From where did the physical laws come?

[JerBear_Meaux]

I am hoping for some help.

From where did the physical laws of the universe come?

Our human reason can see that the laws are filled with reason.

From where did the laws’ reason come and our ability to see their reason?

Thanks!

Our ability to understand the world around us

 

[Jim_Baur]

The logic that the laws of nature manifest were implanted in the laws and us.

A mighty powerful and supreme being or beings seem to be responsible.

 

[504Katrin]

Creating the universe must have been a cakewalk in comparison to creating the physical laws. In the begining there was nothing. Now looking at that nothingness, how do you create left and right??

 

[joe370]

I am hoping for some help.

From where did the physical laws of the universe come?

Our human reason can see that the laws are filled with reason.

From where did the laws’ reason come and our ability to see their reason?

Thanks!

The quick answer: God. Probably, the smartest man that ever lived had this to say:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Albert Einstein

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” Albert Einstein

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

“When the solution is simple, God is answering.” Albert Einstein

“God does not play dice with the universe.” Albert Einstein

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” Albert Einstein

 

[Bobby_Jim]

There have been a number of attempts to answer conclusively this non-trivial question. From an atheist perspective perhaps the best known is V. Stengler’s book Where Do The Laws Of Physics Come From? (Prometheus Books, 2006).

My favourite is Paul Davies’ study which can be found here: scribd.com/doc/6436157/Where-Do-the-Laws-of-Physics-Come-From. From a physicist’s point of view, he analyses what could possibly be meant by the question. Though he does not recommend theistic interpretations, he does not ignore or disparage them. The conclusion from his Conclusion:

(I)n the end it may be necessary to concede that the questions have no answers because they are ultimately meaningless. The entire discussion – indeed, the entire scientific enterprise – is predicated on concepts and modes of thought that are the product of biological evolution. The Darwinian processes that built our minds compel us to address issues of cause and effect, space and time, mind and matter, logic and rationality, physics and metaphysics in certain well-defined ways. Both religion and science proceed from these universal human categories and we seem bound to seek explanations within their confines. It may well be that “explanation” couched in these ancient modes of thought will inevitably fail to encompass the deepest problems of physical existence and leave us facing irreducible mystery.

Here, of course, one can - or has to - assume that “product of biological evolution” and “Darwinian processes” are expressions that do not exclude a theist interpretation of them. Perhaps his “facing irreducible mystery” can also be seen as an ultimate impetus for faith.

I love it! Means the so-called “physical sciences” are an epiphenomenon of our psychology, and not the other way around!

 

[norain]

I am hoping for some help.

From where did the physical laws of the universe come?

Our human reason can see that the laws are filled with reason.

From where did the laws’ reason come and our ability to see their reason?

Thanks!

Jim,

I think physical laws are the mind of God, or God himself manifest. They are uncaused, and govern all things.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I do BELIEVE that the laws are from God.

I also know that we do not have the answers from pure reason.

Our reason and the logic or reasonableness of the laws were made by some Being!

As a Christian, I believe that Being is God and He revealed His longing, desire and love for us in His creation.

 

[Viewscreen]

I am hoping for some help.

From where did the physical laws of the universe come?

I didn’t know they had to come from some where.

Our human reason can see that the laws are filled with reason.

I don’t have the faintest clue of what this means. “Filled with reason.” Can you say gravity is “filled with force” or that the speed of light is “filled with quickness”? Seems kind of odd to me.

Reason is, essentially, a description of logical states of affairs: 1+2=3 (and not seventeen). A physical law says nothing logical about itself, only that it “is.” A rhinocerous “is.” That does not make the rhinocerous logical or illogical, just factual.

From where did the laws’ reason come and our ability to see their reason?

Thanks!

From where did your illusory state come, that you linked physical laws with a type of “reason?”

 

[Jim_Baur]

Math is developed by human reason; math is logical and reasonable.

Math is used to describe the physical laws of nature using math’s logical and reasonableness.

Therefore the physical laws of nature manifest reasonableness.

Thus the question: from where did both kinds of reason come?

 

[norain]

Physical laws can be distilled into math.
Math can be distilled into logic.

Take all three and you have the Greek word “Logos”, or reason/rationality, the “word” in John 1. The mind of God, infused in man.

 

[Viewscreen]

Math is developed by human reason; math is logical and reasonable.

Math is used to describe the physical laws of nature using math’s logical and reasonableness.

Therefore the physical laws of nature manifest reasonableness.

Thus the question: from where did both kinds of reason come?

Your question still seems meaningless in my eyes. Or at least, there is no reason to raise it. I’m not saying its a “stupid question” - it just seems superfluous and without a real answer. It’s like asking “why is water wet?” You can say it’s because of the molecules being a certain way, but then you can also continue questioning and ask “well, why does the molecules being a certain way cause water to have the quality of wetness” - and eventually you don’t reach any sort of conclusion, beyond the simple fact that that is the way things are and could not be conceivably different.

You say that physical laws “manifest” reasonableness because they can be parsed through mathematical means. And sure, I’m not denying that. I’m not denying that the essential description of a law can be rendered into theorems and what not; various inferences and conclusions can be drawn based off their observation. But that doesn’t make the laws THEMSELVES reasonable: only susceptible to a reasonable interpretation or practical usage.

Beyond that, again; the laws simply are. They are only factual, not logical.

 

[norain]

I don’t get your point, Viewscreen. The laws are factual precisely because they are logical and consistent with what is observable, as well as other laws.

There are no absolute truths. Okay, except that there are no absolute truths

 

[Viewscreen]

I don’t get your point, Viewscreen. The laws are factual precisely because they are logical and consistent with what is observable, as well as other laws.

No, the laws are factual merely because they are observed in repeatable terms within nature. That’s all. Where you get “logical” or “consistent” out of this, surpasses me. A law only has to be consistent with itself, not some higher “logos” or “reason.” At least, I see no reason for why it should.

There are no absolute truths. Okay, except that there are no absolute truths

How am I denying the existence of absolute truths?

 

[norain]

No, the laws are factual merely because they are observed in repeatable terms within nature. That’s all
…
How am I denying the existence of absolute truths?

first part:
If a law repeats in nature, that simply means it is consistent with nature.

second part:
I didn’t say you deny it. In fact, it seems you suggested it.

 

[Viewscreen]

first part:
If a law repeats in nature, that simply means it is consistent with nature.

Alright. I see. Yes, I understand now. There is no incompatibility you mean between nature and that given law. I must have thought you meant something else. My bad.

 

[norain]

Viewscreen,

In Hawking/Mlodinov’s The Grand Design, they discuss something they called “model-dependent realism”. Rather than try to explain it to you here, you may start off reading it in Wikipedia, and perhaps borrow the book if you care to read further.

I don’t always agree with Hawking, but he is an excellent resource overall.

 

[joe370]

I am hoping for some help.

From where did the physical laws of the universe come?

Our human reason can see that the laws are filled with reason.

From where did the laws’ reason come and our ability to see their reason?

Thanks!

Our creator (God) who is eternal, and therefore existed before time and space. Logically nothing else makes any sense, to me anyway. The idea that the universe had no beginning, and that those laws are infinite and never-ending makes no sense logically or mathematically.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Concerning the metaphor with water and wet, we know from where the wet comes.

However, the pure scientist does not know from where the physical laws come. Nor does she know from where the human reason comes.

I believe that the physical laws are interpreted by reason’s creation of math and science, but that the nature of those laws transcend the physical world. This is a personal and scientic belief.

As a Catholic, I believe that they were created by God; this belief is not science but makes great use of it.

Blessings

 

[norain]

The strange thing about physical laws is that they require no creator. They are formless and timeless, so it wouldn’t be wrong to say they have always existed, or postulate different ones for different realities.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am hoping for some help.

From where did the physical laws of the universe come?

I think it may help in first looking at what the [known] fundamental forces are. Many of the other laws physics can be inferred from and are consequences of these fundamental forces. For example, with an understanding of gravity and F=ma (you can use Newtonian or relativistic models for many scenarios) you can work your way to laws in orbital mechanics. Add to this an understanding of electrostatic interactions and you can begin to infer friction and some amount of aerodynamics. Many of the more complex physical “laws” emerge from interactions of these small number of fundamental forces over a high quantity of interacting matter.

While that won’t give you a complete answer to your question I think it does contribute towards further simplifying what you are considering.