Why is there laws/rules in science?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Why is there laws in this universe? This really makes no sense at all. We all know that laws exsist in our universe and in order to make fantasy reality we have to follow these laws. These are the laws of physics, the laws of gravity, the laws of reality, the laws of nature. In nature you see there is a bunch of forces and each one is keeping the other one in check. If there is too many rabbits there will be wolves and the wolf population will grow but if less prey animals start dying out so will the wolf population. Now why is this? We all understand the laws are here but why is there laws to begin with? Why cant we freely do as we wish? Why are we so restricted? Its like there is something that planned this. Why would nature itself work so hard to keep itself in check? Creatures only live so they can pass on genes and die. When they die they make room for new offspring and most creatures die from old age or else being eaten. In government we have laws but man made government and man made government laws. So what exactly made our laws and why is there a need for these laws to even exist to begin with? I mean really if you think about it do we really need laws at all? Why could we not just have magic that does things with no rational reason? Why does nature have to keep everything in check? What made it this way?

 

(BTW I hope I put this in the right section I thought it fit here)

Edited August 23, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[harshgoel1975]

My thoughts on law.... Law or rule is as we understand the things happened and under the same circumtance will produce the same results....imagine a situation.. where there is no law.. for example law of gravity...it exist.. .

 

To sustain anything we need two opposite are required to work together ( may be opposite direction) ...and laws are the rule how that opposite work together

This is my answer to how...

 

for why ?.. i have no clue... Still searching everywhere... why......

[Ophiolite]

We have no sound idea as to why there are Laws. Science does not deal with why. Science seeks to describe what and how. Why falls into the realm of philosophy, at least today.

 

I think it was probably Einstein who said something to the effect that "the most remarkable thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all." One day we may know the answer, but - in my opinion - this topic is more suited to The Lounge, or Speculations, than physics. (That should stir up anyone with solid evidence to the contrary.)

[ajb]

You mean "why does the framework of mathematics work so well in describing nature?" I think just about everyone has asked that in their lives, with no real avil. You may wish to read "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Eugene Wigner (1960).



The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible - Albert Einstein.

[Strange]

If the stuff the universe was made of didn't behave in consistent ways, then it wouldn't be possible for the sort of structures (from atoms to molecules to planets and stars) to form. In which case, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Which means either we wouldn't be around to ask the question or, if somehow we were, we would be asking "why doesn't the universe behave more consistently?"

 

(This probably belongs in Philosophy, rather than Physics, IMO)

[EdEarl]

Why is a question that cannot always be answered by someone. Why? Perhaps there is no answer, perhaps no one has figured it out, or perhaps there can never be an answer. I don't know a good answer to your question, and I've considered the same question, as almost every one does.

 

Children are born asking why, and they expect someone will be able to answer them. But, often they get the answer, "I don't know, no one knows, quit asking." But, we should not quit asking because, sometimes someone asks and has an insight that answers or partly answers some question. If we stop asking, then we stop learning. And, science is about learning as much as is possible. Someone, someday may ask, "Why?" and have an insight and say, "Oh, I understand." Maybe it will be you.

[MigL]

The 'laws' that physicists deal with arise from certain symmetries inherent to our universe.

 

And I'm sure you realise what a cop-out that is because it just moves the goalpost further back.

 

Now you ask, 'Why are there such symmetries ?'.

[John Cuthber]

At the risk of being shouted at for anthropomorphising...

If there were no rules the universe would have to decide what to do in each and every case.

When a billiard ball hit another the Universe would have to make up its own mind about what to do.- Should it stop and transfer energy and momentum to the second ball? Should they both travel on in the same direction, but with reduced speed? Should they turn into bananas?

 

Having a set of "rules" is the simplest solution.

That's not strictly a reason- the Universe could be as complex as it wanted , and the rules could be obtuse too- (Momentum conservation- except on Tuesdays, when there's an R in the month).

But those sorts of complexity would require the Universe to have some sort of decision making ability (and a calendar in the case I put forward)

 

A few simple rules seems intrinsically easier to maintain than the alternative.

 

As with people, the rules are there to save you having to think.

[CaptainPanic]

Nature is free to choose its own laws. There is no why.

 

In the case of physics (e.g. law of gravity), we strongly suspect that this law will never really change... which is why people chose to call it a law.

 

In the case of biology, not all life follows the same laws. The predator-pray model is not a law that is unchangable (note that I called it a model, not a law). For example, bacterial spores don't just die when conditions are no longer favorable. They instead enter some survival mode. Ultimately, the predator-prey model will probably still hold, but with significant delay. The wolves are also free to ignore the predator-prey model, but without any rabbits to eat, they will go hungry and won't reproduce as much. Nobody tells them to follow it. They just do.

[swansont]

At the risk of being shouted at for anthropomorphising...

If there were no rules the universe would have to decide what to do in each and every case.

When a billiard ball hit another the Universe would have to make up its own mind about what to do.- Should it stop and transfer energy and momentum to the second ball? Should they both travel on in the same direction, but with reduced speed? Should they turn into bananas?

 

Having a set of "rules" is the simplest solution.

That's not strictly a reason- the Universe could be as complex as it wanted , and the rules could be obtuse too- (Momentum conservation- except on Tuesdays, when there's an R in the month).

But those sorts of complexity would require the Universe to have some sort of decision making ability (and a calendar in the case I put forward)

 

A few simple rules seems intrinsically easier to maintain than the alternative.

 

As with people, the rules are there to save you having to think.

 

I think it's more anthropic-based as this and other posts point out. If there were no consistent rules, we wouldn't be around to discuss the subject.

[Eise]

Hi Marshalscienceguy,

 

First of all previous posters are right in saying that your questions are not scientific: they are philosophical. So the only thing you can do is to try to clarify the question.

 

Then you should ask yourself how our lives would look like when there were no laws of nature. It would mean that your capability to act for purposes would become impossible. If there were no laws of nature you would not know what the result of your action would be. One day it is this, another day it is something completely different. So the laws of nature are a prequisite of being able to act rationally. It is the regularity of the consequences of your action that enable you to act. So their existence is a pre-condition for the possibility of free will.

 

You should also realise that laws of nature do not dictate how nature behaves: they are descriptions of how nature behaves. Laws of nature are not causes of how things happen: they describe how causality works, but cause nothing themselves. As they are descriptions, they also do not force anything. Your behaviour is also just described by the laws of nature, not forced.

 

Maybe you also see now why magic would not be any solution. Magic exists just in another universe (in your phantasy) where there are different laws of nature. If there were no laws of nature in a 'magical world' you also could not get experience which magic works, and which does not. The better one knows the laws of nature, the more power you can have over your world. So if you want to be powerful, get to know yourself, the people around you, and the world (in that order). The better you understand them, the freeer you get.

 

Eise

Edited September 1, 2014 by Eise

[harshgoel1975]

the need of law is well understood here...we need law..to sustain.... but why ? ..science doesn't have answers... religion claims ...they postulate many hyper thesis..like ... wish and will of so-called GOD......divine design ......and they are as many .. as many mouth we have on this earth....further Spirituality.. shows some path... and try to generalized what religion says... but unfortunately... it become more big and loud WHY.. though it help to quench some of the basics queries... but for sure more deep rooted WHY start pop up.... ..... On the other side, other thought patterns ( from my chill mind ) ..... why do we need to understand why.... just chill....science is happy with HOW ......and my favorite quote come handy " it is what it is ...."

but brain doesn't stop to find why...

[MigL]

It is not philosophical at all, Eise, and actually very scientific.

 

What you described, the fact that we can perform an action today with a specific result, then repeat it tomorrow with exactly the same result, is nothing more than the time symmetry which gives rise to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

[hoola]

Reality follows the laws of nature. The laws of nature are essentially an exposition of mathematics. Mathematics is a derived "thing" from the laws of logic. Logic must have preceded mathematics and is also a "thing" that evolved from simpler forms...from a "thing" with less than logical informational content...

Edited September 10, 2014 by hoola

[Eise]

It is not philosophical at all, Eise, and actually very scientific.

 

What you described, the fact that we can perform an action today with a specific result, then repeat it tomorrow with exactly the same result, is nothing more than the time symmetry which gives rise to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

 

The OP asked why there are laws of nature. The fact that from the constancy of the laws of nature one can derive the law of conservation of energy is one of the deepest scientific truths that I know. But it does not answer the question why there are laws of nature. It 'only' shows a deep connection between concepts that on first view are not related.

 

Now of course I did not answer the 'why question' either. But I tried to show that there is even no reason to regret that there are laws of nature, as the OP seems to do. So lamenting about the question why there are laws of nature does not make much sense: you would not like to live in a world where there were none. Or worse (?): you would not even be there to ask yourself the question (a rather global application of the anthropic principle).

 

But that has not much to do with physics. That is really more philosophy.

Reality follows the laws of nature. The laws of nature are essentially an exposition of mathematics.

 

But not every mathematical truth correspondents to some law of nature. And the 'exposition' is not very clear: otherwise laws of physics could be easily found. History learns that it is not that easy at all.

 

Or did you mean something else?

Edited September 12, 2014 by Eise

[hoola]

I think reality is mathematics, or a mathematical object. Although some information that math describes is not within physical reality...such as zero and infinity. So to say "why does nature follow mathematics", or "why are there laws-rules in science", is due to nature and science having no choice in the matter. There is no other path (at the moment) to follow...unless and until the substance that delivered the maths can be discovered, with which to probe into details prior to the BB, plus offer insights as to why the math laws that describe out universe have the properties that they do...

[Eise]

No, reality is not mathematics. Mathematics is describing physical reality. But only that counts as (physical) reality, if there really is an object that is described. And a lot of mathematics does not describe anything in physical reality.

 

From the repeatability and the reguarity of events in reality it follows that reality can be described by mathematics. If you can give me examples of regularities that cannot be described by a mathematical rule, then tell me.

[Ophiolite]

If you can give me examples of regularities that cannot be described by a mathematical rule, then tell me.

The decision making processes of wives. Actuality, forget that. You did specify regularities.

[hoola]

to say that reality is not mathematics is stating a presumption as fact...there are 2 "regularities" , if I understand your meaning, that do not directly equate from mathematical structures to known physics. Zero and infinity. Math is so vast that one component describes the software (fixed), and another describes the hardware (fluid). Our universe is that hardware being described by the software functions, all based upon the structure of logic that preceeded and formed the entirety of maths. This is not to say that the entire scope of the maths are needed to do the job of describing that hardware...there are other exceptions perhaps, those 2 seem the most obvious...and I am also speculating that gravity is a product of the logic that formed the maths, so the gravity function developed before logic went on to describe the math necessary to cause the BB. That is possibly why gravity is difficult to reconcile with the other 3 forces which developed later. I think gravity may play by slightly different rules than the rest of the physical universe, but close enough to interact with it. This also may explain why gravity seems so weak compared to the other 3...

[Eise]

The decision making processes of wives. Actuality, forget that. You did specify regularities.

 

See how difficult it can be to find the reguarities and the mathematical formulations to describe them?

 

sorry hoola, that is all too speculative for me.

[between3and26characterslon]

Why is there laws in this universe?

 

Because there is constants

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

The OP asked why there are laws of nature. The fact that from the constancy of the laws of nature one can derive the law of conservation of energy is one of the deepest scientific truths that I know. But it does not answer the question why there are laws of nature. It 'only' shows a deep connection between concepts that on first view are not related.

 

Now of course I did not answer the 'why question' either. But I tried to show that there is even no reason to regret that there are laws of nature, as the OP seems to do. So lamenting about the question why there are laws of nature does not make much sense: you would not like to live in a world where there were none. Or worse (?): you would not even be there to ask yourself the question (a rather global application of the anthropic principle).

 

But that has not much to do with physics. That is really more philosophy.

 

But not every mathematical truth correspondents to some law of nature. And the 'exposition' is not very clear: otherwise laws of physics could be easily found. History learns that it is not that easy at all.

 

Or did you mean something else?

There was never regret stated that we have laws but really there is nothing saying we need laws. The laws are there and everything seems to regulate itself. We have predators to balance prey and prey to balance out predators, we have disease, natural disasters, and creatures die after a certain amount of time. However that means that the cycle is justifying itself. creatures live to pass on offspring, and they die so there do not overpopulate but if you think about it what is the justification here? Nothing. It justifies its own cause. Reality forces us to follow rules if we want anything to get done but why is there a self regulating system? Everything seems to regulate itself naturally an saying "Just because" is not really scientific either. Saying "Just because" is accepting everything as it is and never questioning anything ever. Its being a blind sheep that follows anything they are told without thinking it through for themselves. Person A:"All black people are evil and so we will shun them." Person B:Why are they evil? Person A:They are evil because I said so. Now shun them!" Now you see how fallacious that is. If no one questioned anything and simply accepted everything "Just because" we would never get anywhere.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Eise]

In the first place, I did not answer with 'just because'. Of course you may ask why things are as they are. One way to this, when we are talking hard sciences, is to try to find the reasons, and the result will be that we find that there is some law of nature. If we can predict some phenomenon, based on initial conditions and some laws of nature, then we know the reason why the phenomenon occurs.

 

Now you ask for the reason why there are reasons: you ask why there are laws of nature. How would you expect somebody could answer this? By referring to another law of nature? That would not work, because you would use exactly the kind of answer your are questioning.

 

But you use the word justification. And then your example about black people is a moral situation. So do you ask why it is morally justified that there are laws of nature? That would be a huge category error. Nature is as it is. There are no moral reasons behind it, no justifications. There are just regularities, that we can discover and describe. But people act because of reasons, and they are able to justify their actions with reasons. And your example belongs in this domain.

[Marshalscienceguy]

In the first place, I did not answer with 'just because'. Of course you may ask why things are as they are. One way to this, when we are talking hard sciences, is to try to find the reasons, and the result will be that we find that there is some law of nature. If we can predict some phenomenon, based on initial conditions and some laws of nature, then we know the reason why the phenomenon occurs.

 

Now you ask for the reason why there are reasons: you ask why there are laws of nature. How would you expect somebody could answer this? By referring to another law of nature? That would not work, because you would use exactly the kind of answer your are questioning.

 

But you use the word justification. And then your example about black people is a moral situation. So do you ask why it is morally justified that there are laws of nature? That would be a huge category error. Nature is as it is. There are no moral reasons behind it, no justifications. There are just regularities, that we can discover and describe. But people act because of reasons, and they are able to justify their actions with reasons. And your example belongs in this domain.f

The why would not be a rule the Why will connect all the rules.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Eise]

Then what do you think that the answer on 'Why' is? Do you have some religious ideas about it?

Edited September 25, 2014 by Eise