note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from?

There really is no simple way to answer this kind of a question with Newtonian precision. Poets, philosophers, theologians, apologists, atrophysicists, cosmologists and the like have all taken a stab at such a profound question. On the one hand, as Kuresu rather contemptuously relays, there are certainly some physical reasons for how something happens in the material universe. But, I think if we look only at something with blinders on we may miss the more laudable explanation.You know, sometimes when I think of these deep, vexing questions, I have to first simplify it in basic, human terms. I automatically think of 'love'. If a study was conducted on the effects of the brain when an image of a loved one was displayed; using the most sophisticated machinery available, what would that say about the nature of love? Suppose I'm in a CAT scan and I'm wired to instruments that would test my systolic rate, diastolic rate, and rate of inspiration and exhalation, and a picture of my wife, daughter, and son were flashed before me. My pulse might quicken, and my breathing might become a bit laboured, and I might mildly perspire. The 3-dimensional images of my brain might light up in key regions of the brain associated with the euphoria of love.Invariably, the question you might have guessed is coming next, is, "Do all of these effects equate to love? I mean, all the telltale signs are there. I know what I'm feeling and the people monitoring me can see a noticeable physiological change. But are these physical signs really the act of love or are they just a manifestation of something much deeper-- something that the extrapolations of science cannot detect? Is that grand feeling of love really just a mixture of chemicals and firing synapses to various regions of the brain? Or is there really something called 'spiritually' that transcends mere matter?When thinking about the complexities of the physical universe, I have to recalibrate myself, if you will, with these kinds of questions. The point of the analogy is that while there are physical reasons--laws-- that happen for other physical reasons, is there not something more grand than even that? Is there not some teleological inference when noting the staggering level of perfection that makes you wonder how it could of all become what it is by some random, chaotic event in some primordial past?The inescapable answer I recieve after serious contemplation, is yes. And we can call it an teleological or an ontological argument; or an anthropic principle, or whatever else seems worthy of such adulation. But whatever it is, for me, fortuitous is a word that I can no longer comprehend-- but oblation is. And I find myself reciting the words of King David. "The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God." Worship may offer clues to the meaning of life.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Exactly....

Philosophizing like everyone else. As I stated in my post, but perhaps explained even better by Messenjah himself, the laws of the universe are just descriptions of what it is or how it behaves. That's the not the answer he's looking for. Large bodies of mass attract smaller bodies. That's the observation. But he wants to know things, (from what I can gather), why there is even an orbit at all. How are these rules initialized is what I think he's really asking. You'd have to ask him directly. Heh. Well, there is a flipside to that coin. If its so imperfect and things are so random, how have any laws been established and maintain the affairs of the universe with balance by any measure? It would be a mighty big coincidence that in 4.6 billion years that chaos would actually live up to its name and self-annihilate.

quote:

---

But whatever it is, for me, fortuitous is a word that I can no longer comprehend-- but oblation is. And I find myself reciting the words of King David. "The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God."

---

No, being foolish has nothing to do with intellect. It has more to do with pride than anything else.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Right, and that's the premise of the OP. Why is it a law? Why is it, as you say, impossible for them not to exist? I can't answer that question fully. All I can do is notice that they are certainties, and if this universe formed by accident, and is run by chaotic forces, why is there so much homogeneity? We have descriptions for how a law behaves, but the OP wants to know why and how it was instituted in the first place.

quote:

---

If its so imperfect and things are so random, how have any laws been established and maintain the affairs of the universe with balance by any measure?

---

Well, according to Einstein, he was convinved that God does not play dice. As for my assumptions, would you not agree that after examining the complexity of the variables that govern our solar system fit within a very narrow range that would allow for life to flourish on this planet? When considering just what it takes to achieve a few simple functions that sustain life, it begins to weigh in on the mind that happenstance doesn't sufficiently factor in to that. Mandate my superiority to others? How am I acting superior? There is no difference between you and I. How is it breathtaking arrogance for believers who think nothing of themselves or their own abilities and grants something other than themselves glory? I'm not understanding that. Can you explain that to me?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Well, call me crazy but there is only one universe in known reality, hence, the prefix 'uni,' as in 'one.' But now that you mention it, along with String theory comes the question of multiverses which are now being toyed with by various mathematicians and whatnot.

quote:

---

Well, according to Einstein, he was convinved that God does not play dice.

---

Of course he isn't infallible, but what does it have to do with you claiming that God play's dice? I was merely showing that it was Einstein who made that pronouncement and that he said that he was convinced that God does NOT play dice. Hence why they are called laws. They have never been known to be anything other than physical constants. The better question is why there should be physical laws at all. Though I liked your analogy it ultimately fails on this occasion because the tea is simply conforming to rules of the cup. The tea is behaving the way we'd expect it to inside the cup. So, it really isn't remarkable at all, nor would that be analagous to the debate we are having currently. As for the earth being unremarkable in a hostile universe, that is precisely part of the argument of the anthropic principle. If there was a change in earth's placement within the universe, by maybe 1 part in 10¹⁵ difference would be disasterous. Life couldn't be possible.A number of new arguments against the anthropic principle is, as I stated above, the multiverse theory, in that there are infinite or near infinite universes where through probabalistic determination, one of them is bound to be as finely tuned as it is. At this point, its an indefensible argument because there is literally no raw data on it outside of, perhaps, an mathematical abstract. And to put in to perspective, its like someone using the "Godditit" argument. Something of that brevity would just emasculate science. While it may be fun to toy around with the notions, its just not something anyone has to go by. What exactly did you want me to glean from the article? Not compared to some of your language. Again, it bespeaks of an arrogance, not about their intellect. If you were offended by my usage of King David's words, I apologize. She sounds like a wonderful lady.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I've read your OP and thought that my first post was closest to what you were getting at initially. I thought you were asking a philosophical question with elements of physics.I think everyone here is a bit vexed by what exactly you are hoping to find out. Could you reiterate what it is, or how you want the question to be addressed?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

We're speaking about physical laws, not human laws. How could we invent laws of physics? That would insinuate that we had some sort of control over nature. But maybe I'm not understanding your rationale. If no, would you clarify for me?

Obviously not. I should have used a larger exponent. I guess 1 in 10 is a very small fraction-- too small to have any meaning in a vast universe. Thanks for doing the maths Mick.

​

Mick