Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Note my principle;
Reality, facts [natural laws #], truths, knowledge, objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based* FSR-FSK [* others are not aware of this].
The scientific FSK [at its best] is the most objective at present, the theistic-FSK [at its best], the least objective.

The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal but rather to mean that humans are somehow involved, thus to counter the philosophical realists' claim that reality [e.g. natural laws] is mind-independent.

All humans are programmed via evolution with a pattern-seeking faculty to facilitate basic survival, thus naturally all humans will be driven to cognize patterns, order and regularity within the primordial soup of particles and their world of appearances.

Since humans are unique, the patterns, order and regularity are also a unique as their finger prints, as such at present there could be >8 billion specific versions of certain order and regularity.

To ensure the order and regularities are common, FSR-FSKs emerged within humanity so that they are co-shared-knowledge of what is the reality they realized, thus facilitate communication and survival.

In the beginning the FSR-FSKs were crude, thus less objective [e.g. primitive beliefs, animism], the FSR-FSK subsequently progress to the more objective to the present most objective [as justified], i.e. the science FSK.
Astrology had progressed from say animism and paganism, but its objectivity is not sufficient to meet the standard, i.e. the scientific FSK.

Anyone can "invent" natural laws [now or in the future] with a range of objectivity but to be the most objectivity it has to meet the conditions and requirements of the scientific FSK which is collective-based NOT individual-based which are opinions.

Get it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

As stated above,

"All humans are programmed via evolution with a pattern-seeking faculty to facilitate basic survival, thus naturally all humans will be driven to cognize patterns, order and regularity within the primordial soup of particles and their world of appearances."

This pattern faculty is the the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind that Kant mentioned in A125.
This power drive the necessity of "a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances." a priori means embedded in our brain via DNA and not based on existing experiences, a posteriori.
The above are all human-based and from there human-based FSKs enabled human-based natural laws to emerge.

[Flannel Jesus]

The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal

Ah, very important thing to clarify there

[Skepdick]

The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal

It's very literal.

The "law" of gravity looks very different from the perspective of Newton than it does from the perspective of Einstein. Take away any particular formalization/theory of gravity and you are left only with the question: What is the law of gravity?

Laws/rules are mental constructs that we project onto the world in our quest for understanding. They are the building blocks from whch we, humans construct the models we use to interpret the world.

Laws broadly delineate the possible from the impossible, but the moment the "impossible" happens we know for certain that our laws are wrong.

Laws are just programming languages. Software for your brain. If ... then...

Clarke's three laws apply:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal

Ah, very important thing to clarify there

You are deceptive is excluding my full explanation;

"The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal but rather to mean that humans are somehow involved, thus to counter the philosophical realists' claim that reality [e.g. natural laws] is mind-independent."

As I had stated, it is not as easy as say 'I invent a chair, table, etc.'
There's a loads of complex details to explain.

What is ultimate is 'laws of nature' do not exist as mind-independent, i.e. will still exists if there are no humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal

It's very literal.

The "law" of gravity looks very different from the perspective of Newton than it does from the perspective of Einstein. Take away any particular formalization/theory of gravity and you are left only with the question: What is the law of gravity?

Laws/rules are mental constructs that we project onto the world in our quest for understanding. They are the building blocks from whch we, humans construct the models we use to interpret the world.

Laws broadly delineate the possible from the impossible, but the moment the "impossible" happens we know for certain that our laws are wrong.

Laws are just programming languages. Software for your brain. If ... then...

Clarke's three laws apply:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

If you explain with that amount of details to support the term 'invent' then that is acceptable.

I do not prefer the term 'invent' which can be very misleading, especially when we do not follow with sufficient explanations and details.

[Flannel Jesus]

The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal

Ah, very important thing to clarify there

You are deceptive is excluding my full explanation;

"The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal but rather to mean that humans are somehow involved, thus to counter the philosophical realists' claim that reality [e.g. natural laws] is mind-independent."

As I had stated, it is not as easy as say 'I invent a chair, table, etc.'
There's a loads of complex details to explain.

What is ultimate is 'laws of nature' do not exist as mind-independent, i.e. will still exists if there are no humans.

I'm not being deceptive, you say it's not literal, I agree that it's not literally true. What's deceptive about that?

If I've quoted you deceptively, there must be some belief you hold that I'm misrepresenting in my quote. Do you think it IS literal?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah, very important thing to clarify there

You are deceptive is excluding my full explanation;

"The phrase 'we humans invented the natural laws' is not literal but rather to mean that humans are somehow involved, thus to counter the philosophical realists' claim that reality [e.g. natural laws] is mind-independent."

As I had stated, it is not as easy as say 'I invent a chair, table, etc.'
There's a loads of complex details to explain.

What is ultimate is 'laws of nature' do not exist as mind-independent, i.e. will still exists if there are no humans.

I'm not being deceptive, you say it's not literal, I agree that it's not literally true. What's deceptive about that?

If I've quoted you deceptively, there must be some belief you hold that I'm misrepresenting in my quote. Do you think it IS literal?

OK, it was a misinterpretation.

"invent" can be taken literally if there are sufficient detailed explanation to support it like what Skepdick did.
Personally, I would prefer not to use the term 'invent' since it can be very misleading if used without providing the details.

When Kant stated,
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.

it is very sensational and has to be understood in the context of his whole CPR.

[Flannel Jesus]

Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.

I don't really have any reason to think kant was correct about that. I think nature probably is entirely ordered and regular all on its own.

That's not to say that our ideas about its regularity, our ways of describing and modelling that regularity are the pure unadulterated truth. I definitely don't think that.

But the idea that there isn't a regularity except for what we impose? Nah, I doubt it.

[Atla]

The connection between humans and the Order of nature is probably quite different, it's some version of the Anthropic principle.

Of course the world we observe has to be ordered, otherwise we couldn't be here. Humans probably couldn't have evolved and couldn't continue to exist in a world that has changing laws, or no laws at all. (Either laws don't change, or changes are too small to be relevant.) In a world slightly less ordered, we would probably immediately die.

But it doesn't follow from this that we invent the laws of nature, nor does it follow that there can't be a real external world (heh).

[Magnus Anderson]

The laws of nature are defined as immutable. Thus, a law that changes is not a law of nature. And whatever is immutable is also mind-independent, i.e. it cannot cease to exist if minds cease to exist.

That said, one cannot argue that the laws of nature change nor that they are mind-dependent. That would be a contradiction in terms. It would be like arguing that bachelors are married. It's silly. What one can argue instead is that the laws of nature do not exist ( i.e. that everything is random ) or that they do but that their number is lower than it is normally thought or that they are, or at least, that some of them are, indeterministic rather than deterministic laws.

Mind you, I don't believe that they do not exist nor that they are indeterministic. But at least, these things aren't logical contradictions. The idea that the laws of nature are not mind-independent most definitely is.

[Skepdick]

The laws of nature are defined as immutable. Thus, a law that changes is not a law of nature.

That seems like terrible reasoning to me.

If an "immutable" law of nature changes then the definition must be wrong.

[Magnus Anderson]

If an "immutable" law of nature changes then the definition must be wrong.

You clearly don't understand what definitions are and how they work. I am not surprised at all.

The definition of the term "unicorn" is "a horse with a horn on its forehead". Since such horses do not exist, does it follow that that definition is wrong and that the word "unicorn" actually means something else? Not really.

A definition is merely a description of what some word means. And the meaning of a word is merely the set of all things that can be represented by it. A definition is true if and only if it accurately describes the meaning of the word. Whether or not things that can be represented by that word exist has no effect on the truth value of its definitions.

[Skepdick]

If an "immutable" law of nature changes then the definition must be wrong.

You clearly don't understand what definitions are and how they work. I am not surprised at all.

The definition of the term "unicorn" is "a horse with a horn on its forehead". Since such horses do not exist, does it follow that that definition is wrong and that the word "unicorn" actually means something else? Not really.

A definition is merely a description of what some word means. And the meaning of a word is merely the set of all things that can be represented by it. A definition is true if and only if it accurately describes the meaning of the word. Whether or not things that can be represented by that word exist has no effect on the truth value of its definitions.

Which part of what I said confused you?

Empiricism is really simple.

If you define something as being "immutable" and then it goes an mutates - your definition is wrong.

[Atla]

By laws I just meant how the natural world behaves. We observe the behaviour and establish laws based on it. We don't know whether or not the laws of nature are immutable.