Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jonesy · 08-27-2002, 06:30 AM

If everything was randomly formed over billions of years, then why are there 'laws of nature' that physicists often refer to? Such as numbers which CANNOT be different (eg. the cosmological constant). I'm just asking: if such numbers/quantities DO exist, then surely this is weird if everything was always 'random forces'. To me it seems like numbers, such as the cosmological constant, had to be there from the start; and then, how did they get there and how the hell did 'matter' know that it had to function within the exact boundaries of this number(s)? I mean, if we had a random big Bang and matter started moving, then did it stabilise at some set of cosmological constants? Why these particular numbers? Why not others?

OR are these numbers a 'pure coincidence' and as such there is no need to wonder about them?

abe smith · 08-27-2002, 07:04 AM

Check your dictionary for the definit-
ions of "descriptive law" and "prescriptive law". Scientific "laws" do NOT declare "what HAS to be obeyed". Scientific "laws" are statements of (previously) observed events, = heretofore/up to now. Hence scientific "laws" hold only as "true" UNTIL the new data arrive.
You may not LIKE this; but it is so, none the less. Scientific "laws" are man-made statements of human observations gathered UP TO NOW. And now, what's your difficulty?

JerryM · 08-27-2002, 01:16 PM

Abe is exactly correct. What are referred to as "laws of nature" might be more accurately called "properties of nature." They are observations of how matter/energy behave, and are, I believe, derived from the innate nature of matter itself. For example, the mass of a proton is about 1.67 X 10 (-27) kg. Why? Most likely, because at the current energy state of our world, a particle of that particular charge is stable at that particular mass. That's just the way matter behaves. That's reason enough for me.

Jesse · 08-27-2002, 03:41 PM

I think it's a valid question. Saying that the "laws" of physics are descriptive rather than prescriptive doesn't answer the question of why we live in a universe where all events follow such elegant, mathematically describable laws in the first place--this is what physicist Eugene Wigner called "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences." The paper where Wigner coined this phrase can be found <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html" target="_blank">here</a>, I only skimmed it but it looks pretty interesting.

Anyway, we don't know why the laws of physics are the way they are, but contrary to Jonesy's post, naturalism does not require one to believe that "everything was randomly formed over billions of years." The laws of physics seem to have been the same since the big bang.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Mark_Chid · 08-27-2002, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse:
I think it's a valid question. Saying that the "laws" of physics are descriptive rather than prescriptive doesn't answer the question of why we live in a universe where all events follow such elegant, mathematically describable laws in the first place--this is what physicist Eugene Wigner called "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences." The paper where Wigner coined this phrase can be found <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html" target="_blank">here</a>, I only skimmed it but it looks pretty interesting.

Anyway, we don't know why the laws of physics are the way they are, but contrary to Jonesy's post, naturalism does not require one to believe that "everything was randomly formed over billions of years." The laws of physics seem to have been the same since the big bang.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Is 'why' always a valid question?

playing pool last night the balls took a particular configuration after I broke. Is there any meaning in the question "Why did the balls end up in that exact configuration?"

Humans are so programmed for patetrn recognition and curiousity that we see patterns where none exist and seek explanations where none is possible.

Jesse · 08-27-2002, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Humans are so programmed for patetrn recognition and curiousity that we see patterns where none exist and seek explanations where none is possible.

But you're not saying that the "laws of physics" are a case of human "programming" leading us to see a pattern where none exists, are you? I agree that it may be impossible to find a meta-explanation for the laws of physics. Then again, it may not be. I certainly find the laws of physics more remarkable than some random configuration of balls on a pool table, though.

Starboy · 08-27-2002, 04:45 PM

Jonesy,

You are not the first to wonder about this nor will you be the last. You are in good company, scientists such as Dirac and Feynman have pondered this problem. Who knows, maybe there is a connection between all these "constants". At this time it is an open question and a Nobel prize waiting to happen. Any takers?

Starboy

waj · 08-27-2002, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse:
The laws of physics seem to have been the same since the big bang.

My understanding is that the constancy of natural laws over time and space is something you have to assume before you can do something that looks like science. Especially the science of the really big and really old, since we have such a small window of time and space to take measurements through.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: waj ]

Mark_Chid · 08-27-2002, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse:


But you're not saying that the "laws of physics" are a case of human "programming" leading us to see a pattern where none exists, are you? I agree that it may be impossible to find a meta-explanation for the laws of physics. Then again, it may not be. I certainly find the laws of physics more remarkable than some random configuration of balls on a pool table, though.

Know i'm saying the question 'why?' may not be valid, and the mere fact something seems remarkable to you doesn't make it so, it could be perfectly commonplace. Maybe there are countless billions of possible 'laws' and we see those that happen to apply to our observable universe. there's no why, just a 'because'.

beausoleil · 08-27-2002, 05:38 PM

Seems to me there are roughly 2 camps on this board about this debate.
Those who are certain the question cannot be answered by science - they tend to say things like 'they just are', 'you just have to assume the laws hold for all time'.

Then there are those who think the question might be addressed scientifically.

(I'm excluding the people who are convinced the laws are as they are because God did it.)

Historically, people who say things are beyond the realm of science tend to be proved wrong. I'm curious what makes people so certain that the questions can't be answered or even approached scientifically - is it that admitting the question feels like admitting the possibility of a purposeful creation?

08-27-2002, 06:30 AM	#1
Jonesy Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Melbourne Posts: 121	Why are there laws of physics? If everything was randomly formed over billions of years, then why are there 'laws of nature' that physicists often refer to? Such as numbers which CANNOT be different (eg. the cosmological constant). I'm just asking: if such numbers/quantities DO exist, then surely this is weird if everything was always 'random forces'. To me it seems like numbers, such as the cosmological constant, had to be there from the start; and then, how did they get there and how the hell did 'matter' know that it had to function within the exact boundaries of this number(s)? I mean, if we had a random big Bang and matter started moving, then did it stabilise at some set of cosmological constants? Why these particular numbers? Why not others? OR are these numbers a 'pure coincidence' and as such there is no need to wonder about them?

08-27-2002, 03:41 PM	#4
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	I think it's a valid question. Saying that the "laws" of physics are descriptive rather than prescriptive doesn't answer the question of why we live in a universe where all events follow such elegant, mathematically describable laws in the first place--this is what physicist Eugene Wigner called "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences." The paper where Wigner coined this phrase can be found <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html" target="_blank">here</a>, I only skimmed it but it looks pretty interesting. Anyway, we don't know why the laws of physics are the way they are, but contrary to Jonesy's post, naturalism does not require one to believe that "everything was randomly formed over billions of years." The laws of physics seem to have been the same since the big bang. [ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2002, 07:04 AM	#2
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Check your dictionary for the definit- ions of "descriptive law" and "prescriptive law". Scientific "laws" do NOT declare "what HAS to be obeyed". Scientific "laws" are statements of (previously) observed events, = heretofore/up to now. Hence scientific "laws" hold only as "true" UNTIL the new data arrive. You may not LIKE this; but it is so, none the less. Scientific "laws" are man-made statements of human observations gathered UP TO NOW. And now, what's your difficulty?

08-27-2002, 01:16 PM	#3
JerryM Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO. Posts: 1,100	Abe is exactly correct. What are referred to as "laws of nature" might be more accurately called "properties of nature." They are observations of how matter/energy behave, and are, I believe, derived from the innate nature of matter itself. For example, the mass of a proton is about 1.67 X 10 (-27) kg. Why? Most likely, because at the current energy state of our world, a particle of that particular charge is stable at that particular mass. That's just the way matter behaves. That's reason enough for me.

08-27-2002, 04:45 PM	#7
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Jonesy, You are not the first to wonder about this nor will you be the last. You are in good company, scientists such as Dirac and Feynman have pondered this problem. Who knows, maybe there is a connection between all these "constants". At this time it is an open question and a Nobel prize waiting to happen. Any takers? Starboy

08-27-2002, 05:38 PM	#10
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	Seems to me there are roughly 2 camps on this board about this debate. Those who are certain the question cannot be answered by science - they tend to say things like 'they just are', 'you just have to assume the laws hold for all time'. Then there are those who think the question might be addressed scientifically. (I'm excluding the people who are convinced the laws are as they are because God did it.) Historically, people who say things are beyond the realm of science tend to be proved wrong. I'm curious what makes people so certain that the questions can't be answered or even approached scientifically - is it that admitting the question feels like admitting the possibility of a purposeful creation?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.