There are plenty of conventional paradigms in which the laws of physics exist without being created and without any sort of intelligence. Why do you insist otherwise?
…and yet you utterly fail to produce a single one of them.
(my bold)
The bolded part is a "lies to children", and I'm a bit surprised to see you repeating it, annnnoid.
It is far more accurate to say something like "every observation we intelligent beings have made so far is consistent with the best models we have" and "the subset of every tested prediction we have made, so far, based on these models is consistent with the models".
…so are there any ‘observations we intelligent beings have made’ (so far) that are NOT consistent with the best models we have?
…no?...so EVERYTHING is consistent with them.
…and are there any tested predictions we have made (so far) based on these models that are NOT consistent with the models?
…no?...so EVERYTHING is predicted by them.
You did note that I included ‘to the degree that’?
Your objections are nothing more than vacant sophistry…or are you expecting there to come a time when these laws suddenly become invalid? When our observations are no longer consistent with the laws…or when predictions evaporate...???
(whether the models are "created", "developed", "discovered", or whatever is irrelevant ... to the actual doing of science.
…except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of how these laws are arrived at…which is a fundamentally relevant question in numerous areas of cognitive and computer science.
So you’re flat out wrong there.
…and except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of what the actual relationship is between the laws and the reality they describe.
So you’re flat out wrong there.
…and except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of whether of not the laws are instantiated in reality in some form.
…so you’re also flat out wrong there.
O for 3…but other than that…good argument!
Your gloss goes well beyond science; perhaps it might be more meaningfully discussed in the Philosophy section of ISF?
…and your revisions might be more meaningfully discussed in the entertainment section.
You are mixing up ‘laws of nature’ with ‘laws of science’. ‘Laws of nature’ are ‘physically reproducible facts’ that are hypothetically independent of any observer. ‘Laws of science’ are the written representations of ‘laws of nature’. By their very nature, laws of science are abstractions that do require an observer whereas ‘laws of nature’ are the reality that abstractions are meant to simulate.
…as soon as you’ve identified ‘facts’…you’re in the world of models. In philosophy there is the model of the thing…and there is the thing-in-itself. There is only one area where the two overlap. Guess where that is (that’s actually a hint…guessing)?
‘Laws of science’ are very roughly analogous to ‘laws of society’. ‘Laws of nature’ are roughly analogous to ‘actual practice in a society’. The ‘actual practice’ is actually more abstract than the ‘laws’ because some people in the society usually break the law. There used to be a federal law banning the use of marijuana. I dare say most people obeyed that law. However, in actual practice many people were smoking marijuana. So in actual practice, some people were smoking marijuana.
‘Laws of physics’ are a type of ‘laws of science’. Yes, you need an observer to write down or say the ‘laws of physics’. ‘Laws of the physical universe’ are analogous to ‘the laws of nature’. Hypothetically, no intelligent observer is needed for the ‘laws of the physical universe’ being practiced.
Good to hear that you’re also one of those who agree that the physical universe actually has laws (independently of the presence of physicists).
Equivocation, be it ever so prolix, is still equivocation. Your claim can be summarised thus: "The laws of physics (our description of how nature behaves) are only ever generated by intelligent agents. There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves which we call the laws of physics, and therefore nature is or arises from intelligence."
The fact is that the two instances of the term "laws of physics" in the claim above do not refer to the same thing. So the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because you are equivocating between the two instances.
“There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves.”….
…”seem to be”….?!?!?!?!?
Could you identify anywhere, anytime, anyhow, where there are NOT regularities? Where the ‘laws of physics’ (as they are known) are regarded as being invalid?
Find me this place…for I have yet to hear of it!
Where do we get the ‘laws of physics’ from…the ones that we, who are intelligent, create (discover / whatever)?
They are derived directly from the very reality that they so inexorably describe. As I said…it is the consensus position amongst your brethren that they are DISCOVERED (see Darwin123 for example…and some unconditionally argue that they do, in fact, exist AS reality [see Perpetual Student for example]).
You are essentially arguing that this vast pantheon that is ‘the laws of physics’ is, in fact, nothing but a massive coincidence.
Is that your position?
The ONLY reason your argument has the slightest twig to stand on is because no one has yet established the direct relationship between the laws of physics (what Darwin123 calls the laws of science) and the reality they describe (what Darwin123 calls the laws of nature).
…but…only a complete and utter fool could come to any conclusion but that there is a direct relationship (how could there not be!).
First of all…because they are directly and explicitly derived from neural / cognitive activity (aka: that which is explicitly described and predicted by these very same laws)…second of all…because they describe and predict EVERYTHING (for all intents and purposes) with all-but unconditional precision and accuracy. We evaluate events from the farthest reaches of the known universe according to these laws…and we evaluate phenomena from the most inscrutable insignificance of known reality also according to these laws…
…with unqualified success.
From the most minute to the most immense…these laws apply…and you are going to argue that it is ALL just a gigantic coincidence…???
…because that is precisely what you are arguing.
!
, The 2 Choices: "Nature" (Unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided).
