WHY are there laws of nature?

define "it"

Why wouldn't there be? Laws of nature are simply how we observe nature to work. If nature worked differently then the laws would be different. Only if there was nothing to observe could there be no laws. Laws of nature are not "things which exist" they are how "things which exist" are observed to exist.

Nature.

To 'invent' and to 'discover' are close terms in etymology

Okay why are there tendencies of nature?

How else is God going to make nature?

bcus God desu

because certain things are impossible in most circumstances, and some things are impossible in all circumstances, like getting more energy out of a system than the system contains.

knowledge of what is impossible leads to a theory of what is possible

no

But the Anthropocentric principal fails if there can only be one type of universe

cf.

>Only if there was nothing to observe could there be no laws
That is where you are wrong. This is why there is such a thing as the multiverse theory.

you mean multiverse hypothesis, right?

I don't see what multiverse theory has to do with it, nor do I see why it is necessary to apply it in this case. However the universe existed, we would find laws to describe it. Laws come from how the universe behaves, not the other way around. Now if you want to ask why the universe behaves the particular way it does, then that seems like a pointless question as there does not seem to be any intelligence which designed the universe a certain way. We can't answer why the universe exists, we can only observe how it exists.

Multiverse theory emerged from mathamatical necessity in our understanding of physics but Is often used to replace deep thought and formulation.

Fuck off its a theory learn basic scientific terms man.

Madramatical necessity or convenience?

theories have to be falsifiable at some point
at no point was the multiverse hypothesis ever tested

>However the universe existed, we would find laws to describe it
This is an assumption.

Only superstitions would've implied otherwise.

It's tested through theory. It's more of a philosophical discussion of what classify as science but as far as theory's go it dosnt need to be confermed or deneyed.

>This is an assumption.
How so? If the universe exists *in a certain way* then it can be observed as long as intelligent lifeforms arise in it. This would immediately lead to laws of nature.

Its unanswerable so who cares?

>so who cares?
I'm sorry. I thought people with a background in science were interested in the world. My mistake.

He obviously dosnt have a background in science.

Unanswerable questions are philosophy, not science.

dickwaving

Both
We are projected through the filter into this set but our consciousness and ideas are purely outside the substrate.

There is a large field that encompasses our substrate and drives it, it forces our 3d universe to expand, how else would it expand if there were not a previous existence that allowed it to? I would say time operates in the same way, wrongly interpreted as inseparable from 3d space, it is a field so enormous, so grandiose that we mistake it as non existent, but I believe this field it exactly either part of the filter or is the filter itself that morphs the 3d substrate as a whole from the fluctuations and mechanisms of the outside "home" dimension

Assuming the question is unanswerable implys you know the answer.

You're not answering the question WHY the universe exists in the "certain way" that it does. You're just ignoring it.

It doesn't matter WHAT that "certain way" is. The question is WHY?

Because otherwise we couldn't observe it and ask the question.

No it doesn't. That makes no sense. Here's a question that has no answer:

What color is the sound of a violin?

The fact that this question has no answer does not imply I know what color the sound of a violin is. It means that the question relies on concepts which have no basis. Asking why the universe is the way it is implies that there is some intelligence behind the universe, which has no basis.

>You're not answering the question WHY the universe exists in the "certain way" that it does. You're just ignoring it
Yes, brilliant. You can read. I ignore questions based on faulty or nonsensical assumptions that render them impossible to answer.

>what colour is the sound of a violin?

lmfao can't wait to see you squirm out of this one genuis

>Asking why the universe is the way it is implies some intelligence.
Why? We ask why the atom is the way it is and it implies no such thing in fact we can learn from it. Same with stars and life and everything else.
And youre saying that asking why the universe is the way is it is unanswerable you provided a good example of how my comment wouldn't hold up in other situations but still left me with nothing on why the question is unanswerable.

>What color is the sound of a violin?

To me it's bright fire orange, but the G string may sound like a moist dark dusky green. And I guess it'll depend on a lot of factors, like bow pressure, timbre, etc. In renaissance music there isn't so much colour but visual movement in the sounds, as if sound were a mass moving in isomorphic transformation.

This is a philosophical question not a scientific one

someone is synesthesic

I know that. But science is inseparable from philosophy. That's what some science beginners think.

Really makes you think...

>Why? We ask why the atom is the way it is and it implies no such thing in fact we can learn from it.
That's just a colloquial way of asking how the atom works. In other words, what is the underlying mechanism. But you are asking about the fundamental mechanism, simply the behavior of the entire universe. So it's not analogous.

>And youre saying that asking why the universe is the way is it is unanswerable you provided a good example of how my comment wouldn't hold up in other situations but still left me with nothing on why the question is unanswerable.
You seemed able to understand and respond to my explanation of why the question is unanswerable, and now you are saying I left you with "nothing".

We're not asking science to answer the unanswerable. Something that we recognize is beyond the scope of science. We are simply asking those of our own species to recognize that there is likely something beyond our powers of explanation to account for some of the things that we see.

>We are simply asking those of our own species to recognize that there is likely something beyond our powers of explanation to account for some of the things that we see.
Sounds like an argument from ignorance. The fact that we are incapable of "explaining" the fundamental nature of the universe does not imply that something exists. There is a much simpler conclusion: that there is no explanation.

>there is no explanation
There being an explanation is NOT what those believing in a super-scientific power advocate for. It is in fact precisely what they are trying to say. You're right. There IS no explanation for some some of the things that we see. And that is exactly what makes those things not scientifically explainable.

>There being an explanation is NOT what those believing in a super-scientific power advocate for.
I don't know what this is attempting to refer to.

>There IS no explanation for some some of the things that we see. And that is exactly what makes those things not scientifically explainable.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about fundamental physical laws. Everything that we have seen can be explained or should be explainable by physical laws. What is not explainable is the laws themselves. Science attempts to reduce all phenomena to fundamental rules which cannot be further reduced.

>So it's not analogous
Again how? it's a good question for a physicist why the universe is the way it is and why the laws turned out like this. ex: the law of gravity is the way it is because mabey if it was any weaker the universe would have collapsed.
Also, what? You did leave me with nothing you provided a example of saying this arbitrary thing has no answer therefore the question of why there are laws if nature is unanswerable.

The way atoms behave can be explained by how subatomic particles interact. The fundamental rules that govern everything cannot be reduced further, or they would not be fundamental.

>it's a good question for a physicist why the universe is the way it is and why the laws turned out like this. ex: the law of gravity is the way it is because mabey if it was any weaker the universe would have collapsed.
That doesn't explain why the universe is the way it is. The universe did not collapse because gravity behaves the way it does, not vice versa.

>Also, what? You did leave me with nothing you provided a example of saying this arbitrary thing has no answer therefore the question of why there are laws if nature is unanswerable.
I suggest you read the post in context because that's not what I'm saying. The example does not explain why that question is unanswerable, it is an example of how a question can be unanswerable. As I already said, the question is unanswerable because there is no basis for a reason. There is no evidence of a process which chooses fundamental laws, and if there was then they wouldn't be fundamental!

>The way atoms behave can be explained by how subatomic particles interact. The fundamental rules that govern everything cannot be reduced further, or they would not be fundamental

If only there was some physicist attempting to reduce everything to a single theory.

>That doesn't explain why the universe is the way it is. The universe did not collapse because gravity behaves The way it does, not vice versa

I'd disagree, the gravity in our universe which is a part of and a property of the universe could exist because of the speed of expansion ect.

>There is no evidence of a process which chooses fundamental laws, and if there was then they wouldn't be fundamental!

That's not the question s/he was asking not why the laws were chosen why are there laws of nature in general. For example why does the universe we live in behave and has laws that are ordered and do the same thing every time other than chaos?

because there is a creator.

without laws the universe would not be.

Proofs?

There aren't D:

Philosophical proof:
monkey with typewriters eventually creating a sentence argument is misleading because you need to start with monkeys and typewriters. they are two very specific constructs.
In order for the universe to form you need a set of rules or laws beforehand. These complex rules and laws are very specific in how they function from matter to living tissue.

Real Proof:
frequency
DNA
atoms
magnetism
buoyancy
density
heat
cold
day
night
sun
moon
stars
tree
dog
water
oil
salt
octane
brain matter
neurons
heart
lungs
liver
Mark 8:25 ESV / 78:
Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

None of that implies an active creator except the bible verse and I dont believe that actually happened

first of all, do not assume CREATOR as bible, christian, islam, or whatever flavor you seem to have a cognitive dissonance to. That's the academic agenda and mainstream science brainwashing you've been subjected to throughout your entire life so far. Even Steven Hawking alluded that there is a creator and nothing just comes out of random.

second, maybe the creator is non active at this time or was active or continues to be active but in moments. we do not know. but you can refer back to the big bang and theories and conjecture of all the big heads in the best universities and they'll tell you the same thing how the universe began: "i dont know".

third, you dont have to believe it happened and i can understand that, but i do know that the universe did not just happen randomly without order. just like your cells replicating under a direction, sure there is randomness but only within the boundaries.

last, its obvious that you are living in a realm of limitation and must work to manifest anything or have dominion....sort of. Therefore you are not totally in control and are part of a system that was not set up by you or your father or your grandfather or any lineage that was, is or will be. The only system set up by our kind within this reality is dominion over other through currency and violence. And even in that you do not have full control.

good morning!

"Some of the telescope's instrumentation is known as LUCIFER, the Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Spectroscopic Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Binocular_Telescope

> do not assume CREATOR as bible, christian, islam, or whatever flavor
If we dont assume this there is no reason to cal it "creator" at all

> but i do know that the universe did not just happen randomly without order
You dont actually know this, you assume it

Isn't that Baphomet why pic called Satan?

This a question for philosoraptors.

so our universe doesnt use too much computing power

I don't know.

t. most accurate poster ITT

you dont under over even withstand em

there aren't, physical laws are only models which describe the reality, make events predictable and allow us to take advantage of it. They are only something we can say about nature by observing it, it happens that we use a rigorous language to cosntruct them but that's it, we can't truly know what's going on yet

Anthropic principle; if the universe didn't have relatively stable laws, it's highly unlikely that a creature as complex as humans would have evolved.

what the fuck did you smoke

Read the Critique of Pure Reason. It's one of the reason Kant wrote it anyway.

no body knows and it unlikely anyone will ever know

someone in the simulation cannot see outside the simulation

Noether's theorem
Principle of least action