Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Magnus Anderson]

Laws of nature aren't descriptions. You're confusing the map ( descriptions of laws ) with the territory ( the laws themselves. )

Oh really?

So can you please show me a "law itself". Any law. Please don't use any descriptions (English or Mathematical) while doing so.

Dumb. I don't have to show you a unicorn to prove to you it's a horse with a horn ( an objective, mind-independent thing, rather than sonething suvjective such as a concept or something constructed by humans such as descriptions. ) All I have to do is point at the dictionary. Game over. End of story.

[Skepdick]

Laws of nature aren't descriptions. You're confusing the map ( descriptions of laws ) with the territory ( the laws themselves. )

Oh really?

So can you please show me a "law itself". Any law. Please don't use any descriptions (English or Mathematical) while doing so.

Dumb. I don't have to show you a unicorn to prove to you it's a horse with a horn ( an objective, mind-independent thing, rather than sonething suvjective such as a concept or something constructed by humans such as descriptions. ) All I have to do is point at the dictionary. Game over. End of story.

How are you so confused? A unicorn is declared to be a horse with a horn. It's invented/defined to be that way.

But you keep insisting that the laws of nature were not invented/declared. You insist they were discovered.

Surely you didn't discover the laws of nature in a man-made dictionary?!? That's like discovering God in the bible.

[Skepdick]

The fact that you are declaring , and not discovering the immutability of nature's laws tells you everything you need to know about their origin...

Nah. You declare that bachelors are men, you don't discover that they are.

Yes, because "marriage" and "bachelor" are social/huaman constructs.

It seems to me you are arguing that "Laws of Nature" are a social/human constructs. I know... That's what we keep telling you!

When you decide that the word "unicorn" should only be used to represent horses that have a horn, it automatically follows that everything that can be represented with the word "unicorn" is a horse and that nothing is a mental construct. To say otherwise is to contradict yourself ( and contradictions are indeed mistakes, McDickie, whether you like it or not. )

But when I decide/declare that contradictions don't exist in reality - then it becomes impossible for me (a person in reality) to contradict myself. So it's impossible for me to make such a mistake.

For if I were to contradict myself that would mean contradictions exist; but how could that be if I declared that contradictions don't exist ?!?

[Iwannaplato]

Laws of nature aren't descriptions. You're confusing the map ( descriptions of laws ) with the territory ( the laws themselves. )

Oh really?

So can you please show me a "law itself". Any law. Please don't use any descriptions (English or Mathematical) while doing so.

Dumb. I don't have to show you a unicorn to prove to you it's a horse with a horn ( an objective, mind-independent thing, rather than sonething suvjective such as a concept or something constructed by humans such as descriptions. ) All I have to do is point at the dictionary. Game over. End of story.

The word unicorn is sort of defined that way, sure. So, if you are saying that the phrase natural law is a phrase that means 'things' that have the quality permanent...well, sure, it generally does mean that. That's not evidence of anything but cultural agreement around language. Not evidence that there are natural laws in the universe. So, just as the word 'unicorn' may have no real referent, so the phrase natural laws may not either. Your line of reasoning is only about language, not the laws themselves. Unless the only real things for you are words.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The word "subjective" means "mind-dependent". To say that something is subjective is to say that its existence depends on the existence of minds. Beliefs, for example, are mind-dependent. They exist within minds, so if there are no minds, there are no things that exist within minds, which also means, there are no beliefs.

You didn't say "A law of nature is a regularity". There are mind-independent and mind-dependent regularities, so saying that a law of nature is a regularity does not necessarily imply that laws of nature are mind-dependent entities.

You said that a law of nature is an abstraction. An abstraction is a concept, a concept is a mental object and a mental object is something that exists within a mind.
Whatever exists inside a mind is mind-dependent because by removing all minds you also remove the contents of all minds, which means, you also remove all existing mental objects. If there are no minds, there are no mental objects, no concepts, no abstractions, and thus, according to you, no laws of nature either.

As Hume had stated regularities are merely relations we abstract from experiences and observations of supposedly physical things [matter of fact] as cause and effects.
This is how science abstracts regularities as Laws from scientific observations and imposed that on some sort reality [not mind-independent] and supposed enable predictability.
These Laws are always conditioned to the scientific Framework and System, and can never stand alone as independent.

We state Newton's Laws of Motion exist because the human-based science-Newtonian-Physics FSK or model said so, not because Newton , you or another person said so.
Whether it is Newtonian, Einsteinian, QM, Chemistry, etc. it has to be conditioned upon a human based Framework and System or model.
This is the WHY of Hawkins Model Dependent Realism as supported in the OP;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Since such a reality is conditioned upon a human-based model or FSK, it FOLLOWs in everyway, such a reality CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
In this case, do not read the opposite that reality must be 'dependent' on humans but rather reality cannot be divorced from the human conditions somehow because it is model [human-based] dependent.

Your claim of an absolutely mind-independent reality or things and natural laws based on philosophical realism is driven by psychology as implied by Hume driven by an evolutionary default.

I have explained,
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

[Veritas Aequitas]

Laws of nature aren't descriptions. You're confusing the map ( descriptions of laws ) with the territory ( the laws themselves. )

Oh really?

So can you please show me a "law itself". Any law. Please don't use any descriptions (English or Mathematical) while doing so.

Dumb. I don't have to show you a unicorn to prove to you it's a horse with a horn ( an objective, mind-independent thing, rather than sonething subjective such as a concept or something constructed by humans such as descriptions. ) All I have to do is point at the dictionary. Game over. End of story.

'Horse' and 'horn' are empirical elements, as such a unicorn can be speculated as an empirical possibility.

To prove a unicorn exist as real, you will need to provide the necessary empirical evidence of an empirical horse with a single horn in the middle of its forehead to be verified and justified by a human-based science-biology FSK.

Even if there are evidence to support the existence of a unicorn [possible via molecular engineering of DNA or from another planet] it existence and reality can only be confirmed reliably by a human-based science-biology FSK.
Because it is human-based, logical it FOLLOWs, that the unicorn is empirical-rationally real cannot be absolutely independent of human minds.

[Magnus Anderson]

'Horse' and 'horn' are empirical elements, as such a unicorn can be speculated as an empirical possibility.

To prove a unicorn exist as real, you will need to provide the necessary empirical evidence of an empirical horse with a single horn in the middle of its forehead to be verified and justified by a human-based science-biology FSK.

Even if there are evidence to support the existence of a unicorn [possible via molecular engineering of DNA or from another planet] it existence and reality can only be confirmed reliably by a human-based science-biology FSK.
Because it is human-based, logical it FOLLOWs, that the unicorn is empirical-rationally real cannot be absolutely independent of human minds.

You are not following what's being said. I am not talking about whether unicorns exist or not. I am talking about what they are and what they are not and that one can answer that question without observing anything other than the concept attached to the word "unicorn".

If you say that the word "unicorn" should only be used to represent horses that have a horn, it follows that all unicorns, i.e. all things that can be represented with the word "unicorn", are horses ( rather than, say, concepts. ) It's completely irrelevant whether they actually exist or not.

The fact that the existence of a thing, such as a unicorn, can only be proven by using human methods does not mean that that thing is not mind-independent. "Mind-independent" means "not dependent on the existence of minds". Horses won't cease to exist if all minds disappear from existence. Therefore, horses are mind-independent. The fact that we use human methods to prove their existence is irrelevant. It proves nothing.

[Magnus Anderson]

The word unicorn is sort of defined that way, sure. So, if you are saying that the phrase natural law is a phrase that means 'things' that have the quality permanent...well, sure, it generally does mean that. That's not evidence of anything but cultural agreement around language.

It's an evidence of what the term means. I am not talking about whether or not laws of nature exist -- that's a separate issue. You may think that the issue of language is an irrelevant one but it actually is because in order to prove anything, you have to reason, and in order to reason, you have to use language. It's impossible to reason without using some sort of language ( it does not have to be an interpersonal language, such as English language, though. ) For example, you cannot observe anything without employing some sort of reasoning. You can't see a unicorn without using some sort of reasoning. First, the concept of unicorn must already be formed inside your head. Second, since at every point in time we can only see a single side of a physical object, we have to deduce what that object looks like from other sides at that point in time; and then, we have to check whether all of that matches the concept of "unicorn" that we already have established inside our minds. It's not enough that you accurately deduce what's out there. You must also have a proper understanding of the concept you're comparing it to. If what's out there is a horse without a horn, and if you correctly deduced that what's out there is a horse without a horn, and if you have defined the word "unicorn" to mean "a horse with a horn", but you nevertheless conclude "It's a unicorn!", then you are wrong, and not because you failed to correctly deduce what's out there, but because you misunderstood how you defined the word "unicorn". You may not notice the problem at that point in time, but if you write that down on a piece of paper for later use, your future self will be deceived. Your future self will think that you really saw a unicorn. Communication does not merely take place between different people or between your present self and your future self. It also takes place between different parts of your brain. Reasoning involves different parts of your brain communicating with each other -- the conclusion of one reasoning process is used as a premise in another reasoning process and so on. If you're careless with concepts and words, you will most definitely end up deceiving and confusing yourself ( as well as others. )

The point that I am making is that the term "law of nature" has been traditionally defined as referring to something that is 1) mind-independent, and 2) permanent. As such, there is no question of whether or not laws of nature are mind-independent and whether or not they are permanent. They very much are. There is no discussion. Of course, what you thought is a law of nature may turn out to NOT be a law of nature. I am not denying that. But that does not mean that laws of nature are mutable. Why continue calling those things "laws of nature"? It's akin to someone erroneously thinking that a particular horse is a unicorn, and instead of accepting that the animal is NOT a unicorn, he goes on to redefine the word "unicorn" so that he can continue calling that animal a unicorn. It reeks of an attempt to save one's face -- to avoid revealing to the public that a mistake has been made, something that may damage one's reputation. And in the case of "laws of nature" and other similarly subjectivized terms, there is also the incentive to promote subjectivism and everything that comes with it: egoism, narcissism, anti-socal behavior, arrogance, etc.

[Magnus Anderson]

How are you so confused? A unicorn is declared to be a horse with a horn. It's invented/defined to be that way.

The concept of unicorn is invented, you imbecile. Unicorns aren't. They do not even exist, so how can you say they were invented?

All concepts are inventions. The concept of horse is an invention too but that does not mean that horses are inventions just as well.

How much do they pay you, McDickie?

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes, because "marriage" and "bachelor" are social/huaman constructs.

It seems to me you are arguing that "Laws of Nature" are a social/human constructs. I know... That's what we keep telling you!

Bachelors are men. They are not abstractions, they are not concepts, they are not descriptions.

But when I decide/declare that contradictions don't exist in reality - then it becomes impossible for me (a person in reality) to contradict myself. So it's impossible for me to make such a mistake.

For if I were to contradict myself that would mean contradictions exist; but how could that be if I declared that contradictions don't exist ?!?

That's not how it works, dummy. But nice try.

[Skepdick]

The concept of unicorn is invented, you imbecile. Unicorns aren't.

Uhuh. So what came first? The concept onicorn or the unicorns themselves?

They do not even exist, so how can you say they were invented?

So what are you talking about then?

[Skepdick]

Yes, because "marriage" and "bachelor" are social/huaman constructs.

It seems to me you are arguing that "Laws of Nature" are a social/human constructs. I know... That's what we keep telling you!

Bachelors are men.

So what?

Some bachelors are men.
Some non-bachelors are also men.

That's not how it works, dummy. But nice try.

Dummy. You. literally just said it works exactly like that.

You declared that the laws of nature are immutable. BY DEFINITION.
I declared that I can't contradict myself. BY DEFINITION.

Why does it work for you but not for me?

[Iwannaplato]

The word unicorn is sort of defined that way, sure. So, if you are saying that the phrase natural law is a phrase that means 'things' that have the quality permanent...well, sure, it generally does mean that. That's not evidence of anything but cultural agreement around language.

It's an evidence of what the term means. I am not talking about whether or not laws of nature exist

OK, good to know. That's what I've been talking about, the latter.

[Magnus Anderson]

The concept of unicorn is invented, you imbecile. Unicorns aren't.

Uhuh. So what came first? The concept onicorn or the unicorns themselves?

How many irrelevant questions are you going to ask? And why are you even asking? Isn't it obvious? Isn't it obvious that unicorns never came into existence whereas unicorn-concepts did?

They do not even exist, so how can you say they were invented?

So what are you talking about then?

Reread our exchange.

[Magnus Anderson]

Bachelors are men.

So what?

It means that "They are not abstractions, they are not concepts, they are not descriptions."

Dummy. You. literally just said it works exactly like that.

You declared that the laws of nature are immutable. BY DEFINITION.
I declared that I can't contradict myself. BY DEFINITION.

Why does it work for you but not for me?

Dummy, you literally failed to understand what has been said to you. You still don't understand what definitions are. You still think that definitions are the same thing as descriptions. They aren't. How many times must it be said?

It does not work for you because "I can't contradict myself" is not a definition. It's a statement. And a false one. You calling it a definition does not make it a definition.

A definition is a decision that a term should only be used to represent certain things. For example, long time ago, humans have decided that the term "law of nature" should only be used to represent laws that are immutable. The implication is that everything that can be represented by the term "law of nature" is immutable.