Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[ProfessorDavey]

You need to rebut it not just sit on your behind.

No I don't - if I propose that the universe was sneezed out the the nose of a giant turtle the onus of proof would be on me - there would be no need to rebut it.

If you wish to propose the notion of some maths-knowing 'guvnor' the onus is on you to justify your claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the end of the day Davey, I've put my ideas out there. So far zero refutation. But I'm not really bothered whether you do or not to be honest.
You propose that time and space are dependent for their existence on the laws of physics. How does an abstract physical law produce/generate time and space.

I have put forward and justified mine......justify yours.

I do grant that you have gone further than the great atheist shyster himself....Bertrand Russell famous for his the universe just is.Live with it! Non argument.

[ippy]

Vlad's posts should be ignored they are so nonsensical it is not worth responding to them.

I try to not go there L R, I think if you did make a start you might find yourself gradually start loosing the will to live.

Regards, ippy.

[Gordon]

Are the laws dependent for their existence on time and space?

If not how do they exist?

Vlad

You seem to be thrashing about for no good reason - let me try this approach. You seem to be seeing the 'laws' that describe phenomena as being somehow separate entities from the phenomena that they describe, where what they describe would happen anyway whether or not the mechanisms involved were recognised by humans.

Any of these 'laws' is a description of how phenomena present: they are, therefore, grounded in naturalistic methods. For them to have been set out in the first place indicates that there has been sufficiently extensive study to show that certain aspects occur under certain conditions to the extent that the description of them can be viewed as a 'law' - and if it were found that any the 'law' was invalidated by new evidence then it would no longer be a 'law'. The phenomena concerned must be a feature within time and space since for it to have been investigated in first place, since the notion of investigating something that was not within time and space wouldn't make sense as things stand.

Let us take an example of a 'law' and maybe you can tell us what you think the problems are, so cast your mind back to school physics lessons and let use use Boyle's Law as an example:

The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

I'd say this law depends on their being relevant stuff within time and space, since if it were otherwise this law would never have be formulated.

[jeremyp]

.

I know time and space are dependent on the laws. You keep saying that. I accept it and have done for the last umpteen posts!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now

Are the laws dependent for their existence on time and space?

If not how do they exist?

errmmm....

I have only read a few of PD's posts but it's pretty obvious to me that his answer (which I agree with) is that they are not dependent on the  existence of time and  space. Rather time and  space are defined by physical law.

[jeremyp]

Mathematical laws are abstract and produce nothing physical.

If that was not the case we would be overwhelmed by the continual spontaneous production of the physical.

Only something with a knowledge of mathematics, the ability to compute and manipulate maths and the controlled will to do so can translate maths into the physical.

The universe is both controlled and exists because of this entity, this rule maker and controller(governer) which because it has volition, computation and ability(power) and self control and choice can be said to be personal rather than impersonal and so we arrive at a ruler and maker of the universe whether at a one of point or by continuously translating the mathematical into the physical.

The mathematical laws are not really the laws that govern the  Universe. They are our descriptions  of the laws that (we think) the Universe follows. There doesn't need to be some rule maker to interpret the mathematics. The Universe just does what it does and we describe what it does with mathematical equations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

You seem to be thrashing about for no good reason - let me try this approach. You seem to be seeing the 'laws' that describe phenomena as being somehow separate entities from the phenomena that they describe, where what they describe would happen anyway whether or not the mechanisms involved were recognised by humans.

Any of these 'laws' is a description of how phenomena present: they are, therefore, grounded in naturalistic methods. For them to have been set out in the first place indicates that there has been sufficiently extensive study to show that certain aspects occur under certain conditions to the extent that the description of them can be viewed as a 'law' - and if it were found that any the 'law' was invalidated by new evidence then it would no longer be a 'law'. The phenomena concerned must be a feature within time and space since for it to have been investigated in first place, since the notion of investigating something that was not within time and space wouldn't make sense as things stand.

Let us take an example of a 'law' and maybe you can tell us what you think the problems are, so cast your mind back to school physics lessons and let use use Boyle's Law as an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

I'd say this law depends on their being relevant stuff within time and space, since if it were otherwise this law would never have be formulated.

Yes Gordon, it's all about ''the relevant stuff'' Why does the stuff follow the law  though Gordon? What is forcing it to follow a law which according to you is just formulated by us? Do we invent the laws or discover them?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Universe just does what it does

OK

[ProfessorDavey]

The mathematical laws are not really the laws that govern the  Universe. They are our descriptions  of the laws that (we think) the Universe follows. There doesn't need to be some rule maker to interpret the mathematics. The Universe just does what it does and we describe what it does with mathematical equations.

I agree - although I am calling things fundamental physical laws, I've been clear that I'm talking about the underlying physical processes and relationships. In the most complete sense the 'laws' are human descriptions of fundamental physical processes derived through observation and measurement. While the laws, as we describe them, might be human constructs, those fundamental physical processes and relationships that they describe aren't human constructs.

[jeremyp]

I agree - although I am calling things fundamental physical laws, I've been clear that I'm talking about the underlying physical processes and relationships. In the most complete sense the 'laws' are human descriptions of fundamental physical processes derived through observation and measurement. While the laws, as we describe them, might be human constructs, those fundamental physical processes and relationships that they describe aren't human constructs.

Nor need they be the constructs of any other intelligent entity and, if they were, that entity would itself be subject to some meta physical law (the space there is deliberate, I don't mean metaphysical).

[ProfessorDavey]

Nor need they be the constructs of any other intelligent entity and, if they were, that entity would itself be subject to some meta physical law (the space there is deliberate, I don't mean metaphysical).

Quite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nor need they be the constructs of any other intelligent entity and, if they were, that entity would itself be subject to some meta physical law (the space there is deliberate, I don't mean metaphysical).

Not sure that's true because eventually contingencies have to end in a necessary.

Sounds like you are unsure if you need an entity or not or whether you would continue to need them ad infinitum whereas a necessary entity ends the hierarchy.

Could this entity be unintelligent? Well no, because it would not know where to stop and the physical would keep being created.

That actually was the proposal of the steady state theory previous to big bang.....But where is that theory now?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure that's true because eventually contingencies have to end in a necessary.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

If I wanted something, I could of course borrow it....and what I borrowed it from could in turn have borrowed it...… However if that goes back infinitely I would never get the something I wanted. If I do get it then it is only because it was introduced at some point in the past. Thus it is with contingency and necessity.

[Gordon]

Yes Gordon, it's all about ''the relevant stuff'' Why does the stuff follow the law  though Gordon? What is forcing it to follow a law which according to you is just formulated by us? Do we invent the laws or discover them?

Is it not the case that the laws follow the stuff, since the stuff has to be studied in order to formulate the laws?

[ProfessorDavey]

If I wanted something, I could of course borrow it....and what I borrowed it from could in turn have borrowed it...… However if that goes back infinitely I would never get the something I wanted. If I do get it then it is only because it was introduced at some point in the past. Thus it is with contingency and necessity.

Oh dear - once again Vlad is unable to understand that time itself is relative and contingent/dependent on fundamental physical principles as described by humans as physical laws.

You really struggling to understand basic physics Vlad.

And outside of that schoolboy error the rest of your post in unintelligible non-sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it not the case that the laws follow the stuff, since the stuff has to be studied in order to formulate the laws?

Surely a law should be derived from what we observe the stuff to be doing and that would be following a repeatable pattern in stuff of the same type in other words we are only reporting as best we can what the stuff is doing. But again either we question why stuff of a certain type invariably does and is....and not something else or we just resign ourself to saying the universe just does what it does as someonehas already resorted to in this thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - once again Vlad is unable to understand that time itself is relative and contingent/dependent on fundamental physical principles as described by humans as physical laws.

You really struggling to understand basic physics Vlad.

And outside of that schoolboy error the rest of your post in unintelligible non-sense.

Professor Davey, how long ago was the big bang?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - once again Vlad is unable to understand that time itself is relative and contingent/dependent on fundamental physical principles as described by humans as physical laws.

You really struggling to understand basic physics Vlad.

And outside of that schoolboy error the rest of your post in unintelligible non-sense.

Alright if you don't like the word the past you could quite easily say that the something has to be introduced at some point in the hierarchy.

[Gordon]

Surely a law should be derived from what we observe the stuff to be doing and that would be following a repeatable pattern in stuff of the same type in other words we are only reporting as best we can what the stuff is doing.

That is what I said: we discover laws by studying stuff.

But again either we question why stuff of a certain type invariably does and is....and not something else or we just resign ourself to saying the universe just does what it does as someonehas already resorted to in this thread.

We can study 'how'; such as by what mechanisms etc, but 'why' is another matter - and by asking 'why' you risk begging the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is what I said: we discover laws by studying stuff.

We can study 'how'; such as by what mechanisms etc, but 'why' is another matter - and by asking 'why' you risk begging the question.

As far studying ''stuff'' is concerned I tend to use the words how and why interchangeably. I'm not an anally retentive atheist you see.

[ProfessorDavey]

Alright if you don't like the word the past you could quite easily say that the something has to be introduced at some point in the hierarchy.

But again - you are implying linearity and directionality. You cannot presume this.

So in your rather clunky argument for you to have borrowed something implies linearity and directionality. If you don't presume this and accept relativity, while you may perceive that you are borrowing something that may just be due to your relative perception and from a different perspective it may be that you are lending to someone rather than borrowing from them.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far studying ''stuff'' is concerned I tend to use the words how and why interchangeably. I'm not an anally retentive atheist you see.

Well you are being imprecise in your language. How implies mechanism, why implies motive (which is an entirely different matter).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But again - you are implying linearity and directionality. You cannot presume this.

So in your rather clunky argument for you to have borrowed something implies linearity and directionality. If you don't presume this and accept relativity, while you may perceive that you are borrowing something that may just be due to your relative perception and from a different perspective it may be that you are lending to someone rather than borrowing from them.

Of course you can. What do you think a hierarchy is all about?
After all it's cause and effect not necessarily cause then effect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well you are being imprecise in your language. How implies mechanism, why implies motive (which is an entirely different matter).

Citation?