-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
True. But there's no vantage point to the question then either. Vantage point means you can look at it from some perspective, but how do you have a perspective in something that is nothing?
--edit
I think I understand what you're getting at. "Nothing" means different things in different contexts. When you say "nothing" for a bookshelf, you really mean "no book". When we talk about "nothing" to exist before the universe, we don't necessarily mean not a single thing, but for instance a singularity, multiverse, or something that did exist, but there was "no universe", so in that sense "nothing." Am I getting your use of the word "nothing" here? Am I close?
Last edited:
The Laws are derived from repeated observations. They are statements which are man-made understandings of the physical world. They exist as a reflection (or perhaps achievement) of scientific knowledge. Not sure if that explains why (exactly) but is closest I can come.
Man did create the laws.
We'd have a scientifically lawless existence. IOW, we'd be fine.
The laws were conceived of, on earth, a few billion years after the alleged Big Bang.
Clearly the result of intelligent design, i.e. scientific method
Dante Writer
Active Member
"a lot of the answers to questions are simply unknown."
The laws of science were once unknown. Only someone seeking knowledge will get knowledge. Seems to also be a law of nature.
You could start by just answering the questions in the OP without worrying whether it is right or wrong or if you will be judged.
How about the bookshelf (or anything) not existing. Not even space existing. But I guess this is getting too abstract for me here
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Alright.
1- The science laws we have are just what we have discovered.
True.
2- Man did not create the laws but must follow them.
Well its more like we are ruled by them.
3- Science laws seem to apply to the entire universe not just to earth.
Seems so.
4- Without the laws of science we would have chaos or what?
Probably literally nothing. I don't mean an absence of change but with nothing to govern the laws of reality we have no reality.
5- Did the laws start with the big bang or was the big bang a result of the laws?
Probably both
6- Are laws a form of intelligence or the result of intelligent design or just a happy coincidence?
I would imagine its neither of those two possibilities.
Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?
I think "come from" is a narrow way to look at it. why do they exist at all? Without them we wouldn't exist. So the fact we exist is dependent upon them. It wouldn't be totally wrong to say that it is because they are necessary.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's my point. If nothing exists, then it is nothing that exists. But I think that "to exist" is "to be something", and not "to be nothing". To say "nothing exists" to me is to say "nothing is something", which is a contradiction (to me at least, not saying that it has to be to you). And this is the ultimate contradiction that can't be. Something has to exist.How about the bookshelf (or anything) not existing. Not even space existing. But I guess this is getting too abstract for me here
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Yes, we are approaching, if asymptotically. To go back to the bookshelf. Vantage point is important because if you are looking fro the side you can't see in. Perspective is important because it defines that which there is "no-thing" of. No books, but sure, air, spiders, dust, etc. To be no-thing of nothing {shall we call that (nothing)squared?} is another story and I'm sure the calculus of that space is hard indeed. As I think about it, with respect to the big bang, I realize that time may be an important component of the vantage point and that the absence of time may knock the vantage point into the null set and render everything (as least in the way we think of it) moot.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Sure.
It's another aspect of existence, time. Even space. I can't imagine how something can be nothing and exist without time, space, energy, or anything. Every time I try to think of a nothing like that to exist, I fill it with a black hole or square in my mind, which is not nothing, but a black hole, so it's a thing that is a hole that is black. A complete nothing would be an infinitely small non-spatial, non-temporal, point without mass or energy... and without any potential.
Dante Writer
Active Member
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.
Dante Writer
Active Member
That old something from nothing theory is a load of garbage in my opinion. The same scientists that say the big bang started from nothing also claim the big bang released huge amounts of energy that we can still trace.
Well that violates your own law of energy that can not be created or destroyed.
The energy had to be there before the big bang and that means the laws also existed before the big bang or at least the laws of energy which seem to effect all other laws.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Well, yeah, that's kind'a of what I think too. It doesn't sound right to me, but I could of course be wrong like I am about many other things, so I can only tell what my opinion is. And it's that, nah, not ever nothing, always something. But of course, it was something else than this "something" we have here.
Which means that the potential and energy was somehow present. Agree. Something isn't right. (or should I say nothing isn't right.
)True. Can't argue with you there.
Right.
McBell
Unbound
I take issue with this assumed premise (same source).
Dante Writer
Active Member
" Without them we wouldn't exist. "
Why is our existence important enough to have laws exist?
Dante Writer
Active Member
Unless you have some other theory all elements, matter and energy stated from the big bang.
The first subatomic particles included protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
^ wow - he's discovered Wikipedia.
McBell
Unbound
Dante Writer
Active Member
^ wow - he's discovered Wikipedia.
I am not that hard to talk to and all you have to do is be mature and respectful. You can disagree all you want but if you don't use your words I have no way of knowing what you disagree with or believe.
Philosophical question this. I support the view that the laws of nature are inherent properties of mass-energy-space-time entity that constitutes all reality and had always existed. I will add the the things we call laws are approximations of the true or full laws of nature only.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because the elements are not all the same, and since they have different characteristics, they do not act and react all the same way. My sister and I come from the same source and yet we don't look at all alike nor behave the same way.