Nature of physical laws

[Jim_Baur]

I am here to learn.

I am here to talk about the philosophy of science.

I am not here to cause an argument.

The following are actually questions, even though I am making declarative statements.

Thanks!

The physical laws are descriptive.

They are described by math.

The descriptions do not tell us the nature of the laws.

It might be similar to describing human nature by drawing pictures and thinking that we have described the nature of humans.

If we do not know the nature of the physical laws, we might make the mistake and think that the description, math, is the cause of the physical laws. Math is not the cause of the physical laws.

We do not know nor comprehend the nature of the physical laws.

Actually, math is a being of reason, it does not exist outside the mind of human beings.

The creation of our mind does not cause the cause the laws of nature.

The above are actually questions, even though I made declarative statements.

Again, thanks!

 

[JDaniel]

I am here to learn.

I am here to talk about the philosophy of science.

I am not here to cause an argument.

The following are actually questions, even though I am making declarative statements.

Thanks!

The physical laws are descriptive.

They are described by math.

The descriptions do not tell us the nature of the laws.

It might be similar to describing human nature by drawing pictures and thinking that we have described the nature of humans.

If we do not know the nature of the physical laws, we might make the mistake and think that the description, math, is the cause of the physical laws. Math is not the cause of the physical laws.

We do not know nor comprehend the nature of the physical laws.

Actually, math is a being of reason, it does not exist outside the mind of human beings.

The creation of our mind does not cause the cause the laws of nature.

The above are actually questions, even though I made declarative statements.

Again, thanks!

Jim:

Not sure what you mean by ‘nature?’ Physical laws are derived from the regularities of the behaviors of physical things, i.e., matter, energy, space, time, gravity, light, etc. The mathematics effectively describe those regularities, rendering them duplicative. Plus the maths gives us further insights into physical things, such as particulars that allow us to determine the speeds of things we can’t get sufficient proximity to to measure, how chemical elements bond, what is radioactive decay, and so forth.

The word ‘nature’ is usually associated with a particularizing of behaviors. In other words, the abstractioning of regularities that allow our minds to instantly see a cat and recognize cat-ness. Actually, you can draw a picture of a man and it will describe enough of his ‘nature’ that everyone will know that it is a representation of a “man.” Obviously, that would just scratch the surface of his complete nature, but by a comparison with ourselves, we can attribute the rest.

If one were to walk up a street, on an evening just before dark, and happen to view an immobile object in the middle of the road and sufficiently distant from us that we could not make it out, we might think that it is a rock. Upon its movement, we will guess that it is an animal of some sort. A little more movement and we can guess that it is a cat, and not a dog, or a bird. It’s interesting how important motion is to a thinking mind in a world of mobile and immobile things.

God bless,
jd

 

[GEddie]

Physical laws do not have a nature; they are descriptions of the nature of matter and energy, such that our minds can understand physical nature. The laws are an approximation of physical properties. We see this each time an experiment requires us to adjust our understanding of the laws.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am still pondering!

Thanks!

 

[promethius]

Not sure what you mean by ‘nature?’ Physical laws are derived from the regularities of the behaviors of physical things, i.e., matter, energy, space, time, gravity, light, etc. The mathematics effectively describe those regularities, rendering them duplicative. Plus the maths gives us further insights into physical things, such as particulars that allow us to determine the speeds of things we can’t get sufficient proximity to to measure, how chemical elements bond, what is radioactive decay, and so forth.

I think you’re confusing the purist concept of a physical law with the mathematical “laws” we use to express them. A physical law is not derived from regular behaviors, it is the rule that governs those behaviors. It is derived from the Logos of God. A mathematical law used to describe that physical law is derived from regular interactions, sure… but the law itself is an existant thing, brought into creation by God. Proof: objects still fell long before we discovered the “law” of gravity, ergo the physical law preexists it’s own mathematical expression.

 

[JDaniel]

I think you’re confusing the purist concept of a physical law with the mathematical “laws” we use to express them. A physical law is not derived from regular behaviors, it is the rule that governs those behaviors. It is derived from the Logos of God. A mathematical law used to describe that physical law is derived from regular interactions, sure… but the law itself is an existant thing, brought into creation by God. Proof: objects still fell long before we discovered the “law” of gravity, ergo the physical law preexists it’s own mathematical expression.

Promethius:

Actually I was thinking of the universe without man. I agree that the laws preexist man, but, no one except God would ever know them were it not for the creation of man. We are not just some last-minute extra that God threw into this world by near mistake. He made us in His image. That means that God did not blindly create us either. He has told us that we could find Him in His Creation. Some find the laws of the universe the beautiful; some find the sight of the universe the beautiful. I give the edge to the sight of the universe.

The OP asked regarding the “nature” of these laws. Laws, per se, do not have “natures.” What I should have said is, our knowledge of physical laws is derived from sensible regularities. If we were to look and see naught but chaos, about the only law we could derive would be that all is chaos. Right?

God bless,
jd

 

[GEddie]

Promethius:

Actually I was thinking of the universe without man. I agree that the laws preexist man, but, no one except God would ever know them were it not for the creation of man. We are not just some last-minute extra that God threw into this world by near mistake. He made us in His image. That means that God did not blindly create us either. He has told us that we could find Him in His Creation. Some find the laws of the universe the beautiful; some find the sight of the universe the beautiful. I give the edge to the sight of the universe.

The OP asked regarding the “nature” of these laws. Laws, per se, do not have “natures.” What I should have said is, our knowledge of physical laws is derived from sensible regularities. If we were to look and see naught but chaos, about the only law we could derive would be that all is chaos. Right?

God bless,
jd

If there were generalized chaos, we’d have neither our bodies, which are organized systems fighting entropy; nor our minds, which are second order informational processors. If this were a world of general chaos, we’d have no eyes to see it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Aelred_Minor]

As several people here will know this has just been discussed on the thread about light. Basically, these “laws of nature” are phenomena which humans have observed repeatedly, theoretically without scientifically described exceptions. They can generally be described mathematically, but the main point is they are phenomena which for whatever reason are repeated in the empirically observable world.

 

[promethius]

Promethius:

Actually I was thinking of the universe without man. I agree that the laws preexist man, but, no one except God would ever know them were it not for the creation of man. We are not just some last-minute extra that God threw into this world by near mistake. He made us in His image. That means that God did not blindly create us either. He has told us that we could find Him in His Creation. Some find the laws of the universe the beautiful; some find the sight of the universe the beautiful. I give the edge to the sight of the universe.

The OP asked regarding the “nature” of these laws. Laws, per se, do not have “natures.” What I should have said is, our knowledge of physical laws is derived from sensible regularities. If we were to look and see naught but chaos, about the only law we could derive would be that all is chaos. Right?

God bless,
jd

But of course these laws have a nature (not our mathematical expression of them, but rather the laws themselves). We believe that their nature is that they are universal and enduring. If we did not believe these things about them, then science would be a useless endeavor. A law doesn’t have a behavioral nature in the same sense as a living being, but that is because the character of their nature is fundamentally different than that of physical living beings (who, by nature, are changing)