Please explain the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe?

[PrimalMinister]

As I understand physicists cannot explain the origin or ubiquity of the laws of the universe. How did the laws of the come from somewhere unknown and get everywhere?

If you cannot explain this, can you instead explain why we cant explain it?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

As I understand physicists cannot explain the origin or ubiquity of the laws of the universe. How did the laws of the come from somewhere unknown and get everywhere?

If you cannot explain this, can you instead explain why we cant explain it?

No and yes, respectively.

First, no we can't explain, because the order* in nature just is, as far as science is concerned.

And then yes, we can explain why we can't explain, because science does not pretend to be able to answer every question it is possible to dream up. Science limits itself to theories (that is to say, models) of nature that can be tested by observation. That requirement imposes limits on what science can model. 

In fact the refusal of science to dream up answers to questions that can't be validated by observation is what gives it its reliability and explanatory power. This is in contrast to some other systems of thought, such as metaphysics, that indulge in unverifiable theories.  

 

*  This order is sometimes called referred to as the "laws" of nature, though actually these "laws" are merely man-made descriptions of the order, as we perceive it.

Edited June 26, 2021 by exchemist

[PrimalMinister]

30 minutes ago, exchemist said:

First, no we can't explain, because the order* in nature just is, as far as science is concerned.

I think you meant to say as far as scientists are concerned rather than science because science has no concerns, science is knowledge, not a being.

This is just opinion and while I am thankful for your answer it fails to answer the question.

I want to know about the technicalities, not what is currently fashionable science philosophy.

Why cant physicists explain the origin of the laws of the universe? What is the problem exactly?

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I think you meant to say as far as scientists are concerned rather than science because science has no concerns, science is knowledge, not a being.

This is just opinion and while I am thankful for your answer it fails to answer the question.

I want to know about the technicalities, not what is currently fashionable science philosophy.

Why cant physicists explain the origin of the laws of the universe? What is the problem exactly?

 

Science is a body of knowledge about nature. And there is nothing in that body of knowledge about the origin or cause, if there were to be one, of  the order in nature. If I were to speak of "scientists", instead of science, I would immediately be making it seem as if it might be a mere matter of fashion, or personal belief. So I meant what I said. I am not speaking of a "fashion" in "science philosophy". I'm telling you that an answer to such a question is absent from that body of knowledge. 

Secondly, I have explained why there is no explanation: there is no observation that can be made that has any bearing on the question. So it not a question that science can answer. You might as well ask what is the "cause" (if there was one) of the universe. That is not a question science can answer either, for the same reason. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by exchemist

[swansont]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Why cant physicists explain the origin of the laws of the universe? What is the problem exactly?

There’s no way to test an hypothesis of their origin (as exchemist say, there’s no observation to be made) and no way to model it. Models require rules.

[iNow]

I reject the premise. Science is the ONLY process for accurately peeling away the layers of ignorance about our cosmos and it’s origins and we DO have explanatory hypotheses and even conclusions about these subjects.

We don’t YET have answers to every question, but with each passing day our knowledge increases, gaps in understanding get filled, and the darkness gets better illuminated with realistic well founded insights, ones which thankfully crowd out the constant stream of inaccurate and amateurish human myths and fictions. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by iNow

[PrimalMinister]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

That is not a question science can answer either, for the same reason. 

Well I have a theory of everything that explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe so apparently science can answer the question leaving the fact that the current crop of scientists in the field of physics cannot. So science can, scientists cannot.

All I did was to take a principle from holography and apply it to the universe as a whole, origin and ubiquity of the laws explained.

I am unable to talk about the problem though because of the politics of the website and the prejudice that only someone with 'official' scientific training can do such a thing. Despite me always wanting to talk about the problems and how to solve them, the discussion never seems to be technical but is always full of website politics and prejudice.

Science can explain the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe, its scientists that cannot.

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by PrimalMinister

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well I have a theory of everything that explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe so apparently science can answer the question leaving the fact that the current crop of scientists in the field of physics cannot. So science can, scientists cannot.

All I did was to take a principle from holography and apply it to the universe as a whole, origin and ubiquity of the laws explained.

I am unable to talk about the problem though because of the politics of the website and the prejudice that only someone with 'official' scientific training can do such a thing. Despite me always wanting to talk about the problems and how to solve them, the discussion never seems to be technical but is always full of website politics and prejudice.

Science can explain the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe, its scientists that cannot.

 

Does your theory make testable predictions? If it doesn't, it is not science.  

 

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am unable to talk about the problem though because of the politics of the website and the prejudice that only someone with 'official' scientific training can do such a thing.

!

Moderator Note

You were unwilling or unable to discuss you “theory” with anything approaching scientific rigor, we’ve gone several rounds on this with no evidence being provided by you, and you were told not to bring it up again.

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Despite me always wanting to talk about the problems and how to solve them, the discussion never seems to be technical but is always full of website politics and prejudice.

Discussing problems in science is what we do, but we do it carefully, with as little guesswork as possible. We like to make sure the statements and assertions we make are trustworthy, and based on what we can actually observe. 

Your approach is to guess at what you think a solution might be, based usually on misunderstandings of mainstream science. When we try to point these mistakes out, you claim it's because of prejudice or politics, but it's really just that you don't understand what you're talking about to the degree necessary for what you're attempting to explain. 

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well I have a theory of everything that explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe so apparently science can answer the question leaving the fact that the current crop of scientists in the field of physics cannot.

You're fooling yourself here, and we don't want to be party to it. You don't have a theory (the fact that you say this shows you don't understand what a theory is). Your idea can't cover what a ToE needs to, because you yourself don't understand current models and theories. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to remake them based on your limited studies.

You're quite firmly in the group of folks who didn't study science much in school, but now that you've read some popular science on the internet (which is ALWAYS claiming science has been broken/overthrown/baffled), you think you know the answers. And you've probably justified this amazing ability as reasonable because you aren't hampered by all that hidebound book-learning that scientists wasted their time on. YOU are different. YOU, and YOU alone, have a highly honed, intuitive ability to sense when things aren't right. You can take one look at an explanation, and if you don't immediately understand it, you can instead think creatively around it and come up with an alternative that nobody else sees.

It's a shame, because you're obviously smart (you can't even talk about science at the discussion forum level without being smart). You obviously are attracted to science as well. I just wish you'd give the mainstream, collected knowledge of your species more of a chance. Humans are really quite smart about learning since we discovered the best methodologies, and we'd love for you to join us.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

After staff discussion, we have decided to give you one more chance to post your “theory”

It must be posted in speculations and conform to the rules. Meaning you need to make sure your post is complete enough to contain a model and/or make predictions and be falsifiable, and provide supporting evidence.