Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

[Tumah]

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

Well, when mommy nature and daddy time met, they loved each other so much that they got married. Then a big miracle happened and after nine months a great big stork brought them a little baby science laws. They were sooo happy and really loved their baby science laws.
Just like we love you!
Goodnight!

 

[Aupmanyav]

About 3,000 years ago, Prajapati Parameshthin asked this very question in RigVeda, Book 10. We can go ahead only when we know "existent's kinship in the non-existent."

HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

"Nasadiya Sukta" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
(Nasadiya = Na + asat = No + nonexistence, that is what the hymn has come to be called. I do not know if Prajapati Parameshthin meant it that way)

 

[rusra02]

All elements have reactions of one type or another with some other elements, and this pecking order we tend to call "the laws of physics". But, according to what we now know about quantum mechanics, that pecking order may different from one universe to another and even within the same universe.

To put it another way, they exist and there simply is no indication that some deity/deities made them.

I think that is akin to saying " we know there are laws that control and order the universe, and make life possible, but we reject there is a Lawgiver." That is not a logical conclusion, IMO.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think that is akin to saying " we know there are laws that control and order the universe, and make life possible, but we reject there is a Lawgiver." That is not a logical conclusion, IMO.

Why do you think the law is because of a supernatural being or God? You do not have any proof other than views or books written by illiterate people in a pre-science age. They did not even know whether the earth was spherical or flat.

 

[metis]

I think that is akin to saying " we know there are laws that control and order the universe, and make life possible, but we reject there is a Lawgiver." That is not a logical conclusion, IMO.

You're making quite an assumption, which goes against what the laws of physics actually indicates. Logic simply is not on your side if you understand the basic dynamics of quantum physics. However, this does not intrinsically mean that there cannot mean there's no "Lawgiver"-- just that it cannot be assumed through what we now know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't be afraid to challenge your own beliefs!

Newbie hubris is so inspiring.

 

[Ouroboros]

About 3,000 years ago, Prajapati Parameshthin asked this very question in RigVeda, Book 10. We can go ahead only when we know "existent's kinship in the non-existent."

HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

"Nasadiya Sukta" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
(Nasadiya = Na + asat = No + nonexistence, that is what the hymn has come to be called. I do not know if Prajapati Parameshthin meant it that way)

Love it!

 

[Dante Writer]

Newbie hubris is so inspiring.

So you actually think because you have been on a forum longer that means you are somehow more educated or developed in your theories?

Now that is hubris lol!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Love it!

For me, it is the cream of RigVeda. After 3,000 years, I cannot add anything to or subtract anything from the hymn.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why do you think the law is because of a supernatural being or God? You do not have any proof other than views or books written by illiterate people in a pre-science age. They did not even know whether the earth was spherical or flat.

Actually the earth is an oblate spheroid. There aren't any writings that i adhere to, that contradict this. The ancient Greeks portrayed the earth as 'round', in their sculptures.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Actually the earth is an oblate spheroid. .. I think your close enough, though, it certainly isn't floating in a teacup.

Thanks. I stand corrected. .. Haha, that was the Aryan concept. I have a drawing based on that. Here:

The snake is Vritra in the Vedas kiled each year by Indra so that there may be spring, and Azi Dahak killed by Thraetaona in Zoroastrianism.

 

[HonestJoe]

All theories of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism and Intelligent Design must follow the laws of science.

I think that’s a key misinterpretation due to the varied use of the word “law”. The “laws of science” aren’t anything like legal laws and talking about them being followed doesn’t really make sense. Scientific laws are just formal descriptions of how things are. Scientific laws form core parts of scientific hypotheses and theories rather than being something separate that they must obey.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks. I stand corrected. .. Haha, that was the Aryan concept. I have a drawing based on that. Here:

The snake is Vritra in the Vedas kiled each year by Indra so that there may be spring, and Azi Dahak killed by Thraetaona in Zoroastrianism.

It's interesting that the snake motif (large snake the gods have to fight) reoccurs in different cultures and in different contexts.

If I remember right, Yam was chaos and beaten by Yahweh (I believe it was a snake of some form). Or the sea monster Leviathan (that seems to be snake like, or dragon). Jörmungandr in nordic, which more of the destroyer at Ragnarök. Or even my own avatar name, Ouroboros.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think that’s a key misinterpretation due to the varied use of the word “law”. The “laws of science” aren’t anything like legal laws and talking about them being followed doesn’t really make sense. Scientific laws are just formal descriptions of how things are. Scientific laws form core parts of scientific hypotheses and theories rather than being something separate that they must obey.

Very true.

The use of "law" in science is more of that it's a rule or behavior in the world that we have concluded must be universal (or most likely be universal).

 

[Aupmanyav]

If I remember right, Yam was chaos and beaten by Yahweh (I believe it was a snake of some form). Or the sea monster Leviathan (that seems to be snake like, or dragon). Jörmungandr in nordic, which more of the destroyer at Ragnarök. Or even my own avatar name, Ouroboros.

Checked about Yam (God), chaos. The Aryan concept was not like that. It was the yearly disappearance of sun for a period longer than a few days (the supposition is that they lived in sub-Arctic regions of long nights). They conducted the horse sacrifice, fortified Indra and his horse with Soma, so that he could kill Vritra and bring sun back from the netherworld which was in water. This is part of the Urheimat debate - what was the original homeland of Aryans.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you actually think because you have been on a forum longer that means you are somehow more educated or developed in your theories?

No, it simply means that I've had a great deal of experience with various types of posts.

 

[paarsurrey]

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?
All theories of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism and Intelligent Design must follow the laws of science.
Those science laws and where they came from and why they exist must be part of any science discussion.
1- The science laws we have are just what we have discovered.
2- Man did not create the laws but must follow them.
3- Science laws seem to apply to the entire universe not just to earth.
4- Without the laws of science we would have chaos or what?
5- Did the laws start with the big bang or was the big bang a result of the laws?
6- Are laws a form of intelligence or the result of intelligent design or just a happy coincidence?
Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

G-d made all those natural laws and He rightly claims them and there is no other claimant who would have given reasons also.
Regards

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are no laws of science that are not open to amendment.
laws of science are by their nature works in progress. And limited to certain conditions being fulfilled.
no one imposes laws of science. Not even God.

 

[viole]

Where do Science Laws come from

Since spce and time follow them, they must be necessarily eternal. Therefore, "coming from" is meaningless.

and Why do they Exist at all?

There is no because. And if there is, why does that "because" exist at all?

Ciao

- viole

P.S. I do not inquire too much about the merit of what a science law is, for sake of simplicity.

 

[Acim]

I see what you did there!

However, that applies only ot the written law unless you want to assume if we had never discovered and written about gravity there would be no gravity. Since we know the earth was around and animals existed and did not float off in to space before man existed I think it is safe to say man did not create the laws that govern the universe and nature.

We don't know the earth was around before (whenever). We deduce that from data that appears to our perception, invoking a whole world of faith into that perception, and reason to an assumption/conclusion we hold as valid.

Man clearly created the laws. I don't get how that is a question or in dispute. But perhaps that is an interesting side debate. Or if is the entire purpose of this thread, then I'm up for hearing about where these laws exist as laws within the physical world, and is somehow independent of my/our mind(s).