FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-19-2003, 05:26 PM   #1
eh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 624
Default Who wrote the laws of physics?

Often, theists will insist that the existence of the laws of physics implies a lawmaker. After all, you can't have software without a programmer, and so the universe has a creator as well. A common reply is that the word law is misleading, as the laws of physics are not proscriptive laws that that tell the universe how to work, but are merely descriptive. That is to say, the laws we discover in natural are just descriptions of physical objects. Energy is conserved, not because a law tells it to behave as such, but because conservation is a nature property of the physical world itself. In such a case, the law of energy conservation is only a description of how nature works.

So to suggest the laws physics have independent existence seems silly. Or does it? Several physicists have been promoting that very idea - with physical things such as space and time not being fundemental to the existence of the universe. Rather, some abritrary laws are fundemental, almost as if the universe is some kind of computer program. This is a central idea of creation from nothing theories developed by Vilenkin, Guth and others. The pre big bang void is then a state where the laws of physics exist, but space-time does not.

In fact, Guth argues that findings from quantum theory seem to suggest that such laws exist independent of the physical world. He writes: "....If you bang two electrons together with enough energy, you produce protons. If there are no independent laws, then all the properties of protons must somehow be 'known' by the electrons. By extension every elementary particle must carry around enough information to produce the entire universe. I find that difficult to believe"

Yet with belief in any arbitrary laws of physics existing without the physical universe, God as a programmer no longer seems all that unlikely. To the posters here familiar with physics, what are some other examples of natural phenomena where the independent existence of laws is suggested?
eh is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 05:48 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: California
Posts: 1,000
Default

On the ontological status of "laws"

First of all, I don't think anyone (Not even an all-around Platonist) is enough of a Realist to believe in literal laws telling particles how to behave. Indeed, there's no way the particles could "understand" the message. I would say that the law about electrons producing photons is not a fact about any individual electron, but is rather inherent in the properties common to all electrons. Basically, I think 'natural laws' express the necessary relations that obtain between certain properties and property types.
Dominus Paradoxum is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 07:30 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: hobart,tasmania
Posts: 551
Default particles

How many quarks make a hadron and how many gluons are required. One example is a meson which is uud
SULPHUR is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 11:18 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 979
Default Re: Who wrote the laws of physics?

Quote:
Originally posted by eh
Often, theists will insist that the existence of the laws of physics implies a lawmaker. After all, you can't have software without a programmer, and so the universe has a creator as well. A common reply is that the word law is misleading, as the laws of physics are not proscriptive laws that that tell the universe how to work, but are merely descriptive. That is to say, the laws we discover in natural are just descriptions of physical objects. Energy is conserved, not because a law tells it to behave as such, but because conservation is a nature property of the physical world itself. In such a case, the law of energy conservation is only a description of how nature works.

So to suggest the laws physics have independent existence seems silly. Or does it? Several physicists have been promoting that very idea - with physical things such as space and time not being fundemental to the existence of the universe. Rather, some abritrary laws are fundemental, almost as if the universe is some kind of computer program. This is a central idea of creation from nothing theories developed by Vilenkin, Guth and others. The pre big bang void is then a state where the laws of physics exist, but space-time does not.

In fact, Guth argues that findings from quantum theory seem to suggest that such laws exist independent of the physical world. He writes: "....If you bang two electrons together with enough energy, you produce protons. If there are no independent laws, then all the properties of protons must somehow be 'known' by the electrons. By extension every elementary particle must carry around enough information to produce the entire universe. I find that difficult to believe"

Yet with belief in any arbitrary laws of physics existing without the physical universe, God as a programmer no longer seems all that unlikely. To the posters here familiar with physics, what are some other examples of natural phenomena where the independent existence of laws is suggested?
Odd about the proton there. I'm pretty sure banging together the two electrons gives you three electrons and a positron. Maybe you can get protons out of that. But it seems unlikely. *shrug*
Tenek is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 12:06 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A Shadowy Planet
Posts: 7,585
Default

Well, I'm pretty sure that Isaac Newton wrote Newton's Laws and Michael Faraday wrote Faraday's Law.

But I can't be sure who wrote the rest of them.
Shadowy Man is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 09:42 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default Re: Who wrote the laws of physics?

Quote:
Originally posted by eh
In fact, Guth argues that findings from quantum theory seem to suggest that such laws exist independent of the physical world. He writes: "....If you bang two electrons together with enough energy, you produce protons. If there are no independent laws, then all the properties of protons must somehow be 'known' by the electrons. By extension every elementary particle must carry around enough information to produce the entire universe. I find that difficult to believe"
I don't know what the big problem is. Seeds have all the information in them necessary to become functioning plants, but that is hardly apparent on first glance. I'd suggest we know less about the internal structure of electrons than we do about seeds.

And I think his extension is a bit much. Seems to me every elementary particle would only have to have enough info to produce every other particle.
yguy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:40 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.