Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Yes, and perhaps the assumption that they are permanent is an ontological assumption that is not correct. Not in the specific, but in general.

Or to put this another way, there has been an assumption that there are natural laws. Perhaps this is false. Perhaps there are patterns that are limited over time and also limited in space. So things get called natural laws, and it is presumed that they are permanent.

[Magnus Anderson]

You seem to speak like an idiot here. The mind-independent regularities of the natural world remain, doesn't matter if we create abstractions about them or not.

Well, as I already said, you don't understand the implications of your own statements.

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.

You're a "law subjectivist".

[Atla]

Well, as I already said, you don't understand the implications of your own statements.

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.

You're a "law subjectivist".

Which part of

Laws are abstractions created by humans about the natural world, and the natural world may or may not have immutable behaviour.

don't you understand?

[Magnus Anderson]

Laws of nature are permanent by definition.

Yes, and perhaps the assumption that they are permanent is an ontological assumption that is not correct. Not in the specific, but in general.

It's not an assumption, it's a definition. You don't assume that unicorns have a horn. You declare that they do. You say "The word 'unicorn' should only be used to represent horse-like animals that have a single horn on their forehead." It's a self-imposed rule from which one can deduce, without observing anything, that all unicorns, i.e. all things that can be represented with the word "unicorn", have a horn.

Or to put this another way, there has been an assumption that there are natural laws. Perhaps this is false. Perhaps there are patterns that are limited over time and also limited in space. So things get called natural laws, and it is presumed that they are permanent.

It's one thing to say "There are no laws of nature" and another to say "The laws of nature are mutable". ( And yet another to say "Laws of nature are human inventions", "Laws of nature are abstractions" and "Laws of natures are mathematical relations, often functions, that one can use to deduce with 100% certainty the state of one portion of the universe based on the state of another portion of the universe". )

[Magnus Anderson]

Which part of

Laws are abstractions created by humans about the natural world, and the natural world may or may not have immutable behaviour.

don't you understand?

The part where you fail to understand that you're a subjectivist with respect to laws. It's difficult for me to comprehend why it's so difficult for you to understand such a simple thing. I take it that you're simply not paying enough attention.

[Magnus Anderson]

'We invent the laws of nature'.

No, we invented and will invent ways to describe nature. Snot hard.

We invented ways to describe nature.
One of the ways we invented is describing nature in terms of laws. We call those descriptions "the laws of nature". Which are obviously invented. As all descriptions are.

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

[Atla]

Which part of

Laws are abstractions created by humans about the natural world, and the natural world may or may not have immutable behaviour.

don't you understand?

The part where you fail to understand that you're a subjectivist with respect to laws. It's difficult for me to comprehend why it's so difficult for you to understand such a simple thing. I take it that you're simply not paying enough attention.

So to you, all the laws of physics (for example Einsteinian relativity, QM laws) are "subjectivist"? They were all established by humans who observed the regularities of nature.

Or do you mean that there literally (ontologically) are laws out there, behind the universe, that somehow "run" the universe? And they also somehow appear in the heads of humans?

[Magnus Anderson]

You removed the "moral" part from morality and mean something much broader by it. You still use the word but are talking about something else.

It's a broader concept that fully encompasses the modern one. The deviation is insignificant. Moreover, if it's clearly defined and if it's clearly stated that the concept is not meant to be identical to the modern, commonly used concept of morality, there should be no issues with it.

No it's not. For example we can say that something is immoral, without working out what the best course of action could be.

Yes, some moral laws have a negative form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P is not D". But even such laws are about the best course of action, they are merely not being exact.

No it's not. Would you be amoral without formally established laws? Many people wouldn't be.

Who said anything about the need for "formally established laws"?

You are knowingly misusing the word, I wonder if we should call that sophistry.

And you're merely being defensive. Let me remind you that this thread has nothing to do with morality.

[Atla]

And you're merely being defensive. Let me remind you that this thread has nothing to do with morality.

It does, I just redefined "morality" to mean "anything to do with laws, no matter how remotely". It's a broader concept so it's better.

[Iwannaplato]

It's not an assumption, it's a definition. You don't assume that unicorns have a horn. You declare that they do. You say "The word 'unicorn' should only be used to represent horse-like animals that have a single horn on their forehead." It's a self-imposed rule from which one can deduce, without observing anything, that all unicorns, i.e. all things that can be represented with the word "unicorn", have a horn.

Perhaps we are referring to two different 'its'. I am questioning whether there are natural laws. I understand that if something was a law, then it would be permanent, in the way the term tends to be used. There is a definition and there has also been an assumption. I have no problem with the definition. I am questioning whether it's a good label for patterns that have been noted.

It's one thing to say "There are no laws of nature" and another to say "The laws of nature are mutable". ( And yet another to say "Laws of nature are human inventions", "Laws of nature are abstractions" and "Laws of natures are mathematical relations, often functions, that one can use to deduce with 100% certainty the state of one portion of the universe based on the state of another portion of the universe". )

I'm not sure what point your are making here. Perhaps you could reword it.

[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.

You are so committed to fooling yourself, the first step in your self-deception program is the reification fallacy.

[Skepdick]

You don't assume that unicorns have a horn. You declare that they do.

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...

[Skepdick]

And you're merely being defensive. Let me remind you that this thread has nothing to do with morality.

It does, I just redefined "morality" to mean "anything to do with laws, no matter how remotely". It's a broader concept so it's better.

Morality. Code of conduct. And just like that the gap between laws and morals practically disappears.

It's like... the code (of conduct) in a computer program which dictates what should happen next.

Or something.

[Magnus Anderson]

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. That does not mean they are descriptions, concepts, mental constructs, etc. In fact, it means precisely the opposite, that they are not.

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. )

[Magnus Anderson]

And you're merely being defensive. Let me remind you that this thread has nothing to do with morality.

It does, I just redefined "morality" to mean "anything to do with laws, no matter how remotely". It's a broader concept so it's better.

Dumb.