I have a question

What I said was more along the lines of "the laws of the universe are a product of the human mind." The universe may or may not exist outside of our perception but the rules we ascribe to it are concerned with our perception of it.

lol

lol

what if rules are just part of the randomness?

There are stable islands and archipelagoes of order in chaotic systems.

Another explanation would be the actual existence of one, or more, boltzmann brains that decided to make the universe more homely for non-boltzmann brain entities.

As far as we know, nature and physics have been acting entirely at random this whole time and just happen to align with the "rules" and "laws" we have prescribed to them.

This shit wasn't written in stone, we only work with the patterns we observe.

CONT.

If you played your D&D and Pathfinder, you know how the chaotic neutral plane operates. Islands of order beseiged by chaos. An illusion of perpetual order that finally falls after a million years. Creatures that are only "real" every other round. Etc.

CONT

That would be a cosmic joke in poor taste

Observation. We do not observe everything to be random and chaotic... at least not on our time scale. We observe stable objects. For instance all the objects that surround you are stable. They are not just random and chaotic. Physics is about finding principles that have correspondence with observation. It's gone off into some very indirect and esoteric places now, but even there correspondence should be maintained.

>Why isn't everything just chaotic and random?
God

it might as well be, but brains have the ability to filter the crap and make up stable patterns that allow the creature to operate within it

Because everything has structure, no such thing as chaotic and random. If it were actually some form of randomness then the universe probably wouldn't get anywhere as it has no consistency to do anything except maybe throw around gas.

>why
This is a science board faggot

>Why are there laws/rules of nature/physics that the universe must abide to?
>laws/rules of nature/physics
>rules of nature
youtube.com/watch?v=N3472Q6kvg0

>Why isn't everything just chaotic and random?

Because why would God waste his time with that shit. You need a semi-orderly environment if you're going to experiment with what semi-intelligent creatures do if mostly left to their own devices.

it was and is still in a sense chaotic and random, things just kept bumping around enough to develop consistency. these relatively stable states are the outcome of patterns that form on every order of scale, with each layer defined by the previous. things are still bumping around "randomly" within the boundaries set by its substrates.
chaos and random exist only as concepts, to exist is to manifest properties by which it can be defined through which all behaviour is predictably given sufficient information

I don't know dude, maybe it's just my poor imagination but I feel like it would be mandatory. The moment there is any structure whatsoever you could mathematically describe it, and things like GR describe very fundamental things like spacetime itself, so what would a universe without any laws governing it even look like?

It's completely obvious there is structure though. You drop an apple, it will always fall towards the ground. I don't think the laws we have necessarily refer to reality, so in that sense they're just a human invention, but you can't ignore the power of mathematics to describe and predict our universe in general.

because of symmetries

each symmetry has a corresponding conservation law

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Because if everything was just random chaos you wouldnt be here to ask the question.

that's a consequence not a reason

No its both. If the universe was random and chaotic nothing meaningful would ever arise in that universe. Including beings capable of questioning said universe. For all you know, random and chaotic universes could be the normal. For every law abiding universe there could be trillions of chaotic ones, but can those universes even be said to exist if they have no influence on anything outside of them and there is nothing there to observe it?

Aka the anthropic principle.

>implying there's a difference

>there's no difference between cause and consequence
might as well claim causality isn't an actual thing, so is correct

you're begging the question

>Why isn't everything just chaotic and random?
It is. We're just used to it.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>materialism is the same as realism

If you are suggesting that the major thesis of science for the last century or so has been in the realm of realism and not materialism you are patently mistaken. I'm not really convinced of a worthwhile distinction between realism and materialism in the context of science (which is focused on the material world). In the context of other disciplines maybe, but still it seems to me that taken in this way realism does not proclude idealism since the mind can be seen as distinctly real to all other causal factors, which was my point in the first place; If the mind can exist without any other extraneous material factors, then so can God (a disembodied mind).

Where's the irony? I am merely following the basic historical premise by which all scientist was conducted; by Newton, Faraday, Maxwell et al. prior to the intellectual stagnation and circle jerk that has been imposed upon human knowledge and discovery by the lame atheistic and positivistic model in the late 19th Century.

>prior to the intellectual stagnation
Are you talking about how physics were thought to be mostly "solved" around the end of the 19th century, only for that belief to be completely refuted as early as the beginning of the 20th century?

This is one of the better explanations I've seen of the anthropic principle. Well put.

The Earth is flat.

because we would not be here to observe it if there weren't

No, I'm suggesting materialism is not the same as realism, so a materialistic focus is not a realist focus, so the universe being a product of the human mind is compatible with materialism, but not realism

Truly the bible as all the answers we need.

>i need nothing

what if getting discovered was part of the universe's plan?

>the universe being a product of the human mind is compatible with materialism
I think you need to revisit the definition of materialism, before posting next time.

No, perhaps my point will be made more clear by this correction.
>the lame atheistic and positivistic model in the late 19th Century (onwards).
I am speaking about a continued and pervasive philosophy of non-philosophy within science, which is now rapidly coming to an end.

The mind can be purely material yet give rise to a perception of the universe you cretin

>No its both
no it isn't. you're just telling me there could only be observers in a universe that allows observers, but you're not answering the question: what's the cause of such a universe? you telling me i could only exist in such a universe is sidestepping the real question: why is there such a universe in the first place?

see this tattoo?

it means chaos isnt welcome here

Great question. I don't think there is a reason for that. My guess is that at first things could have been random. But as time went by things worked out more if they followed some law than if they were random.

Materialism says that matter comes before mind. Realism is the one that includes the concept of our perceptions being merely a creation of the mind. You made the point of there being distinctions between Materialism and Realism and now you have just refuted your original point by saying that they are the same thing. Why did you do this?

realism means ideal forms existing independent of mind.

>materialism says that matter comes before mind
Given only by using our minds can we understand matter, nah. Materialism just means all that exists is material, and that means an emergent property like consciousness can arise and conceive of a world even though nothing else exists outside the mind (as in outside the brain)

I have not in any way said they're the same thing, and I haven't refuted my original point since that point was that materialism doesn't necessarily mean the universe isn't a product of the brain

I have been thinking that there might not be any rules or laws in the universe after all. It could all be just probabilities.

When you put an ice cube into a campfire it will melt. Not because there's some law that states "hot objects will transfer heat to colder ones" or anything like that. It's just probability. Heat is kinetic energy of individual atoms and since there is more of it in the hot object, it's likely that more heat is transferred to the colder object than the other way around. No law. Just probability.

Same with pressure. Break a tire and air will flow out of it because it's more probable for the compressed atoms to flow out than in. No law. Just probability.

Electricity? Neurons? Muscle cells? Motors? No laws, just probabilities. It kinda looks like many things happen because they're simply likely to happen.

Also consider things like natural selection. It's not a law. It's just something that happens because of probabilities when you meet certain criteria (limited resources, replicators that have somewhat persisting but also a mutable genome).

>Materialism just means all that exists is material, and that means an emergent property like consciousness can arise and conceive of a world even though nothing else exists outside the mind (as in outside the brain)
This statement is a contradiction.

There are different kinds of realism. I'm assuming we are dealing with more modern forms of realism than Platonic realism, which isn't supported by the scientific community, in any case.

delete this embarrassing post asap you brainlet

>

what governs those probabilities? Laws are needed to define anything which can be defined

...

Isn't that kind of one of the foundamental ideas of thermodynamics? Maybe it is going too far saying no laws, maybe we just need better understanding of what it means to be a law?

>if I say something is a contradiction it becomes a contradiction even though it clearly isn't

Yeah, no, you shitposting pseud

Consider the following: the atomic nucleus consists of protons and neutrons, and is orbited by electrons. Protons are subatomic particles that have a positive charge, and electrons have a negative charge. The neutrons are neutral. We know that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. What, then, keeps the protons within the atomic nucleus from flying apart? The only explanation must be an intelligent creator who has designed the universe. You can learn more at your local seminary.

As long as the universe is random then patterns that can hold meaning to us can arise. We can name them laws/rules that the region of interest follows. Much like the monkey typewriter thing.

A universe that has true rules/laws can quite possible be static and empty.

Also why questions are "silly", imo it's best to avoid them if you want to be "sane".

Prove that what you see as structure isn't just a brief blip of apparent order in an eternal chaos. Perhaps the last few billion years were like one of those strings of repeating numbers in the expansion of pi where it almost seems like there's a pattern before it fucks off into random bullshit again.

Maybe it isn't in your head, but in reality it is a contradiction. Perhaps restate you argument in a different way, so that it makes sense.

>Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
You're basic understanding of the philosophical concepts you are using is lacking.

And the brain could be purely matter yet give rise to a seeming perception of external phenomena despite there being no external noumena to trigger that perception , it's not difficult to understand

>you're
Ok, you're just baiting me, 5/10

In reality it literally is not, because materialism makes no claims as to the boundaries of the universe. Perhaps actually explain how you think it is a contradiction, or even better, improve your reading comprehension

The scientific establishment really made a mistake when it encouraged people not to learn about philosophy and "shut up and calculate". When it comes to you I think you should follow that advice, because your grasp on this subject is so ass backwards you would need toilet paper just to wipe this type of shit from your brain. That is on the slim chance you aren't just trolling.

...

I think I get what you are saying now. You are saying that there is a real world and that we are formed out of it, but that whatever we are is also capable of generating reality? Is that it? So, for example I can create stuff using magic. If this is what you are stating that is great. If you believe in magic and science then there is no reason why you wouldn't believe in God, unicorns etc.

If we accept that humans are able to create their own reality with their thoughts, how do we know that all of physical reality is not the creation of a brain of some sort. If a thought of mine can become real, then everything that is 'real' could then be a thought, mine yours or a thought in the mind of God. Take you pick, fool.

>you are are saying there is a real world
No. I very overtly made the distinction between materialism and realism. Read better please

>we are formed out of it
From a materialistic viewpoint, we're formed from matter, if that's what you mean.

>if we accept that
You're really not following the thread. I'm just pointing out that th universe being a product of the human mind is compatible with materialism, because someone was wrong on the Internet. I don't think it is a product of the human mind

There's no reason a brain couldn't contrive a distinction between thoughts and perceived phenomenona. This applies to both posters.

And God isn't compatible with materialism

Continuing on with this line of reasoning, assuming I'm on the right track here, if brains can create minds, which can create brains, then we are in an infinite regress type situation, which we might well be. But the problem with this is, it is like the chicken and the egg. Which came first, brains or minds? You would say brains. Great. Can you prove this? Or can you at least say why you believe this and not minds?

What's your definition of realism? Are you using Platonic? Kantian? You're own version of it?

>th universe being a product of the human mind is compatible with materialism
IF you believe this then you have to address But you obviously don't believe it, because it is fucking stupid, so why are we even bothering having this stupid conversation?

*Your
Not trolling

Antropic principle.

Simple. If everything was chaotic and random you wouldn't be here to experience it. For you to experience things, the universe must be orderly and follow rules. Otherwise sentient life will never form (with the exception of the Boltzmann Brain).

There is a similar argument against death. You can't "experience" death. Once you die your stream of consciousness ends. And given how long the universe will last (and how large it is), it's possible that your consciousness will live again in another form. It must. Because so far, every time your consciousness has "ended", it has started again in an instant. Think of your birth, everytime you sleep, etc.

It's a big universe

This is going to be an opinions thread, just an fyi, and when you boil down the question it really just starts to look like "why anything rather than something". Anthropic priniciple, which some have mentioned, isn't going to leave you feeling like the question was answered at all. The truth of the matter (that might be an oxymoron) is that there probably isn't an answer that can really leave you satisfied.

You should unironically take a philisophy class.

first of all please take down that fucking pic u posted with. its not cute.

here comes doctor grammar on Veeky Forums lol

>Why are there laws/rules of nature/physics that the universe must abide to?
Because everything in our observable universe came from the same initial big bang event and because only certain sorts of universes can be stable enough to eventually produce organisms like yourself who are capable of asking that question.
A universe that isn't at least somewhat deterministic / predictable probably wouldn't be able to produce complex organisms because complex organisms depend on the environment being predictable in order to survive and propagate. And even long before organisms are a consideration universes that are not at least somewhat deterministic / predictable would probably only exist for a very short period of time since it actually requires some stability / determinism for something to continue existing after beginning to exist.
You could imagine there's some super-context beyond our scope of observation where all possible universes emerge from and that many of those emerging universes are in fact chaotic / random, but most of those emerging universes would only persist for a brief instant. Therefore determinism / stability and laws of physics would be selected for by virtue of being qualities that allow for a universe to persist.

>Answering a question with a question isn't helpful.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Why isn't everything just chaotic and random?
can things exist without rules to contain them?

You should unironically put more effort into your posts so people know exactly what it is you are objecting to.

The key issue here is that you're asking the question with the assumption of laws. There are no "laws" which the universe abides by- the laws of physics are merely patterns that we've observed in the chaos around us. When things happen frequently enough and like circumstances yield like outcomes, we start to base our understanding of our universe on those events.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
>Laws reflect scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified).

>if you drop an object it should be equally likely to go any which way

this. fuck cats

>things have to exist

Well, I don't pretend to have all the answers but I don't see why gravity would require a law. Gravity results from the geometry of space.

It goes some way, we humans have learned to call the way it goes as "down"

check this video out maybe it will help somewhat
youtube.com/watch?v=9rIy0xY99a0

god doesn't play dice

Of course, it can't do that because it doesn't exist.

4*U

> it goes something like this-
If the (observable) universe was chaotic and random the laws/rules of nature/physics would be that the universe is chaotic and random.

some things are, for example, the location of an electron outside an atoms nucleus at a certain time is impossible to calculate, when scientist expected electrons to simply orbit the nucleus, the way objects in a vacuum do, instead they found that it hovers at varying speeds and locations within the predicted "electron cloud" and cannot be located or observed. we can only observe its presence and how many there are. your perspective is really what makes this a poor question.
keep in mind the even the element in pic related has at the most maybe over 150 electrons, and at the least only one.
Nothing is truely 'chaotic' by definition, some things are very difficult to acurately predict or make assumptions about.

>tfw you haven't studied free objects