Happy Christmas: Do physical laws have to exist?

[MindOverMatter2]

If physical laws are only as real as the potential physical realities that embody them, then certainly it must be the case that physical laws are created by something that intended them to be that way, since potential beings or future states by definition receive reality, thus they are not real of their own accord. Their natures are not necessary.

This would be proof of intelligent design.

 

[stenlis]

What are ‘potential’ physical realities? Is there more than one physical reality? If yes, then how do you know?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What are ‘potential’ physical realities? Is there more than one physical reality? If yes, then how do you know?

In general, there is one physical reality, that is to say that all differences and numerical distinctions aside, all kinds share a single substance in the sense that they are physical.

 

[stenlis]

In general, there is one physical reality, that is to say that all differences and numerical distinctions aside, all kinds share a single substance in the sense that they are physical.

So why do you talk about plural ‘physical realities’?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So why do you talk about plural ‘physical realities’?

Because there are evidently many physical things, depending on the context.

 

[tonyrey]

If physical laws are only as real as the potential physical realities that embody them, then certainly it must be the case that physical laws are created by something that intended them to be that way, since potential beings or future states by definition receive reality, thus they are not real of their own accord. Their natures are not necessary.

This would be proof of intelligent design.

I think your point can be made without having reference to potency - which perplexes many people.

1. Physical laws are descriptions of the fundamental regularities in the universe.
2. These regularities need not exist because there could be chaos instead of order.
3. Even out of the vast number of possible regularities very few would serve as a basis for life and rational existence.
4. These facts are compelling evidence for intelligent Design.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I ran across a Jewish article relevant to this today by a Jewish author by : Dr. Gerald SchroederIs God needed to create the universe?

Given my background in both a Torah and science, I could agree with his statement. How so? It all comes down to how we define “God,” and what exactly are these “laws of nature.” …

He contends that

…What we have, then, is an infinite, non-physical “power,” totally outside of time and space that created the universe. What does this sound like to you? It may make Dr. Hawking feel better referring to the infinite Creator of the universe as “the laws of nature,” but from where I come from, most people call this “God.”
In fact, this is essentially the Torah’s definition of God’s Name “Elokim,” the will of the infinite creator as expressed through the laws of nature.2 Indeed, the only name used for God throughout the creation narrative is “Elokim.”…