Victor Stenger - What is the Origin of the Laws of Nature?
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 02. 2022
- 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?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on quantum physics: bit.ly/3uWl3JX
Victor John Stenger was a particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. Following a career as a research scientist in the field of particle physics, Stenger was associated with New Atheism and he authored popular science books.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
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.
I just love these interviews and I cannot believe there's not more subs to this channel. Great stuff Lawrence
I totally agree! I just found this channel a few days ago and I can't stop watching. I'm enthralled!
I do like this kind of emphasis. Too often, “symmetries” is presented to the public as if they are deep discoveries about the beauty of nature, rather than analytic truths about physics.
I think Victor really tried to evade the topic of this clip and his "something from nothing" argument was anemic . Perhaps he needs to rediscover Heidegger's conception of Nothing.
No evidence for this "nothing" no matter the "argument".
Universe is such a Big Mystery that nobody would ever understand it . However , this Program is very Good as it unfolds Many of the Natural Phenomena . Appreciations and Commendations for hosting this Program by Robert Lawrence Kuhn
We know the laws of physics apply throughout. Thus, the notion that no one could ever understand it is already demonstrably falsified.
Couldn’t agree more. It seems to me that Mathematics is merely a detailed language to describe relationships - but a mathematical description is not the relationship itself. A map of California may describe that US state accurately and in detail, but the map is not California. Similarly sheet music of a Mozart symphony describes the notes and orchestration in detail - but it is not the symphony played as heard. It is not the music. And an English, French or Farsi story of love is a “love story”. It is not love itself or those people in love. A photograph of the cosmos is merely a visual description - it is not the cosmos. So i suspect math is not a law that the universe “abides” by. It’s merely a descriptive tool made by humans, to communicate with other humans. As are all the above examples.
As the best philosopher, i can confirm you are metaphysically accurate.
Max Tagmark would disagree. Because it “seems to him”, that math is the ultimate reductionist postulate in his Level 4 universe. As Stephen Hawking asked, “What breathes the fire into the equations?” who’s to say at the most fundamental level, no further reduction needed, math is the foundation?
Math is descriptive of relationships of quantity. Quantity is when you divide something into equivalent parts. To the extent you can do that, you can do math on it. All languages are descriptive of experience. Measurement is experiencing precise casual links.
@@havenbastion you need to watch Sir Roger Penrose. I think you would agree, he is slightly more intuitive in math than a layperson or even a post doc. Let him explain the distinction between whether math is descriptive (language) we invoke when discovered, or if it is already exists in place, as the foundation to all the laws of everything and we only invoke the language as it is discovered. In other words, we didn’t invent it. It’s the common language to be discovered throughout the entire cosmos, all of existence.
@@Ascendlocal The relationships math describes are not math themselves.
Are the ideas proposed here relevant to the debate about the so-called _Fine Tuning_ of the Universe?
My wisdom teeth aren't "fine tuned" or "intelligent designed"... what's up with that design disaster?!?!?!?!
@@Raydensheraj nah ur just a mistake of evolution ;)
Intersting interview. I agree that using the word law in this way is a misconception. They aren't a 'thing', it is just how energy, matter and radiation behave in a given space. We are just doing our best to describe that behaviour with mathematical models.
but if mathematical models can be applied to reality then you have a law
If the description seems to hold true, then why not call it a law. Tomayto/Tomotto.
@@francesco5581 Only in one sense of the word, that in which a theory is derived from observations. Unfortunately it is commonly interpreted in the usual sense, a rule established by authority - which is a misconception.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 funny
@@johnyharris are not theories, are laws. From the dictionary the LAW (noun-principle) : ""a general rule that states what always happens when the same conditions exist"". Then one can argue from where these OBVIOUS LAWS comes from
wow I think I graspped the idea here, pretty awesome. I hope we hear more.
The one thing about physicists that astounds me more than anything else is their extraordinary inability to utter the following phrase: "I Don't Know". That scares them, but it also propels the science toward insanity. Hubris, self-aggrandizement and obnoxiousness as well as the fear of being viewed as not capable of understanding or just an outright insatiable desire to be seen as the person who understands better than most - kind of like those movie critics who rate an awful movie highly because only their kind can understand - This is the reason why there are so many crisis' in physics. It's amazing and it's never going to end.
Reminds me of the medieval church the cardinal cannot say nothing and what he says must be true
I think you nailed it
They say I don’t know all the time. But I understand you like to hear that because it give you hope that your belief maybe OK.
I don’t see any crisis in physics.
I second that 1000% ! And not only physicists but all the others as well whether they be astrophysists...biologists...cosmologists or whatever ! Kinda sad .
He said quite clearly that physics theories are man-made computations intended to explain the phenomenon within the universe.
Wow, I had not heard about Noether's theorem before, indeed this is an explanation of the laws of conservation of energy.
This exposition went beyond my poor powers of understanding.
Bought his book on recommendation, concerning time in quantum mechanics
awesome..!
What do point of view invariance and objective equations of nature indicate about mathematics and universe? Human mind picks up on point of invariance and objective equations of nature?
Unfortunately, infinity Does not compute. Therefore, the universe is most like NOT infinite.
And, so far, our universe has only shown us a beginning.
Very interesting and informative.
It seems to me this is another way to ask the same question as last time, what are the ultimate questions? The answer is we don't know yet and may never know. What physicists call laws I think.of as consistancies. In a rational universe whatever affects things a certain way at one point in time and space must apply at another point in time and space. Whether we understand any or none of these or even if we don't exist they must exist.
Mathematics is a human construct based on the way our minds work. It is a closed self contained system of logic coherent within itself. Is it the universe? NO. Can it perfectly describe the universe? Almost certainly not. Can it invent things that can't exist in the physical universe but are useful? Yes like the square root of minus one. But it's the best tool we have.
What came before the big bang? We don't know. Was there a universe before the big bang or are there other universes that exist? We don't know. Does tjme have a beginning or end? We don't know. Can we ever find out? We don't know. What about people who seem to have all the answers? If they don't believe those answers they're liars. If the do believe them they're fools. What about their followers who believe them? Definitely fools.
What about information might formulate physical laws (symmetries of nature?) ?
Why not call them physical laws? Well, they are not "legal" degrees. They are observed phenomenon about how the universe works. To call them laws suggests a law maker.
Laws of Physics is the basis of our technology and science. Understanding of constants and the laws is what made our science.
Law in the scientific sense is a different definition. It means a scientific theory that continuously replicates.
@@jamesrey3221 Science is rigor. If you erased it all, you could recreate it all from that single understanding.
Could information formulate physical laws (symmetries of nature?) ?
Wow! FINALLY! A guest who can actually bring us closer to truth. One in ten videos is still a low bar for actual truth though, Robert.
Note how Stenger starts by defining terms, revealing the intellectual dishonesty of theists and apologists, who pretend that because humans called these descriptions LAWS, they must come from a Law Giver, who can only be Yahweh, -baby killing demiurge of the Bible.-
I wish that scientists would change many of the terms they use which allow the anti-science lobby to repeat their false arguments and equivocations.
Instead of a theory, call it a model or a paradigm. Theory implies a mere speculation.
Instead of Laws, call them characteristics. Etc. Etc.
How is it "intellectual dishonesty" to believe that not everything began naturally? How is his opinion any better than others?
@@ronaldmorgan7632 It's better because it is supported by data we can all assess.
It's not intellectually dishonest to believe in god. It is intellectually dishonest to make the standard arguments brought by Theists and Apologists. It is intellectually and morally dishonest of them to lie about science, to play cheap word games and exploit the fears of their targets, to score ideological points.
Their permission to lie comes from their academic inspirations, like Thomas Aquinas, who explicitly made a virtue of lying to save souls. You can hardly blame the likes of William Lane Craig for simply following orders, right?
That the laws of nature are actually governing the regularities and not merely describing them is not even a view only held among theists or apologists
@@KamikazethecatII That's the power of imprecise language to distort people's understandings.
Theists and apologists actively do this by asserting that the existence of natural laws means that there must be a law-giver (i.e. god).
Fundamental laws do require a law encoder. It would not necessarily have to be Yahweh. Stenger has overly dumbed down Godel Incompleteness conflicts here.
The Vedic tradition, many thousands of years ago, through the cognitions of the Vedic seers, expressed that all creation arises from the internal dynamics of a field of pure consciousness beyond time and space. The Vedas proclaim that all the laws of nature exist virtually within that transcendent reality and are referred to as Smriti (memory). As consciousness, in the process of being aware of itself, it remembers it's infinite dynamic nature within it's infinite dynamic silence. This explanation did not arise through the exercise of human intellect, but, was the result of direct experience of this ultimate reality. The Vedas are not human creations but cognitions experienced as sound...the primordial, eternal vibrations of consciousness which give rise to all manifest reality. Funnily enough....string theory posits that all elementary matter and forces are creations of infinitesimally small vibrating strings, each of which depending on it's mode of vibration, gives rise to different elementary particles. However, String Theory stops there...i.e., where do these vibrations emerge from? So, ultimately, the Vedas proclaim, as absolute consciousness expressing it's own nature and the dynamics with in it, that all that exists arises from an absolutely abstract, subjective reality which, by definition, can never be located by objective means....only through the subjective means afforded to us with a normally developed nervous system, which pure consciousness itself created.
AMEN
How does memory work in the cosmos and what is it?
I don't believe the cosmos has a subconscious because it doesn't have a brain and is outside of time. We humans only have memory because of subconscious.
@@S3RAVA3LM the cosmos is time , what happens in the cosmos becomes a memory of God
@@S3RAVA3LM The Vedas describe the ultimate reality of creation as an unborn, eternal, absolute, unbounded field of pure consciousness beyond time and space, yet the source of all manifest creation that exists within boundaries. This purely unmanifest reality has always been and always will be...unborn and undying...eternal. While a field of absolute silence..it is consciousness, so it must be conscious of something. The only thing it can be conscious of is itself, because that's all there is. In knowing itself as pure consciousness, a knower, known and process of knowing are created as notions within pure consciousness. These three notions, being, by nature consciousness, know each other...creating more notions of relationship within that transcendental reality...and so on, at an infinite frequency. So, within this absolutely silent, transcendental reality are automatically created a rigamarole of infinite dynamism....the impulses/vibrations which give rise to all of creation, which at their source are really notions within pure consciousness. The vedas, are the vibrations(sounds) of this process which are heard (Shruti) by anyone with a refined enough human nervous system to cognize these vibrations arising from the absolute silence of unbounded consciousness. These impulses are referred as "Smriti" (memory) as they are "remembered by pure consciousness in this eternal Self-refferal reality. No brains are involved. The human brain, like everything in creation arises from absolute consciousness. But Nature has created the human nervous system in such a complex manner that it is capable, when functioning properly, to allow us to have awareness of pure consciousness as our own absolute nature and even as the underlying reality of that which we perceive through the senses. That is enlightenment....where no subconscious exists, because the whole range from the most superficial reality to finest, most abstract manifest reality and then ultimately the unbounded, transcendental, eternal basis of life is known.
@@joeblow9927 What happens in the cosmos IS a memory of God (absolute pure Being). See the reply to S3RAVALM
There are no top down laws only bottom up fields - 12 matter, 4 force carrier, the Higgs and gravity.
What emerges from the interaction of these fields is the structure of the universe along with time and consciousness.
So where did the symmetry principles come from?
From mathematics
Dr. Kuhn, I have enjoyed your journeys so very much.
Like you, I have been a willing captive to the questions you address with such wonderfully diverse thinkers - and all done with aplomb, openness but centeredness.
Presently, it is my view is that it may be that the only "real truth" we can ever know is our desire to seek it.
This channel ... this work ... is a treasure.
Maybe the real truth -- or at least one of most fundemental real truths -- is that we live in a reality or Universe or situation or predicament in which we can never know fully what it is all about and why we are here in it... In other words, Why is it like this rather than it being the case that we know fully and completely what this reality we find ourselves in is all about...?
Victor John Stenger (/ˈstɛŋɡər/; January 29, 1935 - August 25, 2014) was an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic. - Wikipedia
great non explanation ! thank you for shedding light on the views of some in the scientific community.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn your questions answer mine in the sense that you validate them.
Why can they “not be any other way”? Where do these constraints come from?
The science of water, can't be an accident. Best the Helbert abstract principle kick in. Or maybe the gauge variance explains it.
Stop guessing
How can he say the laws of physics are invented? Surely they are observations? They are created by our highest power and we can but only observe and interpret however that in no way means we invent it
Why is there anything at all?
How do we explain Consciousness?
How Consciousness arises, and Why?
.
Teleology ~ direction and Purpose of the material universe.
Information as a pre-existing prerequisite .
Who is the mathematician he refers to at 1:05? Amy N…. I didn’t catch the last name.
Emmy noether
If physical laws (symmetries of nature?) are point of view invariant, would mathematics then be independent from human point of view, or discovered rather than invented?
I don't know for sure, but it seems to me this guest would view mathematics as invented. Maybe somebody knows for sure?
point of view invariance?
Awesome… This concludes with the brilliant idea that something really can come from nothing. I suspect, given how confidently he made his presentation, that on the basis of his confidence I should agree with that.
His confidence has no bearing on the truth of his claims.
Space being an empty void of infinity with matter inside it, would the laws of physics still exist even if there’s no matter present? I suppose space itself does not care for any laws but just emerges with the presence of matter (energy). But then again, what exactly is energy and why does it even exist in the first place?
The laws describe the emergent properties on the initial conditions of the expansion of our local singularity (the Big Bang).
If it was all created in an instant (even the space) then there would be nothing to think about until it happened.
Empty space is described as matter in a zero energy state.
Do physical laws have symmetries? Could physical laws be called symmetries of nature?
If it is the case that information develops in mathematical way, then physical laws (symmetries of nature?) formulated by information would be describable by mathematics?
Math is a language and like all languages is descriptive. Specifically, math describes relationships of quantity, which is when you can divide something equally. To the extent that's possible, you can do math on it.
@@havenbastion well math made us discover blackholes before we could detect them or even imagine sucha thing...so math seems pretty real in a way
The question was cleverly avoided.
In a world with very limited ways to determine the truth of an assertion, we just need to make a limited set of assumptions which provide the greatest utility for humankind and provide a base upon which to build the knowledge necessary to make valid decisions in our day-to-lives. Not all things are knowable with our current level of understanding.
The key assumption: The world we are meant to understand is delivered by our senses.
If you assume the English language standard of a single maybe composite note for an alphabetic letter to evaluate a proposition like 'A is the first letter of the English alphabet called "A" ' , then you could argue that the symbol 0 pronounced by compounding "z", "e", "r", and "o" with the identifier first whole number, 0, 1, 2, ... , cannot be corroborated - not falsified - and therefore, neither can any mathematical statement assuming that it is the first whole number.
I love this guy. He's the one that said " nothing, is unstable." 🤔
When this video was recorded? Stenger died in August 2014.
Good point. Kuhn's hair not quite gray yet. I'm not sure he's put out a new interview in quite some time.
Thanks, I guess I'll put this in the top ten of the CTT episodes. I have thought along the lines of this man Stenger, the first I've heard him, he just sort of made it clearer.
Can time perhaps be the Radio Active Constant, which is 1.188962%. of every element and isotope, and was responsible for life and intellect?
Food for Thought 👍👍
Does our brain construct reality...or is reality independent of sentient beings??
Would you please add Persian and English subtitles please 😥
This discussion mistakes “our descriptions” of natural laws for the laws themselves. Describing the operations of gravity does not explain where it came from, how it originated. One time in the distant past there was no gravity.
Quantities,attributes and measurements are detailed by the governance of our perception.
Fascinating. Definitely something here that seems to ring true. Will be checking more into it -- especially the work of Emmy Noether. But does anyone know if this is fairly mainstream? or is it controversial in the field of Physics and/or Philosophy?
From what little I know, Emmy Noether is about as mainstream as you can get, just not very publicised. A consequence of being female in this field at the beginning of the 20th century.
Brian Greene has a great video about Noether’s theorem and how continuous symmetries result in conservation laws
the "scienceclic english" has a nice video if you want to understand those symmetries. The video is called "the symmetries of the universe"
@@jimipet Yes this one is really good as well! Brian Greene’s is better for the math but this one is better for the concepts imo
Yes, laws of Nature is a misperception. Its just Laws of Humans. Human-Perceived laws of nature. These are Not Laws of Real Nature
The One Infinite Pure Intelligence Is The Source of the whole Universe and everything is emanating from It . The essence of this Unified Field Is Pure Infinite Love , Consciousness and Awareness .
" We are internally related to everything not just externally related .
Consciousness in an internal relationship to the whole , and we act toward the whole whatever we have taken in determines basically ....what we are .
Wholeness is a kind of attitude or approach to the whole of ....Life if we can have a coherent approach to reality , then reality will respond coherently to us ." ~ David J .Bohm ( 1917 - 1992 )
" Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe ."
" Consciousness is a singular for which there is no plural ." ~ Erwin Schrodinger
" The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist , but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you ." ~ Werner Heisenberg
" I regard consciousness as fundamental . I regard matter as derivative from consciousness . We cannot get behind consciousness . Everything that we talk about , everything that we regard as existing , postulates consciousness ."
~ Max Planck
"but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you" pure ignorant nonsense
Why did you post this without watching the video first?
@@con.troller4183 Do you ask me ?
@@ShowMeYoBoob The Source of all Creation Is within us
@@frialsharefabdo7715 Yes, did you watch the video. because your comment indicates you did not.
What is "imagination" actually?...how can we imagine something that never been seen before by our eyes
Never seen a pig with wings but I can imagine one.
It takes Knowledge 1st to make/create the things we know & see that exist & physics is of The Laws discover in physical things made by The Knowledge & Law maker of things were made to exist. The Origin of what is & the Laws of Nature is Called THE KNOWLEDGE & INTELLIGENT MUST ALWAYS EXIST 1ST.
If the laws of physics was handed down from god, surely the holy men would be the custodians and champion of the laws, not trying to refute them especially when it goes against the stories they believe in.
Exactly. And yet apologists like William Lane Craig pretend to use science to support their superstitious and supernatural assertions. Of course they must misrepresent the science to do this. Or, like Craig, ultimately reject it. Craig has stated that even if he were presented with irrefutable evidence opposing his beliefs, he would persist in his faith.
Anyone who makes such an assertion has no right to appeal to science.
Huh? How do "holy men" refute scientific laws? I've never heard one say that they don't apply.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 you have to refute quite a lot scientific laws if you believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 How about gravity for Ascension? The death process and runaway entropy for Resurrection?
@@waerlogauk Good thing that most Jews/Christians don't believe in the young earth scenario.
Hey good people out there hope this finds everyone in good health and spirits,can you people please recommend me channels like closer to truth? Channels related to Such philosophical topics and stuff
Stenger smuggles in territory (time and space) to describe nominalist reciprocity (point of view invariance). Symmetries are 'legal moves', they govern...not "fall out".
It looks origin of everything is or are impersonal and mysterious too.🤔
Its to strange to see an insect can evolve it self to look like leaf, it even doesnt know the shape of leaf or count the mathematics, so out of logic right. Not just insect, even Orchid the plant not even an insect , also can do the same thing, very2 out of logic. the unknown intelegence, the unseen mysterious force behind all this nature law phenomena. Its natural but what and how (of course not about who)
If there's one book you would highly recommend due to importance what would that be?
I will begin: Plotinus Enneads, Armstrong translation vol. I - VI.
For our current times -- although it has nothing to do with the topic here: _An Open Society and Its Enimies Vol. 2_ by Karl Popper.
Thank you so much sir for saying this. It’s all based on constructs that we invented, designed for our convenience to live in the world based on our limited intelligence.
That everything is based on a construct necessitates that such a claim is also a construct with no actual basis in reality. The question remains that if it is a construct, how is it that that maps so perfectly upon the physical world?
@@a.t.stowell1709 It maps so perfectly precisely because it is a construct, an expression of observation.
Wasn't sure you'd be familiar with a reference to this quote, so I decided to just cite the whole thing as I find it relevant to what I believe your logic to be:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
@@woodygilson3465 You've begged the question in favor of a construct. And the analogy is much too simplistic to be useful in this context. I dont find Mr. Adams compelling here.
The laws of physics are not “created” by humans, they exist by themselves and we discover them, and translate them to a language (math) that we can understand.
We don’t make them up or have any say over what they are and how they work, we can only discover them.
did you hear that?.... it was my mind blown
If not law; then, constraint. All human knowledge is based upon observation.
This is the only universe that can exist because it has space and time. All other possible universes will remain probabilities. Could other universes pop into existence similar to ours, no, because they would exist here too and be exactly the same as ours. The laws of nature would forbid this?
Ahh. Another great video from Robert Kuhn...I wonder if maybe the Universe has its own innate conscience. Perhaps it exhibits and directs it, and we are like individual neurons of this whole thing. And could not physics spring forth from basically Time. Time expands in one direction Creating as it goes. It wants something to push against. Matter results and is what set the speed of light limit and quantified Time's relativistic aspects. It isn't a result of flung Matter creating Time. It's the other way around.
do u think time exists ?
do u think time is fundamental ?
Your just describing your personal idea of a God.
@@57strub not actually this whole thing may have a basis in some truth, possibly why despite various attempts on solving conciousness well we couldn't...well i am getting dissapointed that science isn't yet able to do that and by giving a look at all the research(Even ongoing) we probably won't..i also see a trend in neuroscientists to physicists almost accepting that maybe consiousness in someway fundamental...opening up a whole new avenue of science..in that POV iam excited but idk lol...the arrow seems to go towards conciousness as being undescribable by science or might require a whole different science that almost appears magic to us
"they are what they are because they can't be any other way".... that's not an answer in any sense.. it's a shrug of the shoulders and admitting he/they don't know the source, but are not humble or forthright enough to just own it and admit ignorance.
No. What he seems to be saying as I understand it, is how it is in Algebra, for example, that what you change something on one side of the equation, it necessarily follows that certain things must change in a specific way on the other side of the equation. That's just the way it is. Can't be any other way.
@@longcastle4863 Yes, there are laws that follow certain rules. What was the origin of these laws and rules, is the topic of the discussion. This spokesperson dismisses any possibility that these laws where implemented by a God, and says "in fact" these laws were made up in the minds of men, of physicists, who made mathematical formulae for what they observed. That's true in one sense, and explains why what science claims as laws, are under constant review and revisions, because their existing understanding can't accommodate all of what they observe - what to speak of the limitations of what science can observe. In another sense, the hubris of considering the laws of nature only exist because of the speculations in the minds or imagination of a few human on planet earth is grossly arrogant, considering the scope of just this one universe, which we know so little about.
Again, it also does not address the question at hand in any meaningful way.
Science, and the interviewee, cannot explain the origin of individual consciousness, but continually bluff that "in fact" a higher form of consciousness did not hand down or originate the higher laws of nature - which in fact such "scientists" do not fully understand. It's rich that so many people like this speak thinking they have "the science" behind them, but their actual premises are very weak and under continual review and revision. But they continue to bluff and pontificate, without much blow-back. Good for them. The rest of us don't have to buy it.
Victor Stenger gives an ahistorical analysis of the 'laws of nature'. The origin of the idea of the laws of nature is a corollary of the Christian worldview (God as the creator and law-giver) that inaugurated the modern scientific revolution: to quote Kepler: 'thinking God's thoughts after him'. This issue has been exhaustively explored in the body of work of Peter Harrison, but most notably his 2015 book 'The Territories of Science and Religion', Blackwell. It's a pity that Stenger doesn't seem to have read it.
0:50
"Laws of Nature are the way they are because they can't be any other way."
This is totally false, and I don't think many contemporary cosmologists would agree. Certainly, there is nothing about the laws of nature suggesting that they are the only ones logically possible.
Laws must be in tune with other laws to have fluid reality
Logical possibility doesn't have any particular relationship to actual reality. Everything that actually does happen always has a 100% chance of happening. What's in-between is our ignorance of causality.
@@havenbastion therefore from that premise logical arguments against god or anything non-physical doesn't exactly do what it proposes to do
@@mrcollector4311 The non-physical can only be validated by logical necessity.
Video shot in March of 2008. Not current.
if the phenomena we observe follow a pattern that we can preview (and often replicate) is OBVIOUS even to an idiot that a law exist. Avoiding the problem will never give an answer (of the two A) a consciousness created them B) are a total randomness gift) .
Your statement is unclear. Are you asserting that because the term "law" is applied to these observations, there must be a law giver?
This guy gave some really dense answers and I'm not sure that I understood everything, but he did say that someone had shown that the "laws" aren't arbitrary but are instead the only way that things could shake out in a physical universe. I've always thought the same thing but could not articulate it. The laws of conservation of energy could not really be different. It's not like energy is going to magically enter a closed system or that you could get more energy out than you put in. Having these obvious realities written down in a convenient and useful form is just a bonus.
This could probably even apply to something as ethereal as consciousness. I believe this is why AI is still so dumb, even as it has attained huge capabilities in very specific areas that can be programmed down to the minutest detail. Humans had to have consciousness in order to have human level intelligence. It's not a dictate from on high, it's just not possible to know and understand things if there is no one home.
@@con.troller4183 the other option is "it's what it's, we were lucky bro".
@@caricue but then you have to accept that we were just lucky that some kind of randomness gave us energy and consciousness. Isnt that a"it's what it's and shut up" ?
@@francesco5581 So you are asserting that god did it. Why don't you like making clear statements?
Also - false dichotomy.
9 pl
There will be time where language can not describe the meaning way of human understanding. The only way to describe it, is in symbolic coded messages!
If there were no laws then how did the matter and planetary structures formed... projections of reality into our mind are recognized as a model only because of their deviation from noise(randomness)...
Theory match model are limited in Universe when it is conscieness unable figuret out reality. Gordel model explains Not axiom are true in preposition or match model are false. GOD has solution on match model ultimate reality that HE only knows.
That’s like saying:
if there is no law, why does one and one make two. Projecting objects into our minds are recognise as a model only because of their deviation from the noise (randomness)
@UCFQx633aXHr2h8YBYG7f3ew I agree... the quest, in finding absolute truths, drives many of us in numerous paths and very few succeed in walking the right one... maybe that could also be the sole purpose of our inner drive, who knows 🤔
@@anthonycraig274 are you questioning my statement or opposing it, I don't want to misinterpret it... I'll try my best to provide a clarification...
@@r2c3 I just don’t think it’s as deep when it’s reduced to the basics.
Atheist apologetics. He was not taken seriously as a physicist, and resorted to publishing his books with non-academic popular "freethinker" presses like Prometheus for his last 5 books.
Yeah, why do theists suppose that any scientific laws are contingent? If you change the structure of an atom of iron, it's no longer iron. Its properties just are what it means to BE iron, and our laws merely describe that. How else could it be arranged and still be iron?
The laws of nature are descriptions, which we invent. In other words, the laws of nature are humans describing the properties and nature of the universe.
The laws of nature exist independently of description. Scientists detect and observe the laws and translate them by means of language and mathematics to be shared with and scrutinized by other minds. Of course the construct is human. It couldn't very well be anything else, could it? Perhaps you'd prefer dolphin?
So the same people that have to insist that morality is objectively real, may be upset to discover that the physical world looks as it does because it is objectively real and does not require an external lawgiver to cause this.
The very simple reason we shouldn't call them laws is that laws are things that need to be obeyed, and the universe ISN'T obeying ANYTHING. It's simply behaving the way it naturally behaves.
It's simply behaving the way it naturally behaves because they follow certain laws .... otherwise there is no stability therefore not possible to structure the universe or even the extreme stability required to create and sustain life
@@mrcollector4311 In what ontological form do these laws actually exist, then?
God has given the gage of the system. The discernment.
Emmy Noether died in 1935 according to Wikipedia
Aren’t they moreso, ‘human realizations’, than ‘human inventions’? 🤔
In short, you don't know !
Math, like all languages, is descriptive. Description is NOT the same as invention! Physics, ie the "laws of nature", is part of math.
This is a great interview with a truly great scientist. A truly great scientist is not one who just work on data and experiement and does not ask about deep questions. This is the diference between Einstein and Bohr where Einstein kept asking deep questions and refused to just accept what it is. I love Stenger's point on "point of view of physicists" and "current laws are derived from pheomena we study". This only says that "inferred" or "derived" are outcome of conscious products.
Thanks also for Kuhn's summary of: 1. utlimate law nature, 2. current inferred nodels of physics (standard model, etc.), and 3. principle of invariance - what Stenger said: "tha's (not) all in our heads". So, even as accurate as these models are, there is still a gap from 2. to 1..
This actually shows up in string theory as current physics are "infered" or "derived" where string theory is natural (not "inferred" or "derived") or "nature is as such".
might be Uranus.
The "laws" maybe conveniences of the mind. He uses the word "model". There seems to be an almost kind of unreasonable effectiveness, as to what can be inferred, extracted by mathematics, as applied to physics.
But not always. Sabine Hossenfelder ("Lost in math"), has noted that the LHC has not revealed any evidence for supersymmetric particles. We do not have negative energies, or negative mass (needed for warp drive, lol). And now, I'm beginning to hear that the conservation laws may not apply to scales, like the expanding universe.
All of these suggests we are dealing with models of the mind, not quite the actual reality. They would be proximal statements, regularities about the phenomena we've observed thus far.
NTS G/90/U
If I traveled back in time to the dark ages and asked Scandinavians what was thunder, they would say Thor swinging his hammer? If I would have asked the medieval church what caused the sun to move they would have said angels pushing it across the sky. You see every question pondered by man in the past turned out NOT to be “magic” or superstition. The religious today do exactly this. They fill in gaps in current knowledge with their imaginary friend. Perhaps we will never know where the laws of nature come from, but that doesn’t mean you get to make up an answer.
The laws of nature are real however you call them. And because they are inconceivable, they must have an inconceivable source.
No they do not. The source of the laws of nature is nature.
@@kos-mos1127 Nature is inconceivable. If it was not, scientists could create the material elements, but can only manipulate them.
The way it is there is no origin
The fact that God exists is strong evidence for a superior being.
And we call that Supergod.
Another guy trying to redefine words...laws and models
The idea that nature was governed by constant and immutable principles was an important precondition for experimental science. This was the foundation of science and technology of the Christian western civilization.
This Christian idea, have been indispensable in the emergence of scientific thought.
Nothingness is so undervalued
Point of view envariance. Which then is free will.
See if he doesn't like the word law, then he doesn't like;
PRIN'CIPLE, n. [L. principium, beginning.]
1. In a general sense, the cause, source or origin of any thing; that from which a thing proceeds; as the principle of motion; the principles of action.
2. Element; constituent part; primordial substance.
Modern philosophers suppose matter to be one simple principle, or solid extension diversified by its various shapes.
3. Being that produces any thing; operative cause.
The soul of man is an active principle.
4. In science, a truth admitted either without proof, or considered as having been before proved. In the former sense, it is synonymous with axiom; in the latter, with the phrase, established principle.
5. Ground; foundation; that which supports an assertion, an action, or a series of actions or of reasoning. On what principle can this be affirmed or denied? He justifies his proceedings on the principle of expedience or necessity. He reasons on sound principles.
6. A general truth; a law comprehending many subordinate truths; as the principles of morality, of law, of government, &c.
7. Tenet; that which is believed, whether truth or not, but which serves as a rule of action or the basis of a system; as the principles of the Stoics, or of the Epicureans.
8. A principle of human nature, is a law of action in human beings; a constitutional propensity common to the human species. Thus it is a principle of human nature to resent injuries and repel insults.
PRIN'CIPLE, v.t. To establish or fix in tenets; to impress with any tenet, good or ill; chiefly used in the participle.
Men have been principled with an opinion, that they must not consult reason in things of religion.
1. To establish firmly in the mind.
Ok, so the thing they call universe, that thing, came from a no thing? So exactly what is a "nothing"?
Matter + Antimatter : _)_
"...all of the scientific arguments for God fail, and they do..." if we accept his point of view theory, the inverse must also be true but not mentioned, that all the scientific attempts to disprove God have failed, and they do.
'Laws of physics are human inventions' was so funny, because every science is discovered and not invented. And he's saying they are in mathematical description so they are in just right measurement mathematically. The laws of nature is written by God in the language of mathematics - Galileo Galilei. And he said there's no force there. All fundamental forces work together in the universe and they were unified and seperated into four according to grand unified theory. There was only one superforce and important side is that all these forces in the universe is just right mathematical measurement, if they were a little bit different life would be impossible. Space time also can be defined mathematically. We can see mathematical patterns like golden ratio, fibanacci sequence, fractals, spirals, symetteries etc. Big Bang singularity was effected by repulsive force or repulsive gravity. If the strength of the explosion of big bang was different just a bit different life would be impossible... and this said no one understnads or doesn't recognize there are people who recognize Him...
This video did not answer anything. "I don't know" would have sufficed.
Absolute non-being "nothing" can not on its own produce any kind of being (something).
Nothingness = Somethingness + Antisomethingness