• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Existence vs Awareness

Mercutio said:
You have a different view of "proscriptive", which you perhaps share with Iacchus, and with which I disagree. Proscriptive laws make something illegal; they do not say what is possible, but what is forbidden. You can break a proscriptive law; if caught, you will pay the penalty.

These "existant and discovered" laws you speak of are not proscriptive. Things do what they do; we cannot, without circularity, claim any sort of law governing what they do (unless we find independent evidence, which is not the case thus far for the physical laws). We are left with descriptive laws, and these are descriptive whether you speak of them as invented or discovered.

The disagreement I have with Iacchus's choice of language (and perhaps yours) is that it is wrong. The universe does not follow or obey laws, it is describable by laws. To say the former circularly requires a lawmaker, and there is no evidence for any thus far that is not merely an inference from the thing allegedly caused. Circular, in other words.

Your use of "proscriptive" is not correct here; you are trying to tease apart two different definitions of "descriptive".
Click to expand...

Yup, 'proscriptive' wasn't the best choice of words, 'governing' will do.

The circularity of the argument is unclear.
The points you make are
1) If you say that the universe obeys laws
2) This circularly requires a lawmaker

I can't see that this is a circular argument.

Nor can accept that the laws requires a lawmaker; laws may be eternal, they may be emergent properties of an evolving universe.

Whether I say 'the law of gravitation governed the movement of the planets a million years ago', or 'the law of gravitation that we have invented recently, describes the movement of the planets a million years ago' is largely a matter of taste. I prefer the former, sometimes, because it more easily fits in with my general sense of the word 'law'; laws precede the obeying of them, rather than describing things that have already happened. However, I'm happy to flip the perspective like a Necker Cube, if the conversation requires it.

I'm waffling now - so back to you...
 
sphenisc said:
Yup, 'proscriptive' wasn't the best choice of words, 'governing' will do.

The circularity of the argument is unclear.
The points you make are
1) If you say that the universe obeys laws
2) This circularly requires a lawmaker

I can't see that this is a circular argument.
Click to expand...
It is, because of "obeys". Proscriptive laws must be obeyed, but can be disobeyed. Descriptive laws, it makes no sense to talk about obeying or disobeying, because they describe what is. If, as with Mercury, there is a discrepancy, it is the law that is wrong. "Obey" implies proscription, implies a lawmaker. If you are using proscriptive differently, then it may not be circular, but it is also not a proper use of the term. (I see you choose "governing" instead--as long as "obey" is still a useful term, the circularity exists.)
Nor can accept that the laws requires a lawmaker; laws may be eternal, they may be emergent properties of an evolving universe.
Click to expand...
These would be descriptive laws. In which case, inventing or discovering them is mere semantics. The type of law, descriptive, is what matters.
Whether I say 'the law of gravitation governed the movement of the planets a million years ago', or 'the law of gravitation that we have invented recently, describes the movement of the planets a million years ago' is largely a matter of taste. I prefer the former, sometimes, because it more easily fits in with my general sense of the word 'law'; laws precede the obeying of them, rather than describing things that have already happened. However, I'm happy to flip the perspective like a Necker Cube, if the conversation requires it.
Click to expand...
The former fits with Iacchus's understanding of "law" too, in that he has no understanding at all of descriptive laws. The former still implies proscriptive law, whereas the latter specifies descriptive. The former allows Iacchus or anyone else ignorant of descriptive laws to imply that there must be a lawmaker or governor. Your statement "laws precede the obeying of them" only makes sense with proscriptive laws, and is utterly without meaning when it comes to the descriptive laws of physics.
I'm waffling now - so back to you...
Click to expand...
Not so much waffling, as demonstrating something that is not always obvious but which is an important distinction to be made. It is very easy to speak of all laws as if they were the same. It is also incorrect.
 
sphenisc said:
You imply that it isn't possible to break a law of physics, Mercutio implies it is - in which case we make a new one.

I see those two statements as contradictory.
Click to expand...
I see them as two different ways of saying the same thing.
 
You imply that it isn't possible to break a law of physics, Mercutio implies it is - in which case we make a new one.

I see those two statements as contradictory.

Mercutio said:
I see them as two different ways of saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The reply of fundies everywhere.. :) (Sorry, couldn't resist, again).
-----
The points you make are
1) If you say that the universe obeys laws
2) This circularly requires a lawmaker
Click to expand...

You haven't explained why why this is circular. There is a premise, a conclusion and premise<>conclusion. It ain't circular.

You don't explain why a proscriptive law implies the existence of a lawmaker. Other properties of the universe an apparently exist without requiring an x-maker, so I don't see the need for your 'implication'.

Nor can accept that the laws requires a lawmaker; laws may be eternal, they may be emergent properties of an evolving universe.
Click to expand...

These would be descriptive laws. In which case, inventing or discovering them is mere semantics.
Click to expand...

These are not descriptive laws, in the sense you were using it. Laws are not broken and then rewritten. They are proscriptive in that they govern which events can follow them.

The rest of your post ensures that we are talking about the same thing. You did realise that was the point of the two sentences I contrasted?

What is not justified is your preference for one form of expression over the other (other than the circularity argument). I can't see that it is theoretically possible to discriminate between the two forms. I don't see it as an important distinction - at least in the scientific sense, it may be philosophically.

Cheers
 
So, if the laws of physics did not not have an eternal sense about them, how could anything, even in the temporary sense be maintained?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
So, if the laws of physics did not not have an eternal sense about them, how could anything, even the temporary sense be maintained?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're absolutely right. That's all our carefully considered arguments blown out of the water. Sometimes I don't know why I bother...
 
sphenisc said:
You imply that it isn't possible to break a law of physics, Mercutio implies it is - in which case we make a new one.

I see those two statements as contradictory.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Listen. Mercutio says we can break the laws of physics because he's talking of the laws as established by man. I'm talking about "laws" as in, what's physically possible in the universe, whether we know the exact "law" or not. So, using MY definition of physical laws, NO, it is impossible to break the laws of physics, and I think Shakespeare's Sock Puppet would agree. Incidently, using his meaning for physical laws, I agree with Mercutio. No contradiction.
 
Iacchus said:
So, if the laws of physics did not not have an eternal sense about them, how could anything, even in the temporary sense be maintained?
Click to expand...

Not sure what your question is, here.

At planck time, there were either no laws of physics, or only one. I'm not sure which. "before" that, there was no law, no energy, no matter, no space and no time. Ergo, no "before". Doesn't seem to make sense, but how else can you talk about something that "exists" "outside" time ?
 
Belz... said:
:rolleyes: Listen. Mercutio says we can break the laws of physics because he's talking of the laws as established by man. I'm talking about "laws" as in, what's physically possible in the universe, whether we know the exact "law" or not. So, using MY definition of physical laws, NO, it is impossible to break the laws of physics, and I think Shakespeare's Sock Puppet would agree. Incidently, using his meaning for physical laws, I agree with Mercutio. No contradiction.
Click to expand...

Then you were equivocating, since your previous paragraph read:

No, they're not. Laws of physics are man-made, as Mojo said. The universe works in a certain way, but it doesn't "guide" evolution as you understand it.
Click to expand...

How's the poor chap supposed to cope, if you can't use your terms consistently :rolleyes: .

[Tried listening - didn't work - found reading more successful]
 
Belz... said:
:rolleyes: Listen. Mercutio says we can break the laws of physics because he's talking of the laws as established by man. I'm talking about "laws" as in, what's physically possible in the universe, whether we know the exact "law" or not.
Click to expand...
Wow, isn't that amazing? ;)
 
sphenisc said:
The reply of fundies everywhere.. :) (Sorry, couldn't resist, again).
-----
Click to expand...
You must explain that one to me; I don't get it.
You haven't explained why why this is circular. There is a premise, a conclusion and premise<>conclusion. It ain't circular.

You don't explain why a proscriptive law implies the existence of a lawmaker. Other properties of the universe an apparently exist without requiring an x-maker, so I don't see the need for your 'implication'.
Click to expand...
It is part of what a proscriptive law is. They limit the things you are allowed to do, but have nothing to do with what you are capable of doing. That is why, when you break them, you are punished, rather than the law being changed.
These are not descriptive laws, in the sense you were using it. Laws are not broken and then rewritten. They are proscriptive in that they govern which events can follow them.
Click to expand...
But they do not govern them. They describe them. The law of gravity, for instance, does not tell us why or how bodies are attracted to one another; it tells us that they are, and describes the attraction (decreasing with the square of the distance, etc.)
The rest of your post ensures that we are talking about the same thing. You did realise that was the point of the two sentences I contrasted?
Click to expand...
We may well be talking about the same thing, but your preference for the first of the two sentences shows that you do not realize that they are not synonymous.
What is not justified is your preference for one form of expression over the other (other than the circularity argument). I can't see that it is theoretically possible to discriminate between the two forms. I don't see it as an important distinction - at least in the scientific sense, it may be philosophically.
Click to expand...
The circularity argument stands, and the difference between the proscriptive phrasing of the first and the descriptive phrasing of the second is absolutely crucial. When we talk about "obeying" the law of gravity, it is a metaphor. We have no choice not to obey it. Obeying implies the ability to disobey. We may disobey a traffic law, but not the laws of inertia. It's not that it's a bad idea; it cannot be done without demonstrating that the law is not a law in the first place.
 
Mercutio said:
It is part of what a proscriptive law is. They limit the things you are allowed to do, but have nothing to do with what you are capable of doing. That is why, when you break them, you are punished, rather than the law being changed.
But they do not govern them. They describe them. The law of gravity, for instance, does not tell us why or how bodies are attracted to one another; it tells us that they are, and describes the attraction (decreasing with the square of the distance, etc.)
We may well be talking about the same thing, but your preference for the first of the two sentences shows that you do not realize that they are not synonymous.
The circularity argument stands, and the difference between the proscriptive phrasing of the first and the descriptive phrasing of the second is absolutely crucial. When we talk about "obeying" the law of gravity, it is a metaphor. We have no choice not to obey it. Obeying implies the ability to disobey. We may disobey a traffic law, but not the laws of inertia. It's not that it's a bad idea; it cannot be done without demonstrating that the law is not a law in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think this is descending into a semantic argument so I'll just address a few points. The use of the term 'proscriptive' was a poor choice. You persist in interpreting it in terms of the distinction between things that are allowed. The property I wish to emphasis is that such a law precedes and determines the course of events. A descriptive law describes events after they have occurred.

You don't justify your statement that laws don't govern events, or that they describe them. This is simply restating your conclusion - not explaining your preference. The example of the law of gravity doesn't work either. Arnie governs Calofornia, he doesn't tell me how or why - but he does govern.

My preference for one sentence over the other shows that I do realise they're not synonymous -otherwise how could I express a preference?

The circularity argument doesn't stand, because you haven't made it - stating a conclusion is not an argument.

So 'obeying' is a metaphor, gee thanks. So if I drive against the flow of traffic am I disobeying the traffic laws? And when Mars goes retrograde? :)
 
Iacchus said:
And what is matter and energy then, except for your account of something that didn't exist?
Click to expand...

The evidence suggests that matter and energy exist. Our rules and laws about them are simply descriptions. If they are wrong, then we are wrong, not the universe.
 
Iacchus said:
So, what exactly would you build your house upon? A foundation made out of rock or, a foundation made out of sand? I would opt to go with that which is more solid and substantial myself.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that faith is a substantial foundation?
 
Iacchus said:
That's an ad hominem by the way. ;)
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If I said "Iacchus is a troll, so his argument is false", then that is an ad hominem attack. If I said "Iacchus is a troll", it is not an ad hominem, it is an insult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom