WJ

John!

Physicist Paul Davies wrote:

First and formost, the laws are universal. A law that only works sometimes, or in one place but not another, is no good. The laws are taken to apply unfailingly everywhere in the universe....no exceptions permitted. In this sense they are perfect.

Second they are absolute. They do not depend on anything else. In particular they do not depend on who is observing nature...the physical statesare unaffected by the laws, but not vice versa.

Third...they are timeless and eternal. [omit text and insert "Hamiltonian" concept].

Fourth, the laws are omnipotent. By this I mean nothing escapes them; they are all powerful. They are also, in a loose sense, omniscient, for, if we go alongn with the metaphor of the laws 'commanding' physical systems, then the systems do not have to 'inform' the laws of their states in order for the laws to 'legislate the right instructions' for that state.

[end quote]

John, I believe we've been down part of the well traveled timeless apriori truth road, but what do you think? Many atheist scientists hold the mathematical laws of nature in such a high regard. The mystery is taken out of the cosmic code and replaced with the transendent laws of nature. There is no mystery to the origins/nature of the universe, but objective mathematical truth. Everything is logical, or will soon be logical.

I know you're a relativist. How do we poke holes in this argument?

Walrus

Kharakov

John-

How about:

"The systems of formal logic are dictated by the behavior of reality"

-k

John Page

Hi Whale!

Laws have to be proven and proofs are limited by experimental practicality. The above quote is merely assertion or opinion beyond the bounds of experimental proof.
IMO they must depend on something for us to know them. That "laws" are not directly physical does not make them mystically magical.
I'm unfamiliar with the "hamiltonian" concept.
Confusing. Physical laws are concepts devised by the human mind to explain the behavior of reality. I do not know of any mechanism for such laws to reach out and command physical reality, which would seem to be the alternative explanation.
Well, first, I don't think it makes any difference whether such assertions are made by atheist scientists, theist scientists, non scientists etc.

Second, maybe there are some atheists that "believe" in logic, but this is hardly the same thing as believing in the existence of god. Perhaps "Thou shalt not worship false axioms" would be a good atheist prayer , though.

Third, I think laws of physics and logic help us understand and communicate about reality, "formalizing" its behavior in a manner our minds can understand. In this way scientific laws could be considered portals to truths about reality but this does not confer upon a status of "the truth". At least, not until there is convincing proof thats what they are

Cheers, John

John Page