Define "founded" and "substantial", then perhaps we will have something to discuss.
Define "founded" and "substantial", then perhaps we will have something to discuss.
Whether they're penned by some "omnipotent God" or not is another issue.
No, Iacchus, he was absolutely correct. It is your understanding which is lacking.
Laws are created by humans, Iacchus, and they do not exist in any physical form.
The laws of physics were invented by humans, Iacchus. However, this didn't stop the universe from 'working' in our absense.
It's simple. I don't believe the Universe just "happened" of its own accord. That there must have been a whole myriad of immutable laws set in place in order for it to so.
You're right, humans did not invent the animals we call cats and dogs but, they did invent the words "cats" and "dogs." Why is it that you folks think I have such a hard time understanding this?
First you have to show that they were penned by anything at all, and are simply not our own descriptions of how reality seems to behave.
You are allowed to think that. The problem is, no matter what we think, we can never find out. 'Before' the universe is a meaningless concept, Iacchus. No matter what laws were required for the universe to come about, it is impossible to know. Why? Becuase it is outside our universe, Iacchus. We cannot know anything which is not a part of the space/time in this universe.
If they're immutable and are maintained in the eternal sense, then we have something to discuss.
Because, while you understand the different between the animal cat and the word "cat", you make the exact same mistake when it comes to laws. The universe behaves in a specific way, and it seems to behave in a consistant way. Laws are not the ways the universe consistantly behave, they are a description of the way the universe consistantly behaves.
This is a meaningless statement. Laws are a description of reality, not reality in and of themselves. As such, laws only exist once we invent them.
I think you are not talking about laws, per se, but the seeming way in which the universe behaves. You'll have to explain why predictable behavior in the universe requires a 'lawgiver'.
Listen, if you really have a problem trying to explain things with words, try not using them for awhile.
Ok. Thank you for better explaining your confusion. You are still wrong, but not in the manner I thought before. The difference in type of law (whether you call the former "proscriptive" or anything else) is not a matter of when they occur, but what relationship the law has with the events. A descriptive law describes them (whether after the fact or as they happen, or even predicting future events), and the other (type X, if you wish) determines (as you correctly say) in a causal fashion, whether it precedes or emerges. This, by the way, is where the circularity is a problem. You have absolutely no evidence that these "laws" precede the course of events, let alone that they determine them. None. You have inferred these laws from the events themselves. Circularity is a no-no in physics.
This example is an admission that you are confusing the roles of the two types of laws. They apply to two completely different sorts of events. Arnie governs Cali because he signs bills into law; laws which limit what you are allowed to do, but laws which you may violate without them having to rewrite the laws. Arnie's laws do not describe your behavior, the proscribe it. (thus, the name of "type X" laws, proscriptive.) If your car goes faster than Arnie's speed limit, you get a ticket. If your car goes faster than the speed of light, we rewrite the textbooks.
This is worse than my earlier interpretation. You have chosen the form of expression that is incorrect, and you have done so not out of misunderstanding of the definition, but of misunderstanding of a greater form. The first expression is quite simply wrong; there is no way that we can say that these rules govern the behavior of matter and energy. The only way we can infer it is circularly, and that does not cut it. The second definition, the descriptive one, is correct. You understand the difference between them, but you have chosen the wrong one.
Tell me how it is that you know the laws of physics determine events. If I am wrong, you should be able to demonstrate it without circularity. That is, simply observing that the events may be described by laws is not evidence that they are determined by laws.
It is a metaphor. In addition to that, it is the wrong use of the word "law". It is the "type X" usage, not the descriptive usage. And it is quite simply wrong.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?
A noble effort, but these are all things Iacchus has heard before. I wish you all the luck in the world, but don't get your hopes up.
I understand that words (typically) are descriptions of "actual" things.
"Square circles".
"The law of gravity."
Listen, if you really have a problem trying to explain things with words, try not using them for awhile.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting something?
A very good example. As you use it, it describes something that does not exist.
Thank you for illustrating my point.