Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen?

[Laird]

What holds these particular mere regularities - for that is what they truly are - in place?

"The ground of being"?

"The ground of being"?

Yeah it seems the Prime Mover explanation works well though I have trouble really understanding Pure Actuality as anything more than a metaphysical linchpin.

I'm flipping through Feser's new book, Five Proofs of the Existence of God, will probably make a thread or more about some of these proofs.

I don't think magic is involved (depending on how magic is defined), but it does leave us with at least two conclusions:

- There has to be more to reality than usually assumed under physicalism to explain the regularities of the universe.

Well, of course
For starters our knowledge of the "laws" is very limited, so our reasonings on them will also be pretty inadequate.

We can make models and try to our best shot at a "theory of everything", but the premise is that we're trying to figure the solution to a puzzle that's missing a Googolplex of pieces. Every time we make a major new discovery (QM, DNA, cosmology) the level of complexity increases exponentially and I suspect our mind is likely unfit to unravel the whole mystery.

Not that we should give up, naturally. Any tentative understanding is better than nothing, but I feel we should be less attached to our models. I am talking to you scientism!

That's why I sympathize with mysterianists.

So "laws" are the creation of our brains from observed patterns and anomalies are therefore theoretically possible?

Indeed that seems very likely.
As I mentioned earlier I feel like we get too attached to our maps to the point we think they are the actual thing.

Try this on.

All That Is, whatever you wish to call It, has its own signature vibration, the frequency that represents the oneness of All That Is,
all things together. And we might wish to label that, for the purposes of this illustration, as the Prime Resonance.

Gravity can be understood as the tendency of all things to match the frequency of the Prime Resonance, to gravitate toward that frequency, to gravitate toward the idea of becoming one with All That Is, to be attracted to the Oneness, to join together, to integrate, to merge as closely as is possible for discrete objects. For each object has its own vibration, its own signature frequency by which you can recognize it, its own vibration and resonance that defines every object. But the tendency of every object is to gravitate towards the Prime frequency, and thus, this is represented or illustrated or demonstrated by the gravitic attraction toward all things.

In understanding this you can also know that movement, all movement whether it be the idea of the movement you consider to be normal, moving from place to place, or levitation or teleportation, the instantaneous apparent movement of one place to another without intervening travel, all these are the product of manipulations of the vibrations of discrete objects, so that they are made to be more or less in their tendency to gravitate toward or away from the Prime Resonance of All That Is. In getting them to move away from that frequency, you will get them to move away from anything that represents that attraction, such as mass, a planet, a star, what have you. By increasing that frequency toward the Prime Resonance it will move toward that mass, the planet, the star, what have you.

Fundamentally this is All That Is increasing its harmonic resonance with the Prime Resonance of the Infinite, of the Creation, of the One.  

I don't know. Seems like everything comes down to "frequencies" for some belief systems. 

Seems like "frequencies" has become the new QM: basically something that is so undefined, mysterious, so lacking of deep understanding, it can be anything you want it to be: like some magic pixie dust. Look at the ancient Greeks and their gods. Got a conundrum, create a God and a myth. Bang. Problem solved. 

I'm not buying into that. Not because it can't be, or because I have a better idea, just because it is too arbitrary for me with my level of knowledge/understanding. This may change as I discover some pieces that fit with it. OTOH: perhaps I come across an explanation that doesn't feel arbitrary. 

Personally, I progressed to the point where I'm convinced that there is a whole non-physical basis to our existence. And I didn't move from a conventional engineer and the world-understanding that this usually entails, to the point I'm at now, by accepting any idea came over the wall. I got here by looking closely at evidence and seeing whether and how it fit with the other evidence I've validated. I don't see where this fits with everything else I've learned. 

So personally, I'm leaving this with the pile of other possibilities until I discover more that points in this direction. I'm in no rush.

So "laws" are the creation of our brains from observed patterns and anomalies are therefore theoretically possible?

If you mean the word "law" is a creation that's true. If you mean the we create the laws which dictates how the universe runs that's a misunderstanding. I don't know what you have in mind. Laws are just descriptions based upon experimentation and observation.

I've tried to re-read the OP for the third time but I am not sure I can fully decode the it. It feels a bit convoluted for my simple, not too philosphically-oriented mind

All this gives you some indication why so many scientists, when stepping back from the rather messy reality of their daily work and considering the character of their science, show such great reluctance to reckon with the substance of the observable world. They much prefer to conceive the explanatory value of science in terms of abstract laws — equations, rules, algorithms — which naturally remain gratifyingly lawful in an uncomplicated way. The world disappears into a vague notion of "whatever gives material reality to the laws".

I think I am even more confused than the first time I read it.
If anybody had the patience to break it down for me into a comprehensible form I'd be grateful

Sometimes it seems philosopher take pleasure in employing obscure language for the sake of it, to make their message less accessible. That's why I prefer the likes of Bernardo, Chalmers, Braude, Nagel...

cheers