Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Magnus Anderson]

A definition is a description of what some word means, i.e. what things you can represent with it. Any word can mean anything. It's an arbitrary thing, a matter of conventions.

A definition is a SPECIFIC type of statement. It's a statement about what some word means, i.e. what message it communicates. It is NOT a statement about anything else, e.g. about what kind of laws exist.

And when you say "This word ought to be used only to represent this kind of things", you are NOT saying that these things that it can represent exist. And if they don't, it does not follow that the choice to use that word that way is wrong.

[Skepdick]

A definition is a description of what some word means, i.e. what things you can represent with it. Any word can mean anything. It's an arbitrary thing, a matter of conventions.

A definition is a SPECIFIC type of statement. It's a statement about what some word means, i.e. what message it communicates. It is NOT a statement about anything else, e.g. about what kind of laws exist.

And when you say "This word ought to be used only to represent this kind of things", you are NOT saying that these things that it can represent exist. And if they don't, it does not follow that the choice to use that word that way is wrong.

So you don't think the word "immutable" conveys the message that the law you are refering to will not mutate?

Would you be surprised if that which you've called "immutable" mutates?

[Magnus Anderson]

It tells you that the term "law of nature" cannot be used to represent things that are mutable. In other words, if something is mutable, it is NOT a law of nature, it cannot be called "law of nature". In the same exact way that if a man is married, he's NOT a bachelor, you cannot call him "bachelor". There are no such things as married bachelors and mutable laws of nature. These are oxymorons.

[Iwannaplato]

It tells you that the term "law of nature" cannot be used to represent things that are mutable. In other words, if something is mutable, it is NOT a law of nature, it cannot be called "law of nature". In the same exact way that if a man is married, he's NOT a bachelor, you cannot call him "bachelor". There are no such things as married bachelors and mutable laws of nature. These are oxymorons.

Which might be a problem with assuming that the patterns we observe are laws in that sense. Some things that were considered laws have turned out to be more local and time bound. In human law, we recognize that there is a pattern but it might change. The concept is still useful. I think we should retain the possibility for that with what get called natural laws (and even constants). It would still be useful to know these patterns in nature, even if in 1000 years or a billion, or somewhere else, or in certain conditions, this law no longer holds or does not hold. Perhaps they are more like habits in nature.

[Atla]

It tells you that the term "law of nature" cannot be used to represent things that are mutable. In other words, if something is mutable, it is NOT a law of nature, it cannot be called "law of nature". In the same exact way that if a man is married, he's NOT a bachelor, you cannot call him "bachelor". There are no such things as married bachelors and mutable laws of nature. These are oxymorons.

The immutability of the laws of nature has been called into question for decades, and "law" by itself doesn't imply immutability. So today your definition doesn't necessarily hold.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It tells you that the term "law of nature" cannot be used to represent things that are mutable. In other words, if something is mutable, it is NOT a law of nature, it cannot be called "law of nature". In the same exact way that if a man is married, he's NOT a bachelor, you cannot call him "bachelor". There are no such things as married bachelors and mutable laws of nature. These are oxymorons.

Note 'The only constant is change'
as such nothing in reality is permanent or immutable.

Note:

Anything Can Change, It Seems, Even an Immutable Law of Nature
An international team of astrophysicists has discovered that the basic laws of nature as understood today may be changing slightly as the universe ages, a surprising finding that could rewrite physics textbooks and challenge fundamental assumptions about the workings of the cosmos.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/us/a ... ature.html

Are the laws of nature changing with time?

Precise measurements on the light from distant quasars suggest that the value of the fine-structure constant may have changed over the history of the universe. If confirmed, the results will be of enormous significance for the foundations of physics
https://physicsworld.com/a/are-the-laws ... with-time/

Principle of Reality;
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.

There are many claims of what is natural laws from various FSKs, i.e. animism, theism, common sense, etc. but the most reliable, credible and objective is the human based scientific FSR-FSK.

Since the most reliable, credible, objective version of what are natural laws [ are conditioned upon [emerged, realized, and justified - not described] the human-based scientific, it follows, ultimately natural laws cannot be mind-unrelated [mind-independent], they must be somehow related to the human body, brain and mind.

Because human nature is mutable, natural laws in the above case cannot be immutable. QED.

To claim that natural laws are immutable is equivalent to agreeing with and supporting the theists' cosmological argument, i.e. God exists.
Are you a theist?
If you are a theist, prove God exists as real?
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

[Veritas Aequitas]

It tells you that the term "law of nature" cannot be used to represent things that are mutable. In other words, if something is mutable, it is NOT a law of nature, it cannot be called "law of nature". In the same exact way that if a man is married, he's NOT a bachelor, you cannot call him "bachelor". There are no such things as married bachelors and mutable laws of nature. These are oxymorons.

That "There are no such things as married bachelors and mutable laws of nature" is only valid with the human-based analytical FSK and linguistic FSK grounded on the consensus of the participants and believers.

Note:
Semantic Skepticism
viewtopic.php?t=40253

There are no absolute meanings in relation to specified-words without their related-ness to the human conditions within a human-based linguistic FSK.

For example in Islam there is a provision for temporary marriage [mutah].
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/rea ... ion-46082/
which is actually a disguise for prostitution.

In this case while a person is in mutah considered as married by definition, but he is still considered a bachelor since he had NOT committed to a formal & proper marriage recognized by the Muslims society within its respective FSK.

There are always counter examples to whatever you can bring forth, but the point is whatever your claim, it must be conditioned to a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] or Knowledge [FSK].
There can be no fundamental reality that is unrelated to the human body, brain and mind.

Note Skepdick's [as I interpret it]
'the color of this word is green'
will definitely be true ONLY within the human-based linguistic FSK he specified.

You many claim, but the wavelenghts of word from the surface is definite;
but it is definite only within the human-based science physics FSK.

There are various challenges to the above, but they are all conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.

As such there is no human-independent reality as claimed by philosophical realists like you. To insist on such a claim is delusional.

You just cannot avoid nor escape from the human-related factor when asserting what is reality, and that is the reality of what matters.

[Magnus Anderson]

The immutability of the laws of nature has been called into question for decades, and "law" by itself doesn't imply immutability. So today your definition doesn't necessarily hold.

You guys have little to no regard for definitions and are thus prone to word games and sophistry of all kinds.

The term "law" does not imply immutability. There are mutable laws, for example. Noone denies that. But the term "the law of nature" is defined as something immutable. No amount of empirical research can prove there are mutable laws of nature. That would be like proving there are married bachelors. There aren't. The definition of the term "bachelor" prohibits the existence of such things. What you can claim instead is that the laws of nature DO NOT exist, i.e. that the universe is random.

[Skepdick]

You guys have little to no regard for definitions and are thus prone to word games and sophistry of all kinds.

The game of definitions is a very silly game. Define "define".

The term "law" does not imply immutability.

Nobody is saying that "law" implies immutability.

We are saying that "Immutable law" implies immutability.
Whereas a "mutable law" does NOT imply immutability.

There are mutable laws, for example. Noone denies that. But the term "the law of nature" is defined as something immutable.

And why should nature's laws care about your definitions thereof?

Nature's laws are whatever they are.

If they are mutable but you define them as immutable - your definition is wrong.
If they are immutable but you define them as mutable - your definition is wrong.

No amount of empirical research can prove there are mutable laws of nature.

What? When did nature subjugate itself to our definitions?

That would be like proving there are married bachelors. There aren't. The definition of the term "bachelor" prohibits the existence of such things.

What a terrible analogy. Do you understand how the term "immutable" qualifies the laws you are speaking about.

Bachelor implies unmarried. Law does not imply immutable

What you can claim instead is that the laws of nature DO NOT exist, i.e. that the universe is random.

Actually, I can claim whatever the fuck I want. Despite your objections or attempts to restrict the way I think or speak.

[Atla]

You guys have little to no regard for definitions and are thus prone to word games and sophistry of all kinds.

That's kinda funny coming from the guy who means "attainment of the highest goal" by morality, which has nothing to do with morality.

The term "law" does not imply immutability. There are mutable laws, for example. Noone denies that. But the term "the law of nature" is defined as something immutable. No amount of empirical research can prove there are mutable laws of nature. That would be like proving there are married bachelors. There aren't. The definition of the term "bachelor" prohibits the existence of such things. What you can claim instead is that the laws of nature DO NOT exist, i.e. that the universe is random.

Of course the laws of nature DO NOT exist, and of course that doesn't mean randomness. Laws are abstractions created by humans about the natural world, and the natural world may or may not have immutable behaviour. I disagree that "laws of nature" are defined as immutable today, but if this pains you so much, what word shall we use instead of "law"?

[Atla]

Hey ChatGPT is ideal for such problems

The concept of the immutability of the laws of nature is a topic of debate among philosophers, scientists, and theologians. The prevailing scientific view is that the laws of nature, as we currently understand them, are not considered immutable or unchangeable in an absolute sense.

Scientific laws are our current best descriptions of how the natural world behaves based on empirical evidence and observations. They are formulated based on our understanding at a particular point in time and are subject to revision as new evidence emerges. Throughout the history of science, our understanding of the laws of nature has evolved as we have gained new insights and refined our theories.

For example, Newton's laws of motion were considered fundamental and immutable for centuries until Albert Einstein's theory of relativity expanded our understanding of how objects move in extreme conditions. Similarly, our understanding of quantum mechanics has challenged classical notions of determinism and introduced probabilistic behavior at the fundamental level.

However, it's worth noting that there is a certain level of regularity and predictability in the natural world that allows us to formulate laws and make reliable predictions. These laws often describe patterns and relationships that hold true across a wide range of observations and experiments.

In summary, while the laws of nature are not considered immutable in an absolute sense, they are our best descriptions of how the natural world operates based on our current understanding. They are subject to refinement and revision as scientific knowledge advances.

[Flannel Jesus]

Hey ChatGPT is ideal for such problems

Seems like gpt is (understandably) equivocating between two different meanings of "law of nature".

1. A "law of nature" is a pattern postulated by humans to explain the regularities they observe - and their postulations may be incorrect, some more incorrect then others.

2. A "law of nature" as the actual "governing" forces of nature (or emergent patterns, in some cases, arguably), which humans may not know about or even be able to conceive of.

When some posters here are talking about unchanging and inviolable laws of nature, they are most likely talking about flavor 2 - they are saying that this pocket of existence that we call "the universe" has unchanging rules, regardless of if humans ideas about what those rules might be have changed across human history. Chat gpt seems to talk about flavor 1.

The people taking about flavor 2 may be incorrect, but if they are incorrect, it's not in a way that the quote from gpt is really touching on, by my estimation.

[Atla]

Hey ChatGPT is ideal for such problems

Seems like gpt is (understandably) equivocating between two different meanings of "law of nature".

1. A "law of nature" is a pattern postulated by humans to explain the regularities they observe - and their postulations may be incorrect, some more incorrect then others.

2. A "law of nature" as the actual "governing" forces of nature (or emergent patterns, in some cases, arguably), which humans may not know about or even be able to conceive of.

When some posters here are talking about unchanging and inviolable laws of nature, they are most likely talking about flavor 2 - they are saying that this pocket of existence that we call "the universe" has unchanging rules, regardless of if humans ideas about what those rules might be have changed across human history. Chat gpt seems to talk about flavor 1.

The people taking about flavor 2 may be incorrect, but if they are incorrect, it's not in a way that the quote from gpt is really touching on, by my estimation.

But 2. doesn't have to be immutable either, no?

[Flannel Jesus]

But 2. doesn't have to be immutable either, no?

Not necessarily, I'm just clarifying that that's what people are talking about. 2 could be ostensibly changing, though it seems intuitively like, if there is such a thing as 2 at all, it's a defining feature of this pocket of existence and thus static. I don't have anything more than intuition for that though, I'd certainly be interested to find out if that intuition is wrong (though clear answers of that nature are unlikely to come in my lifetime).

[Atla]

But 2. doesn't have to be immutable either, no?

Not necessarily, I'm just clarifying that that's what people are talking about. 2 could be ostensibly changing, though it seems intuitively like, if there is such a thing as 2 at all, it's a defining feature of this pocket of existence and thus static. I don't have anything more than intuition for that though.

Yes there is the (in my opinion) rather religious idea that there literally are laws that govern the known universe. I don't think VA was talking about that though, neither was I.