Origin of the Laws of Nature

• Osayidan wrote on 2011-02-04 23:48
  The real answer is that no one knows. Neither do you, nor your religious texts. No one can prove how the universe came to be, let alone why the laws of physics are the way they are, and the same goes for the existence of any supreme beings/creators. We're millions of years too young to comprehend any of this.
  
  The scientific explanation that made the most sense though is that there are an infinite number of universes, be they existing all at once, or be it because the universe is created and reborn in an endless cycle. With an infinite number of universes, it all comes down to probability. Maybe there have been a billion universes before ours with completely different laws, and the one we're in now is just the way it is by chance. In the same way there's trillions of stars and planets around those stars but not all of them have life. With such large numbers the question is not why are we this way, but where are the others like us?
• Mystickskye wrote on 2011-02-05 02:07

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;319400:

  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.

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;319419:

  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.
  
  
  
  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

  So you're not talking about scientific laws... but then you are talking about scientific laws? Even for scientific laws, you have to be careful of the line between true science and psedoscience.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-02-05 02:14

  Quote from Mystickskye;320741:

  So you're not talking about scientific laws... but then you are talking about scientific laws? Even for scientific laws, you have to be careful of the line between true science and psedoscience.

  
  
  I don't understand what you're talking about. I've always been talking about scientific laws, and I've not been confusing science and pseudoscience.
• Mystickskye wrote on 2011-02-05 02:36

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;320752:

  I don't understand what you're talking about. I've always been talking about scientific laws, and I've not been confusing science and pseudoscience.

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;319400:

  [QUOTE=Mystickskye;319388][QUOTE=Whyrainfalls;319367]A law is something that has always been observed to happen.
  
  It has never been observed to not happen, which means a law requires a vast amount samples all saying the same thing.

  Be careful of the distinction between science and pseudoscience. "Sample all saying the same thing" isn't an example of science.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]That there are two high/low tides each day isn't a scientific law. Observing that "all samples are the same" isn't science. Scienctific laws come about from science and science requires very specific standards, tenes and conditions within the realm of the subject rather than just "they're all the same". Saying "they're all the same so this is law" is more along the lines of pseudoscience.
• Cryosite wrote on 2011-02-08 08:46

  Quote from Osayidan;320454:

  The real answer is that no one knows. Neither do you, nor your religious texts. No one can prove how the universe came to be, let alone why the laws of physics are the way they are, and the same goes for the existence of any supreme beings/creators. We're millions of years too young to comprehend any of this.
  
  The scientific explanation that made the most sense though is that there are an infinite number of universes, be they existing all at once, or be it because the universe is created and reborn in an endless cycle. With an infinite number of universes, it all comes down to probability. Maybe there have been a billion universes before ours with completely different laws, and the one we're in now is just the way it is by chance. In the same way there's trillions of stars and planets around those stars but not all of them have life. With such large numbers the question is not why are we this way, but where are the others like us?

  
  
  Pretty much this.
  
  Every example of support I've ever seen from Intelligent Design folks has diverged from this simple state and tried to twist things around to say "not only do we think someone actively designed/programmed everything and built all this stuff, but we know who and his name is God/Jehova".
  
  Science tends to be a lot more honest in that regard, because true science doesn't attempt to make such leaps of logical failure. Science observes, records, and makes a guess. That guess is tested to see if it fits. For as long as that guess endures under testing and is not found wrong, it is accepted to be a correct guess. If something cannot be observed and tested, then it is outside the ability of science to form a guess upon until the ability to do those things is created or invented.
  
  But to answer the original topic, whatever it is being described by a natural law already existed and was true before humans came up with the law. Things don't conform to laws like judicial laws for fear of some punishment, they conform because the laws were created to fit what was already going on, and offer an explanation of how and why.
  
  If there really is some creator entity or god, science will eventually prove that. If there isn't one, and some other explanation is true, science will eventually prove that. Until that time, we don't know.
• Magenera wrote on 2011-02-08 15:32
  Or we will all die before it ever happens.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-02-13 20:08
  Saying that the "laws of nature" is "programmed" is just a loaded question. Why does it have to be "programmed" in the first place? It is like assuming there is an "origin" or "creator".
  
  The laws of nature is simply scientific theories that mankind had develop over the last few century through repeated experimentation and observations. Such scientific theories are not static, and can/will change over time as scientists develop new and better theories.