Cosmogony

[PoPpAScience]

Where Did the Laws of the Universe Come From?

The origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics.

But where did the laws of physics come from?

There were no laws before there were laws and so one might think that the laws had to come from outside of the universe; however, they came from within.

The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.

Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer.

Well said.

I believe that the Laws of the Universe have evolved alone with form. Certain forms interact in a consistent way for very long periods of time, this gives the appearance of Laws. Most of the consistent interactions we know as Universal Laws, could exist this way for Eternity. What works best becomes Universal Law.

[MJA]

So, where did the laws of physics come from? They came from ‘nothing’. They follow from the ‘void’ out of which the universe spontaneously arose uncaused. These laws look exactly as they should if they were not handed down from anywhere.

Dear ACT, or Austin City Limits,

While I greatly respect your knowledge of the history of the physical sciences of mankind, it seems only obvious to me that your above answer to your own question is incorrect. Surely it is mankind and not "nothing" or a "void" as you say, that created the sciences we know today. And additionally rather than building on these theoretical shoulders of the men that came before us, the men who wrote or created the theoretical laws of nature, I think it best to build on the absolute truth of One's own. I didn't know you to be such a scientist Austin, I thought you more an artist instead.
Be One,


=
MJA

[austintorn@aol.com]

In quotes, 'nothing' is not a total Nothing, but a near 'nothing' such as the quantum fluctuation or tunneling.

See Emmy Noether about the point-of-view invariance of physical laws.

[MJA]

In quotes, 'nothing' is not a total Nothing, but a near 'nothing' such as the quantum fluctuation or tunneling.

See Emmy Noether about the point-of-view invariance of physical laws.

Nothing is not totally nothing Austin? Then surely it is something, right? And Emmy wrote nothing is something?
I don't think I'll go there, not yet anyway.
Truth is something to me and nothing is not.

=
MJA

[austintorn@aol.com]

There ain't no Total Nothing, no way, no how; only close to it.

[MJA]

I saw absolute nothing once. And when I saw something again, I laughed for quite some time.

=
MJA

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com
Where Did the Laws of the Universe Come From?

The origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics.

But where did the laws of physics come from?

There were no laws before there were laws and so one might think that the laws had to come from outside of the universe; however, they came from within.

The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.

Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer.

Well said.

I believe that the Laws of the Universe have evolved alone with form. Certain forms interact in a consistent way for very long periods of time, this gives the appearance of Laws. Most of the consistent interactions we know as Universal Laws, could exist this way for Eternity. What works best becomes Universal Law.

Good thread starter Allen, and Austin, I seconded Allen's "Well said.", the statement below might be appropriate for this place:

“Any fundamental laws of Nature are merely phenomenological generalizations.”
- Nancy Cartwright's distinction