I don't know how to give good definition. — kris22
Although it is true that in nature nothing exists beyond separate bodies producing separate motions according to law; still for the study of nature that very law and its investigation, discovery and exposition are the essential thing, for the purpose both of science and of practice. Now it is that law and its clauses which we understand by the term 'forms' -- principally because this word is a familiar one and has become generally accepted. — Francis Bacon
2. Could there ever be no laws of nature? — kris22
I remember learning years ago that the law is just the observed regularity in our observations, and the theory is the explanation for why those regularities occur. So, massive bodies do predictably behave in a certain way, which we can describe mathematically, and we call that description the the law of gravitation. It's nothing like an explanation for why massive bodies behave this way, just a description. General relativity would be a theory that attempts to explain why massive bodies behave the way they do.
Do I have that distinction wrong? Or is there some other way people talk about this now? — Srap Tasmaner
Hi
I have questions about laws of nature:
1. Laws of nature - are they eternal? — kris22
We know, they are now, but was before universe and will be after?
2. Could there ever be no laws of nature?
3. Is everything part of laws of nature?
No, but of course everything physical in a universe is part of the laws of nature and their consequences and conclusions — Michael Ossipoff
Can you tell what kind of things aren't part of laws of nature? — kris22
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.