5 ms·

But why is nature consistent?

hackinthebochs 3y ago
Is it intelligible that it might not have been? What would it mean for nature to be inconsistent? What would a universe look like that didn't follow laws?
- hurryer 3y ago
  Random stuff happening? Pockets of local consistency?
  - greiskul 3y ago
    There probably wouldn't exist any type of inteligent animal to wonder about it, since life and the evolution of life kind of requires chemestry to be a thing.
    - esahione 3y ago
      The anthropic principle doesn't explain why it is, in actuality, intelligible. It's only a constraint on what couldn't be the case given we exist. It's clearly a much deeper question, given even Wigner wrote a paper about it. He called it a miracle. Look, ultimately, mathematics is abstract and the physical world is material. The fact that an abstract condition is able to affect material conditions is literally a miracle that can only be explained metaphysically.
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    Random stuff happening for no reason with no pattern or constraint runs afloul of the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR is a basic assumption of intelligibility. Events happening with no cause can't be made sense of. Everything that happens is brute in the worst way possible. By the standards of reason, it is maximally unintelligible. We must rationally give higher credence to any other explanation, i.e. an order and law-based universe. One might say the universe has no obligation to be intelligible to us, and perhaps that true. But we have an obligation to intelligible beliefs. In being able to ask the question of why the world is law-based, we're rationally constrained in the answer we can accept. You can see it as an application of the anthropic principle, but I think it's more basic than that. If there is sense to be made of anything (in a logical sense that is prior to the universe), then the universe must also make sense.
    - esahione 3y ago
      There's no causation line from abstractions such as mathematics to material effects. The fact material conditions follow abstract conditions is a very particular problem and different from the one you aim to solve with your reply.
      - hackinthebochs 3y ago
        There is no causal line, but there is a sort of influence, we can call it constraint propagation. The constraints of logical consistency and the rules that follow (e.g. mathematics) constrain the natural world. Logic determines what is possible, the universe is what is actual. The possible is a superset of the actual. Constraints on the possible are constraints on the actual.
        esahione 3y ago
        Again, there's no apparent connection between logic and mathematical truths and the universe. Moreover, logic and mathematical truths are causally inert: they cannot be a cause to a physical effect. Yet it appears like all physical effects are following such laws and rules. I.e, there appears to be something that breathes fire into our equations.
        hackinthebochs 3y ago
        Well this will depend on how you conceive of logical and mathematical facts. If you think of them as abstract "objects", you end up with the problem of how abstract objects can influence the world. But if you conceive of logical and mathematical facts as descriptions of states of possible formal systems, i.e. systems that do not contain a contradiction, then there is no problem. The actual world is simply a subset of the possible world; truths derived from investigating what is possible necessarily and obviously apply to the actual as a subset of the possible.
        esahione 3y ago
esahione 3y ago
God. Coming from a former atheist that became an idealistic theist after reading enough quantum mechanics and math. Ultimately it's the only plausible explanation as to why mathematics applies to the physical world.
turtledragonfly 3y ago
Those "why" questions are exactly what math and science do not answer (: Not saying that philosophy or religion is particularly good at answering them either, but that's more the domain you're getting into, I think. Brief excerpt from this Feynman interview[1] "Say pop, I noticed something: when I pull the wagon, the ball rolls to the back ... and when I'm pulling along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the *front* of the wagon." And I said: "why is that?" And he said: "That, nobody knows. But the general principle is that things that are moving tend to keep on moving, and things that are standing still tend to stand still... This tendency is called "inertia," but nobody knows why it is true." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjUSO4u2di0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjUSO4u2di0
- esahione 3y ago
  That's absolutely not true. Science and mathematics are constantly placing forward why questions. Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. Example: Noether's Theorems explain why there are conservation laws. There are conservation laws because the universe observes certain symmetries.
  - turtledragonfly 3y ago
    I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you missed my point. In your example, you just moved the question of "why are there conservation laws" to "why are there symmetries?" The answer is still that we don't know. Though as you point out, understanding the relationship between the two is useful! > Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. I did not mean to place a barrier. It is fine to ask the question. But it is also fine (and honest) to answer it with "we don't know." Edit: of course, please do not interpret "we don't know" as "we shouldn't try to find out" (:
    - esahione 3y ago
      Ok - but there was a why question, and now there's another one. Those are questions that we can and do answer. Therefore your initial statement is simply false.
greiskul 3y ago
We don't know, and mathematics is not the tool for that. The consistency of nature is considered by some to be one of the few things science has to take by faith. Same thing with "brain-in-a-jar" arguments, we cannot ever prove that we are not just being completely fooled by our senses that our universe exists.
koudelka 3y ago
perhaps a lack of consistency would have resulted in a universe incompatible with life, so there’d be nobody around to ask the question?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Is it intelligible that it might not have been? What would it mean for nature to be inconsistent? What would a universe look like that didn't follow laws?

hurryer 3y ago
Random stuff happening? Pockets of local consistency?
- greiskul 3y ago
  There probably wouldn't exist any type of inteligent animal to wonder about it, since life and the evolution of life kind of requires chemestry to be a thing.
  - esahione 3y ago
    The anthropic principle doesn't explain why it is, in actuality, intelligible. It's only a constraint on what couldn't be the case given we exist. It's clearly a much deeper question, given even Wigner wrote a paper about it. He called it a miracle. Look, ultimately, mathematics is abstract and the physical world is material. The fact that an abstract condition is able to affect material conditions is literally a miracle that can only be explained metaphysically.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  Random stuff happening for no reason with no pattern or constraint runs afloul of the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR is a basic assumption of intelligibility. Events happening with no cause can't be made sense of. Everything that happens is brute in the worst way possible. By the standards of reason, it is maximally unintelligible. We must rationally give higher credence to any other explanation, i.e. an order and law-based universe. One might say the universe has no obligation to be intelligible to us, and perhaps that true. But we have an obligation to intelligible beliefs. In being able to ask the question of why the world is law-based, we're rationally constrained in the answer we can accept. You can see it as an application of the anthropic principle, but I think it's more basic than that. If there is sense to be made of anything (in a logical sense that is prior to the universe), then the universe must also make sense.
  - esahione 3y ago
    There's no causation line from abstractions such as mathematics to material effects. The fact material conditions follow abstract conditions is a very particular problem and different from the one you aim to solve with your reply.
    - hackinthebochs 3y ago
      There is no causal line, but there is a sort of influence, we can call it constraint propagation. The constraints of logical consistency and the rules that follow (e.g. mathematics) constrain the natural world. Logic determines what is possible, the universe is what is actual. The possible is a superset of the actual. Constraints on the possible are constraints on the actual.
      - esahione 3y ago
        Again, there's no apparent connection between logic and mathematical truths and the universe. Moreover, logic and mathematical truths are causally inert: they cannot be a cause to a physical effect. Yet it appears like all physical effects are following such laws and rules. I.e, there appears to be something that breathes fire into our equations.
        hackinthebochs 3y ago
        Well this will depend on how you conceive of logical and mathematical facts. If you think of them as abstract "objects", you end up with the problem of how abstract objects can influence the world. But if you conceive of logical and mathematical facts as descriptions of states of possible formal systems, i.e. systems that do not contain a contradiction, then there is no problem. The actual world is simply a subset of the possible world; truths derived from investigating what is possible necessarily and obviously apply to the actual as a subset of the possible.
        esahione 3y ago

esahione 3y ago

God. Coming from a former atheist that became an idealistic theist after reading enough quantum mechanics and math. Ultimately it's the only plausible explanation as to why mathematics applies to the physical world.

turtledragonfly 3y ago

Those "why" questions are exactly what math and science do not answer (: Not saying that philosophy or religion is particularly good at answering them either, but that's more the domain you're getting into, I think. Brief excerpt from this Feynman interview[1] "Say pop, I noticed something: when I pull the wagon, the ball rolls to the back ... and when I'm pulling along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the *front* of the wagon." And I said: "why is that?" And he said: "That, nobody knows. But the general principle is that things that are moving tend to keep on moving, and things that are standing still tend to stand still... This tendency is called "inertia," but nobody knows why it is true." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjUSO4u2di0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjUSO4u2di0

esahione 3y ago
That's absolutely not true. Science and mathematics are constantly placing forward why questions. Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. Example: Noether's Theorems explain why there are conservation laws. There are conservation laws because the universe observes certain symmetries.
- turtledragonfly 3y ago
  I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you missed my point. In your example, you just moved the question of "why are there conservation laws" to "why are there symmetries?" The answer is still that we don't know. Though as you point out, understanding the relationship between the two is useful! > Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. I did not mean to place a barrier. It is fine to ask the question. But it is also fine (and honest) to answer it with "we don't know." Edit: of course, please do not interpret "we don't know" as "we shouldn't try to find out" (:
  - esahione 3y ago
    Ok - but there was a why question, and now there's another one. Those are questions that we can and do answer. Therefore your initial statement is simply false.

greiskul 3y ago

We don't know, and mathematics is not the tool for that. The consistency of nature is considered by some to be one of the few things science has to take by faith. Same thing with "brain-in-a-jar" arguments, we cannot ever prove that we are not just being completely fooled by our senses that our universe exists.

koudelka 3y ago

perhaps a lack of consistency would have resulted in a universe incompatible with life, so there’d be nobody around to ask the question?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]