The Laws of the Universe

[Nonpareil]

Right now I'm involved in a discussion on the Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board (FRDB) under the username Leon Belmont. The thread, if anyone is interested in actually reading it, is in the Evolution/Creation subforum, and is titled "How Lucky Are We To Have Evolved?"
I'm currently arguing against two other posters, under the names buckshot23 and ughaibu. buckshot23 is fairly easy to handle, as he's a standard YEC, but ughaibu is giving me some trouble.
I started arguing with ughaibu when he made the following statement:

I see no reason to suppose that the universe follows laws.

So I brought up the laws of physics - E = mc², the gravitational force, etc. To which he responded:

You haven't given me any reason to suppose that there are laws of the universe, and all you've mentioned, until now, are laws of physics.

Has anyone here run across this? What are the laws of the universe that he's talking about if not the laws of physics? Is this some little-known belief that I've somehow not run across before?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by ughaibu
You haven't given me any reason to suppose that there are laws of the universe, and all you've mentioned, until now, are laws of physics.

Has anyone here run across this? What are the laws of the universe that he's talking about if not the laws of physics? Is this some little-known belief that I've somehow not run across before?

I don't see anything wrong with asking him just that. Sometimes by asking someone what are they talking about, they tend to get stuck as they realize they're doing nothing but exercising mere sophistry.

 

[Malerin]

He may be referncing Hume's claim that what we typically call laws of nature are constant conjunctions of cause and effect.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/22206/laws-natural-or-scientific.html

 

[Nonpareil]

He may be referncing Hume's claim that what we typically call laws of nature are constant conjunctions of cause and effect.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/22206/laws-natural-or-scientific.html

So Hume argues that there is no link between cause and effect? That they are simply constantly-repeating chance relations of two occurrences?

 

[Hokulele]

Has anyone here run across this? What are the laws of the universe that he's talking about if not the laws of physics? Is this some little-known belief that I've somehow not run across before?

Ask him where in the universe do the laws of physics not apply.

 

[Nonpareil]

This is rapidly surpassing my ability to keep up. Can someone here read this post and give me some help? Or, better yet, actually join in the debate on the site?

 

[Nonpareil]

Okay, you know what? I give up. Why? This post.

 

[Hokulele]

This is rapidly surpassing my ability to keep up. Can someone here read this post and give me some help? Or, better yet, actually join in the debate on the site?

I took a quick peek at that thread, and I have no clue as to what he/she is going on about. It looked like metaphysical word salad to me. Sorry.

 

[Nonpareil]

I took a quick peek at that thread, and I have no clue as to what he/she is going on about. It looked like metaphysical word salad to me. Sorry.

That's pretty much what it is. Now that I'm not actually in the process of responding to the posts and I can take a step back, I can see how horrible at logic this guy really is. He's currently asking me why it would be improbable that an entirely random universe would consistently behave as though it followed rules.

 

[Dancing David]

Okay, you know what? I give up. Why? This post.

Well there are no reasons, the universe behaves as it does, it behaves consistently acroos the visible portion of space and time.

We do not need reasons, it just does. (For example the fine structure constant is consistent across the universe to the times we can measure it.)

Science is about approximate models, there are no 'laws of the universe' there are predictions we make about the behavior of the universe based upon the models. It could be the electro-magnetic force or it could be angels, the universe behaves consistently.

 

[Dancing David]

That's pretty much what it is. Now that I'm not actually in the process of responding to the posts and I can take a step back, I can see how horrible at logic this guy really is. He's currently asking me why it would be improbable that an entirely random universe would consistently behave as though it followed rules.

Well that is the anthropic principle at work again, a random universe does not mean that all the parts of the universe are random, the values of the constants of the universe are likely to be related to each other, there may be variability in what they became, but that does not mean that all values are possible. This is a common strategy in the anthropic principle.

In Penrose's argument we gives some fantastic number for the possible configurations of the random universe, but since we do not know why the constants of the universe are what they are it is ridiculous speculation.

The universe is not random is any sense of the word that means 'anything imaginable', electrons are randomly found within the probability zones of QM, but that probability is rather constrained. Yes there is a low probability that an electron from the Andromeda galaxy will exchange places with one in me right now. But that is a very very very low probability. The electrons in my body are more likely to appear in certain places than others.

Random means equally likely within a distribution, it does not mean that all distributions are equal.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah this gut is making waffles

Which law of physics dictated the content of this post? If you can not state the relevant law, then you have an example, the content this post is both in the universe and laws of physics do not apply.

He does not know the difference between 'predictions made by science' and 'philosophical determinism'. The facts are that your body, the computer network and his body follow consistent patterns of behavior. But that does not mean that a 'clockmaker' explanation for each and every action is possible.

The universe appears to be causal to some extent, that does not mean it is determined and preordained.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yeah this gut is making waffles

Yup.

 

[Nonpareil]

Anybody got any idea what he's on about with the "simultaneity" bit now?

 

[Cynic]

Anybody got any idea what he's on about with the "simultaneity" bit now?

It's just dualism of the gaps. I think he's trying to suggest that causality is an illusion, and that things only appear to be causally connected because those kind of events always occur together. I'm not sure how that leads to anything, but I think that's the premise. Hard to say.

 

[Hux]

Originally Posted by ughaibu
I see no reason to suppose that the universe follows laws.

Argument from stupidity?

 

[Brian-M]

Just a random stab-in-the-dark without actually reading the discussion....

Could he mean that the behavior of the universe is just an emergent property of its fundamental attributes, and what we know as the "laws of physics" are just a description of this behavior, and not the foundation of this behavior?

In which case the universe could be thought of as just happening to act in a manner consistent with the laws-of-physics we've made-up to describe it, but not necessarily obliged to follow them.

(Of course, all this is just splitting hairs over exactly what is meant by "the laws of physics".)

 

[Bikewer]

One of the claims made by ID enthusiasts is that there is no particular reason the "constants" of the universe should have fallen out the way they did. Gravity, mass, attraction...
They point out that even minor variations in these constants might have resulted in a universe in which life was not possible.
So, (borrowing from Anthropic Principals) they maintain that the universe must have been designed with these particular constants.

Of course, we don't really have any evidence (to my knowledge) that these constants can be different...
Or that this is the only universe. Since numbers of cosmologists maintain a likelyhood of multiple or even infinite numbers of universes, then all conceivable variations of constants may have occurred...Fortunate for us that this particular universe is amenable to the formation of stars, complex planets, and life.

 

[Nonpareil]

Just a random stab-in-the-dark without actually reading the discussion....

Could he mean that the behavior of the universe is just an emergent property of its fundamental attributes, and what we know as the "laws of physics" are just a description of this behavior, and not the foundation of this behavior?

In which case the universe could be thought of as just happening to act in a manner consistent with the laws-of-physics we've made-up to describe it, but not necessarily obliged to follow them.

(Of course, all this is just splitting hairs over exactly what is meant by "the laws of physics".)

I doubt that this is what he actually means, as I've tried to explain this to him several times already. Each time he completely fails to grasp my meaning.

One of the claims made by ID enthusiasts is that there is no particular reason the "constants" of the universe should have fallen out the way they did. Gravity, mass, attraction...
They point out that even minor variations in these constants might have resulted in a universe in which life was not possible.
So, (borrowing from Anthropic Principals) they maintain that the universe must have been designed with these particular constants.

Of course, we don't really have any evidence (to my knowledge) that these constants can be different...
Or that this is the only universe. Since numbers of cosmologists maintain a likelyhood of multiple or even infinite numbers of universes, then all conceivable variations of constants may have occurred...Fortunate for us that this particular universe is amenable to the formation of stars, complex planets, and life.

Another item on the list of things that he does not understand.

 

[TimCallahan]

Perhaps the whole thing is a matter of semantics. Perhaps if you rephrased the term "laws of the universe" as "properties of the universe" all the emotinal baggage and connotaions called up by the word "laws" could be sidesteped.