Does physical Law Require an explanation for its existence?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by ReapReason

Why would that be a problem?

1. There is not one jot of evidence that anything has ever explained itself.

2. The burden of proof is on the person who claims it is possible.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by ReapReason

Why can't it be the case that physical laws are necessary?

1. There is not one jot of evidence that any feature of the universe is necessary.

2. If the physical laws of the universe are necessary they are either intended to be necessary or they just happen to be necessary.

3. If they are intended to be necessary it is necessary to produce a reason why they are necessary!

4. If they are not intended to be necessary it is necessary to produce a cause for their being necessary.

5. If no reason or cause is produced it is unreasonable to believe they or anything else is necessary.

[Marc Anthony]

Physical laws are just a description of how reality works. When theists talk about there needing to be an explanation for how physical laws work what we mean is there has to be an explanation for how reality works the way it does.

So when people like Stephen Hawking say "nothing exists, but the law of gravity means the Big Bang that created the universe would have to occur", the response of theists is, okay, but why is there a law of gravity at all?

[ReapReason]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

1. There is not one jot of evidence that any feature of the universe is necessary.

2. If the physical laws of the universe are necessary they are either intended to be necessary or they just happen to be necessary.

Not so a sure about this. I think a naturalist would ask "Can we truly say that an event is necessary without it necessarily "existing" ." Is it rational to say that something can be both "intended" to be necessary and be necessary at the same time?

I think a Naturalist would want to know why you think such and such is possible.

Originally Posted by tonyrey

3. If they are intended to be necessary it is necessary to produce a reason why they are necessary!

True, if it is reasonable to say that a thing is intended to be necessary..

4. If they are not intended to be necessary it is necessary to produce a cause for their being necessary.

5. If no reason or cause is produced it is unreasonable to believe they or anything else is necessary.

I don't understand. Can't a thing simply be existentially necessary? Wouldn't your argument be problematic for anybody who wants to say that God is necessary and therefore does not need a cause? Given your argument, It seems that a Naturalist could say that the necessity of God requires an explanation.

I have a feeling that is not the impression you intended to give.

[ReapReason]

Originally Posted by Marc Anthony

Physical laws are just a description of how reality works. When theists talk about there needing to be an explanation for how physical laws work what we mean is there has to be an explanation for how reality works the way it does.

So when people like Stephen Hawking say "nothing exists, but the law of gravity means the Big Bang that created the universe would have to occur", the response of theists is, okay, but why is there a law of gravity at all?

Yes. I agree. Why does there have to be gravity indeed.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by ReapReason

Yes. We are talking about the laws of physics. For example, Atoms have particular ways of behaving, and we understand from observing its behaviour that there are particular consistent "rules" or "laws" that are attributable to the nature of atoms.

It may be the case - and I am absolutely speculating here, since I am very far from being learned in particle physics, or any branch of physics for that matter - that physical laws obtain because they describe the behaviour of profoundly simple entities that really don't have a lot of options as to how they can operate. Where there is variation, that is in the circumstances in which these entities exist - as in, the number, strength, orientation etc of other entities and forces around that exercise influence upon simple entities, to which said simple entities respond in particular ways, because they can hardly "think" of other ways to respond.

The difficulty in referring to physical "laws" seems to be that a 'law' in human culture generally refers to a prescription about how people must behave, whereas a scientific law is a description of how particular entities do behave.

[ThinkingSapien]

Originally Posted by Sair

It may be the case - and I am absolutely speculating here, since I am very far from being learned in particle physics, or any branch of physics for that matter - that physical laws obtain because they describe the behaviour of profoundly simple entities that really don't have a lot of options as to how they can operate.

I think you may be onto something here. There's a rather simple "simulation" of entities in square grids known as "Conway's Game of Life" that has only 4 rules but has been studied by Computer Scientist for decades. There are only 4 rules.

1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
2. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
3. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.

From these simple rules complex patters emerge. Though there are several patterns that frequently arise to the point of having been given names. Here's a video of the virtual world in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcuBvj0pw-E

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Marc Anthony

Physical laws are just a description of how reality works. When theists talk about there needing to be an explanation for how physical laws work what we mean is there has to be an explanation for how reality works the way it does.

So when people like Stephen Hawking say "nothing exists, but the law of gravity means the Big Bang that created the universe would have to occur", the response of theists is, okay, but why is there a law of gravity at all?

1. Such scientists don't recognise "why?" questions - which imply purpose.

2. They are restricted to physical causes - which exclude purpose.

3. Persons are regarded as intermediate causes - which have physical causes.

4. Reasons are replaced with physical causes!

[Qoeleth]

Physical "laws" seem to be descriptions of what is seen, by humans. In this sense, there are not really laws as such.

Physical laws are not a physical phenomenon, but a human one. I believe societies develop physical laws to reflect their consciousness and values.

During the pre-Socratic period, we have a variety of laws and systems, reflecting the creativity and instability of the period (e.g. "everything is fire", "everything is change.", "nothing changes." etc.). In the rational enlightenment period, we had Newtonian physics- everything ordered and tidy, belief in progress, capitalism, Deism, etc. During the 20th Century, we were dominated by atomism (everything is meaningless particles and empty space)- corresponding with atheistic existentialism.

Now, in the 21st Century, there is quantuum physics. In fact, I am expecting in the next decades for the boundaries between science and fiction wholly to dissolve. This will correspond to post-modernism. Which will be great.

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

1. Such scientists don't recognise "why?" questions - which imply purpose.

2. They are restricted to physical causes - which exclude purpose.

3. Persons are regarded as intermediate causes - which have physical causes.

4. Reasons are replaced with physical causes!

My post is a reply to what I personally believe are rather silly posts like this (this is directly related to the thread):

http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2012/...ws-of-physics/

"Thinking about physical laws like this, as “entities” that can have existence in their own right, is widespread, but in my opinion fundamentally misguided. It seems to regard “laws of physics” as an underpinning “structure” that directs and controls physical matter. If this were true then it would make sense to ask whether “physical laws” have always existed. But if physical laws “exist” in this sense then what are they made of? How do they interact with matter? How do they effect their actions?

That train of reasoning seems to me ill-founded. Physical laws are not entities with existence in their own right, they are simply descriptions of how matter behaves. The “laws” governing a fundamental particle are simply a summary of the nature of that particle and its behaviour when interacting with other particles. You can no more have “laws of physics” existing independently of matter than you can have a “description of X” independently of “X”. Thus if matter exists then you can have a description of it (= “laws”). But if there were no matter there could not be a description (and thus one could not have pre-existing “laws”)."

Well, yeah, of course the Professor Hellier, the blog author, is correct. Nobody is denying that.

What theists are actually saying is, "Yes, yes, we get all of that...but WHY is the universe working the way it is? Why is matter behaving the way it is?"

Physical laws only tell us how matter behaves-Professor Hellier actually admits that himself. What we're asking is why.

[I will give Professor Hellier credit though for taking Professor Feser seriously and responding to him politely. Very classy.]

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by ReapReason

Does physical Law Require an explanation?

Except for the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, yes-- but only for those who really want to understand how the laws of physics work at the most fundamental level of reality.

Originally Posted by ReapReason

Why does physical law operate the way it does?

You might want to take a 4-year university level physics-math curriculum, or get its equivalent by reading books. Afterward you can ask that question. Beforehand you cannot comprehend its answers.

Originally Posted by ReapReason

Can physical events explain the existence of physical law?

No. The best that they can do is lead a physicist to an understanding of physical law. From there a physicist-philosopher might pursue your question. It is not difficult, but the appropriate steps must be taken, in onesies.

[catholictiger]

Originally Posted by Marc Anthony

My post is a reply to what I personally believe are rather silly posts like this (this is directly related to the thread):

http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2012/...ws-of-physics/

"Thinking about physical laws like this, as “entities” that can have existence in their own right, is widespread, but in my opinion fundamentally misguided. It seems to regard “laws of physics” as an underpinning “structure” that directs and controls physical matter. If this were true then it would make sense to ask whether “physical laws” have always existed. But if physical laws “exist” in this sense then what are they made of? How do they interact with matter? How do they effect their actions?

That train of reasoning seems to me ill-founded. Physical laws are not entities with existence in their own right, they are simply descriptions of how matter behaves. The “laws” governing a fundamental particle are simply a summary of the nature of that particle and its behaviour when interacting with other particles. You can no more have “laws of physics” existing independently of matter than you can have a “description of X” independently of “X”. Thus if matter exists then you can have a description of it (= “laws”). But if there were no matter there could not be a description (and thus one could not have pre-existing “laws”)."

Well, yeah, of course the Professor Hellier, the blog author, is correct. Nobody is denying that.

What theists are actually saying is, "Yes, yes, we get all of that...but WHY is the universe working the way it is? Why is matter behaving the way it is?"

Physical laws only tell us how matter behaves-Professor Hellier actually admits that himself. What we're asking is why.

[I will give Professor Hellier credit though for taking Professor Feser seriously and responding to him politely. Very classy.]

I don't see him deal with the why question for or against it at all. But he does bring up a good point, which I don't think works when you break it down, but he says religious people can't say physical laws aren't nothing because they actually are nothing. The problem he misses is that while physical laws have no existence they can only explain things that are in existence. So the law of gravity while it has no existence can't explain anything while there is nothing existing in the universe. The claim that particles can create something without a cause, where did the particles come from, have they always existed? If you prove that particles can always exist, which i don't think they can, than you can disprove God, but if you can't God must exist.

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by catholictiger

I don't see him deal with the why question for or against it at all. But he does bring up a good point, which I don't think works when you break it down, but he says religious people can't say physical laws aren't nothing because they actually are nothing. The problem he misses is that while physical laws have no existence they can only explain things that are in existence. So the law of gravity while it has no existence can't explain anything while there is nothing existing in the universe. The claim that particles can create something without a cause, where did the particles come from, have they always existed? If you prove that particles can always exist, which i don't think they can, than you can disprove God, but if you can't God must exist.

I don't even think that if you prove the particles can always exist disproves the "First Cause" by St. Thomas's definition. St. Thomas famously argued that you couldn't prove that the universe had a beginning (he believed it did of course, but only because of divine revelation).

What he meant by "First Cause" is something that sustains everything else in the universe that exists. It must be continually sustaining everything-if not, then everything would cease to exist.

The universe could theoretically have existed forever, but even so if St. Thomas's arguments are valid God would have to have been sustaining it forever too.

[catholictiger]

Originally Posted by Marc Anthony

I don't even think that if you prove the particles can always exist disproves the "First Cause" by St. Thomas's definition. St. Thomas famously argued that you couldn't prove that the universe had a beginning (he believed it did of course, but only because of divine revelation).

What he meant by "First Cause" is something that sustains everything else in the universe that exists. It must be continually sustaining everything-if not, then everything would cease to exist.

The universe could theoretically have existed forever, but even so if St. Thomas's arguments are valid God would have to have been sustaining it forever too.

very good point, I forgot about this with St. Thomas Aquinas but I did learn it. Those particles come in and out of existence so even if those particles were etermanlly coming into and out of existence, something that doesn't come in and out of existence must always hold it up.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

I think you may be onto something here. There's a rather simple "simulation" of entities in square grids known as "Conway's Game of Life" that has only 4 rules but has been studied by Computer Scientist for decades. There are only 4 rules.

1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
2. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
3. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.

From these simple rules complex patters emerge. Though there are several patterns that frequently arise to the point of having been given names. Here's a video of the virtual world in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcuBvj0pw-E

That is way nifty - I really must take the time to explore the Life world, having now read about it at some length in Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves and on these fora If nothing else, it may be an exercise in what Dawkins referred to as "consciousness raising", primarily in terms of the capability of simple entities, restricted to simple behaviours, for producing more complex phenomena. Fascinating...