Leonard Mlodinow - 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?

Leonard Mlodinow is a theoretical physicist and author, recognized for groundbreaking discoveries in physics, and as the author of five best-selling books.

Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, 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.

[dismalthoughts]

The laws of nature in our textbooks are much like a person's portrait painted by an artist, and the laws of nature in reality would be the person themselves. What we write in the textbooks is as created as the portrait, and the laws of nature in reality are as real as the person. The biggest reason for any apparent disagreement is simply when two people use the same term "laws of nature" to refer to two separate concepts.

[psterud]

I love how Leonard describes things. He's clearly devoted to the ideas of the past and present, but sees how science changes over time and is receptive to it. This is very important, because as humans have a tendency to become dogmatic, they lock themselves into frames of belief, which are indistinguishable from systems of faith like religion. It's very important to remain flexible, like a ship on the water, to be able to attain new information and adjust. A stiff ship is going to break and sink, while a flexible one will conform to the forces against it and stay afloat.

In this way, "laws" of nature evolve just like laws of traffic or social discourse. But this also means that there are a multitude of ways to describe the same thing, the same reality. The problem being, of course, that every thing, every aspect, every phenomenon, has an essence that a human can never know perfectly. The best we can do is attempt to describe it with our limited ape language. An alien that is very different from an ape will use a totally different language, if they even use language, to describe that same phenomenon.

Regardless, no matter the intelligence of a living, perceiving thing, the essence of the universe will never be known. Ironically, that is the quest of the universe, seemingly, to become self-aware. Maybe in many quintillions of years, at the very last moment of the universe, it will know itself fully, and at that moment it dies, spawning a whole new universe that starts the whole process all over again, for fun, for play.

[BlackbodyEconomics]

Man, I love Mlodinow. I read "Subliminal" when it came out year ago - and ever since then I've been a huge fan of his work. Amazing thinker - great writer - good dude all around :)

[quantumkath]

I'm having FOMO. The HowTheLightGetsIn Festival in the UK is too far. We need a festival like this around here!

[EverythingCameFromNothing]

Aren’t “laws” Just our best representation of the relationships between things? 🤔

[bouncybounce]

The title is misleading. This is a discussion of the attempts to describe the forces of Nature in terms of "laws", but never proceeds to the question of the origin of the true natural laws that elude each generation of scientists.

[TorgerVedeler-jv]

Fascinating. And a lot to try and wrap my head around.

[wayneasiam]

Explanatory Power until you get to the randomness and quirky nature at the Quantum Level. By the way, I love these videos Robert provides.

[markpmar]

I would say that Newton's assertions regarding gravity yielded to Einstein's once and for all when the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury predicted by Einstein were shown to be true by observation. Gravity is not a force in the accepted meaning of the term "force". Particularly with gravity, a third and, up to this point, unknown theory of how matter and/or mass curves spacetime towards the center of mass would be utterly fascinating. Guess we'll have to wait for the next earth-bound genius or space aliens to explain it, whoever comes first.

[TheTroofSayer]

At 5:59 Robert asks "Do you really think aliens would have a different law to describe the same environment?" Leonard Mlodinow's reply shows that he appreciates the relevance of language and culture to the theories that are developed (though he doesn't express it in those terms). I've often wondered, myself, about the sorts of things that advanced alien civilisations might discover, given very different languages and historical experiences impacting on the phenomena that get noticed and incorporated into "law".

[simonhibbs]

This very much accords with my own way of thinking about science. Scientific laws are very precise, rigorous descriptions of behaviour we observe, formulated in mathematical terms. Reality always wins and is primary. It doesn’t care how much we like this theory or that, or which idea of god or spirits or faeries we choose to believe in. There is one world and it is as it is. Either our ideas and theories are accurate descriptions of that reality, or they are not and we don’t get a vote on that.

[pazitor]

It can be hard to accept that hard science is about models which are useful, yet not necessarily thought of as the final say. Unlike Aristotle, science is not concerned with truth statements.

[browngreen]

Humans both observe and invent the laws of nature at the same time. It's the paradox of human existence vs the fullness of greater Existence.

[JohnRevelation]

Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
​
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119, 000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79, 000, 000, 000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34, 000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42, 000, 000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30, 000, 000, 000, 000 cells in the human body.)

Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.

A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.

Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)

[CesarClouds]

1:40 He could have explained that a little better since laws don't necessarily explain (scientific theories do) but are observed regularities. Apples falling from trees demonstrate the existence of gravity and the laws derived therefore but it doesn't explain. Gravitational theory explains. I emphasize this because I've encountered numerous times reality deniers (creationist) say "if evolution were science it would be a law". Facepalm.

[bryandraughn]

The fundamental laws are expressed by the actions taking place in the universe.
We must use concepts to describe them, but by nature they just happen.

[kimsahl]

Go for the laws (of Nature) - you will find it in the Nature.
Go for the Nature - you will find it at the laws.

[iniable]

Discovering laws of nature and capturing powers of nature is not inventing but learning about them.😊

[dongshengdi]

Faith is at the very core of science. The original meaning of science was philosophy of nature. They were used interchangeably during the Islamic Golden Age. Religion is just a philosophy of whoever the founder is. Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddha. Christianity is the philosophy of Jesus Christ. So forth and so on. And philosophy is considered a science because it uses logic.
Science and Religion are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Both require FAITH. There is nothing absolute in Science.

[Andrew-losc]

He's probably right. Our point of view on gravity will change one day.