What is a Law of Nature?

Valmar,

Thanks for your wonderful quote: “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung

David

Well, some seem to perceive the "laws of nature" to be set in stone, inviolable. That is, if something contradicts them, that something must be incorrect. With the amusing implication that it is "illegal", "unlawful" to break them, because they're "laws", "rules".

Nevermind that the "laws of nature" are just models based on observation. Models are always imperfect, by their very nature of being approximations.

Rupert Sheldrake actually brings this up in his TED talk ~ the language of the "laws of physics" are modeled after human legal systems, in a sense. Which carries certain connotations along for the ride.

Sheldrake rather preferred to perceive them as "habits" ~ "habits of nature". He brought up an example of the speed of light ~ that it was observed to change over time, even if only in small ways.

Sheldrake mentions that he talked to some professor who told him that they'd solved this problem by defining the meter in terms of the speed of light ~ so that the speed of light would remain constant, but now the actual length of a meter would be the thing changing instead.

An absurd "solution" to the problem, instead of just admitting that the "laws of physics" aren't so set in stone.

I think that if someone finds an exception to the laws, they'd better do some serious research to find out whether there is a consistent exception. Otherwise, though the laws are only descriptive, I'd be skeptical. In other words, the descriptive nature of the laws is not an excuse for getting too happy.

~~ Paul

Hi Paul, it is good to see you here again!

The problem is that those observed regularities happen on a certain scale, and it is just assumed that the resultant laws still hold on a much larger scale.

Gravity (Newtonian or Einsteinian) has been observed to follow the inverse square law within the solar system, but scientists have chosen to claim that this must happen on much larger scales - across our galaxy and even between galaxies. Yet the only way they get that to work on a galactic scale is to arbitrarily kludge the equations with large quantities of 'dark matter' - just imagined into existence to make the equations work!

I think science would work much better if it stuck to what it really knows without all the wild extrapolations.

David

Thanks, David!

Well, what would you have them do, just throw up their hands? It's not as if we are ever going to go out there and measure. We have to use our tools and make hypotheses and try to test them from afar. Scientists certainly aren't being dogmatic about dark matter and energy.

~~ Paul

I think that if someone finds an exception to the laws, they'd better do some serious research to find out whether there is a consistent exception. Otherwise, though the laws are only descriptive, I'd be skeptical. In other words, the descriptive nature of the laws is not an excuse for getting too happy.

~~ Paul

So, you're basically saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", am I right?

All I'm interested in is scientists not being to arrogant and blind in adherence to how the "laws" are, because it means that they will refuse to believe that the "laws" could be wrong or inaccurate or lead to situations where the "laws" are considered to be without fault, meaning that there is a demand that the mathematical equations surrounding them be changed instead of admitting that the "laws" might be at fault.

Modern science is far too rigid and dogmatic in its beliefs that its foundations are "solid" with only the details needing to be filled in.

For example, the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory was failing in its predictions, so the hypotheses of Dark Matter and Dark Energy were invented out of nowhere, simply to pad the theory and save it from tossed in the trashcan of failed theories. It makes me wonder if the Big Bang should really just be treated as a hypothesis at this point, as there isn't any good evidence for it, seeing as we really don't know what happened so many billions of years ago.

Thanks, David!

Well, what would you have them do, just throw up their hands? It's not as if we are ever going to go out there and measure. We have to use our tools and make hypotheses and try to test them from afar. Scientists certainly aren't being dogmatic about dark matter and energy.

~~ Paul

Wow - you have nailed my POV right there - that is exactly the way these things work!

The problem is, science has been doing this for many decades in a range of subjects, and by now it is damned hard to know what is real and what is science fiction.

The other consequence is that the fake notion that science knows far more than it does, makes us throw away lots of interesting hints that would otherwise be eagerly followed up. Think of Halton Arp, a student of Hubble. He presented a mass of evidence indicating that quasars are linked to galaxies that are much less far away - in other words, there are other mechanisms in the universe that can generate red-shifted light (quasars have enormous red shifts and are therefore supposed to be extremely distant objects). If that discovery had come out much sooner it would probably have been hailed as important and explored intensively. As it was, it implied that there is no reliable way of dating objects further away that our local cluster of galaxies. If Arp was right (he died in 2012) then much of cosmology is junk. There was even an attempt to deny him telescope time to further his work, though that didn't work.

David

It is strange that no one here has so far even mentioned the evident extreme fine tuning of the "laws" of physics (whatever they may really be) for the existence of carbon-based life as we know it. Ignoring this fine tuning is like ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the center of the room - surely this fine tuning must be a major clue as to the true nature of the deep regularities referred to as the laws of physics. It seems to me that these deep and mathematically structured regularities clearly point to teleology and the evident intelligent design of the existing physics of matter and energy, as opposed to what might be considered the much more likely possibility that there would be nothing but chaos, with no regularity and mathematical structure to the ways matter and energy work. As has been often pointed out by intelligent design proponents, large amounts of functional complex specified information (as embodied in the "laws" of physics) in our experience can only come about from creative intelligence, not from random processes.

It is strange that no one here has so far even mentioned the evident extreme fine tuning of the "laws" of physics (whatever they may really be) for the existence of carbon-based life as we know it. Ignoring this fine tuning is like ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the center of the room - surely this fine tuning must be a major clue as to the true nature of the deep regularities referred to as the laws of physics. It seems to me that these deep and mathematically structured regularities clearly point to teleology and the evident intelligent design of the existing physics of matter and energy, as opposed to what might be considered the much more likely possibility that there would be nothing but chaos, with no regularity and mathematical structure to the ways matter and energy work. As has been often pointed out by intelligent design proponents, large amounts of functional complex specified information (as embodied in the "laws" of physics) in our experience can only come about from creative intelligence, not from random processes.

The idea that the universe has been fine-tuned is possible, but I have two main caveats:

1) It may be that the true theory of everything smoothes over this apparent anomaly in some way. Some of these constants might then be derivable from something else. The problem is that IMHO science is a real mess after 60 odd years of faulty scientific reasoning, done to avoid rocking the boat.

2) I have my doubts about whether anyone is able to simulate the effects of changed constants in even one universe - even less an ensemble of such universes! There may be other ways in which stable structures could form and develop into complex 'life' - for example, life might be possible without so much carbon. Boron and silicon can engage in complicated chemistry.

As you know, I am very persuaded that evolution does not - cannot - be driven by RM+NS. However this may be explained in a variety of ways, not just by the God hypothesis, and certainly not by the Yahweh version!

David

I still think there's a gulf between Cosmic Fine Tuning which at least is comprehensible/explicable in layperson terms, and the probabilistic confusion pushed forth by Intelligent Design that for the life of me I still don't get.

So, you're basically saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", am I right?

All I'm interested in is scientists not being to arrogant and blind in adherence to how the "laws" are, because it means that they will refuse to believe that the "laws" could be wrong or inaccurate or lead to situations where the "laws" are considered to be without fault, meaning that there is a demand that the mathematical equations surrounding them be changed instead of admitting that the "laws" might be at fault.

Modern science is far too rigid and dogmatic in its beliefs that its foundations are "solid" with only the details needing to be filled in.

For example, the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory was failing in its predictions, so the hypotheses of Dark Matter and Dark Energy were invented out of nowhere, simply to pad the theory and save it from tossed in the trashcan of failed theories. It makes me wonder if the Big Bang should really just be treated as a hypothesis at this point, as there isn't any good evidence for it, seeing as we really don't know what happened so many billions of years ago.

I agree with your interest. I don't think science is as dogmatic as you claim. Perhaps some older scientists are, but the young whippersnappers are looking to make a name for themselves.

I'm not sure why dark matter/energy is problematical. You have to explain the lack of mass somehow. Sure, it's possible that the entire theory of gravity is broken. If so, time will tell. It takes time to sort these things out. The fact that we are impatient is not a good reason to blow off the current theories.

~~ Paul

You have to explain the lack of mass somehow. Sure, it's possible that the entire theory of gravity is broken. If so, time will tell.

But why claim more than has really been proven - then we wouldn't get in these messes in the first place, and we might have some ideas for new experiments that would push science forwards.

Imagine if science had become really wedded to PV=RT, and started inventing "dark pressure" to keep the equation balanced at high pressures or low temperatures!

Einstein came up with a gravitational law that works in the solar system but appears not to work at the galactic scale. Stated like that, there is no need to science to retract anything. If, later on, someone actually discovered "dark matter", and it was then found that this did supply enough matter to make the Einstein formula work, then the qualifications on using the formula could be relaxed.

The DM concept is also unfortunate because it is arbitrary. You just pour in enough DM to balance the equation. If DM is something that you can have more or less of, then how come a lot of galaxies have structure. Stars have to orbit the centre at just the right rate to maintain that structure.

David