The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

Are there laws of nature?

I am more inclined to say that there are regularities in nature that we pay attention to.

"Laws" sounds like there's a universally true statement about nature.

Or something along those lines, however we parse that. It's confusing because we're talking in vague terms now.

I can understand the belief that the universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates, like the laws of physics. But my antidote to your question is to ask if you're puzzling over something false -- perhaps there are no laws of nature, after all.

But my antidote to your question is to ask if you're puzzling over something false -- perhaps there are no laws of nature, after all. — Moliere

Well the universe behaves mostly in an intelligible manner where like you say there are certain regularities in it, why should this be the case ? These regularities are often elegant and sometimes complex would it not be easier to have not developed such regularities and patterns ? From the motions of the planets to the microscopic elegance of atoms, up to the point of life itself which is astounding compared to non-living things. The universe holds these secrets, these laws which we’re only beginning to discover.

We did not invent these laws we simply discovered them, thanks to newton and the rest of the physicists that came after him including Einstein’s famous e=mc2.

The fact that the universe behaves in an orderly and intelligent fashion should be questioned, no ?

The fact that the universe behaves in an orderly and intelligent fashion should be questioned, no ? — kindred

Yes!

I'm attempting to probe your thoughts, not dismiss them.

Are there laws of nature?

I am more inclined to say that there are regularities in nature that we pay attention to.

"Laws" sounds like there's a universally true statement about nature. — Moliere

Was going to say the same thing. Language used makes implications which may not be accurate. There are also the infamous "laws" of logic, or as I prefer to call them the logical axioms.

I also find the word 'creation' problematic when referring to nature, as it implies a creator; just as laws imply a lawmaker. It all sets up language to back the worldview of the Islamic or Christian apologist.

All of what we know is contingent human understanding, which in 200 years time may well look very different.

why are there laws in the first place — kindred

This asserts “there are laws” and asks why.

Are there laws of nature?

…more inclined to say that there are regularities in nature that we pay attention to — Moliere

This asserts two things: that there are regularities and that we pay attention to these regularities.

So could laws just be language about the regularities that grab attention? In other words, aren’t you basically assuming the same thing Kindred assumes, but calling it “attended to regularities” as opposed to “laws”? Once you write about a regularity, aren’t you codifying the regularity into law? Laws are words about regularities.

So you answered your own question in a way by asserting there are regularities that grab attention.

Was going to say the same thing. Language used makes implications which may not be accurate. There are also the infamous "laws" of logic, or as I prefer to call them the logical axioms. — Tom Storm

If it makes it easier I can rephrase the question… why does the universe behave in an orderly way ? For example, the motion of the planets around the sun? This of course is due to the law of gravity governing such motions but without calling it a law why should this be the case … why don’t the planets for example just stand still in fixed location in space ?

If it makes it easier I can rephrase the question… why does the universe behave in an orderly way ? — kindred

At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. What we call "order" is not something we discover in the universe but something we attribute to it through our descriptive practices. I don’t think we ever access a world “as it is” apart from interpretation; what we take to be real or empirical is shaped by historically contingent terminology and shared frameworks of understanding. These frameworks are always provisional or tentative, useful for communicating, and predicting, but not revealing some deep, necessary structure of the universe. Any sense of order is thus not a property of the world itself, but of our current ways of making sense of it, which remain open to continual revision.

So according to you the universe is neither ordered nor disordered, it’s just the way it is and where we as human beings are able to descriptively apply laws to it does not imply that the universe actually posses those laws, therefore those laws are simply anthropic bias?

I would disagree, I think the universe is intelligently ordered despite our observations that is so, we simply happen to affirm independently that it is.

For example, the motion of the planets around the sun? This of course is due to the law of gravity governing such motions — kindred

Is it? "Due to..." that is

The law of gravity governs the motion of the planets? Does the law cause the movement of the planets? How can a law cause such a thing?

Isn't what we call a "law" here just a description of how the planets indeed move?

And if the other laws are also just descriptions of what happens, then the answer to "why are there laws of nature?" is just "Becasue that's how we describe what happens".

Isn't what we call a "law" here just a description of how the planets indeed move? — Banno

A law is a description. Good.

the answer to "why are there laws of nature?" is just "Becasue that's how we describe what happens". — Banno

That follows. We make the descriptions, and can call them ”laws”. Good.

But then, doesn’t the question just become “why do we describe things, in the way we describe them and not some other way?”

Kindred reframed his question to the question I think you just begged.

Kindred reasked:

why does the universe behave in an orderly way? — kindred

So now, we can say we make laws out of descriptions. There appears to be some kind of structure to these descriptions we’ve made. Call them law-like, descriptions. Why are these descriptions orderly, or, describing something a certain way to function as descriptions?

Does the law cause the movement — Banno

I’d say no. The movement causes the description, or law. But either way, why is the law OR the movement described, orderly?

This is still unanswered. Next step is still precarious..

I think the universe is intelligently ordered — kindred

"Ordered" implies an agency at work giving the universe features. Is there an organizing agency at work? God?

Matter and energy must behave they way they do. We observe them doing what they have no choice in doing--like a planet orbiting a star; like electrons in one atom interacting with atoms in another atom; like a bird laying an egg. From their behavior we devise rules which are only useful to us. Stars and birds continue on as always.

As for an orderly universe, I'm not so sure about that. At the moment of the Big Bang, matter, energy, and space began. It was not a perfect arrangement. There were clumps of stuff in the mix; matter and antimatter began to cancel each other out imperfectly -- which is why we are here; there was no flash -- there was no light at all for quite a while. The galaxies are not evenly distributed, nor are the stars in the galaxies. The momentum of universe-expansion seems to be building, rather than subsiding or being steady. And all that's just physics.

Would politics be the cluster-fuck it is in a nice, intelligently ordered universe?

God made the world in six days flat
On the seventh He said, "I'll rest"
So He let the thing into orbit swing
To give it a dry run test

A billion years went by
Then He took a look at the whirling blob
His spirits fell as He shrugged
"Ah well, it was only a six-day job"

I'm pleased you understood my argument.

The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

As a strict matter of fact, most if not all laws that govern the world we live in dissipate during at least one known and observable phenomenon, a black hole, as example. People like to say "oh no it's actually just the same law but because X Y Z is different, it's just more dramatic or pronounced" even though it's clearly not. People are silly like that.

So. One might wish to not be so "gung ho" with your initial assertion and argument. Things work here the way they do because that's just how they do here. Elsewhere? As to what lies beyond? That's a bit outside of philosophy, wouldn't you say? :smile:

Don't even get me started on the Singularity. It's far too early in the evening.

You could frame this in information theoretic terms. You can sum up laws very simply, they have a low algorithmic complexity. Whereas, if behavior was random, such a summary (data compression) would be impossible. But there are vastly many more ways to appear random than ordered, so order begs for an explanation, since it is prima facie unlikely given a non-informative prior.

You could think of it in terms of how much Leplace's Demon would have to remember outside of initial conditions as well, in classical terms.

I'm pleased — Banno

I’m please you’re pleased. :cool:

At the risk of completely ruining this moment, how would you respond to this question:

When the descriptions we make actually work, that is, work to describe something to another person, where does the order come from in that scenario?

It seems to me it must come, in part, from the world being described. Which brings me back to Kindred’s question: wherefore the order?

Edit to add:
I actually care more about “what is the order” than “why is the order”, and am more interested to say “that there is order in the world, and I’ve described it.”

But there are vastly many more ways to appear random than ordered, so order begs for an explanation, since it is prima facie unlikely given a non-informative prior. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Order is prima facia unlikely, given a non-informative prior.
I’m not sure I follow “a non-informative prior.”
Are you talking about a teleological cause? Meaning without telos or any prior information, (since in this argument, the descriptive information comes after the moving thing described) ordered movement is unlikely?

I don’t think I’ve gotten that far yet. I think that can be true or not as a separate question.

Order may be unlikely without the answer to why the order is there, but I think I’m still just confirming that the order is not only in my description, but drawn from that which it describes, namely, the world.

All I know so far (or all I am assuming here in the argument) is that there is order in my description and my description is of the world. And I am asking at this point, is the order in my description so ordered because it is a description of an ordered world. I don’t know where the order in the world comes from (yet), and don’t think I need to know (yet). I just know where the order in my description comes from, namely, the world.

At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. What we call "order" is not something we discover in the universe but something we attribute to it through our descriptive practices. I don’t think we ever access a world “as it is” apart from interpretation; what we take to be real or empirical is shaped by historically contingent terminology and shared frameworks of understanding. These frameworks are always provisional or tentative, useful for communicating, and predicting, but not revealing some deep, necessary structure of the universe. Any sense of order is thus not a property of the world itself, but of our current ways of making sense of it, which remain open to continual revision. — Tom Storm

Why would humans attribute order where there is none? Wouldn't that mean order is a part of our nature? And if order is a part of our nature, and we are of this universe, doesn't that mean order is an attribute of the universe?

Why would humans attribute order where there is none? Wouldn't that mean order is a part of our nature? — Patterner

Good questions. I’d guess that humans are pattern seeking, meaning making machines. We see connections everywhere and this often helps us manage our environment. Even when those patterns or connections later, sometimes much later, turn out to be bogus. Whether that be astrology, the cause of thunder or the sun revolving around the earth. Patterns and meaning dominate human thinking and activity, and some of it works pragmatically for us for a time.

The universe is lazy and always takes the line of least effort. So it becomes a creature of habit.

The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

It's simply human behavior.

It comes from us being aware of our surroundings and simply from survival skills. Reasoning, logic and putting things into cause and effect is the method how we have become a totally dominant species in this World. Now we can harness everything, be they other animals, plants or natural resources to serve our species. Now I would argue that other animals do use also logic, can count up some number in a very rudimentary way etc., but they lack totally the systemic approach we humans have to this thanks to our advanced language system to communicate complex issues to each other. Whales and dolphins can communicate about things like where food is, but their "language" is a simply communicating tool.

Because this is the very useful way we model reality, we start calling things as "laws of nature". Yet in the end, it's simply the way we reason things.

I’d guess that humans are pattern seeking, meaning making machines. We see connections everywhere and this often helps us manage our environment. — Tom Storm

Why would we be machines of that nature? I would think because it's a successful strategy. If so, why would seeking patterns/meaning/connections in a universe where there aren't any be successful?

At present, I tend to believe that the idea that the universe “behaves in an orderly way” reflects a human tendency to project patterns and impose coherence where there may be none inherently. — Tom Storm

As an electrical engineer (who routinely makes use of my understanding of the regularities of nature to design things that I wouldn't have any reason to expect to work if such regularities were illusory) I find your perspective a bit mystifying. Knowing somewhat, about the zillions of clockwork like operations in physical systems that enable us to interact with people all around the world on TPF, it seems particularly ironic to me, to have such skepticism towards orderly behavior in nature.

Of course, I can't expect someone without my background knowledge to see things the same way, but I still find it somewhat baffling that you hold such a perspective.

These frameworks are always provisional or tentative, useful for communicating, and predicting, but not revealing some deep, necessary structure of the universe. — Tom Storm

I don't have anything to say about a "deep necessary structure of the universe", but do you have any explanation for why scientific frameworks would be useful for predicting if there were no reliable regularities to how things occur in nature which are described by such frameworks?

If it makes it easier I can rephrase the question… why does the universe behave in an orderly way ? For example, the motion of the planets around the sun? This of course is due to the law of gravity governing such motions but without calling it a law why should this be the case … why don’t the planets for example just stand still in fixed location in space ? — kindred

That's a good question. Also, why do we believe the universe will continue to behave in an orderly way? How do we know there isn't some principle at work whereby the universe becomes chaotic tomorrow. How do we even go about calculating the odds of such a thing? But we all act like it's a low probability event. Is it really?

But we all act like it's a low probability event. — RogueAI

If it was a high probability event then you wouldn't be here!

That's a good question. Also, why do we believe the universe will continue to behave in an orderly way? How do we know there isn't some principle at work whereby the universe becomes chaotic tomorrow. How do we even go about calculating the odds of such a thing? But we all act like it's a low probability event. Is it really? — RogueAI

I can't think of a different way that we should act. If it does not continue to behave tomorrow the way it is today, how could we guess in which ways it will be different? which type of disaster should we plan for? Some of which, such as the sudden disappearance of the strong nuclear force, could not possibly be prepared for anyway. So we may as well all act like it's a low probability event.

If it was a high probability event then you wouldn't be here! — Apustimelogist

Not necessarily. It could be the case that the universe becomes chaotic at exactly a point in time that coincides with tomorrow for reasons we're not aware of. That could be a high probability event. The fact that it hasn't happened wouldn't change the probability.

I can't think of a different way that we should act. If it does not continue to behave tomorrow the way it is today, how could we guess in which ways it will be different? which type of disaster should we plan for? Some of which, such as the sudden disappearance of the strong nuclear force, could not possibly be prepared for anyway. So we may as well all act like it's a low probability event. — Patterner

Not only do we act like it's a low probability event, we believe it too. No one is scared the universe will kill us all in the next minute. We believe that's very unlikely, but how do we know?

We believe that's very unlikely, but how do we know? — RogueAI

We don't know, but so what?

Not only do we act like it's a low probability event, we believe it too. No one is scared the universe will kill us all in the next minute. We believe that's very unlikely, but how do we know? — RogueAI

That's true. But, what else can and should we do?

there are regularities in nature — Moliere

:up:

I guess we can take "laws of nature" to be abstractions/generalizations of sets of observations. We call them "laws" while they're verified, unless/until they're falsified. Sometimes we use falsification to delineate their domain of applicability.

No regularities seem chaotic. It would be difficult to learn from evidence (or experiences, assuming there could be any).

Anyway, the warrant of the scientific methodologies means that such laws are descriptive, not pre/proscriptive. The model isn't the modeled. That may seem feeble, yet science remains the most successful epistemic endeavor in human history; without science this comment wouldn't be communicated worldwide over the Internet in near real-time using complex electronic devices, we wouldn't have GPS to help us navigate, suffering from cholera wouldn't be all-but eradicated, we wouldn't be exploring Mars with rovers, type 1 diabetes would be a death sentence, ...

The laws are around because we come up with them. Maybe we could say that nature lends itself to description because of embedded similarities?