Slashdot Mirror
Where Do the Laws of Nature Come From?
mlimber writes "The NYTimes science section has up an interesting article discussing the nature of scientific laws. It comes partly in reply to physicist Paul Davies, whose recent op-ed in same paper lit up the blogosphere and solicited flurry of reader responses to the editorial page. It asks, 'Are [laws of nature] merely fancy bookkeeping, a way of organizing facts about the world? Do they govern nature or just describe it? And does it matter that we don't know and that most scientists don't seem to know or care where they come from?' The current article proceeds to survey different views on the matter. The author seems to be poking fun at himself by quoting Richard Feynman's epigram, 'Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.'"
Obviously, the Laws of Nature came up in a big game of Nomic.
Next question please.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
The Bible, or possibly the Koran.
Four different forces, superstrings, antineutrinos, strange quarks, neutralinos, gluons, and 26 dimensions.
The laws of physics are clearly the result of a bureaucracy.
I just can't think of a name
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
NO, never run any simulations! If it can be shown possible to simulate a universe, it's infinitely likely that we're in some sub-simulation of someone's universe simulation.
if great minds have grappled with a given subject matter and the answer has remained inconclusive to them, then it is certain that a definitive absolute final answer to the mystery will be found in the comments section of slashdot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"I can't write a law saying gravity doesn't exist."
Science has not yet learned the use of "intent". If you intend to accomplish something and you are in balance with self then it will occur.
Example was Peter walking on the water with Jesus. When his mental mind told him it was impossible to walk on water then he began to sink.
My personal experience was walking on hot coals that were hot enough to melt an aluminum can. I walked for 40 feet through the oak coals and not a burn on my feet.
As a side note... the coals were so hot that you had to stand back about 6 feet or so to be comfortable... but when I began to walk I superseded the physical law of my feet getting burned.
Further use of intent is if you wanted to measure light as a particle then it would be a particle. If you wanted light to be a wave then it would be so.
These types of things work from an interdimensional energy that science has not yet grasped. Eventually they will from observation of things like firewalks or handling hot iron without being burned and understanding that intent is the power behind things occurring.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
The lawyers of nature, of course.
Duh.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
remove the above poster for reprogramming before any of the other subjects notice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah too bad.
On a more serius note. The laws of nature were written by God. After writing them he set about building a Universe to the specifications allowed by those laws.
Either that or he built a universe, made it work and these laws are just documenting how his code functions.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Look on the even brighter side: maybe the galactic operator is using Windows, and Ctrl-C will just copy our universe.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
I'm a scientist, and I come from Wisconsin. Who are these scientists who don't seem to know or care where they come from? They must be awfully odd people.
-Isn't it strange that we exist?
-No, God created the world, that is why you exist, hence answering the question once and for all.
-But...
-ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!
In order to keep this thread from being one-sided, it's only fair to ask:
"Where do the laws of nurture come from?"
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
So, what do you call non-belief, despite the evidence?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Well, the /. consensus would probably say that anything which is omnipatent qualifies for the devil, rather than god...
You might start searching for buffer overflows which would enable you to change our reality.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Well son, when a mommy law of nature and a daddy law of nature like each other very, very much...
One day, in a bright blue sky, I saw a cursor.
No kidding - I looked up, and in the middle of the air, I saw the standard Windows cursor just sitting there. It was as though Whatever had just gotten up to go take a leak and left the cursor sitting there in the middle of the sky. Reality was falling apart. I was going crazy.
I thought, "Wait, what the fuck is that?", and then the seagull banked, showing that it was in fact a bird in the air, and reality was mostly intact.
It was a very bizarre moment.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
You certainly weren't, since that's a tad over 1600 times the speed of light.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Well, let me put it this way: if you want to ask the question of what is and is not "correct," you need to define what you mean by "correct." As soon as you've done so, you've created laws of logic, and by definition they are correct.
Try it. Try defining "correct" and "incorrect" without presupposing some rules of logic!
Also, 1 = 1 is not an axiom but an observable fact. The most obvious proof is that 1 - 1 = 0, that is, if I have an apple and I eat it, I now have zero apples. Would you deny this?
> Personally, I stick to Wittgenstein: "What is thinkable is possible too."
I think that there's something thinkable and impossible.
If I am right, there is.
If I am wrong, that same assertion is impossible but i thought it. So I am right. Have a nice day.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
"walk forward, walk backward, turn right, turn right, punch, jump, turn left, walk forward, jump, jump" I know that one gives you infinite sexual potency. I've tried it.
Boycott shampoo! Demand the REAL poo!