good afterlife I wouldn’t have strayed? I can’t answer that, if that were the case I wouldn’t be me and so I can’t speculate on the outcome of the not-me. Certainly as a youngster I was terrified of hell.

Now I have the extra work of formulating my own morality and being wholly responsible for the life I have, which is the only life I’ll get. That can be a heavy thing. My heaven and hell are of my own making, or more worrisome, the result of things outside my control.