Bas C. van Fraassen - What is the Origin of the Laws of Nature?

From the fusion of stars to the evolution of life, the world works because the laws of nature or physics make things happen. Our universe as a whole may have come into existence through the laws of quantum physics. But from where did the laws of quantum physics come? Have they always existed?



Bas C. van Fraassen is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and the McCosh Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[anikettripathi]

Quest and explorations are always benificial for progress of human civilization. All possible fields needs to be explored to get maximum benifits.

[ajsirch]

He means that some symmetry is necessary even if some symmetries may end up being broken

[stephenbahry]

How does this fit with Rupert Sheldrake's notions of 'laws' evolving?

[JeffBedrick]

The concept of physical laws as some kind of absolute and unchanging foundation is a vestige from a time when theology and "God's law" reigned supreme in human thought. An increasing number of theoretical physicists are now questioning and challenging that authoritarian model with more flexible ideas like the many worlds theory and constructor theory.

[Gringohuevon]

Symmetries allow more generalisable models..there are no exact symmetires in nature, or at least we haven't found them..we make approximate models and get approximate results, but if we find some symmetries hold to a good approximation, then we have improved our predictive power..and that's what its all about

[fortynine]

Constructive empiricism (Bas C van Fraasen) is the view that (a) science aims to produce theories that are empirically adequate rather than true, where a theory is empirically adequate precisely if what it says with respect to the observable phenomena (those entities and processes that can be directly observed by the unaided human eye) is true; and (b) that to accept a theory involves no more belief than that it is empirically adequate.

[MrSanford]

So a better word for law maybe simply opposing forces upon a fulcrum of symmetry. For natural law is like civil law-You really don’t feel it’s effects until you try to oppose it. But its also something that can be overcome with greater force

[experiencemystique]

I have problems to understand, must be me. But, at the same time I was focused on the professor view, I had the image of Mr Lynch talking about the levels of transcendental meditation...maybe, another lecture or meaning... incredible show Sir. I'm a fans

[Zenoithegreek]

Isn’t symmetry now sort of like a necessity?

[carharttblade]

Its quite simple, in order for the rules to exist in the first place someone had to think them trough. We can see the laws work perfectly with each other and are so precise, they seem to never fail or missfire can be the right term. But how is that so since matter on its own is very chaotic.

[jamesruscheinski]

In philosophy / metaphysics there is more inquiry into non-physical aspects of topics like consciousness and others where the concept of law might still be helpful, while science has become a lot more physical inquiry for which theory and model more helpful. Probably would be good to clearly delineate between scientific theories of nature and metaphysical laws or whatever.

[jamesruscheinski]

Are possible worlds observed, and is it consciousness observing possible worlds?

[polarbianarchy]

Like understanding nature systemically?

[sparephone]

After watching the video, all I can say its just a matter of language. To claim physics has no fundamental laws is a bit bizzare.

[luancarvalhomatos]

5:39 Uma lei da natureza admite uma ordenação racional e previsível do mundo, mas, para o Bas, essa formulação não implica na existência de uma necessidade natural que justifique esse comportamento, mas sim de que esse causa se trata na verdade de uma regularidade de fenômenos observáveis que são passíveis de tal sistematização

[iphaze]

So are there “Anti-Laws”? Laws that tell something to *not* do something? Technically they should be limitless. And how do Models or Laws come into being, or rather, how is necessity assigned?

[romliahmadabdulnadzir]

This involved in standardization of those physical laws and the laws of existence. Patterns came from many different equations. For example, the pattern of a very simple circle or cube comes from a derived equation related to numbers and constants. E=mc2 is in context with constant c, the speed of light. Let's c is a simple constant, c = 1 and immediately Energy is mass. Pointless, isn't it? Constant must differ in context from 1 in order to see and recognize the true mass connection to the speed of light, gravity, dark energy and many other dimensions.You wanted to link a living pattern like ants into existence and how you wanted the constant to appear in terms of equation? How about other animals or birds or fish? We can create different patterns and equations that really link to reality or existence. Human eyes and brains can only see where the patterns appear biased and not real based on our physical laws and constants.If we change the constant to a simpler simple one, zero, or infinity, they become meaningless patterns and do not show reality. When we see the universe with our understanding of the laws of physics and the constants that we know, we may not be able to discover patterns of reality and existence that we do not know or many uncertainties. What's the breakthrough and next?

[xspotbox]

There are properties of reality that can never change, so rules must emerge from structure itself. Everything material is made from atoms and there are only so many ways protons, neutrons and electrons can be combined into elements, giving raise to chemistry. We can't have an element with a thousand protons, for example. It's because matter is made from even smaller energetic dots, following the rules of energy potentials. Potentials can't ever change also, they're bound in the structure of space-time. We can't have only space or only time, everything that exists is engaged in a constant exchange of those potentials.
It's very hard to accept the fact everything is connected and balanced out so perfectly, but that is what means to be real, there can be no glitches in the natural matrix. Anomalies would cause reality to shatter, making nothing our of something, it seems nature is always fighting against any physical abomination simply because of previously mentioned fact, everything is connected.

There's one more physical property that prevents divergence from eternal natural laws, energetic dots always radiate and absorb light, most frequencies bounce around and go through various transformations, but some waves shine straight through anything material, like nothing at all exist but a sea of that primordial light of lights.

[suncat]

What about Newton's 3 laws of motion, and the 3 laws of thermodynamics? Why are they not laws that cannot be broken within physical reality as we understand it?

[jamesruscheinski]

Can different functions be turned into a symmetry?