Really it depends on what you mean. There is the fact that things behave in particular ways. That "exists" so long as the things exist (but only in the sense it is true, I've seen some very silly arguments that get confused about that). Then there is the description which is a human creation.
But there's no reason to suppose that there is anything external making things behave that way.
Doesnt this imply that the law of gravity existed before humans invented the words to call it a law and the experiments to verify the behavior?
The property we call gravity is part of the universe itself. The "Law of Gravity" has changed many times in the past as we learn more about the property that we call gravity. But gravity is simply a property of this universe. There is no evidence that it was created or that it could exist separate from this universe itself.
But there's no reason to suppose that there is anything external making things behave that way.
One could argue that everything is basically internal. To me that borders of pantheism, if a spiritual label were attached. But even if not, to say that laws originate with humans is nearly tantamount to saying that anything--God, wisdom, laws, indeed reality itself originates with humans. Which in one sense is arguably true but in another sense obviously ludicrous.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
Now if the Laws of Physics themselves did not exist before the Big Bang, but came into being along with all matter, how can we trust the Laws of Physics to remain constant?
We don't. Well, not absolutely, anyway.
We trust them to remain constant because every time we get information suggesting if they were constant or not... that information suggests that, yes, they were constant.
As long as that information stays that way, we will continue to trust such information.
As soon as any information says otherwise, we will be become very, very interested in the how's and why's.
For if the Laws of Physics were not always what they are now, there is no reason for us to be confident that they will always be.
A very good start. And the start of all scientists.
Now, let's look at what we can to see if they ever changed or not. Everything we look at suggests that they never change.
So, although the possibility of the Laws of Physics changing suggests we should not be confident in them never changing... the fact that we can verify that the Laws of Physics have never changed, and that we have no information that suggests otherwise... that is a good reason to assume that they'll never change.
At least for now.
And therefore, there is no reason to believe that the universe will not suddenly vanish or change into an elephant.
Well, apart from the fact that it hasn't done so ever before. In all of it's 14 000 000 000+ years. But hey... maybe tomorrow will be the difference maker?
I don't know about you, but I'm sticking with the 14 000 000 000 years of not changing into an elephant. If you want to side with the possibility of naοve dreaming... that's up to you.
But if there is a Creator who established those Laws, then it makes sense that they should be constant.
Actually, if there is a Creator who established those Laws, this widens the possibility that such Laws may change. Without a Creator... who would be able to change them?
And it is written of Jesus Christ in the Book of Hebrews in the Bible that He is "upholding all things by the word of his power".
Maybe. But that sounds a lot like Atlas. I don't believe in Atlas or Jesus Christ, because all the information we have doesn't seem to back them up, only a very small specific subset. I'd have to ignore too much in order to accept them as truth. However, all the information we have does seem to back up the idea of the constant Laws of Physics.
The Laws of Physics would have no power to describe nature unless they reflected, either somewhat or fully, Laws existing in nature. Otherwise scientists would not have created them, for there would be nothing upon which to base them.
I agree with your idea here, I think. Your wording can be cause for some confusion, but I think I see what you're trying to say, and I agree.
The word nothing implies that nothing can come from it.
I don't agree with that, though.
The word nothing implies, well... nothing. Including not implying that nothing can come from it.
Why can't something come from nothing?
For if there is no thing, what is the cause of anything?
We have identified causes for many things. In fact, whenever we look for a cause, we almost always find one. The only time we're really stumped for finding a cause, is at the very beginning of the universe.
Since the very beginning of the universe only happened once, and only happened a very, very long time ago... perhaps our thoughts on what happens here and now (things like "something can't come from nothing") do not apply to what happened once, a very, very long time ago.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I can't say it does. And you certainly can't say it doesn't.
And if a cause is not needed, why should the universe not suddenly vanish without cause?
What's to say it's not going to? Other than the last 14 000 000 000+ years of it not doing so, of course.
How can we rely on the scientific method to conclude anything about nature, if cause and effect being unnecessary, nature is not constant.
Because it works. Relying on the scientific method saves more lives than not relying on it. Relying on the scientific method builds better computers than not relying on it. Relying on the scientific method expands our knowledge about the universe and everything in it more than not relying on it.
Maybe one day it won't. Maybe one day something better will come along. Maybe you'll be the one to identify that something-better.
Maybe not.
Until then, why not use what works?
So far the God of the Bible has a perfect track record of keeping His promises and fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think He does. But this isn't exactly something to worry about, it's not as if I have a perfect track record of such things either. In fact, pretty much nobody does.
Interesting how God doesn't seem to be able to do any better than anyone else... maybe He isn't really a God.
Yellowstone could blow up, too. The chance of that happening is likely greater than the laws of Physics changing.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
Yellowstone could blow up, too. The chance of that happening is likely greater than the laws of Physics changing.
There is a near certainty that there will be another Yellowstone Mega eruption. It almost certainly WILL happen since the evidence is that it is a recurring even that has happened many times in the past.
A map of prior hotspots with numbers equal date of eruption in millions of years ago from History of Yellowstone Caldera.
The Laws of Physics would have no power to describe nature unless they reflected, either somewhat or fully, Laws existing in nature. Otherwise scientists would not have created them, for there would be nothing upon which to base them.
When the orbit of Mercury violated Newton's Laws of Gravity we threw out Newton's Laws of Gravity, not the orbit of Mercury.
In the end, laws are human models that attempt to describe how nature works. The things that appear to stay constant are turned into laws while the things that don't stay constant are not turned into laws. For example, the ambient temperature for any location on Earth is not constant so we don't describe it as a law. If there were no constants then we wouldn't have any laws, and we probably wouldn't exist to begin with.
The word nothing implies that nothing can come from it. For if there is no thing, what is the cause of anything? And if a cause is not needed, why should the universe not suddenly vanish without cause? How can we rely on the scientific method to conclude anything about nature, if cause and effect being unnecessary, nature is not constant.
We use the scientific method because it appears to work. If there were no constants then the scientific method wouldn't work and we wouldn't be able to make such stunningly accurate predictions as it relates to new experiments.
So far the God of the Bible has a perfect track record of keeping His promises and fulfilling prophecy.
Except for all those promises that he hasn't kept, such as Jesus fulfilling all of the messianic prophecies and coming back like he promised.
When the orbit of Mercury violated Newton's Laws of Gravity we threw out Newton's Laws of Gravity, not the orbit of Mercury.
And when relativity explained the orbit of Mercury, that was validation that relativity was a better model than Newton's Law of Gravity.
We use the scientific method because it appears to work. If there were no constants then the scientific method wouldn't work and we wouldn't be able to make such stunningly accurate predictions as it relates to new experiments.
We also have evidence for constants, such as Uranium Halos and the Okla Natural Reactors producing the same by-products as man-made reactors, and in the observed radioactive decay of isotopes in the light from supernova's like 1987a.
If the laws of physics have changed then it is most likely that this occurred early in the life of the universe and that they have since decayed rapidly over time to the constants we see and observe.
Yellowstone could blow up, too. The chance of that happening is likely greater than the laws of Physics changing.
What's your point? I said that if God works in mysterious ways, there's no way for us to tell when His ways will change. If God works in mysterious ways, "communion" with Him has no value because He might change His mind tomorrow.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
