1. Comment #98336 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Physicists call phenomenon that is believed, through empirical study, to hold in all parts of the universe as "laws". They are not laws in the normal, human sense.

It is not settled that the "laws" of physics can vary so it is premature to conclude that they are fine-tuned in order to be be "rational" or fine-tuned for life. A much stronger case can be made that the universe is fine-tuned to make vast expanses of almost nothing at all.

So, this proposal fails at its first hurdle. It is not at all clear that the "laws" of physics are laws in the sense meant. This is a poor play on words.

Other Comments by rnewson

2. Comment #98337 by bartvdo on December 13, 2007 at 1:39 pm

semantics...

just because we call something a rule/law etc, doesn't imply a a rule creator or law giver, we could also call it a pattern, is there such a thing as a pattern maker?

I don't see why a "rational universe" would imply anything.

I think that any universe would be "rational" to it's inhabitants and might be irrational to those outside it in another universe.

Other Comments by bartvdo

3. Comment #98339 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Yes, this is simply an error in semantics. Moral law and the laws of science are two completely different concepts.

Other Comments by ronnieharper

4. Comment #98497 by automath on December 13, 2007 at 7:06 pm

NaN. All it really requires is a moment of stability.

Other Comments by automath

5. Comment #98690 by f0xfree on December 14, 2007 at 4:05 am

Fundamentalists understand laws in this biblical sense and not in the way physics understand laws as natural conditions of the universe produced by the Big Bang.

Other Comments by f0xfree

6. Comment #98722 by monoape on December 14, 2007 at 6:23 am

The articles section of this website is not the correct platform for 'debating points'. The forum would be a much better location - those interested can monitor and participate.

Please stop cluttering up the articles section.

Other Comments by monoape

7. Comment #99033 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 15, 2007 at 9:43 am

monoape:

not the correct platform for 'debating points'

?

This link is listed under Debating Points, by the website.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

8. Comment #99040 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 15, 2007 at 10:07 am

Semantics should not be dismissed - it's the heart of a debate.

I think the words "law" or "rule" should not be used for this sense; they are loaded in the same sense as "design", and "theory". A better task would be to find an unambiguous term, and it puzzles me that we haven't found one. Could it be because the "monkey mind" of common sense is so ingrained by evolution that we can't help seeing events first in anthropomorphic light, then reason much later? The universe is not rational, after all, we are just looking at it rationally for the time being, and so it is rational conclusions that we come to.

It's important to keep in mind that the audience of a debate must be won, not just the debate itself. These terms carry their implicit anthropomorphism into an ostensibly objective sphere, and instead of reason prevailing in the listener, the preconceptions of "lawgiver" and "designer" are actually reinforced in the listener's mind with the full power of science itself. This is the strength of those creation science videos that we ridicule but are powerless to defuse; it is also the strength of the non-rational view, which we have excluded from our initial premise and are then vulnerable to.

We need better terms; I can't seem to find one.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

9. Comment #99593 by aquilacane on December 17, 2007 at 6:28 am

"A rational universe implies a creator"

On the contrary. A rational universe implies nothing. It takes willpower to divert the natural order of the universe. That would imply that kaos, or a non rational order, can only be achieved by will.

Only a supreme being could create sudden inexplicable kaos and disorder, without warning or reason (that could be discovered) on a scale the size of the universe. In other words, only a universe that does not behave within the bounds of a natural law, can be described as a supernatural universe.

If the universe is controlled by will, as we would be able to determine through its irregularity (not regularity). A creator with the power to do anything would demonstrate that power by violating natural law, not conforming to it.

Violations of natural law are not known to occur. If this is true, there is no creator violating them, as is to be expected from a supreme creator. After all, a perfect being is not bound by natural law. Therefore, we require violations of natural law to detremine the existance of a creator, not the conformity to natural law, or natural law itself.

Other Comments by aquilacane

10. Comment #101788 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:36 am

But...the universe doesn't necessarily follow laws. We simply observe things that seem to be laws, and rather more often than I think most scientists would like to admit, at least some of those laws don't always obey -themselves-.

We cannot, ergo, claim to know that the scientific laws we recognize are true in every possible instance, all the time, everywhere. We -do- know that at least some things we call laws only seem to be, or can be changed, or aren't -always- true...just true as often as we can figure they should be to be classified as a law.

To the best of our knowledge, there seem to exist predictable patterns in the physical world around us, and we've learned much about said world for exploring these laws, testing their boundaries and constantly refining, re-evaluating and occasionally even rediscovering what we thought we already knew.

But we cannot state as utter, irrefutable fact that what we recognize as universal law is universal. Neither can we know if our capacities to perceive the full extents of these 'laws' is complete or not; how would we know what we do not yet know?

Hence it is, I believe, a good thing to keep pushing the proverbial envelope; to always be seeking to learn more.

This attempt at 'proving' a creator with circular logic isn't even a proper application of logic; it is an attempt at capitalizing on technical definitions of a given language in the interest of generating support for one's platform, which in no way relies upon non-speculative 'evidence'.

After all, who can truthfully and unerringly both say and prove that we're not a momentary dream, or a figment of our own imaginations, or any other absurd thing one might contrive upon?

Who is to say, without potential for refute, that what we think we know so much about will be valid or even remotely relevant to anything in existence a million years from now...or tomorrow?

We can, of course, trace the patterns; we've had a lot of yesterdays, and if history serves to indicate direction, the universe we understand -should- be predictable in many ways.

But we don't -know- that. We can't.

Just like the figurative 'you' here cannot -know- if there's a creator or not.

My advice? Get over it. Quit taking it all so seriously. Go enjoy life while you're alive and, while you're at it, do something with a friend.

After all, you never can tell when some unpredictable occurrence might transpire that abruptly terminates your breathing privileges, or those of someone you should've gone for a walk with instead of spending all evening arguing on the internet.

Just a thought.

Other Comments by Jake Atkisson

11. Comment #102438 by SPS on December 22, 2007 at 7:22 pm

My question is if there were a god, a perfect god, then would god have any choice or will? Choice implies the measurement of one thing against another, and then proceeding with what appears best. It also implies that one could be influenced toward one choice or another. But, if god were omniscient and all powerful, then doubt and being influenced is not possible. Then, how is choice possible? If there is an inability to choose, wouldn't that preempt intelligence and will? Would god therefore be a part of nature and not a being actively "deciding" on anything? It seems the idea of god as a willful sentient being is self-contradictory.

Other Comments by SPS

12. Comment #115800 by omrsafetyo on January 24, 2008 at 8:08 pm

In my personal opinion, as in line with prettygoodformonkeys, I don't think "laws" accurately expresses that the universe is made up of causal interactions.

Instead of "laws", perhaps we should express things as "probable interactions" or "possible interactions" - because thats all the universe really is - a large collection of potential interactions. The interactions that occur are the sum of the possible interactions of all the parts involved.

For instance, fermions and bosons have a very limited amount of ways in which they are able to interact. These possible interactions are described as up quarks, down quarks, electrons, gluons, photons, etc. When these are not interacting, their behavior is wildly chaotic - and since at this level, the universe is largely "empty space", interactions are less common than they are for, say, molecules under atmospheric and gravitational pressure; they can behave erratically. This in my opinion is why it seems that in the quantum world, things seem indeterministic: when quanta are interacting, the potential outcomes are determined - but when no interactions are occuring, there is less limitation on their behavior.

These fundamental interactions determine the interaction potential of their parent parts - protons, neutrons, atoms. Atoms are limited to the causal spectrum associated with the limited possible configurations of the fermions and bosons that make them up.

To explain this more eloquently, I guess I would say that universal laws are the outcome of structured combinations of fundamental interactions, limiting the possible outcomes for a given state change. The more "structured" the universe becomes, the less radical the change from one state to the next can be. This makes interactions predictable - and therefore seemingly law abiding.

I have a blog on this matter: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=119005137&blogID=193959738

Other Comments by omrsafetyo

13. Comment #130220 by martino on February 20, 2008 at 7:20 am

No it does not. In fact societal rules do require a rule giver - a tyrant, king or legislature of one form or another. However laws, as in the discovered laws of nature do not, being only a consistent, robust and concise description of how certain facts occur.

Other Comments by martino

14. Comment #133258 by Corey Hill on February 26, 2008 at 1:42 am

We dont even no if they aply in all of the univers or other ones if thats the case. And laws can be broken

Other Comments by Corey Hill

15. Comment #133259 by Corey Hill on February 26, 2008 at 1:44 am

And even if there is law giver it dosent make it that specal just a litel bit clever then us

Other Comments by Corey Hill

16. Comment #134492 by Comradepinko on February 27, 2008 at 10:01 pm

The previous comments on this subject are accurate.

The word "law" has multiple meanings. A person making the argument the all natural laws require a law giver is committing the fallacy of equivocation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

All banks are next to rivers.
Therefore, the bank where I deposit my money is next to a river.

The person making this argument (or the lawgiver argument) is confused about the multiple meanings of the word being used.

Other Comments by Comradepinko

17. Comment #137342 by dadamo on March 2, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Perhaps the "laws" of the universe is a misnomer,
coined when the existence of a lawgiver was
more widely accepted. By observing and applying
inductive logic we can only determine habits,
not laws. And the habits of the universe
imply nothing beyond the universe itself.

Other Comments by dadamo

18. Comment #143705 by henisdov on March 14, 2008 at 10:05 am

Natural Laws, Whence And How They Come About
(March 08, 2008)

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=165&#entry319126

A.
The term "natural laws" is still an enigma despite the continuous efforts of Science and Theology to define it and to give a meaning to it; even though we are embodiments of it and refer to it profusely we are still far from comprehending it.

Linguistically the "laws of nature" are empirical or scientific generalizations that describe empirically or scientifically observed and defined recurring facts or events or processes in nature.

The prime yet unanswered question about the laws of nature is "whence and how natural laws come about".

B.
I do not attempt to search/review/discuss/assess the many proposed conjectures-answers to the subject question. Just suggesting my own conjecture:

Singularity and D-Infinity, maximum cosmic space expansion since Big Bang, are the alternating cosmic start-and-end states. The cosmos alternates between expansion and impansion. The in-between state is a metastable state, which is an everyday commonsense experience, that the denser the compacting goal the more energy need be invested and, vice versa, the more thorough the disintegration the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic universal process E=Total[m(1 D)] where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

[BTW, (Nov 9 2006), following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship.]

Since the Universe (including its sub-systems, also Life) is a continuously evolving fractal system, ergo energy is the base element of everything. Cosmic evolution is evolution of energy. At the beginning of the present cosmic cycle was the energy singularity. At its end there will be a small amount of mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy. In-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution, consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

Cosmic impansion will come about to replace expansion and evolve towards singularity when gravity will begin to overcome expansion, when the strain of the stretching space-time matrix will no longer be overcome by the continuously diluting expansion forces.

C.
So whence and how do natural laws come about?
The laws of nature are products of the cosmic evolution, the evolution of energy, that consists of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

D.
And a relevant minor question is "who hijacks science"?, who claims-pretends to have the Scientific Answers that we do not have?

The answer to this question is that the hijackers are, broadly, of two general types:

- those who consider themselves, or are considered by others, to be scientists, but posit as scientific findings conjectures that involve some degree of bone fida scientific consideration, and
- those who consider themselves, or are considered by others, to be theologians, and posit that all scientific matters already discovered and yet to be discovered emanate from their deity that is the creator of the cosmos including whatever is brought to our comprehension via science.

Conjecturing,
Dov Henis
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

Other Comments by henisdov

19. Comment #143819 by henisdov on March 14, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Design and randomness in cosmic Evolution

Life Evolution Within Cosmic Evolution,
Design And Randomness


A. The Cosmic Drive and Purpose Behind
The Drive and Purpose Of Life

From chapter III of "Life, Tomorrow's Comprehension"

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=372

(1) Again, Earth Life Is A Real Virtual Affair; it pops in and out of existence from its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere. The totality of life in Earth's biosphere (the outermost part of the planet's shell, including air, land, surface rocks and water, within which life occurs, and which biotic processes in turn alter or transform. Wikipedia.) is a temporary grand store of constrained energy, and all living organisms are elaborate temporary energy storage containers and all genes-genomes are "Life quanta" organisms, carriers of "Life photons".

(2) Singularity and D-Infinity (max expansion/ cosmic energy dilution) are the two cosmic stable states. Their in-between is a metastable state. This corresponds to commonsense observation: the denser the compacting goal of material the more energy is required, and vice versa the more thorough the disintegration of material the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic (and universal) process

E=Total[m(1 D)]

where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

[BTW, (Nov 9 2006), following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship.]

(3) Life, and every and all objects and processes including natural laws, are - since their non-existence at singularity - products of evolution and are continuously further evolving. Everything in the cosmos is fractal, rehappens on many scales, and is continuously evolving. Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems' evolutions are intertwined. Ergo (Big-Bang's) energy is the base element of everything in the universe and individual genes are the base elements of Life. Cosmic evolution is evolution of energy, and within it Life's evolution is the evolution of the genes/energy-quanta carriers.

(4) At the beginning was the energy singularity. At the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy. In-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution, consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations. The cosmos evolution process comprises, though, phenomena of forms of temporary energy storages, energy dispersion constraints. Examples of such temporary pockets are black holes of all sizes, and all forms of biospheres wherever they are.

The temporary constrained energy pockets are far-removed versions, up-fractionally evolved, scattered cosmic fragmants of singularity-akin energy storages. Energy stored in the temporary constrained energy pockets resists dispersion; we do not yet comprehend why. However, we do comprehend that we, all Earth life, are real virtual constrained energy pockets formed by Earth's biosphere energy store in the process of enhencing Earth's biosphere energy content and for resisting its dispersion by maintaining it bio as long as possible.

B. Life Evolution Within The Cosmic Evolution

All cosmic objects, processes and (natural) laws, not having been in existence at singularity, are products of evolution and are further evolving.

Life system(s) is a sub-system of energy. The evolution of Life(s) system(s) differs from the evolution of non-living system(s) in Design and Randomness.

Non-living systems evolve in accordance with laws that evolve during the systems' evolution, affected and selected randomly by the ambience. This route of evolution, even if it 'enables' temporary diversions from the inavoidable final end state of the cosmos, has a fixed overall direction and end state.

Whereas Life system(s) evolve with Design, with the design and culture selected by the evolution of organisms for surviving as long as possible, for lengthening as much as possible the period of constrainig their planet's biosphere, yet in a hopeless eventualy losing struggle to maintain their planet bio.


Dov Henis

Other Comments by henisdov

20. Comment #147978 by Adam James Smith on March 21, 2008 at 5:38 pm

The statement "a universe that follows laws implies a law-giver" is an example of the logical fallacy of equivocation. It equivocates the term "law", i.e. it uses it in two different senses to arrive at an invalid conclusion. A man-made "law" protecting citizens against crime is a very different concept from a "law of nature", meaning a scientific principle explicating a causal relation between two or more variables. The two concepts happen to share the same word, that is all. A man-made law does indeed imply a law-giver, just as a watch implies a watch-maker. A natural causal relation requires no "maker", but follows from the identitites of interacting entities.

To see the fallacy clearly change the terms to remove the equivocation: "a universe that has causal relations amongst its components implies the existence of a legislature."

Other Comments by Adam James Smith

21. Comment #196964 by VincentStasik on June 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm

I was listening to the Savage Nation this evening (Friday, June 20, 2008) and heard an interesting idea related to the laws of the universe that I thought should be shared.

Mr. Savage, a past school teacher, shared a proof for everlasting life. It goes as follows, you are constantly interacting with the world around you, having an effect on the world around you, specifically electrons and photons, including the electronic mediums that send out information. This information is then sent out into the universe and continues endlessly until it reaches a physical barrier.

The implication that Mr. Savage made note of is that our existence and all of the information about us is traveling forever into the universe. He notes, this is "like living for ever." He also made mention of how excited his past students became when they heard of this concept. I am an anti-theist, and this is the first explanation for eternal life I came across that could possibly be supported with scientific testing.

I do recognize that the idea of information being transmitted continuously and endlessly is not new, specifically, the idea of reconstructing our past actions from the information in the molecules and atoms that we interact with. But, Mr. Savage was the first to explain it in such a way that it 'clicked' for me.

Yet another brilliant scientific way to explain why we don't need 'heaven'. We are already living forever. To use a common phrase, 'we live on in others memories'.

On a side note, the concept of heaven offers another proposition to Christopher Hitchens recent prepositions for what believers can do that non believers cannot do, prove that heaven can be all things to all beings at the same time. If I have a mental disorder and am a sadomasochist who likes pain, burning for all eternity would be my heaven. But, what if I also wanted to have my family there because I enjoy their company? What if their heaven involves lots of water, beaches and not burning?

Hmmm.... I haven't gotten a credible answer from any of the theists I have asked.

I thought that was worth sharing.

Other Comments by VincentStasik