Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Skepdick]

you're implying, whether you're aware of it or not, that the universe is governed.

Stupid human.

You are anthropomorphising the universe.

You are projecting your understanding of how human societies function (being governed) with how the universe should function.

You are socially conditioned to think in terms of law and order you just can’t escape it!

[Magnus Anderson]

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".

There is no alternative to "There exists an underlying mechanism that generates the state of the universe at every point in time based on what took place at an earlier point in time". It's similar to how "Bachelors are not married" has no alternative. Every "alternative" is a contradiction in terms, i.e. it's not a real alternative. But in order to see that, you'd have to understand what the term "mechanism" means -- which you very clearly don't. The fact that you don't see how such a mechanism exists does not mean that it does not. And the fact that you don't see the proof of its existence does not mean it's something made up.

The universe is either governed by laws or it is not. There is no alternative. If it is governed by laws, it means there are limits to what is possible, i.e. it means that not every conceivable universe is possible ( or rather, it means that conceivable universes are not equally possible. ) If there are no laws, it means that there are no limits to what is possible, i.e. every conceivable universe is as possible as every other. There is no third option. It's one or the other.

When we're discussing laws, mechanisms, etc, we're not discussing what is actual. We're discussing what is possible. The actual is merely one possible universe. When we're talking about laws, we're talking about the set of all possible universes ( and how possible they are relative to each other. ) The actual is merely a single aspect of the universe -- its surface. The set of all possible universes is the whole picture. And that's why regularities are a surface phenomenon. They refer to the actual.

[Magnus Anderson]

you're implying, whether you're aware of it or not, that the universe is governed.

Stupid human.

You are anthropomorphising the universe.

You are projecting your understanding of how human societies function (being governed) with how the universe should function.

You are socially conditioned to think in terms of law and order you just can’t escape it!

I am well aware of the fact that you're an anti-social freak who wants to destroy all order. You don't have to remind us of it.

No anthropomorphization is taking place, dummy. You're merely retarded ( or worse, you're paid to spread inanities. )

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

Well, that's not much of a revelation, isn't it? I'm pretty sure most people are aware that if we think that something is X, e.g. a law of nature, that it is not necessarily so.

[Magnus Anderson]

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

Abstractions are concepts and concepts are mental objects, i.e. things that exist within minds. Whatever exists within a mind is mind-dependent, i.e. if all minds ceased to exist it would cease to exist as well. As such, you're claiming, without being aware of it, that laws of nature are subjective, i.e. mind-dependent. You're basically saying that, if all minds ceased to exist, laws of nature would cease to exist as well. That makes laws of nature SUBJECTIVE / MIND-DEPENDENT. You're a subjectivist with respect to laws of nature. You're merely BLIND to it. And you're blind to it because you have an above-average ability to fail to properly understand the implications of your statements.

It does not matter what these abstractions are about. A belief that a train is moving at certain speed is a belief about something that is mind-independent ( trains are mind-independent. ) But the belief itself is mind-dependent. Beliefs exist within minds. No minds, no beliefs.

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

Give it up, dummy.

[Magnus Anderson]

Nonsense. Morality today IS about social moral rightness and wrongness.

Yes, and? How does that contradict what I'm saying?

And even within that, not necessarily only about the best course of action, nor necessarily about laws.

It is ALWAYS about the best course of action and it is ENTIRELY about laws.

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

It is miles away from your misunderstanding of what morality is, that's for sure.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I am researching deeper into the concept of 'recursion'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion

Language is definitely recursive;

• Recursion occurs when the definition of a concept or process depends on a simpler version of itself.[1]
  Recursion is used in a variety of disciplines ranging from linguistics to logic. ibid

What I am more interested is 'human nature is recursive' with its own set of rules to the extent that humans "construct" their own "laws of nature" and reality to sustain its objective recursively, e.g. as in,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with circular causal processes such as feedback.
Norbert Wiener named the field after an example of circular causal feedback—that of steering a ship[note 1] where the helmsman adjusts their steering in response to the effect it is observed as having, enabling a steady course to be maintained amongst disturbances such as cross-winds or the tide.[1][2]

Cybernetics is concerned with circular causal processes however they are embodied,[3] including in ecological, technological, biological, cognitive and social systems and also in the context of practical activities such as designing, learning, managing, etc. Its transdisciplinary[4] character has meant that cybernetics intersects with a number of other fields, leading to it having both wide influence and diverse interpretations.

There are no immutable absolutely mind-independent 'laws of nature' out there awaiting 'discovery' by human beings.
The supposedly immutable laws of nature by Newton was "mutabled" by Einstein, and Einstien's Law mutabled by QM and it is likely there could be more mutating laws in the future.

Science do not discover immutable laws, science merely make inferences from empirical observations within its own set of human-made rules.

[Magnus Anderson]

before I drag you off it kicking and screamig for your mommy

You're way too pathetic to be able to do that.

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

You have no point, moron, other than to tell us that you do not understand the point of definitions.

You're a venomous imbecile, Skeppie McDickie. The entire purpose of your presence on this forum is to stunt the mental development of people who visit this place.

Any symbol can represent anything you want it to represent.

Once a concept is attached to it, you can't use it to represent anything you want. You can only use it to represent what the concept allows. If you want to use it in a different way, you have to attach a different concept it. If you skip that step, the result is a mistake.

Lets talk about the act of representation. Why do you do it? Why do you represent using symbols?

Yeah, let's talk about random stuff Skeppie McDickie wants to talk about. I'm definitely interested.

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

You're a retard. Of the first rank.

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

So you're a married retard? I feel sorry for your wife.

Bullshit. Q.E.D

I am a married bachelor.

You're a married retard.

And who says contradictions and equivocations are "mistakes"?

The owners of this forum who allow you to spam this place with your bullshit are retards as well. You're one of the most disgusting pieces of shit I've ever seen on the Internet, and life in general, and I've seen a lot.

a 12 inch big black cock

I don't care about your tastes.

Seriously, moron, do you really think I am going to play this stupid game of yours?

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Well, that's not much of a revelation, isn't it? I'm pretty sure most people are aware that if we think that something is X, e.g. a law of nature, that it is not necessarily so.

I'm not speaking about fallibility, but that they are not permanent facets of reality. Not epistemology, but ontology.

[Skepdick]

before I drag you off it kicking and screamig for your mommy

You're way too pathetic to be able to do that.

Never quite as pathetic as you, though.

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

You have no point, moron, other than to tell us that you do not understand the point of definitions.

Your inability to grasp the point is not the same thing as me not having a point.

The point of definitions is a meta-point, not a point. WHY are you defining?

You're a venomous imbecile, Skeppie McDickie. The entire purpose of your presence on this forum is to stunt the mental development of people who visit this place.

Funny, how I keep showing you all your errors (together with the material necessary to correct them) and yet I am "stunting your mental development".

Once a concept is attached to it, you can't use it to represent anything you want.

Really?

What concept do you attach to "concept"? Can it represent any concept you want? Of course!
What concept do you attach to "represent"? Can it represent any representation you want? Of course!

You can only use it to represent what the concept allows.

Concepts don't allow or forbid anythig. You are anthropomorphising concents.

If you want to use it in a different way, you have to attach a different concept it. If you skip that step, the result is a mistake.

I want to use it however I want to use it. Which includes using the same concept in multiple different ways.

Have you not heard of polymorphism?!?

Yeah, let's talk about random stuff Skeppie McDickie wants to talk about. I'm definitely interested.

Random?!? You've been talking about representation all along!

So you want to have a monologue about it? OK

You're a retard. Of the first rank.

Then you are a retard of the 0th rank.

So you're a married retard? I feel sorry for your wife.

I feel sorry for everybody in your life.

You're a married retard.

And still a lesser retard than you.

The owners of this forum who allow you to spam this place with your bullshit are retards as well. You're one of the most disgusting pieces of shit I've ever seen on the Internet, and life in general, and I've seen a lot.

You certainly haven't looked inwards then. Because I've seen me. And I've seen you.

And you are definitely worse.

Seriously, moron, do you really think I am going to play this stupid game of yours?

Seriously, moron. You are the one playing games.

I am trying to get you off the silly merry go round.

[Skepdick]

I am well aware of the fact that you're an anti-social freak who wants to destroy all order. You don't have to remind us of it.

No anthropomorphization is taking place, dummy. You're merely retarded ( or worse, you're paid to spread inanities. )

Q.E.D

This idiot who wants to impose order on the universe.

God himself walks amongst us. Or an ego comparable to God anyway.

Lay down the laws (of Nature), won't you?

[Magnus Anderson]

I'm not speaking about fallibility, but that they are not permanent facets of reality. Not epistemology, but ontology.

Laws of nature are permanent by definition.

[Magnus Anderson]

This idiot who wants to impose order on the universe.

God himself walks amongst us. Or an ego comparable to God anyway.

I agree with all of that except for one little thing. You don't want to impose order, you want to impose chaos.

[Magnus Anderson]

Funny, how I keep showing you all your errors (together with the material necessary to correct them) and yet I am "stunting your mental development".

You're not stunting MY mental development. You're stunting the mental development of other people on this forum. You're a pest.

Concepts don't allow or forbid anythig. You are anthropomorphising concents.

See? Utter and complete imbecile.

Now kindly fuck off, retard.

[Skepdick]

This idiot who wants to impose order on the universe.

God himself walks amongst us. Or an ego comparable to God anyway.

I agree with all of that except for one little thing. You don't want to impose order, you want to impose chaos.

And now you've just demonstrated that there is more than one way to be wrong

I don't want to impose order or chaos. I want to impose morality.

Sometimes imposing order is moral.
Sometimes imposing chaos is moral.
Sometimes imposing both order and chaos is moral.
Sometimes not imposing either is moral.