Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Roses]

You are just trying to derail this thread because you know I am asking atheists making claims for further details. Something atheism does not seem strong on.

That is a good one coming from you, who claims to have evidence but is yet to produce any.

[Udayana]

Things that are observed to exist, exist in time and space.....do you agree?

Professor Davey has said that the existence of The laws of nature does not depend on time and space.

I am trying to get from professor Davey, if they do not depend on time and space for their existence in what way can the Laws of nature be said to exist.

They don't exist in the same sense as physical  entities. They are concepts, in our human brains, forming a model of how the universe appears to us.

The big difference between those laws and religious metaphysics is that we have arrived at those concepts through measurement and trial and error, they work for prediction within a useful scope, so we can constantly keep checking them or test suggested improvements.

Other metaphysics exist in a similar way, as concepts, but cannot be verified or falsified, it's not even clear what different people mean when they try to talk about them. They are fine ... and can be interesting - but not very useful.

[ProfessorDavey]

They don't exist in the same sense as physical  entities. They are concepts, in our human brains, forming a model of how the universe appears to us.

While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true. As humans we may describe those laws in a particular manner, but gravity (for example) exists as a concept regardless of whether humans perceive it as such, name it as such and describe it as such. Indeed gravity is just as relevant to every other part of the universe as to earth, and just as relevant regardless of the presence or absence of life intelligent enough to be able to understand and describe the law.

[ProfessorDavey]

The big difference between those laws and religious metaphysics is that we have arrived at those concepts through measurement and trial and error, they work for prediction within a useful scope, so we can constantly keep checking them or test suggested improvements.

The other big difference is in universality.

Religious metaphysics really has only relevance to a very specific time and place - so christianity may be seen as critically important to humans living on earth currently (and for the past 2000 years) but it is entirely irrelevant even to other species living on the same planet at the same time and is likewise completely irrelevant to the rest of the universe and over almost all the timescale of that universe.

Fundamental physical laws are universal - they hold and have relevance everywhere in the universe, for everything in the universe (not that most of those things are capable of recognising that relevance) and throughout time.

[Walter]

While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true. As humans we may describe those laws in a particular manner, but gravity (for example) exists as a concept regardless of whether humans perceive it as such, name it as such and describe it as such. Indeed gravity is just as relevant to every other part of the universe as to earth, and just as relevant regardless of the presence or absence of life intelligent enough to be able to understand and describe the law.

what the prof. says 👍

[Walter]

Vlad,

has this thread educated you in any way or do you think it's just a load of opinions which can be dismissed ?

[Udayana]

While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true. As humans we may describe those laws in a particular manner, but gravity (for example) exists as a concept regardless of whether humans perceive it as such, name it as such and describe it as such. Indeed gravity is just as relevant to every other part of the universe as to earth, and just as relevant regardless of the presence or absence of life intelligent enough to be able to understand and describe the law.

Ah, yes ... sorry if I appeared to be trying to answer for you ... there are certainly differences between our outlooks... not practically wrt. to physics or science, but on metaphysics and any ultimate meaning to be gained from it subjectively.
 
Even our scientific model of gravity can be taken further - so gravity emerges from quantum information (eg per Vedral or Verlinde) ... and so on - but where does this end up?



   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - it shows you haven't read my reply 59, nor my reply 41.

Let me remind you how you begin reply#59
In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?

They aren't...….

So if they are not dependent for their existence on time and space in what form do they exist.

So would you now like to retract that, qualify it or stand by it?

Others have found it easy to state that the existence of laws is in the mind. Others may say that they are observed patterns in the physical. That seems not to be what you are saying. My question stands. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true.

Where and how do they exist then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

has this thread educated you in any way or do you think it's just a load of opinions which can be dismissed ?

Again you caricature me.
I am highly respectful of the opinions pressed and am particularly interested in Davey's thinking that the laws of nature do not just exist in people's minds.

I will risk it and say then that he invests the laws with existence in some reality and that this existence does not depend on time and space. So I want to know more of what the Prof means by this. I'm not really interested at this stage in phenomena inside time and space but this new reality which he proposes for the laws of nature.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let me remind you how you begin reply#59
In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?

So if they are not dependent for their existence on time and space in what form do they exist.

So would you now like to retract that, qualify it or stand by it?

Others have found it easy to state that the existence of laws in in the mind. Others may say that they are observed patterns in the physical. That seems not to be what you are saying. My question stands.

Let me remind you of your comment in which you claimed I said that:

'... the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence'

You were talking about the relationship between the laws of nature and the laws of physics, not the relationship between time/space and the laws of physics.

In reply 59 I never mention the laws of nature so how can I be making a comment about their relationship to the laws of physics. So I suggest you retract reply 97 if you are relating this to my reply 59 which is completely silent on the laws of nature.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where and how do they exist then?

Do you think that things exist only if perceived by a human brain - that seems rather arrogant to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let me remind you of your comment in which you claimed I said that:

'... the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence'

You were talking about the relationship between the laws of nature and the laws of physics, not the relationship between time/space and the laws of physics.

In reply 59 I never mention the laws of nature so how can I be making a comment about their relationship to the laws of physics. So I suggest you retract reply 97 if you are relating this to my reply 59 which is completely silent on the laws of nature.

I see no difference between the laws of physics and the laws of nature.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you think that things exist only if perceived by a human brain - that seems rather arrogant to me.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my question. It's a straight question ''if not in the human mind or any mind, how and where do they exist?''

[jeremyp]

You were talking about the relationship between the laws of nature and the laws of physics

Surely they are the same thing?

[Walter]

Surely they are the same thing?

a rose is a rose by any other name !

[Udayana]

a rose is a rose by any other name !

For biologists or gardeners, maybe not?
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely they are the same thing?

Depends on how they are defined.

In my mind I was thinking of the laws of nature being more associated with the living world, in others words planet earth, which might not reasonably apply to, say a black hole. The laws of physics are more fundamental and universal covering everything - so you might say that a black hole complies with the laws of physics, but the laws of nature aren't really relevant. However evolutionary processes comply with the laws of nature, which are themselves based on the fundamental laws of physics.

In effect the notion that biology is a specialised branch of chemistry covering living things - which chemistry being a specialised branch of physics covering matter. Physics, and its laws being the most fundamental covering everything.

But I guess it depends on definitions.

[Walter]

I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my question. It's a straight question ''if not in the human mind or any mind, how and where do they exist?''

Vlad ,

as far as we can tell they exist within the universe and are only a description of how the observations made by humans are quantified .

An apple will fall towards earth (not sideways) every time whether anybody is there to see it or not . This also applies EVERYWHERE in the universe as far as we can tell , that's why we call it a law.  AND no fucker anywhere knows why, YET.

INCLUDING YOU !

[Walter]

For biologists or gardeners, maybe not?

Don't start splitting rabbits 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad ,

as far as we can tell they exist within the universe and are only a description of how the observations made by humans are quantified .

An apple will fall towards earth (not sideways) every time whether anybody is there to see it or not . This also applies EVERYWHERE in the universe as far as we can tell , that's why we call it a law.  AND no fucker anywhere knows why, YET.

INCLUDING YOU !

Thank you for youropinion on how the laws exist.

I would like to hear more about how the professor thinks they exist.

[jeremyp]

Depends on how they are defined.

In my mind I was thinking of the laws of nature being more associated with the living world, in others words planet earth, which might not reasonably apply to, say a black hole. The laws of physics are more fundamental and universal covering everything - so you might say that a black hole complies with the laws of physics, but the laws of nature aren't really relevant. However evolutionary processes comply with the laws of nature, which are themselves based on the fundamental laws of physics.

In effect the notion that biology is a specialised branch of chemistry covering living things - which chemistry being a specialised branch of physics covering matter. Physics, and its laws being the most fundamental covering everything.

But I guess it depends on definitions.

Ok. So what you describe as the "laws of nature" I wasn't thinking of as being laws at all. There are fundamental laws which you have called the laws of physics and then everything else is just emergent behaviour.

For example, in chemistry, we have laws of valency which  dictate how atoms combine with each other to form molecules, but this is just an emergent property of quantum electrodynamics which tells us how the electrons in atoms behave. And QED itself might have a more fundamental underpinning.

[jeremyp]

Thank you for youropinion on how the laws exist.

I would like to hear more about how the professor thinks they exist.

I'd like to hear more about how you think God exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd like to hear more about how you think God exists.

I think it far more interesting that an atheist like Professor Davey seems to be proposing that the Laws have an existence which is not dependent on time and space....when that is exactly what some theists say about God.

[jeremyp]

I think it far more interesting that an atheist like Professor Davey seems to be proposing that the Laws have an existence which is not dependent on time and space....when that is exactly what some theists say about God.

I think it is trivially true. Since the laws of physics govern the nature of time and space, it seems obvious to me that time and space are dependent on the laws of physics.

Now. Back to this god of yours. How do you explain its existence.