There are Laws of nature and science that exist and control and direct everything in this Universe. We have only discovered some of those laws and man did not invent the laws and man like all forms in the Universe must follow those laws.
The Laws of energy, gravity, relativity, conservation, thermodynamics etc. exist and seem to be present in the entire Universe and the laws are what holds everything together and directs all actions in the Universe. The laws apply to all particles from the sub atomic quarks to planets and living organisms like humans.
"The road back to reality, we suggest, begins by making two affirmations about nature: the uniqueness of the universe and the reality of time. These together have an immediate consequence which is the central hypothesis of our program: that the laws of nature evolve, and they do so through mechanisms that can be discovered and probed experimentally because they concern the past."
Unger, R. M., & Smolin, L. (2014).
The singular universe and the reality of time. Cambridge University Press.
"Time-dependent laws have been considered occasionally (see, for example, Smolin , 2008 ), as well as observational tests carried out to look for evidence that some of the so-called fundamental constants of physics may in fact have changed slowly over cosmological time scales (Barrow , 2002 ). Particle physics suggests that the laws we observe today may actually be only effective laws, valid at relatively low energy, emergent from the big bang as the universe cooled from Planck temperatures . String theory suggests a mathematical landscape of different low-energy laws, with the possibility of different regimes in different cosmic patches, or universes – a variant on the multiverse theory (Susskind , 2005)"
Davies, P. (2010). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.)
Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 65-91). Cambridge University Press.
"This essay is part of a larger project whose aim is radically to reconfigure the practice of science on a cosmological scale in order to admit three theses: (1) the reality of time, (2) the evolution of laws with respect to that time and (3) the uniqueness of the single causally closed universe that unfolds in time."
Smolin, L. (2015). Temporal naturalism.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,
52, 86-102.
"Many things in Nature which we thought to be eternal, like the fixed stars, atoms, or quantities such as mass, turned out to be only temporary forms. Now the only thing which is believed to be of eternal stature is the law of Nature. In a contribution to a symposium at the Pontifical Academy of Science on 'Understanding Reality: The Role of Culture and Science' I tried to explain why I do not think that this is necessarily so and that also the laws may evolve in the course of the history of the universe. Herewith I would like to submit this heresy to a wider scientific public..."
Thirring, W. (1995). Do the laws of nature evolve. In M. P. Murphy (Ed.)
What is life? The Next Fifty Years (pp. 131-136). Cambridge University Press.
Your body matter is held together by those laws and the energy that we call life inside your body is also a result of those laws. Without those laws there would be no form possible as the laws dictate how particles and matter stick together and how energy responds.
“It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”
Wigner, E. (1983). Remarks on the mind–body question. In J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (Eds.)
Quantum Theory and Measurement (pp. 168-181). Princeton University Press.
"'Metabolism' as discussed here has no meaning in a machine. It also would have no meaning if we had all the chemical components of the organism in jars on a lab bench...Pull things apart as reductionism asks us to do and something essential about the system is lost. Philosophically this has revolutionary consequences. The acceptance of this idea means that one recognizes ontological status for something other than mere atoms and molecules"
Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.)
Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (
Mathematical and Computational Chemistry) (pp. 97-153). Springer.
"systems biology is concerned with the relationship between molecules and cells; it treats cells as organized, or organizing, molecular systems having both molecular and cellular properties. It is concerned with how life or the functional properties thereof that are not yet in the molecules, emerge from the particular organization of and interactions between its molecular processes. It uses models to describe particular cells and generalizes over various cell types and organisms to arrive at new theories of cells as molecular systems. It is concerned with explaining and predicting cellular behaviour on the basis of molecular behaviour...
It shies away from reduction of the system under study to a collection of elementary particles. Indeed, it seems to violate many of the philosophical foundations of physics, often in ways unprecedented even by modern physics." (emphasis added)
from the editor's introduction to Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyr, J. H. S., & Westerhoff, H. V. (Eds.). (2007).
Systems Bioogy. Elsevier.
The Laws dictate how the Universe acts and it is through those laws that planets form and solar systems like the one we live in form. If no Laws were present there would be no Universe as we know it.
"But it is becoming increasingly apparent that we are not gadgets and neither is the universe...At the very least we need a naturalism that does not straitjacket our understanding of complex systems such as the human brain to failed metaphors coming from an early twentieth-century formulation of what it is to make a computation. Why can’t the brain be a physical system that does not happen to be a programmable digital computer? Are we sure there are not still new principles to be discovered in complex systems, biology, and neuroscience?
The root of the crisis in naturalism is its being wedded to the picture that the universe is a machine. This in turn is a consequence of the idea that nature is governed by laws which are timeless, immutable and mathematical. The path out of crisis is to embrace a new form of naturalism based on the reality of time and the evolution of laws.” pp. 356-357
Unger, R. M., & Smolin, L. (2014).
The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
“We can no longer speak of the behavior of the particle independently of the process of observation. As a final consequence, the natural laws formulated mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with the elementary particles themselves but with our knowledge of them. Nor is it any longer possible to ask whether or not these particles exist in space and time objectively...”
Heisenberg, W. (1958).
The Physicist’s Conception of Nature. Hutchinson & Co
“Was the world wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer, – with a Ph.D.?”
Bell, J. S. (1981). Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists. In C. Isham, R. Penrose, & D. Sciama (Eds.)
Quantum Gravity 2 (pp. 611-637). Oxford University Press.
"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone.
The Journal of Philosophy,
78(7), 397-408.
“The only reality is mind and observations”
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe.
Nature,
436(7047), 29-29.
The Laws are separate from the Universe and do not have shape or form and the Laws simply exist and is an entity separate from the universe that has always existed. The big bang as described by science could not happen without those laws so the laws existed before that event. All action and reaction is dictated by the Laws.
All "laws" of physics break down just after the big bang, and are certainly not compatible with the big bang itself.
