ohwilleke

"Could have been" implies multiple possibilities. How does one select from multiple possibilities, either with or without intention. If you select without intention, you have randomness. If you select with intention, you have design. "Could have been", thus, includes an assumption that there is not only one possibility. Yet, we have experience to show us that a single set of physical laws apply to all situations yet observed, and no experimental experience of laws of nature changing over time or place or any other evidence that physical laws could have been anything other than what all observation shows them to be.

I'm not sure that there is any good evidence that can point to the source of fundamental physical laws (although, of course, we can show, for example, that themodynamics flows from quantum mechanical properties of subatomic particles, that Newtonian physical laws are a very good approximation of relativistic mechanics in a wide range of situations, that the proton-neutron-electron model of the atom flows from quark and gluon behavoir, etc.),

The case for non-design and non-random sourcing for physical laws is basically a case of Occam's razor. When there is no evidence to support any position, don't make your model more complex that it has to be, in this case by omitting any reference to a source of physical laws.

My main point is that this question tends to show that there might have been other physical laws only because it assumes the possibility, and not because there is any evidence that there ever were or could have been any other physical laws.

beausoleil

Actually there is some evidence that 'physical laws' were slightly different in the early universe, as another thread points out (speed of light is in the title, I'm sure you can find it). To the best of my knowledge there is no widely accepted theory accounting for why the physical constants (I guess that's what you mean by 'physical laws') currently have the values they do.

However, thinking that Occam's razor applies seems a bit misguided to me - one can decide it is a problem that can't be addressed (the constants just have those values or ' omitting any reference to a source of physical laws' as you put it) or you can consider models in which some account is given of why a universe exists with the constants of our universe. These are different strategies, not alternative options to which Occam's razor can be applied. It isn't clear to me that the process by which the physical constants were set is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry, although perhaps we aren't close to an answer.

For instance some scientists speculate that there are multiple universes, each with different physical laws. 'All' that's needed then is a theory that explains how a forming universe ends up with some set of physical constants, of which ours has one example, rather than one explaining why the only universe ends up with the set ours has. Such a theory might make other testable predictions. On the other hand, perhaps some theory will account for the exact values of our universe without deriving them from some other, 'more fundamental' properties.

Of course it might be that our universe was designed, though personally I don't think so and it certainly isn't the default option. My view is that there is a valid question to which design is a conceivable answer (but not the only or most interesting one). I'm not prepared to rule out the question because one answer would sit badly with atheists.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Simply what I hear mostly is, "it is like it is and it works" ,lets just look at that forget why.

You've misunderstood. The question you think is a "why" question is really a "how" question.

Let's suppose you ask a "why" question like "Why are organisms so perfectly suited for their lifestyles?" to which the answer used to be "Design." But along came Darwin and suddenly the "why" question disappeared and became a "how" answer. Since we understood the process there was no need to ask "why?" The animals evolve for no 'higher' reason at all; they evolve because that's how organisms behave.

Or imagine that you are involved in a catastrophic aviation accident in which everyone but you dies. You might ask "why?" but some aviation expert need only supply the "how" -- you were seated by the window near the tail, and when the plane crashed, you were saved. The "how" neatly takes care of any "why?"

Likewise, someday physicists will supply us with an account of how the laws of the universe came into being, and your "why" question will disappear, answered with a "how." When an account can be given of something, there is no need to involve the kind of teleological implied in your "why?"

Vorkosigan

raindropple

This is the point.

On earth things fall at about 9.8m/s^2.

How does this work; because of the universal gravitational constant G between masses.

Why is G=6.670 × 10-11 newton-m2/kg2? Why is in not eqaul to 123123123412 or so?

That is the question to which nobody knows the answer.

I hope you get the point.

Thanks scorm

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: raindropple ]</p>

scombrid

We all know the question. You just asked the question. It's the answer that is not known. Perhaps you meant to say, "That is the question to which nobody knows the answer." At least worded like that you would've said what you meant.

But, if we don't know it, neither do you. Halucinated and/or fabricated revelations don't count as knowledge.

raindropple

So you agree

and thanks for the advice.

beausoleil

I think Vorkosigan has a point - though perhaps it says something about how things are being read as much as about what is intended. When I ask 'why' the physical constants have the values they do I'm not asking 'for what purpose' do they have those values - I'm asking by what mechanism they came to have those values.

This usage is hardly unusual: 'Why is the sky blue' is usually answered with an account of light scattering, not an account of what purpose the sky's blueness serves. (At least, in my experience!)

I can't speak for any of the other posts, but perhaps some of the heat in this debate comes from a misunderstanding of how the word 'why' is being used (and suggests to me why the word 'how' should be used - for clarity!).

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

raindropple

Which revelations are you talking about ?

Also could you be so kind as to prove to me how these are fabricated else your statement means nothing.

Could you also, while you at it, tell me what you offer and show me some proof as to why you say what you say.

Thanks

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: raindropple ]</p>