Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jul 11, 2011.
This may need double checking or have mistakes spotted, but as I understand it laws of nature is just a term for the way that natural things behave which have universal application within a particular environment. So in other words, "laws" of nature aren't things to be "obeyed" like criminal laws and such, they are just things that are always true given a certain set of circumstances.
There doesn't have to be a cause, it is just a set motion so to speak. We could say it's a natural law that a creature of one species could never give birth to another species. It is always true that one a creature of one species cannot give birth to another species. However, I don't believe that imputing a natural law in that case is appropriate - can't think exactly why off the top of my head, but I would assume that the natural laws named to account for the fact this is not able to take place have already been specified - but it seems more fitting to me if we were to just say that a creature of one species giving birth to another species would be something goes against natural law.
Maybe what I'm about to say is opinionated, but I think that a better question might be "Why do we impute that there are natural laws to begin with (and perhaps, why that instead of God)?" That's a topic for another day.
Well obsereved laws that we know about mainly i mean
Maybe it can be argued otherwise but I just see them as behaviors that occur. How things work. I haven't done any extensive study into this recently so much of what I have learned is... on this my memory is shot, basically, unless I actually remember more than I think I do which could happen to be the case; not really sure how I could just shoot a lot of right things out of my ass, unless it's derived from my understanding of other bits of science at the least. But I think it's fair to speculate on things, before I jump into the accepted science, as it helps me think critically. I tend to just view natural laws as observed behaviors, to which the results of observation are replicated over and over. But the aspect that would make us call them laws might be that they are guiding principles, if that would even be a necessary attribute, I don't know.
Pretty sure I've probably made some inaccurate statements. Not that confident, but I think I'm hitting on something partially.
Word. Deffinately observed action would be on point. But theres still specific laws they follow that we dont know why they do. I believe is the case.
Well if this is the case, I'm not sure that we don't know why they do... in the sense that the properties of the thing determine would determine what it does. such as the own thing's structure would play a role. humans walk upright because we are bipedal. but you're talking atoms as in down to a more basic form. and i think you're getting at quantum physics, no?
YouTube - BBC Horizon - What is Reality?‏
quantum mechanics i guess i meant.
It would deff be in that category.
But ya atoms are kinda parradoxical huh
Lol i wrote adams at first lol. Fruedian slip.
this is basically what i was going to say. what we have here is a failure to properly conceptualize what the 'laws of nature' actually are; universal constants that are validated through consistent observation. framing it in terms of rules that must be followed is one of the most basic mistakes that people make.
it is the philosophical approach that you are taking towards scientific questions that is causing you difficulty. the existential 'why' is a question of philosophy. take the law of gravity for example. you could view that in the framework as a rule that matter must follow, which leads to the philosophical question of why that happens and the theoretical answer that there is an enforcing agency at work, i.e. god. from a philosophical standpoint that might make good sense. the problem with that line of questioning is that it leads to concepts which are not scientifically oriented (god, 'rules' that matter follows, etc) which only works to cloud your vision of the scientific concept that initially sparked your question (gravity). one could simply conclude that the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun because god makes it happen, without having to involve the concept of gravity. that would make just as much sense philosophically speaking, and it is actually preferable imo because it avoids the confusion of intermingling science with philosophy.
however, if the concept of gravity is what you actually wish to understand, then a better question is how it happens rather than why. granted there is no definitive answer to this question either, but it at least offers a basis for scientific investigation where 'why' offers none. one school of thought is that matter warps space-time creating a natural curve in the space time continuum which draws matter together. here is a simple (though somewhat inaccurate due to its 2 dimensional design) demonstration of this concept:
the laws of nature cause it to follow the laws of nature
what causes cars to follow where the drivers make them go?
Short answer: Atoms behave the way they do BECAUSE OF the laws of nature. They can't act any other way.
Does everything follow the laws of nature? If so, is it because they can't act any other way? So then, clearly, religious people and atheists can't act any other way because of the laws of nature. Although, we are all sentient beings. So... there must be... a "SOMETHING" FROM "ABOVE"... that causes us to behave the way we do. Correct?
So why do you seem to HATE people who have FAITH so PROFOUNDLY?
the difference is people always have a choice.
And??? What relevance does that have?
What is stopping us from making the RIGHT choices? Because, I think there is something stopping us.
Um... how does the fact that we a choice make a difference? I don't really get what you're saying there, now that I think about it.
Another good question is... why are all photons and quarks et al, identical? Where, or what was the mold?
Or why is there a maximum speed in our universe?
If light is like a classical wave, its speed should depend upon the elasticity and inertia of the medium it travels through. If light travels through the medium of empty space, its speed should depend upon the elasticity and inertia of space. However how can empty space have properties?
Seems like I could give equal time to the first whole paragraph and the last question, so I will...here goes.
On a semantics level and probably a practical level, yes, everything within nature follows the laws of nature, or it would not be in it. We'll substitute the word "nature" with "reality" and it becomes clearer. Everything that is a part of reality acts accordingly or it's not a part of reality. Some things in our cosmos act very strange but are a result of our limited knowledge, and once understood better should also be consistent.
Which leads to your last question. The problem with faith is not that I hate people that have it, is that I don't respect faith as a concept. Faith is believing something without evidence, and you are considered to have stronger faith when you believe something that's more outrageous with less evidence. The obviously problem there is that you can believe anything is true. If you base your life on faith it's like you don't stand for anything of substance.
There are plenty of people I know with faith that I LOVE. The posters on here who just spout nonsensical garbage and don't even attempt to think for themselves, have nothing but my disdain (Lyricalpriest, Payback mostly).
Separate names with a comma.