Origin of the Laws of Nature

• Kueh wrote on 2011-02-04 01:22

  Quote from Mystickskye;319388:

  Be careful of the distinction between science and pseudoscience. "Sample all saying the same thing" isn't an example of science.

  
  
  I'm talking about in the realm of hundreds of thousands even with many different variables. There are two high tides and low tides each day. That's a law. How do we know? Every day, there are two high tides and low tides.
  
  If we ever observed anything different, we would say the law was wrong, and make a new law that explains it.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2011-02-04 01:22

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;319387:

  No. The law is just an expression of what we observe.
  
  If we observe something that conflicts with the law, we change the law to conform with what we observe. The law exists only as we understand and observe the world around us.
  
  Any of the current laws of nature are subject to change and even being discarded completely.

  
  
  Yeah, but the point is that there are "rules" by which all matter in the universe must follow. My question is where those rules came from. And no, they don't exist because we observe them, once again, existence is not related to perception. For example, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we can observe and interpret it all day long, but that won't tell us who wrote the Constitution. Now conveniently, the Constitution has a long list of signatures at the end of it, but the universe has no such thing.
• Phunkie wrote on 2011-02-04 01:26

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;319403:

  Yeah, but the point is that there are "rules" by which all matter in the universe must follow. My question is where those rules came from. And no, they don't exist because we observe them, once again, existence is not related to perception. For example, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we can observe and interpret it all day long, but that won't tell us who wrote the Constitution. Now conveniently, the Constitution has a long list of signatures at the end of it, but the universe has no such thing.

  
  
  Coincidence. Chaos. All those random events led to what the world is now and what "governs" those rules.
  
  That's like asking why is a proton a proton.
  
  Because of this and that. Well, why is that?
  
  Because of this and that.
  
  It's never-ending.
  
  The gravitational constant is what it is because of coincidence. No one's to blame for it. It could've been 2x higher, could've been 2x lower. But it's not.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2011-02-04 01:28

  Quote from Preciouz;319412:

  Coincidence. Chaos. All those random events led to what the world is now and what "governs" those rules.

  
  
  But like I said, coincidence and chaos didn't create my computer. It's like leaving a computer on the ground somewhere and expecting it to start installing programs all by itself "by chance". It makes no sense.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-02-04 01:29

  Quote from loltastic659;319389:

  true. But life itself is theorized to have created itself by chance through amino acids bonding together. Why couldn't this occur on a universal scale?

  
  
  

  Quote from Mama;319391:

  it just happened to be

  
  
  I don't think you two are really seeing the point. Sparta's asking why do amino acids bond together? Why did it just happen to be?
  
  And the answer to those questions is the goal of science.
  
  

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;319403:

  Yeah, but the point is that there are "rules" by which all matter in the universe must follow. My question is where those rules came from. And no, they don't exist because we observe them, once again, existence is not related to perception. For example, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we can observe and interpret it all day long, but that won't tell us who wrote the Constitution. Now conveniently, the Constitution has a long list of signatures at the end of it, but the universe has no such thing.

  
  
  Don't confuse legal law with scientific law. Scientific law is just an expression of what we observe. I get that you're saying that these things would have happened whether or not we observed them, but that doesn't mean they would have happened according to scientific law.
  
  How do you know what rules the universe follows if you don't observe them?
  
  It was obvious from the first post that this thread was just a way to get people to consider intelligent design, but intelligent design is already a widely accepted scientific model.
  
  If I'm mistaken, and that's not what this thread is about, then you should read up on laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
• Devoth wrote on 2011-02-04 01:34

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;319414:

  But like I said, coincidence and chaos didn't create my computer. It's like leaving a computer on the ground somewhere and expecting it to start installing programs all by itself "by chance". It makes no sense.

  
  
  You're very willing to deny all explanations presented to you, and it intrigues me. What's your explanation for the origin of the laws of nature?
• Kueh wrote on 2011-02-04 01:36

  Quote from Devoth;319426:

  You're very willing to deny all explanations presented to you, and it intrigues me. What's your explanation for the origin of the laws of nature?

  
  
  Allow me to answer for Sparta.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2011-02-04 01:37

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;319419:

  
  Don't confuse legal law with scientific law. Scientific law is just an expression of what we observe. I get that you're saying that these things would have happened whether or not we observed them, but that doesn't mean they would have happened according to scientific law.

  
  
  Whether they happen by established scientific principles or not, they happen in some uniform manner. And my question is why must that be the case.
  
  

  It was obvious from the first post that this thread was just a way to get people to consider intelligent design, but intelligent design is already a widely accepted scientific model.
  
  If I'm mistaken, and that's not what this thread is about, then you should read up on laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

  
  
  Indeed I would like for people to consider intelligent design. I know a lot of people accept intelligent design to some degree, but the fact is that misinformed atheists tend to look down upon intelligent design, and my goal is to straighten them out a bit.
  
  But the other reason for this thread is that I am actually curious about any existing scientific hypotheses in regards to this topic. I recently debated with some pompous atheist who said that this problem was already "solved". When I asked for more details, I never got a response...
• Moppy wrote on 2011-02-04 01:38
  It could have been a god or possibly been that our universe ended up having functional physics by pure luck of the draw. Much like how Earth ended up getting the luck of the draw for having the proper conditions to host proper life.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-02-04 01:39

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;319431:

  I recently debated with some pompous atheist who said that this problem was already "solved". When I asked for more details, I never got a response...

  
  
  Who ever that person was obviously knew very little about science.
  
  Question: Why does the universe behave the way we observe it to?
  
  Answer: We hope to find out.
• abc33kr wrote on 2011-02-04 02:42
  This reminds me of what my physics teacher was talking about last week.
  
  he talked about how it is impossible for buildings to construct all by itself. Although with extreme luck it is possible imo (examples being stonehenges and grand canyon).
  
  But the point is, using the amino acid example, if you calculated the probability of a functioning amino acid being created randomly with atgc and then calculated the probability of all those amino acid being formed randomly to create a protein, the probability would be so low that you would have better chance walking through walls (heard on a quantum theory video that it is possible, but it requires infinite time worth of tries).
  
  So the conclusion of my teacher's argument is that it is impossible for the nature to do all the things that it did since time is finite. There must have been a construction worker or someone/thing that knew what to do in order to create life, universe, etc.
  
  So far science has worked effectively in showing us how the universe works, but that doesn't mean science is the supreme answer to everything, and some may argue, "yet".
• Andy-Buddy wrote on 2011-02-04 02:56

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;319385:

  I know for a fact that no computer program ever created itself by chance, so I'm kind of skeptical here...
  
  
  
  I hate to break it to you, but things exist regardless of whether or not we observe them.

  
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  
  Please read this. Simply observing something can make a difference in what is there.
• Crimmy wrote on 2011-02-04 03:09
  I didn't know comparing living self-sufficient creatures to man-made inanimate objects was perfectly acceptable.
  
  Computers and buildings all have a purpose. That purpose was decided by man and for man. It cannot survive on its own. It cannot function by itself. It would have never existed without man. It relies on man. Why? Because these are tools.
  
  The single sole "purpose" of a cell is to survive. The single sole "purpose" of a lion is to kill, eat, mate and survive another day. None of these functions are, in a human sense, a "purpose". Why? Because these are not tools. They are living, breathing organisms that exist because they can exist. To the Wolffia Globosa to the African Elephant, nothing has a purpose other than to exist.
  
  If there was a designer or some giant architect in the sky then he would have created purposes for every single creature. So either there's one lazy giant architect in the sky or there is none.
• Andy-Buddy wrote on 2011-02-04 03:17
  @Crimmy:
  
  You could even say that cells lived because they had to. The ones that did not purposely attempt to live died, so the purpose of living became something that chance had forced.
• Chillax wrote on 2011-02-04 03:18

  Quote from abc33kr;319539:

  This reminds me of what my physics teacher was talking about last week.
  
  he talked about how it is impossible for buildings to construct all by itself. Although with extreme luck it is possible imo (examples being stonehenges and grand canyon).
  
  But the point is, using the amino acid example, if you calculated the probability of a functioning amino acid being created randomly with atgc and then calculated the probability of all those amino acid being formed randomly to create a protein, the probability would be so low that you would have better chance walking through walls (heard on a quantum theory video that it is possible, but it requires infinite time worth of tries).
  
  So the conclusion of my teacher's argument is that it is impossible for the nature to do all the things that it did since time is finite. There must have been a construction worker or someone/thing that knew what to do in order to create life, universe, etc.
  
  So far science has worked effectively in showing us how the universe works, but that doesn't mean science is the supreme answer to everything, and some may argue, "yet".

  
  
  How do you know how much time has elapsed in the great scheme of things? How do you know the chance didn't occur, just like a family with six boys in a row?