Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Origin is a concept predicated on a point in time - when something first emerged to appeared. But the physical laws define time so the very notion of origin is trumped by those physical laws.

It is a bit like asking where something that is infinite ends - is it a non-sensical question.

So if the physical laws define time are they themselves eternal? In other words outside or beyond time and space or  put perhaps more specifically, independent of time and space.

[ProfessorDavey]

So if the physical laws define time are they themselves eternal? In other words outside or beyond time and space or  put perhaps more specifically, independent of time and space.

But time and space are a manifestation of the physical laws - eternal is a temporal concept (i.e. to do with time) so you are are reading this the wrong way round as the very concept of 'eternal' is defined by those physical laws.

And no the physical laws aren't really independent of time and space because the latter are intrinsically defined by those physical laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But time and space are a manifestation of the physical laws - eternal is a temporal concept (i.e. to do with time) so you are are reading this the wrong way round as the very concept of 'eternal' is defined by those physical laws.

And no the physical laws aren't really independent of time and space because the latter are intrinsically defined by those physical laws.

In what way then are the physical laws dependent on that which they define?

[ProfessorDavey]

In what way then are the physical laws dependent on that which they define?

Wrong way around - time and space are dependent on the physical laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong way around - time and space are dependent on the physical laws.

But you said the physical laws were not really independent of time and space. How then are the physical laws dependent on time and space?

[Walter]

Surely Tegmark is proposing something beyond physical laws namely mathematics and that all mathematical structures may have physicality. Based presumably on the uncanny success of maths in physics, an idea courtesy of the physicist Eugene Wigner.

are you surrounded by prompt cards or something?

because i doubt you know anything of 'Tegmark's' work or understand it .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

are you surrounded by prompt cards or something?

because i doubt you know anything of 'Tegmark's' work or understand it .

I doubt you  know anything Walter.

[ProfessorDavey]

But you said the physical laws were not really independent of time and space. How then are the physical laws dependent on time and space?

Independent means that two things are not linked.

Given that time/space are dependent on physical laws it is not correct to say that time/space and physical laws are independent - on the contrary they are inextricably linked as time/space are defined by and indeed a manifestation of those physical laws.

Do try to keep up Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Independent means that two things are not linked.

Given that time/space are dependent on physical laws it is not correct to say that time/space and physical laws are independent - on the contrary they are inextricably linked as time/space are defined by and indeed a manifestation of those physical laws.

Do try to keep up Vlad.

In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?

[ProfessorDavey]

In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?

They aren't but that doesn't mean that time/space and physical laws are independent, which is what you asked.

Time/space and the physical laws which define them and which time/space are a manifestation of are clearly inextricably linked - i.e. they are not independent.

Claiming somehow that physical laws and time/space are independent is as non-sensical as claiming that gravity and the orbiting of the planets in our solar system are somehow independent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They aren't

In what sense then do the laws exist if not in time and space? How do they exist separately (independent) of time and space?

[ProfessorDavey]

In what sense then do the laws exist if not in time and space? How do they exist separately (independent) of time and space?

Because time and space are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because time and space are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.

Yes we know time and space only exist because of the physical laws....You've said the existence of those physical laws is not dependent on time and space...In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?

[Walter]

I doubt you  know anything Walter.

I know one thing Vlad;

you are incapable of learning how reality works .

[Nearly Sane]

Yes we know time and space only exist because of the physical laws....You've said the existence of those physical laws is not dependent on time and space...In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?

As opposed to something outside of space and time that you talk about existence even though that is temporal concept, as is 'thing'? Whenever you shoot yourself in the foot, you don't just shoot one foot but attach a neutron bomb to your foot and then set that off.

[ProfessorDavey]

In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?

Which?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which?

The physical laws. You said their existence is not dependent on time and space.

[ProfessorDavey]

In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?

They exist because we can observe and measure the effects of those laws, their manifestation so to speak - including time and space.

[Outrider]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Working from that definition, I don't know many 'philosophical naturalists'.  Speaking for myself, I don't rule out the possibility of something supernatural, but until and unless someone comes up with a) some compelling reason to accept the notion and b) some means by which it can be rationally investigated then I'm not going to incorporate the claims into my day to day understanding of reality.

I'm not ideologically opposed to the notion of something beyond the natural laws, I'm pragmatically concluding that I see no reason currently to include such notions in my world view.  I suspect many atheists are in a similar position.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Working from that definition, I don't know many 'philosophical naturalists'.  Speaking for myself, I don't rule out the possibility of something supernatural, but until and unless someone comes up with a) some compelling reason to accept the notion and b) some means by which it can be rationally investigated then I'm not going to incorporate the claims into my day to day understanding of reality.

I'm not ideologically opposed to the notion of something beyond the natural laws, I'm pragmatically concluding that I see no reason currently to include such notions in my world view.  I suspect many atheists are in a similar position.

O.

Pretty well exactly my point of view too - see my earlier post.

We need to coin the term 'pragmatic naturalists'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They exist because we can observe and measure the effects of those laws, their manifestation so to speak - including time and space.

So we can only measure the effects but not the laws themselves. That still doesn't explain how they are not dependent on their existence on time and space. In what way can they said to exist apart from time and space then?

[Walter]

Working from that definition, I don't know many 'philosophical naturalists'.  Speaking for myself, I don't rule out the possibility of something supernatural, but until and unless someone comes up with a) some compelling reason to accept the notion and b) some means by which it can be rationally investigated then I'm not going to incorporate the claims into my day to day understanding of reality.

I'm not ideologically opposed to the notion of something beyond the natural laws, I'm pragmatically concluding that I see no reason currently to include such notions in my world view.  I suspect many atheists are in a similar position.

O.

I would just add that ;
'supernatural' cannot exist because if it has the ability to  affect the universe then it is already part of nature by definition of 'natural'

[Walter]

So we can only measure the effects but not the laws themselves. That still doesn't explain how they are not dependent on their existence on time and space. In what way can they said to exist apart from time and space then?

are you asking in an attempt to learn or are you working towards making a point/statement ?

If its the latter do it now and save us wasting time .

[ProfessorDavey]

So we can only measure the effects but not the laws themselves.

We know gravity exists on the basis of its effects - how it manifests on the behaviour of objects.

In fact there are vast numbers of things that we determine to exist on the basis of their measurable impact on our world.

That still doesn't explain how they are not dependent on their existence on time and space.

Time and space are measurable consequences of those physical laws, just as the measurable and predictable orbits of the planet in our solar system are a consequence of gravity as a physical law.

In what way can they said to exist apart from time and space then?

I didn't say they could - it was you who implied that time/space and physical laws were independent on each other. I on the other hand clearly stated their dependency - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We know gravity exists on the basis of its effects - how it manifests on the behaviour of objects.

In fact there are vast numbers of things that we determine to exist on the basis of their measurable impact on our world.
Time and space are measurable consequences of those physical laws, just as the measurable and predictable orbits of the planet in our solar system are a consequence of gravity as a physical law.
I didn't say they could - it was you who implied that time/space and physical laws were independent on each other. I on the other hand clearly stated their dependency - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.

Really? Try your  Reply #59 Here you say they are not dependent on time and space for their existence.