What determines the laws of nature?

[Mohan.C]

I've not read the full post rmirman. But i think some physical quantities like entropy enthalpy etc etc etc govern the nature. Because they have a steady curve. They are growing or becomin lesser. And this quantities are not relativistic, hmmm I'm not sure are they relativistic dleviwing(David).

[neutralino]

Welcome to the forums, rmirman. Note that you are encouraged to make longer, more techincal posts in the other forums, and leave this for introductions and a brief summary of your ideas.

[rmirman]

It means what it means. It will either help or it won't.
Why; because we like you.

Best,

Pat

If you like me read the books
Science blog
impunv.wordpress.com
or
impunv.blogspot.com

Political blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com

Books (details below)

OAIU;
Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely

GTFQM;
Group Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

MRPG;
Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group

QM,QFT;
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory
geometry, language, logic

QFT,CGT,CFT;
Quantum Field Theory, Conformal Group Theory, Conformal Field Theory:

GT:IA:
Group Theory: An Intuitive Approach

PG,SG;
Point Groups, Space Groups, Crystals, Molecules


Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans
extraordinarily unlikely
R. Mirman

[dleviwing]

Rmirman;
Are you and “impunv” one and the same? Can I assume that you are a “science critic”? I think you may be confusing science facts with some rather bizarre science theory interpretations of the numbers; that’s a common problem with novice who get their science knowledge from books in the top ten best seller lists and discovery channel.

Science is a methodology of measurement but too often people view the theoretical interpretation of the numbers as the science; that only results in poor understanding of the real measurements and their value. Theory should be used to guide the methodology of designing the experiments that bring us to a better insight of natures smoke and mirrors. I too am a critic of the theories but not of the science. If you know the science then you should know why the mathematics of Relativity and QM work; don’t be shamed by the snake oil salesmen!

[rmirman]

I know why relativity and qm work, and why they must work that way. I have explained it in depth in my books (start with OAIU). It is nice that you agree with me about bizarre science theories. That means you agree that string theory, and so much else, are nonsense. See the books especially OAIU.

The proof that physics, a universe, would be impossible in any dimension but 3+1 (strangely agreeing with reality) is clear and unavoidable. Stunning is that a change of any number in any of the formulas by even 1 would make any dimension, thus any universe, impossible.

That the universe allows, and has, galaxies, stars, planets, even life, thinking life, that all the conflicting conditions do not conflict and are met, is beyond stunning.

Science blog
impunv.wordpress.com
or
impunv.blogspot.com

Political blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com

Books (details below)

OAIU;
Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely

GTFQM;
Group Theoretical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

MRPG;
Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group

QM,QFT;
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory
geometry, language, logic

QFT,CGT,CFT;
Quantum Field Theory, Conformal Group Theory, Conformal Field Theory:

GT:IA:
Group Theory: An Intuitive Approach

PG,SG;
Point Groups, Space Groups, Crystals, Molecules


Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans
extraordinarily unlikely
R. Mirman
iUniverse, inc. 2006

SPAM REMOVED

An exploration of the precise conditions required for the existence of humans in the universe. ... the author does an admirable job delineating the laws of physics without becoming too bogged down in complicated jargon, and he maintains a sense of wonder about the unique and random nature of the universe. He repeatedly celebrates our highly improbable achievements as a species, marveling at our ability to use the language of abstract mathematics to unravel the mysteries of existence. ... the prevailing tone of the narrative is clear and confident, marked by a meticulous attention to detail. A[n] ... often fascinating journey through the history of the universe and mankind. --- Kirkus Discoveries

Existence, of the universe, structure, life, intelligence, is unthinkable, really impossible. Incredibly, intriguingly, we are here. From the universe itself to humans, that we are, what we are, what we have accomplished, we find implausibility upon implausibility making us as reasoning beings (at least almost) unique in the universe, quite fortunate, but quite dangerous. SETI is nonsense. Reasons range from mathematically rigorous --- unavoidable --- to extremely strong to highly likely. These force the question: does the word God exist?

This discussion is aimed at all interested in not only science, but in the world in which we (strangely can and do) live, the laws of nature, in what humanity is and why. It has in addition much material of value to specialists, and because of its breadth and coherence, its attempts to provoke thought, it, besides being a popularization, should be an excellent text for courses in science for non-scientists and as a (perhaps necessary) supplement for science courses.

[rmirman]

Why don't you read the full post, and the books, especially OAIU. The lawsare much more fundamental than entropy and enthalpy.

[Zach Roden]

I don't think that anything determines the Laws of nature. i think the laws of nature determines everything. that's if the laws of nature has always existed.

[rmirman]

The question is why the laws have the form that they do? And much is known. For example conservation laws come from geometry, as is well-known. But there is much more. Look at the books, especially OAIU. These will show why the laws have the form they do, for many; eventually perhaps for all.

[mkirkpatrick]

I don't think that anything determines the Laws of nature. i think the laws of nature determines everything. that's if the laws of nature has always existed.

Very well put Zach,tend to agree with that,btw,welcome to the forum.


warm regards michael.

[Foas]

I don't think that anything determines the Laws of nature. i think the laws of nature determines everything. that's if the laws of nature has always existed.

I would have to agree with you in the basis that I don't think anything determines the laws of nature. But disagree with your statement that nature determines everything on the basis that the "Laws of Nature" determine everything. I would think that those laws would just be a representation of how different elements in nature interact with each other and the influences that different aspects of nature have on each other with the way people perceive those interactions. As to if the laws of nature have always existed, I would say that they would have had to exist since the existence of anything.