Why do the laws of physics exist as they are?

I watched an interesting program on TV yesterday (called "Testing God") that looked into the progress of science and how science has managed to explain more and more of reality to such an extent that a belief in God is (almost) redundant.

For example, they've even managed to explain how the big bang could have happened without needing an "instigator" to start it off.

But, the final question remaining that scientists still can't explain (and maybe never will) is this: Why do the laws of physics exist in the way that they do.

The laws of physics are "just so" so that it enables life itself to exist.

Must God have been the creator in the sense that he designed the laws of physics or is there some other explanation that doesn't need the existance of a supreme being?

Could just be one huge coincidence

Physics, is like other science are all just observations.

If a set of assumptions can comfortably explain things that happen around us, we take them as it is. But they can be later disapproved.

You are in a dark room. As long as you think, you are stroking your dog, and the *assumed dog thing* licks your hand back, you can safely say it's your dog. But the instant the lights come in, you should also be prepared to see a cat infront of you.

This is science. As long as you can reason everything with it's rules, it works. But it is not the ultimate truth.

Having said this, I seriously doubt if God would play any part in our observation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thinktank
Having said this, I seriously doubt if God would play any part in our observation.

---

Precisely. I haven't observed God. Have you?

I don't have enough faith to believe that a universe such as ours could have occured by accident...

When Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, everyone remembers his quote, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Shortly after, he radioed mission control on a private frequency and asked, "I thought you said I was the first man to walk on the moon?"

Misson control was of course baffled by his comment and asked him what he meant. He stated that a short distance from the lunar module he had found a Mickey Mouse watch, wound and keeping perfect zulu time. The best and brightest minds concluded that since they knew of no other men who had been to the moon, that the only "logical" explanation was that over millions of years, hot gasses and minerals that had been thrown out from the big bang had contracted and formed in the shape of a Mickey Mouse watch. In other words, the watch had formed by random chance.

It would take a lot of faith (perhaps even more faith than it takes to believe in a God one has never seen) to believe that a Mickey Mouse watch could form by random chance. And our universe is a lot more complicated than a Mickey Mouse watch.

Just my not-so-humble opinion :)

DaveAMS: If you were joking about the Mickey Mouse watch, I apologize for taking you seriously.

If Armstrong had found a Mickey Mouse watch on the moon, nobody in their right mind would claim that it happened via some random evolutionary process.

Your remark is a cheap shot at evolution, and strongly suggests that you have no concept of the theory.

Well, I'm glad I got the Zulu part right elsewhere.....

In point of fact, I *was* trying to bring a little levity to the subject, Guv. Not trying to make fun of anyone's beliefs, just trying to *have* fun.

To speak a little more seriously: I've spent years studying different aspects of the subject of how the world (and its inhabitants) got here: I've taken courses on genetics, physics, chemistry, etc. After all of my studies, I must say that I have found no proof that God exists. That being said, I've also found no proof that God does not exist.

Modern science has only existed for a few hundred years, and we are trying to predict what happened anywhere from ten thousand to several million years ago. Mathematically speaking, that's one he#@ of an extrapolation, and I don't honestly believe that we can KNOW much of anything.

For example: we've had the capability of measuring the speed of light for less than one hundred years. In this time, we have assumed that the speed of light is an absolute constant. The possibility exists, however, that the speed of light is actually slowing with time. There have actually been experiments done during the last fifty years that would tend toward showing this slowing of the speed of light. Nothing conclusive, mind you...but it IS a possibility.

We as humans have such a desire to understand our world, and yet at this point in time we have a million questions for every one answer. Whether one chooses to believe in a world formed by evolution, with no "Creator" guiding its progress, or a world created literally in six days, or something in between the two...you need faith.

I could launch into a lengthy explanation of my point of view and fill up a screen or two quite easily, but I'll keep my post short.

Basically, in the beginnning of everything, all the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere. It did not just appear. Personally, I believe in God and I believe that is how the universe was created. But really, none of us will ever know until we're dead, and all speculation at this point is pretty much futile.

The universe is so big, and there are likely to be so many variations on existence/life that there's bound to be somewhere where the laws of physics allow life to exist.

Resistance is futile (if less than one ohm)

Quote:

---

Basically, in the beginnning of everything, all the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere. It did not just appear.

---

There is, actually, a theory for explaining how matter can spontaneously emerge from nothing. It's all to do with quantum mechanics and Heinsburg's uncertainty principle. I know very little about this particular aspect of it but basically, electrons can spontaneously pop into existance anywhere in the universe and then (usually) pop back out of existance.

Whilst the big bang theory is only a theory and it may later be refined or modified, the point is, with the laws of physics as they are, there is no need for a divine creator to exist attall. The only thing we might need a creator for is to explain why the laws of physics exist attall (and why they exist in this particular fashion).

One possible (Godless) explanation is that we exist in a multitude of parallel universes (a multiverse) and that every possible reality exists. We are just present in one of them. With an infinite number of parellel universes, it no longer becomes extraordinary that one universe with our set of rules actually exists.

It still remains, however, a mystery as to why the multiverse exists...:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honeybee
I have.

---

So are you a prophet then? What did he say to you and why did he reveal himself to you (as opposed to anyone else)?

Quote:

---

I just had the chance to interact in some way with God. It was not like a face to face conversation.

---

OK, so you didn't actually see God then.

Quote:

---

I am waiting for an answer to one of my questions, though, from God. If I get that answer, maybe I shall know why the world exists and how etc.

---

The way I see it, if (and it's a big if) there is a god, he had very little to do with the universe and in particular our world.

He may have set up he initial conditions (the rules) for the universe and he may have been aware of the faint possibility that life (even human life) might subsequantly emerge as a consequance of those initial conditions.

But, after the job of creating the laws of physics, he must have just sat back and enjoyed the show. If, as it seems increasingly likely to be the case, everything in the universe that has ever happened conforms to the laws of physics, there is therefore no reason to suppose that God had had any interaction with the universe after the initial process of setting up the universal framework (let alone have a conversation with Honeybee).

Perhaps we're God's screensaver!

yeah and he/she is trying to find that damn password ...:eek:

It all makes perfect sense now!

Yes :)

lets hope he/she fails in locating/remembering it ... then we can go on wasting our lifes in here :)

simon

Quote:

---

Must God have been the creator in the sense that he designed the laws of physics or is there some other explanation that doesn't need the existance of a supreme being?

---

Yes of course there is!! I thought you believed the universe was subjective and that you as an observer had to play a role in its existance.
God never created any physical laws, you did. YOU DID!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee

And what I talked to him about was some personal issues in my life.

.

---

Excuse me God, How do I make my genitalia bigger ....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ianpbaker


Excuse me God, How do I make my genitalia bigger ....

---

might be god, but I still dont think a miracle will help you ;) :p

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I thought you believed the universe was subjective and that you as an observer had to play a role in its existance.
God never created any physical laws, you did. YOU DID!

---

I have reigned in a little from the solopsist view point and I don't think the universe is entirely subjective. I believe that it is subjectivity that imbues an objective universe with meaning. Not that it creates it.

I read once that the proportion of scientists who believe in God has stayed fairly constant over the years. However, the number of biologist believers has fallen while the number of physicist believers has increased by the same amount.

What that says about discoveries in their respective fields, you can decide.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by peet
yeah and he/she is trying to find that damn password ...:eek:

---

But then s/he could just get the Administrator to open it......

Talking of 'she', history in South African aviation was made yesterday, when an SAA Boeing 737 flew from Joburg to the coast, about 1000km, with an 'all-girl' crew: Captain, First Officer, all the Cabin Crew. They didn't even have to stop for directions :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman

I have reigned in a little from the solopsist view point and I don't think the universe is entirely subjective. I believe that it is subjectivity that imbues an objective universe with meaning. Not that it creates it.

---

I think you are trying to avoid the only thing that actually can make sense, why do you still seek explanations for everything? You don't want to discover anything that puts you in a situation where your efforts are obviously useless. Well they are already, you're going to die and everyone else who thinks as you do. Whether you think your life is pointless or not you either have to accept it or hide from it.

First, universe can either be subjective or objective, not both at the same time, obviously the contradictions already starts at the definition of existance. I think you just simply believe in a objective reality!

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I think you are trying to avoid the only thing that actually can make sense, why do you still seek explanations for everything?

---

Eh...What is the only thing that makes sense? Solopsism?

Quote:

---

You don't want to discover anything that puts you in a situation where your efforts are obviously useless. Well they are already, you're going to die and everyone else who thinks as you do. Whether you think your life is pointless or not you either have to accept it or hide from it.

---

Could you explain a little further what you're getting at here?

Quote:

---

First, universe can either be subjective or objective, not both at the same time, obviously the contradictions already starts at the definition of existance. I think you just simply believe in a objective reality!

---

I do not follow your logic here, attall.

Okay okay. I was going to fast for you again :p

Subjectivity is a perspective where existance is is dependent of an observer, it doesn't take into account the existance of the observer, only the existance of what is observed. That is the absolute invert to Solipsism. Which should make more sense? I think therefore I am, or I observ them therefore they are?

Obviously you have to start off as solipsist or somehow bend subjetivity as you tried. No it doesn't work because two different subjective realities contradict each other as well as one subjective reality cannot be projected from a objective reality. In a objective reality the existance of something is absolute, in a subjective reality the existance never is, in QM you can try to measure the existance but that's only because universe is considered subjective, and if you believe you can, you believe in a Objective reality, and measurements on it can never be verified. That is no acceptance of the nature of reality, that is just naive belief.

The solipsist believes that everything is made up of his mind. That is a perfect explanation but nobody can be satisfied with it. I am definitely not. I think reality is where I live, where my observations are taken from, but when I deny the reality, I will wake up from a dream, where reality has been a projector for my dream via my mind. I think until we reach out of our subjective perspective, we will only dream about objective ones, so the day I wake up from the subjective nature of myself, the observer as I am, I am becoming omniscient, the result of accepting the nature of reality.

The unknowing believer of Objective reality, the dreamer, will waste all his efforts on trying to figure out what the nature of reality and still never find anything, because of his strict belief in that what he is surrounded with is the objective reality. Next to that you ignore the "fact" that you die until you actually do so, which is some kind of denial that your efforts are meaningless, that life is pointless, and that you just live for the moment. That is a pathetical way of spending time which I cannot accept. Why do you struggle to seek explanations?

Quote:

---

Okay okay. I was going to fast for you again

---

mmmmmm, all them big words to explain what exactly ?

Is our desting pre-ordained, or do we make our own ?

how polysyllabic shall we be to explain that little conundrum...

F A T B O Y P E E

Kedaman

I am only slightly less confused by your more extensive elaboration of your point.

Quote:

---

Subjectivity is a perspective where existance is is dependent of an observer, it doesn't take into account the existance of the observer, only the existance of what is observed.

---

This sounds more like a definition of objectivity than subjectivity to me. Or at least it would do if you said the following: Objectivity is the notion that existance is independant of an observer.

In the solopsist view, everything exists only as a figment of their own mind. Therefore, nothing would exist if the solopsist (who is dreaming reality) did not exist.

I was going to go on but, I'm afraid, I can't make sense of your arguments. I can see that you are attempting to establish that it is a worthless endeavor to seek explanations for anything we experience but I can't really see why you get to that conclusion.

I don't know, either, how you think that you might eventually step outside of your subjective perspective.

Either I'm being incredibly stupid or you are failing to articulate your arguments in a way hat makes sense to anyone else other than yourself.

Since you are the only one who actually exists in your universe, why should you attempt to convince anyone else? What's the point?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Brown


But then s/he could just get the Administrator to open it......

---

hmm... so its not God that is boss, its the Administrator ... I knew it ! :D

Simon

Quote:

---

Since you are the only one who actually exists in your universe, why should you attempt to convince anyone else? What's the point?

---

I dont' know, i'm not convinced, if I was, I wouldn't be here I guess.

Quote:

---

This sounds more like a definition of objectivity than subjectivity to me. Or at least it would do if you said the following: Objectivity is the notion that existance is independant of an observer.

---

Well how should I say this, if you have played unreal tournament before every game you get a quick peek at the level, you float around without any body, that I would call subjective perspective. It doesn't need any "embodyment" as you use to call it, that there is no need of a conscious mind to act as an observer but any theoretical observer.

Quote:

---

In the solopsist view, everything exists only as a figment of their own mind. Therefore, nothing would exist if the solopsist (who is dreaming reality) did not exist.

---

No a solipsist only considers himself to exist, everything else he comes in contact with is the projection of his mind. If the observer quit to exist (which obviously is impossible if you are one as a solipsist) the rest of what exist should continue to exist, if you can imagine that there is anything else that is.

Quote:

---

I was going to go on but, I'm afraid, I can't make sense of your arguments. I can see that you are attempting to establish that it is a worthless endeavor to seek explanations for anything we experience but I can't really see why you get to that conclusion.

---

I am not saying that our efforts are useless, just that some of us lack the sense to see what is. I think we all struggle to a common goal where reality sooner or later is getting fully revealed and that we get to understand how subjectiveness is only an entrapment of ourselves to hide from the truth or to create a dreamworld.

Haven't you noticed, how we believe in one thing or another, how we take faith in something to be true, now wheres the sense in that when we know we have no proof. Well there is a single explanation. Information is a tool to understand our experiences, not a objective truth we have discovered, as in that sense we are taking faith in world where our efforts are useless, you die and loose everything you've accomplished and theres nothing you can do about it, because you believe so hard that it is how it is meant to be or that you are too ignorant and see that eventually you will end up with nothing is of no importance as long as you can live your life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FATBOYPEE
Is our desting pre-ordained, or do we make our own ?

---

I can't really say, I am all alone with everyone else, so I can't distinguish between myself and anyone else until i know everything.

This entire universe could just be a hologram - so all of the laws of physics were just invented to make programming the hologram easier.


Sounds ridiculous - but you can't prove that this is not a hologram.

Rob

Nope, but it's useless

Quote:

---

I can't really say, I am all alone with everyone else, so I can't distinguish between myself and anyone else until i know everything.

---

That's assuming you will get to know everything ?

Destiny over being. We know, that at some level, be it holographic or tangible, our consciousness exists. Now one question arising from your declaration of being alone with everyone else:

Individuality, the essence of self. What is that ? If you have a handle on what it is, then where is the self destined to end up, knowing it all perhaps ? enlightened ?

Are our actions made out of choice, behaviour or part of a greater design. If our actions are made out of our own choice then is our destiny pre-ordained ?

If so, how can you know everything ever ? What 'everything' is there t o know unless you first make that 'everything ?

If you make it, then you already know it. If someone else makes it then your actions and your destiny by definition are pre-ordained and you have no choice in living. If you have no choice, where is the freedom ?


Is this polysyllabic enough to say "Dunno" ?

FBP

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FATBOYPEE

That's assuming you will get to know everything ?

Destiny over being. We know, that at some level, be it holographic or tangible, our consciousness exists. Now one question arising from your declaration of being alone with everyone else:

Individuality, the essence of self. What is that ? If you have a handle on what it is, then where is the self destined to end up, knowing it all perhaps ? enlightened ?

Are our actions made out of choice, behaviour or part of a greater design. If our actions are made out of our own choice then is our destiny pre-ordained ?

If so, how can you know everything ever ? What 'everything' is there t o know unless you first make that 'everything ?

If you make it, then you already know it. If someone else makes it then your actions and your destiny by definition are pre-ordained and you have no choice in living. If you have no choice, where is the freedom ?


Is this polysyllabic enough to say "Dunno" ?

FBP

---

Hmm, I cannot know everything unless I realize it, and that is nothing I assume, that is what I'm finally trying to achieve. I don't know what you mean by make that "everything" the made up everything that is around me is "made up" therefore it doesn't exist, something that exist isn't made up but just is. Now i'm not sure if you refer to what i think is real or what i think exist.

Kedaman

Have you ever tried explaining your theories to someone in Finnish? I'm just wondering if it's the language barrier that is preventing you from explaining it coherantly.

No, my theories are only available in english, not even swedish (which is my actual mother language) I tried to explain it in swedish to my roommate but he didn't get a thing or thought i was joking, so it's defintely not language. It's the way you think, the static way of interpretating information that causes the message not to get trough. But I think if we discuss every aspect of it enough you get the idea

I'm not on about existence, or what you think is real

What I'm saying is the extension of Self outside of that which you percieve exists.

The Self's interraction with it's conceived environment, Imaginary, or real. My question is one of what is the 'me' in your argument ?

What is the Self ? What makes it ?

FBP:D

I think therefore I am - doesn't that say who you are? You are the one thinking of course