Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[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.

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.

But you both were talking to Magnus, presumably about his beliefs. Was HE talking about 1 or 2?

[Atla]

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.

But you both were talking to Magnus, presumably about his beliefs. Was HE talking about 1 or 2?

Neither I think, just about immutability, which wasn't particularly relevant to my original point anyway.

[Flannel Jesus]

Neither I think, just about immutability, which wasn't particularly relevant to my original point anyway.

> 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.

That looks like he's talking about "the law of nature" to me

[Skepdick]

Neither I think, just about immutability, which wasn't particularly relevant to my original point anyway.

> 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.

That looks like he's talking about "the law of nature" to me

It doesn't matter what he's talking about.

Mutability and immutability are general properties of information in any form. They are qualities as experienced by humans.

The data in your computer may be immutable - e.g Read-only.
or
It could be mutable e.g read-write.

[Atla]

Neither I think, just about immutability, which wasn't particularly relevant to my original point anyway.

> 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.

That looks like he's talking about "the law of nature" to me

Yes that's what I meant too

[Iwannaplato]

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.

No, there can be regularities. They may last for incredibly long periods of time. Then they change. The universe need not be, at any stage, random. And there is research supporting this.

[Magnus Anderson]

The game of definitions is a very silly game.

I am not at all surprised that you hold such a silly belief.

Whoever promotes the idea that the game of definitions -- proper, linguistic, nominal ones -- is a silly game is promoting the destruction of society. The question is merely whether they are doing it intentionally or unintentionally.

Define "define".

To define a word is to describe what that word means.

More specifically, to define some word W as used by person P is to describe the concept that the person P attaches to the word W.

The term "definition" is also used to refer to 1) the act of constructing a concept, and 2) the act of attaching a concept to a word. Sometimes, the two meanings are combined into one, so that "to define symbol X" means "to construct a concept and attach it to the symbol X".

The term is also often used by laymen to mean the same thing as "description". In that case, a definition does not necessarily describe the concept attached to a word. In fact, in most cases, it describes some other portion of reality, such as what all real life things that can be represented by that word have in common or what's important to know about them.

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

Nature's laws do not and should not but you should.

When you construct a concept and attach it to a symbol -- which is something you have to do before you can observe anything -- you establish what can be and cannot be represented by that symbol.

When you establish that the word "bachelor" can only be used to represent unmarried men, it follows that bachelors, i.e. things that can be represented by the word "bachelor", can never be married. No amount of observation can prove that wrong.

"Married bachelor" would be a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, a broken symbol that cannot be used to represent anything conceivable let alone real. The concept attached to the symbol tells you that it's a symbol that can only be used to represent men that are BOTH married AND not married. That makes it effectively a meaningless symbol, one that cannot be used to represent anything at all. That's why you can know, without any sort of observation, that married bachelors do not exist.

The same goes for the term "laws of nature". The concept attached to it specifies that the term can only be used with respect to immutable laws. If a law is a mutable law, it is NOT a law of nature. End of story. No amount of observation can prove the existence of mutable laws of nature.

That's why you should care about definitions. They prevent you from making mistakes ( such as contradictions, equivocation, etc. ) They also help you effectively communicate and understand what others are saying.

The term "laws of nature" refers to the components of the mechanism that generates the next state of the universe based on the prior one. Such a mechanism is very clearly immutable; it does not "move" through time, so it has no capacity to change. If the operation of the mechanism is limited, i.e. if there are laws that restrict its behavior, it is either a deterministic mechanism ( involving no randomness at all ) or an indeterminstic one ( involving a degree of randomness. ) If there are no such laws, it's a nondeterministic mechanism, a completely random one.

You can talk about mutable laws that govern an aspect of the universe, that's for sure, but in that case, you have to understand that you're talking about a different thing. In that case, you wouldn't be talking about "the laws of nature". Such laws may undergo change but that neither means that the laws of nature are mutable nor that the laws of nature do not exist.

Consider the mechanism that generated the state of the universe at point in time t2 based on the state of the universe at some prior point t1. Suppose the mechanism is governed by deterministic laws. Suppose that a different mechanism was responsible for generating the state of the universe at point t3 based on the state of the universe at point t2. Since that mechanism is a different one, its laws are also different ones. Suppose the laws are still deterministic but otherwise different than the ones that govern the other mechanism. At this point, we have two different immutable mechanisms governed by two different sets of immutable laws. If we decide to treat the two mechanisms as two different states of one and the same mechanism, the result is a mutable mechanism -- and not merely one that can mutate ( "mutable" ) but also one that mutated. That would be an example of a mutable mechanism that is governed by mutable laws. For every two adjacent points in time, there exists a mechanism that generated the state of the universe at the subsequent point based on the state of the universe at the earlier point. If we say that every such mechanism is a single state of one and the same mechanism, we end up with a mutable mechanism that is governed by what we might call "mutable laws of nature". These laws, however, would be separate from, a different thing than, what is normally meant by "laws of nature". Such laws wouldn't be the fundamental laws of the universe because one can legitimately ask "What kind of laws govern the way these mutable laws change?" If the answer is "No laws govern it", then it follows that the laws of nature do not exist. But in that case, it also follows that the universe, at the fundamental level, is governed by randomness. No laws = no limitations = everything is equally possible = chaos / randomness.

You are caught up in word games and your disdain for definitions merely reinforces it.

The entire "Laws of nature are human inventions" is nothing but a confusion born out of disdain for definitions ( which is common among those who lean too much on the side of empiricism. ) Not even these "mutable laws of nature" that I mentioned in that paragraph above are human inventions.

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.

There you go. You are one of those who do not really understand what definitions are. A definition is not merely a description of some portion of reality ( although laymen often use the word that way. ) A definition is a description of a concept attached to a word by someone. A definition is true if and only if it accurately describes the concept it is supposed to describe. Laws aren't concepts, so their constitution is irrelevant.

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.

"Law of nature" implies it, dummy.

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

And you already do. You already claim "whatever the fuck [ you ] want". But if you want your claims to be true, they must avoid saying nonsensical things such as "The laws of nature change!"

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

You should at least accurately represent my position.

I use the word "morality" to refer to a set of laws of the form "Under circusmtances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D."

I understand that this is not how most people use the word nowadays. What is nowadays called "morality" by many is what I call "social morality" which constitutes a subset of the set of all laws that I'd call "moral laws". The fact that I use the word in a slightly different way does not mean I am playing a word game. Taking a widely used word and giving it a slightly different meaning than the most common one is not enough to constitute a word game.

Of course the laws of nature DO NOT exist, and of course that doesn't mean randomness.

It very much does. Read my reply to Mr. Skepdick.

Laws are abstractions created by humans about the natural world

Nah, that's just subjectivist nonsense.

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"?

The term "law of nature" is traditionally defined as referring to laws that are eternal, fixed, constant, immutable. If a law is none of these things, it's not a law of nature, even if everyone in the world thinks that it is.

What you're talking about can simply be called "mutable law". If you want to narrow it down to physics, you can speak of "mutable law of physics".

[Magnus Anderson]

No, there can be regularities. They may last for incredibly long periods of time. Then they change. The universe need not be, at any stage, random. And there is research supporting this.

Regularities are the surface phenomenon. They are a product of the underlying mechanism that is governed by a set of zero or more laws.

The fact of the matter is that, if you're claiming that there is no such thing as immutable laws of the universe, you're implying, whether you're aware of it or not, that the universe is governed by a mechanism that has no laws -- a random mechanism. Do note that a random mechanism can generate regularities just fine. If you take a dice and throw it in a truly random way a million times, there is a possibility of getting the same number every single time.

[Atla]

You should at least accurately represent my position.

I use the word "morality" to refer to a set of laws of the form "Under circusmtances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D."

I understand that this is not how most people use the word nowadays. What is nowadays called "morality" by many is what I call "social morality" which constitutes a subset of the set of all laws that I'd call "moral laws". The fact that I use the word in a slightly different way does not mean I am playing a word game. Taking a widely used word and giving it a slightly different meaning than the most common one is not enough to constitute a word game.

Slightly? You are blatantly redefining morality to extend to non-moral best decisions, and to a set of laws. A major disregard for definitions.

Nah, that's just subjectivist nonsense.

No it's not. Apparently you also don't know what subjectivism is. Just because I think that the universe probably isn't literally governed by "laws" doesn't make me a subjectivist.

The term "law of nature" is traditionally defined as referring to laws that are eternal, fixed, constant, immutable. If a law is none of these things, it's not a law of nature, even if everyone in the world thinks that it is.

What you're talking about can simply be called "mutable law". If you want to narrow it down to physics, you can speak of "mutable law of physics".

Who cares about "traditionally". Again you are misusing a definition by sticking to some outdated version of it. It's more and more often suggested in modern cosmology that the laws of nature could be mutable.

[Skepdick]

Whoever promotes the idea that the game of definitions -- proper, linguistic, nominal ones -- is a silly game is promoting the destruction of society. The question is merely whether they are doing it intentionally or unintentionally.

That's the dumbest thing you've said so far. And I still have to read the rest of your post

The game of defining and definitions is just a tool. Tools can be used for destruction; or construction.

Get off your moral high horse, before I drag you off it kicking and screamig for your mommy.

To define a word is to describe what that word means.

Could you describe what the word "describe" describes?
What does "means" mean?

More specifically, to define some word W as used by person P is to describe the concept that the person P attaches to the word W.

What concept do you attach to the word "word"?
What concept do you attach to the word "concept"?
What concept do you attach to the word "what"?

Language is recursive. Recursive systems are vacious. Viciously circular. And yet the define "define" point went over your head.

It's the process of definition which fills the void.

The term "definition" is also used to refer to 1) the act of constructing a concept, and 2) the act of attaching a concept to a word. Sometimes, the two meanings are combined into one, so that "to define symbol X" means "to construct a concept and attach it to the symbol X".

What do you construct terms from?
What do you construct meaning from?

The term is also often used by laymen to mean the same thing as "description". In that case, a definition does not necessarily describe the concept attached to a word. In fact, in most cases, it describes some other portion of reality, such as what all real life things that can be represented by that word have in common or what's important to know about them.

That's a lot of verbiage. Why are you telling me all this? What's the purpose of your words?

When you construct a concept and attach it to a symbol -- which is something you have to do before you can observe anything -- you establish what can be and cannot be represented by that symbol.

Any symbol can represent anything you want it to represent. Lets talk about the act of representation. Why do you do it? Why do you represent using symbols?

When you establish that the word "bachelor" can only be used to represent unmarried men

How and why would you even establish that? I am a bachelor. Of science.

"Married bachelor" would be a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron

No, it isn't. I am a bachelor (of science). And I am married.

Calling me a "married bachelor" is a perfectly meaningful thing to say.

a broken symbol that cannot be used to represent anything conceivable let alone real. The concept attached to the symbol tells you that it's a symbol that can only be used to represent men that are BOTH married AND not married. That makes it effectively a meaningless symbol, one that cannot be used to represent anything at all. That's why you can know, without any sort of observation, that married bachelors do not exist.

Bullshit. Q.E.D

I am a married bachelor.

The same goes for the term "laws of nature". The concept attached to it specifies that the term can only be used with respect to immutable laws. If a law is a mutable law, it is NOT a law of nature.

Where is this specified? The phrase "laws of nature" doesn't have any explicit meaning. They can be qualified as the mutable laws of nature; or the immutable laws of nature.

End of story. No amount of observation can prove the existence of mutable laws of nature.

End of your story. Fine. But your story is bullshit.

Who says the laws of nature must be immutable?

That's why you should care about definitions.

Non-sequitur.

They prevent you from making mistakes ( such as contradictions, equivocation, etc. )

And who says contradictions and equivocations are "mistakes"?

They also help you effectively communicate and understand what others are saying.

What is the basis if this claim? Everything you've miscommunicated so far is your misunderstanding.

The term "laws of nature" refers to the components of the mechanism that generates the next state of the universe based on the prior one.

"next" and "prior" implies that the universe has discrete states. What if you are mistaken and the universe is not discrete, but continuous/

Such a mechanism is very clearly immutable; it does not "move" through time, so it has no capacity to change.

I don't even know what youa re talking about. You are very high up in the stupid-cloud.

You can talk about mutable laws that govern an aspect of the universe, that's for sure, but in that case, you have to understand that you're talking about a different thing. In that case, you wouldn't be talking about "the laws of nature". Such laws may undergo change but that neither means that the laws of nature are mutable nor that the laws of nature do not exist.

You are going even higher up in the stupid cloud. Look around for God. You should be getting closer and closer. Any time now.

Consider the mechanism that generated the state of the universe at point in time t2 based on the state of the universe at some prior point t1.

Those aren't the laws of nature you are talking about. That's just a model of computation. You are talking about the state-transitiom function of a Turing machine.

Suppose the mechanism is governed by deterministic laws.

Suppose it is - That's a deterministic Turing machine.
Supose it isn't - That's a non-deterministic Turing machine.

<blah blah blah>

You are caught up in word games and your disdain for definitions merely reinforces it.

The irony should smash you in the face like a 12 inch big black cock.

Recursion theory/computation has great overlaps with effective descriptive theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, computer science, and the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has since expanded to include the study of generalized computability and definability. In these areas, computability theory overlaps with proof theory and effective descriptive set theory.

The entire "Laws of nature are human inventions" is nothing but a confusion born out of disdain for definitions ( which is common among those who lean too much on the side of empiricism. ) Not even these "mutable laws of nature" that I mentioned in that paragraph above are human inventions.

No, it's born out of the disdain of stupidity. You are stupid and you don't understand computation.

So you are very much responsible for the disdain.

There you go. You are one of those who do not really understand what definitions are.

Q.E.D a fucking idiot. Is what you are.

If I understand definitions and you don't - you are wrong.

And it seems to be I understsand desceiptions/definitions of laws in terms of computational models way better than you do.

A definition is not merely a description of some portion of reality ( although laymen often use the word that way. ) A definition is a description of a concept attached to a word by someone. A definition is true if and only if it accurately describes the concept it is supposed to describe. Laws aren't concepts, so their constitution is irrelevant.

Of course laws are concepts. They are computational rules.

Immutable rules are computational models whithout reflexivity.
Mutable rules are computational modes with reflexivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_programming

And you already do. You already claim "whatever the fuck [ you ] want". But if you want your claims to be true, they must avoid saying nonsensical things such as "The laws of nature change!"

Of course my claims are true.

Your ignorance could benefit from some basic understanding of Mathematics and how complex formal systems preserve (some) semantic invariances.

[Atla]

Regularities are the surface phenomenon. They are a product of the underlying mechanism that is governed by a set of zero or more laws.

Ah and you know this for a fact? Too bad you just made up this whole story with an "underlying mechanism".

Maybe you have some kind of "law-fetish"?

[Magnus Anderson]

Slightly? You are blatantly redefining morality to extend to non-moral best decisions, and to a set of laws. A major disregard for definitions.

Yes, it is a minor, insignificant, deviation from the concept of morality that is most commonly used nowadays.

Two things:

1) Even today, the word "morality" denotes a set of laws. ( It does NOT refer to what people believe to be right / wrong albeit people tend to use it that way too which is merely another example of subjectivization / bastardization / dumbification of words. )

2) The word "morality" wasn't always restricted to social issues ( and even today, it is still used more broadly by some. )

It's a seriously pedantic complaint. It's an entirely different beast compared to the "Laws of nature are mutable human inventions" nonsense.

No it's not. Apparently you also don't know what subjectivism is. Just because I think that the universe probably isn't literally governed by "laws" doesn't make me a subjectivist.

It's a subjectivist nonsense because you're taking a thing that is very clearly by definition objective ( i.e. mind-independent ) and claiming that it is an abstraction, i.e. something that exists inside a mind, and hence, something mind-dependent ( i.e. subjective. )

A law is a limitation on what is possible. It has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone believes. If you stop breathing for more than 3 minutes, you will die, regardless of how firmly you or anyone else believes you will survive.

It's a blatant, shameless, disregard for definitions masquerading as deep, serious, philosophy.

Who cares about "traditionally". Again you are misusing a definition by sticking to some outdated version of it. It's more and more often suggested in modern cosmology that the laws of nature could be mutable.

Your initial statement:

The immutability of the laws of nature has been called into question for decades

If the term "laws of nature" is defined as referring to immutable laws, there is no "calling into question" their immutability. That's how they are defined. That's what they can be -- immutable laws. There is no room for discussion. And indeed, that's how they've been defined in the past. It's like calling into question the marital status of bachelors. "Scientists have been calling into question the assumption that bachelors are married men for decades." It's an extremely stupid and embarrassing thing. What you can do instead is CHANGE the definition of the term, for whatever reason, but in that case, you have to make it explicit and explain why you're doing it in order to ensure that no equivocation is taking place and that people don't end up being misled ( the entire point of word games. ) The fact that you've redefined the term "law of nature" to refer to laws that are mutable does not give you the right to use that as a proof that the laws of nature, as originally understood, are mutable, that they do not exist or that they are abstractions, human inventions.

[Atla]

Yes, it is a minor, insignificant, deviation from the concept of morality that is most commonly used nowadays.

Two things:

1) Even today, the word "morality" denotes a set of laws. ( It does NOT refer to what people believe to be right / wrong albeit people tend to use it that way too which is merely another example of subjectivization / bastardization / dumbification of words. )

2) The word "morality" wasn't always restricted to social issues ( and even today, it is still used more broadly by some. )

It's a seriously pedantic complaint. It's an entirely different beast compared to the "Laws of nature are mutable human inventions" nonsense.

Nonsense. Morality today IS about social moral rightness and wrongness. And even within that, not necessarily only about the best course of action, nor necessarily about laws.

Your definition is miles away from that, and you call that a minor, insignificant deviation. Lol

It's a subjectivist nonsense because you're taking a thing that is very clearly by definition objective ( i.e. mind-independent ) and claiming that it is an abstraction, i.e. something that exists inside a mind, and hence, something mind-dependent ( i.e. subjective. )

A law is a limitation on what is possible. It has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone believes. If you stop breathing for more than 3 minutes, you will die, regardless of how firmly you or anyone else believes you will survive.

It's a blatant, shameless, disregard for definitions masquerading as deep, serious, philosophy.

Umm no. Abstraction ABOUT mind-independent regularities. Nothing to do with subjectivism. Duh

If the term "laws of nature" is defined as referring to immutable laws, there is no "calling into question" their immutability. That's how they are defined. That's what they can be -- immutable laws. There is no room for discussion. And indeed, that's how they've been defined in the past. It's like calling into question the marital status of bachelors. "Scientists have been calling into question the assumption that bachelors are married men for decades." It's an extremely stupid and embarrassing thing. What you can do instead is CHANGE the definition of the term, for whatever reason, but in that case, you have to make it explicit and explain why you're doing it in order to ensure that people don't end up being misled ( the entire point of word games. ) And more importantly, the fact that you've redefined the term "law of nature" to refer to laws that are mutable does not give you the right to use that as a proof that the laws of nature, as originally understood, are mutable, that they do not exist or that they are abstractions, human inventions.

"Laws of nature" WAS redefined recently in science which should be common knowledge. But we also made it explicit for you.

[Iwannaplato]

No, there can be regularities. They may last for incredibly long periods of time. Then they change. The universe need not be, at any stage, random. And there is research supporting this.

Regularities are the surface phenomenon. They are a product of the underlying mechanism that is governed by a set of zero or more laws.

The fact of the matter is that, if you're claiming that there is no such thing as immutable laws of the universe, you're implying, whether you're aware of it or not, that the universe is governed by a mechanism that has no laws -- a random mechanism. Do note that a random mechanism can generate regularities just fine. If you take a dice and throw it in a truly random way a million times, there is a possibility of getting the same number every single time.

I'm not necessarily saying there are no laws. It's more like that many of things we take as laws are more like habits. They may stay around, they may change. I would guess that at a meta-level there are laws. In fact my assertions in the sentences before this one imply that.

But just because gravity works like X, or the fundamental forces are like Y, doesn't mean this has to continue.