Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thesis:
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK, of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.
Objective moral facts are possible via the human-based moral FSK.
Therefore human-based morality is objective.


@3:16
https://youtu.be/tLC8sFq1Cms?t=196
Mlodinow: "..I believe we invent the Laws of Nature re Physics."
"we are discovering.. discovering is a way of describing the universe .. discovering my invention"

To say 'we invent the Laws of Nature ..discovering my own invention' is a bit rough.

The scientific FSK is human-based, it follows, scientific facts, truth of natural Laws cannot be mind-independent.
How laws of nature came to be human based is a complex process conditioned upon 13.5 billions years of conditions since the Big Bang.

The Laws of Nature are not pre-existing Laws independent of the human-mind awaiting discovery by humans as claimed by philosophical realists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
The above is also explained by Kant is detail;

1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid. A125

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

• Laws and Symmetry
  Bas Van Fraasen
  
  Metaphysicians speak of laws of nature in terms of necessity and universality; scientists do so in terms of symmetry and invariance.
  This book argues that no metaphysical account of laws can succeed.
  The author analyses and rejects the arguments that there are laws of nature, or that we must believe that there are.
  He argues that we should discard the idea of law as an inadequate clue to science.
  
  After exploring what this means for general epistemology, the book
  develops the empiricist view of science as a construction of models to represent the phenomena.
  Concepts of symmetry, transformation, and invariance illuminate the structure of such models.
  A central role is played in science by symmetry arguments, and it is shown how these function also in the philosophical analysis of probability.
  The advocated approach presupposes no realism about laws or necessities in nature.
  https://www.amazon.com/Laws-Symmetry-Cl ... B005NE53IM

[Iwannaplato]

Notes:
The above is also explained by Kant is detail;

1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid. A125

I don't think Mlodinow is saying what Kant seems to be saying here.
Without using the word, Mlodinow is arguing that while the math is consistant, the ontological explanations of 'what is going on' is different. Notice his example with Feyman's interpretation vs. Schrodinger's and Heisenbergs. The regularities are there, hence the math works and all three use the same equations, but the explanation (in Feynman that the particles take every possible route to the next position) is different. So, while Mlodinow is talking about invention, it is around the ontological explanation. But the equations hold.

That's different from what Kant is saying where there are no patterns.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What Mlodinow is saying [.. we invent the Laws of Nature] is exactly what Kant asserted, i.e. "we ourselves introduce.." "had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them [the laws of nature] there"

In the video Robert Kuhn tried to bring the philosophical realism mind-independent laws of nature, but Mlodinow did not acknowledge that at all.

Mlodinow:
.. looking at the same thing, has the same equation, same prediction, so what is real, this in head, that in his head, and other ways .. so you can't say what is right, we are inventing ways to describe it .. to mesh with our human mind and the way it thinks .. an alien might have a completely different theory ..

I anticipate PH will insist, what we know and described from science is not the-described.
This is countered by my;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

The fact is humans are invent the Laws of Nature on the Go in alignment with the emergence and realization of reality as conditioned by that 13.5 billions years of conditions.

There is no mind-independent Laws of Nature as claimed by the philosophical realists.

[Harbal]

Thesis:
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK, of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.
Objective moral facts are possible via the human-based moral FSK.
Therefore human-based morality is objective.

And from what objective authority do we get our morals?

[Iwannaplato]

What Mlodinow is saying [.. we invent the Laws of Nature] is exactly what Kant asserted, i.e. "we ourselves introduce.." "had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them [the laws of nature] there"

In the video Robert Kuhn tried to bring the philosophical realism mind-independent laws of nature, but Mlodinow did not acknowledge that at all.

Actually it just seemed like Kuhn was trying to get a sense of M's position.

Mlodinow:
.. looking at the same thing, has the same equation, same prediction, so what is real, this in head, that in his head, and other ways .. so you can't say what is right, we are inventing ways to describe it .. to mesh with our human mind and the way it thinks .. an alien might have a completely different theory ..

with the same equations. Again and again he says the same equations might have two different....and if he was a philosopher he might say ontologies, and even as a scientist he might say models.

But as he makes very clear when talking about Feynman, the equations are the same between him and Schrodinger and Heisenberg, but the explanation is not the same. This means that the regularities are not just in the mind.

There is no mind-independent Laws of Nature as claimed by the philosophical realists.

Then why would M say the aliens would have the same equations?

And let's just remember: this is M's opinion, whatever his opinion is.

[Iwannaplato]

From Hawking's and Mlodinow's book The Grand Design

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

“[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

“According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law.”

'

A summation of the book's general position...

The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe and explains eleven-dimensional M-theory. The authors of the book point out that a Unified Field Theory (a theory, based on an early model of the universe, proposed by Albert Einstein and other physicists) may not exist.[1]

It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone.[2]

Unless we are going to say that humans invented the laws that led to the origins of the universe, there is something lawlike, at the very least in the equations, that M has asserted.

And we still don't have an explanation for what is
direct evidence
and what is
indrect evidence.

[Flannel Jesus]

This thread again brings me back to my age old problem with your approach here:

Why is it that we can invent some laws of nature and not others?

It seemed to take only one man to invent the law of nature that is Relativistic Gravity. Einstein (if you want to argue it took a few more people, like Maxwell, then... granted, but still, very few people)

Billions of people combined, in contrast, seem to have failed to create the law of nature that we call "Astrology".

Why is that?

[Iwannaplato]

This thread again brings me back to my age old problem with your approach here:

Why is it that we can invent some laws of nature and not others?

It seemed to take only one man to invent the law of nature that is Relativistic Gravity. Einstein (if you want to argue it took a few more people, like Maxwell, then... granted, but still, very few people)

Billions of people combined, in contrast, seem to have failed to create the law of nature that we call "Astrology".

Why is that?

Yes, the cocreating seems to depend heavily on the not-mind portions of reality.

I wish I could invent a law - it can be local - that allowed me to reduce the weights of things I have to carry.

[Flannel Jesus]

This thread again brings me back to my age old problem with your approach here:

Why is it that we can invent some laws of nature and not others?

It seemed to take only one man to invent the law of nature that is Relativistic Gravity. Einstein (if you want to argue it took a few more people, like Maxwell, then... granted, but still, very few people)

Billions of people combined, in contrast, seem to have failed to create the law of nature that we call "Astrology".

Why is that?

Yes, the cocreating seems to depend heavily on the not-mind portions of reality.

I wish I could invent a law - it can be local - that allowed me to reduce the weights of things I have to carry.

That law is called "go to the gym".

[Iwannaplato]

That law is called "go to the gym".

If you're going to invent, invent big, I say.
I think the weights of things should be cocreated by my desires.

[Skepdick]

This thread again brings me back to my age old problem with your approach here:

Why is it that we can invent some laws of nature and not others?

It seemed to take only one man to invent the law of nature that is Relativistic Gravity. Einstein (if you want to argue it took a few more people, like Maxwell, then... granted, but still, very few people)

Billions of people combined, in contrast, seem to have failed to create the law of nature that we call "Astrology".

Why is that?

It all depends on the laws you pre-suppose for evaluating success/failure?

[Skepdick]

I wish I could invent a law - it can be local - that allowed me to reduce the weights of things I have to carry.

Levers, pulleys, wheelbarrows; or any other machine.

Principle of least efort.

[Atla]

Kant in CPR wrote:
1. Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
2. We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.

If I understood this right, then I have to say, what a load of idealistic-solipsistic-narcissistic nonsense coming from a self-important philosopher.

Maybe the most hilarious counterexample to it is quantum mechanics, which is an Order and Regularity in the Appearances so bizarre, so counterintuitive, unthinkable, unimaginable, that no human could come up with it in a million years. There's no way we could have introduced such an order, yet it's there.

3. For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances;
and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori
if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and
if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid. A125

I won't pretend to understand this sentence, after reading it a few times, it looks like some kind of idealistic circular reasoning, throwing around things like necessity, certainty, grounds, possibility.