4 ms·
I don't think it's hotly debated. It's frivolously debated. Occasionally someone acknowledges that certain formulae or constants might actually be variable, but
by zzbzq 6y ago
I don't think it's hotly debated. It's frivolously debated. Occasionally someone acknowledges that certain formulae or constants might actually be variable, but ultimately move on to assume they are fixed. But even in those hypothetical scenarios it's assumed that the laws of nature would evolve by some meta-laws. I've never seen it considered that there are no laws at all, despite the fact that this seems to me the most likely case. The existence of laws is supposed as a prerequisite for the method of science. I think calling it faith is apt because the idea that the universe works by "laws" is, at its inception, a religious idea! Newton after all saw science as a religious endeavor.
- simonh 6y agoWe don't assume that there are consistent principles that lead to reliable results at all, rather we theorise that there might be and then test to see if this supposition can be demonstrated practically. So far this has turned out pretty well for us, to put it mildly. We don't need to base that on faith, because as I'm sure you are aware so far it has turned out to be consistently true in practice. That's what testability is all about, the elimination of the need for faith. If things that at first seem static turn out to change in the universe under changing conditions, that simply isn't a problem for science. Just look at the theory of relativity which superseded Newton's 'static' laws of motion and gravitation. As for laws of nature originating with religion, the concept was first explicitly articulated in Europe in pagan Rome, but not in any religious context. It certainly didn't come from Christianity with it's volatile, opinionated and highly active and interventionist deity.