universe/laws?

Forums: Religion, Philosophy, Universe, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

(The reason for posting this in philosophy of religion is this subject could be a matter of belief, though fact is better.)

There is the universe and the laws that it responds to, question is:

Did the universe start as chaos? If so, then how is it there is law it responds to?

Did the universe make its own laws to respond to? If so, then how is it that the universe made its own choices of what to respond to?

Or was there chaos, then the law became present in the universe?

Ether way you look at it, the universe responds to the law without question.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 6,873 • Replies: 114

No top replies

@dpmartin,

I prefer to think of it as a state of constant negotiation.

There is a force, call it what you want, it does not matter, but this force is everything. The most basic distinction that can be made is the simplest duality often portrayed as yin and yang. Opposing forces, one driving the other, but both fundamentally just two aspects of the same force.
There is no law to govern things, though an order presents itself as a result of the interaction between different aspects of this force. This simple function is laced through every single layer of existence as we can envision it.

So we cannot soar into the sky because our bodies are heavier than air, and our strength is not sufficient to overcome the pull of the earth. This is expressed in the physical law about gravity, but it is not a law in the sense that it is agreed upon. It is just the outcome of a negotiation between all things involved. Truth then becomes "what works" as fresco has said many times.

So we might say that the only law of the universe is that everything does what it can, limited by every other thing also doing it, and in turn placing their own limits on other things. It is not order, and it is not chaos; those are just labels on comprehension. Things just are what they are, do what they do, and the sum total is reality, as we like to call it.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Yes, as far as I can see, the universe or nature does not "obey" laws, as if they were imposed statutes. As I understand it, the "laws" of nature are merely its regularities. Science is the business of describing nature's ways (for the purpose of prediction/control, of course).

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

...of course Universe is in its atemporal extension the Law itself...we are the ones saying it obeys laws which is a temporal observation...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

What does temporality have to do with it?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

...well simply because we tend to believe the future is unwritten and thus only secure by laws...then we come up with emerging phenomena to shove it under the carpet and similar ****...

I say whatever is the case to be true is true now and always was true as a million years from it still will be true...apply that to each possible moment in time...

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

When construed as passive, cosmological laws are invented -- they are conceptions and formulations by observing agents who are also creative thinkers. These laws are generalizations that describe recurring or reliable facts and events in nature.

When construed as active, laws are discovered, and would be capturing or representing rules that things are literally conforming to ("things" as defined in the broadest sense). These intelligible rules would not be more objects that exist in yet another place -- they would instead engender the very somewhere(s) and somewhen(s) in which things acquire an ontological and epistemological status. Such intelligible laws stop the endless repetition of explanations that require more explanations -- the insanity that results from worlds having their origins in other worlds, from spatiotemporal levels having their origin in other spatiotemporal levels.

For instance, if causation was an active rather than passive concept or generalization that the universe's existence was dependent upon and that its content was conforming to, then causation would be one of those supposed ultimate provenances and templates. There would be no "cause" for "causation" since it would be the very source of that necessity.

2 Replies

@G H,

Yes, it wouldn't make sense--but that doesn't deny it completely--to ask What is the cause of causation?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yes, I tend to think--even though that doesn't make it so--that "the future" is what does not exist yet, and "the past" is what does not exist anymore. The present is the existent passing of the "not yet so" into the "no longer so." The present is, in this sense, empty.
I believe that this makes sense to me only because of my nature, not because of Time's nature. For you, it makes sense to consider laws as objective and absolute forces. Go for it. Enjoy.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, I tend to think--even though that doesn't make it so--that "the future" is what does not exist yet, and "the past" is what does not exist anymore. The present is the existent passing of the "not yet so" into the "no longer so." The present is, in this sense, empty.
I believe that this makes sense to me only because of my nature, not because of Time's nature. For you, it makes sense to consider laws as objective and absolute forces. Go for it. Enjoy.

Again, more words from JLN on my wavelength...
I'd say the past is over and the future has not yet appeared and the present is over immediately.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

...if you mean that I believe that forces are forces and laws are laws then you get it right...
...as for time people some times remind me those 3 year old children that go to hiding when they close their eyes in their hands...I suppose when you change the wave lenght of your radio station you don´t believe the radio station truly disappeared do you ?

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

The "laws" of nature are actually just observations of its structure. Nature doesn't obey the laws, it is the laws.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

The "laws" of nature are actually just observations of its structure. Nature doesn't obey the laws, it is the laws.

agreed

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

.I suppose when you change the wave lenght of your radio station you don´t believe the radio station truly disappeared do you ?

Depends on whether or not it is a SuperStation that's the source of an interfering signal and strange vocalizations, broadcasting from somewhere within a few score light-years of Mu Cephei.

1 Reply

@north,

Exactly, Science describes Nature, Philosophy attempts to explain explanation and our species' efforts to achieve and use it.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Exactly, Science describes Nature, Philosophy attempts to explain explanation and our species' efforts to achieve and use it.

if philosophy attempts to explain the explanation what is the explanation of the atom

0 Replies

@G H,

Behold Nemesis the Nibiru brother, where we all are going to be washed away forever disappearing in a whirlpool of wine ! Cool

Muhahahaha !!!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Wait... I think that's already happened.... Wink

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I am reminded of something I heard once.

The past is history
The future is a mystery
This moment is a gift, and that's why we call it the present.

But when it comes to the linear model of time that we automatically apply to events we observe, it may be that it is merely a tool of our perception. The more I think on it the more it becomes clear to me that everything happens now, even the past and the future. It may sound paradoxical, but it is not. The alternative would be that something can happen in the future, but that is just a prediction of the present. Whatever we, in this moment, can predict will happen cannot happen before the moment we predict has become the present. Time exists only in perception.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I prefer to think of it as a state of constant negotiation.

There is a force, call it what you want, it does not matter, but this force is everything. The most basic distinction that can be made is the simplest duality often portrayed as yin and yang. Opposing forces, one driving the other, but both fundamentally just two aspects of the same force.
There is no law to govern things, though an order presents itself as a result of the interaction between different aspects of this force. This simple function is laced through every single layer of existence as we can envision it.

So we cannot soar into the sky because our bodies are heavier than air, and our strength is not sufficient to overcome the pull of the earth. This is expressed in the physical law about gravity, but it is not a law in the sense that it is agreed upon. It is just the outcome of a negotiation between all things involved. Truth then becomes "what works" as fresco has said many times.

So we might say that the only law of the universe is that everything does what it can, limited by every other thing also doing it, and in turn placing their own limits on other things. It is not order, and it is not chaos; those are just labels on comprehension. Things just are what they are, do what they do, and the sum total is reality, as we like to call it.

Cyracuz
Thanks for the reply

What force? And what are the aspects of this force you speak of? Reason for asking is, the fact of the matter is, living things can chose. Therefore where does this ability come from, if everything is locked into a relationship, of proximity it can’t escape?

2 Replies

universe/laws?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know