Peter Atkins - Where Do the Laws of Nature Come From?

Register for free today to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
What’s real? What’s fundamental? There are regularities in nature, things that are or work the same-always, everywhere, across the universe just like across your kitchen. Down deep, what are the laws of nature? What makes them laws? What is their origin? Did they come into existence or did they always exist?
Watch more interviews on the mystery of existence: shorturl.at/s2468
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Peter William Atkins is a British chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@DisEnchantedPersons]

The Laws of Nature are understood by the limits of human understanding. We are in Platos cave, we only see the shadows of reality. There is something much deeper going on in existence, than we know today.

[@john_hind]

I think Plato had it more or less backward! We see reality but use platonic ideals (abstractions) as a way of modelling it comprehensible to the limitations of our brains. See my more detailed post.

[@nexpro6985]

Why does there have to be?

[@17711bellybutton]

The use of the word ‘law’ leads us to imagine that the Universe acts according to some Platonic framework when in fact it is our observation of how it repeatedly behaves.

[@patientson]

Sir Peter Atkins, I solemnly thank you and "absolutely" appreciate your fatherly advise to us kids in the application of science and technology. My sincere apologies for not saying this earlier, 5 hours ago before I posted what I assume to be what I wanted to say. I had to sleep to first to listen to you and Mr Robert.

[@fredm5180]

Thank you very much for this interview. Wonderful conversation! Wonderful questions! Wonderful interaction! What a human qualities! The universe is more and more alive in us each day!

[@radscorpion8]

The interviewer asks questions that are impossible to answer and which the interviewee has no clue how to answer. How are any of these things wonderful. Its just a giant waste of time. Its like someone asking do we live in a simulation to 50 different philosophers and all of them answer how the hell am I supposed to know

[@fredm5180]

Dear@@radscorpion8 , just move a bit far from yourself and you will see a bit more. Keep trying mate. This is the way. All the best.

[@RangerN8]

The question of, “Does God have to abide by the laws of the universe?” is so fundamental. I love it! In our effort to understand this question, we are really getting at the meat of things. Can God set the rules or break them? For example: Can God eliminate love without also getting ride of hate, or eliminate light without also eliminating dark? God seems to exist in some way on the border. I’ll tell you this, the truth permeates everything. We are searching for truth on the tips of our noses. It’s lovely. We can’t yet see it. Not knowing is awesome. So long as we keep our curiosity.

[@PaulHoward108]

In Vedic understanding, the only law, karma, only applies to non-ideal choices, and what God (Viṣṇu) would do is the definition of ideal.

[@BugRib]

@RangerN8 - This is a good comment!

[@timterrell8678]

Does it not bother you that the same laws don’t allow demons to exist here or souls, spirits, etc? Where is your evidence that a God exists at all or that a border exists? The laws of physics haven’t been broken in the last 13.8 billion years yet you believe in miracles that do break the laws. Shouldn’t it be time to rethink your beliefs when they conflict with reality? You don’t need light to have dark. The universe was dark for nearly 300,000 years. Love and hate are human emotions caused by the release of chemical hormones in the brain. You can take away hate with a lobotomy to the brain.

[@Hoseaistheone]

One of the best interviews yet! Insightful, measured, instructive and above all full of wisdom. Thank you.

[@radscorpion8]

THERE WERE NO ANSWERS WHATSOEVER

[@mykrahmaan3408]

What is obvious from this conversation is the fact that the framers of the fundamentals of science don't even consider it necessary to link the purpose of all search for knowledge, viz. practical satisfaction of the needs of beings, to those fundamentals in any manner.

[@MightyDrunken]

Wow, I remember studying Peter Atkins' chemistry books decades ago. Good stuff. Looks like the interview was from 2009.

[@DannyWitmer]

They never got around to the title - Where do the laws of nature come from? 🤷‍♂️

[@tansiewbee4292]

The human species is prone to the following : a) Vision, Illusion, and Delusion b) Purpose, Promise, and Pretense & Posturing c) Spinning, Fork-tongueing, and Gaslighting Dear NATURE, Please give the human species the serenity to accept the things they cannot know and change, the courage to change the things that they can and should, and the wisdom to be able to tell the difference between the two.

[@adrianwright8685]

2:00 "...leads to a benign Universe for us" Depends how you define that: 99.999....% of the Universe, - a vacuum or a star - would not be benign for us. We live in a tiny and extremely unusual part.

[@brothermine2292]

The guest starts with a mistake when he says the law of Conservation of Energy doesn't depend on any fundamental constants. For example, when an electron and a positron annilihate into two photons, the energy before the annihilation is 2mₑc² and the energy after is 2hυ. That equation has three fundamental constants. Or, when a ball is tossed upward and its kinetic energy transforms into gravitational potential energy, the gravitational constant G is part of the equation.

[@simonhibbs887]

The calculated energy of specific physical systems includes constants, but the law of conservation of energy just says that energy is always conserved. Newtons’ third law of motion, each action has an equal,and opposite reaction, also has no constants. Many equations only have constants in them to produce values in our arbitrary systems of units. Furthermore some constants disappear if we use what are called natural units, such as Stoney units or Planck units. In these systems most of the fundamental constants such as C the speed of light, G the gravitational constant, e the electrical charge of the electron, etc, become 1 and so drop out from the equations completely.

[@brothermine2292]

@@simonhibbs887 : Conservation laws have physical meaning only when they're operationalized, which requires the fundamental constants. Choosing the units so that constants are "1" doesn't eliminate the constants; it just makes it easy to hide them. It moves them to the factors that convert between units. The guest went on to say that the fundamental constants are needed to go beyond the abstract and make contact with the real physical world. This is where the operationalizing is done.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@brothermine2292 Our systems if units are completely arbitrary, we can’t eliminate every constant using natural units but we can reduce it to very few. I don’t think it’s hiding anything, it’s exposing the arbitrary nature of our units and the artificiality of many of these constants. After all for example what could be more natural than expressing all relative velocities as fractions of the speed of light, expressing mass in terms of its relativistic gravitational effect, and electrical charges relative to that of the electron? It just shows us that a bunch of these constants are artificial constructs and not truly fundamental at all. The main sticking point is the fine structure constant. Apparently there are some variations of string theory that might give us a derivation for it, but I’m not holding my breath for string theory to ever pan out.

[@brothermine2292]

@@simonhibbs887 : Yes, units are arbitrary. But regardless of the value & unit you assign to the symbol c that represents the speed of light in a vacuum, the fundamental constant is "the speed of light in a vacuum," which is independent of the choice of units.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@brothermine2292 Sure, we still have the same relations between quantities.

[@squeakeththewheel]

They're not laws. They are observed, regular behaviors.

[@lordbyron3603]

They (the laws) don’t come from anywhere!! It’s what is. What is is unknowable. It can’t be described.

[@osks]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” - Robert Jastrow, God And The Astronomers

[@Don.Challenger]

It may be that the laws of nature are the same [practically] everywhere because the initial pace of their change was distanced/delayed by the mechanism of inflation which projected the occurrences of those changes into a vastly far future.

[@genghisthegreat2034]

Inverse Square based laws seem to have a geometric root. But the constant embedded in laws is more difficult to explain. Gravitational Force, relates to masses, through G. G needs to be, fundamentally, in a coherent relationship with the other constants, and we don't know the basis of that relationship. If the constants, take their particular values, from a " condensation " of fields, then we will struggle to explain their particular values, other than to be sure that if they're inconsistent with life, we don't have that problem.

[@CrystalPalace1861]

The "fine tunning" argument it's a bias as we're giving that meaning not from the starting point perspective but instead from the arriving point afterwards hundred billions of years of this particular universe evolution, expansion and cooling. Besides for a "fine tunning" universe there's plenty of inefficiencies, apocalyptic destructions and randomness for some kind of omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent cause. Nevertheless if you which from a research point of view at the most it could be place as some kind of [H_0] (null) hypothesis.

[@stephenzhao5809]

2:10 ... I think a law is fundamentally a framework of comprehension and then the fundamental constants are a way of mapping that comprehension onto the reality that you experience. 2:30 ... of course we don't know that in the very first fractions of second of the universe which we can't yet observe whether something funny was going on then and we certainly don't know what's going to happen in the long-term distant future. 3:11 (but the nature of law is an assumption that people make but it's so fundamental to how we deal with reality) yeah I think you should distinguish the law from the theory that underpins the law 【】so the law is a summary of observation and it's quite conceivable that the observations change with time um I can't think of an example of that at the moment but um okay sort of entropy might come back down again rather instead of just going up but the theory that underpins it should be able to cope with the evolution of the law because you the theory might predict that the law the observations will change over time (what's an example of how a theory articulates with a law being under more fundamental so the law ? ) well let's use all sorts of things I suppose the propagation of light (okay) is one example 4:24 the law is it travels in straight lines but crudely the underlying theory is the wave theory of light Maxwell's electromagnetic theory effectively now at the moment this underlying mathematical structure doesn't in the least predict any evolution of the behavior of light but it's certainly conceibable that you could dream up a more complex theoretical substracture which led to the speed of light gradually changing something like that. 5:00

[@artstrology]

I think the guys who wrote the paper,"The Law of Increasing Functional Information" are onto something. If we measure material according to function, elements and amino acids correlate in a highly interesting way. How we use the material must be considered as "functions". When we do that, the determinative functions of the individual amino acids, correlate in beautiful sequence and function with primordial elements, Tin - Ytterbium. The order of the alphabet, is self forming.

[@SurrealMcCoy]

Initial conditions. We just don't know when the "start" was.

[@francesco5581]

and why the start wasnt just one atom spinning forever ...

[@sunroad7228]

“In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).

[@osks]

“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher…

[@rafiqbrookins4931]

Circular reasining: A circular argument (or circular reasoning) is an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything."

[@blengi]

laws of nature literally come from edge cases. ie the emergent dynamics due to some interface eg edge of the universe's information phase interfacing with the out side of the universe's information phase's edge

[@browngreen933]

The laws are inherent within Existence itself, as manifested in the current universe. Did our previous universe have the same laws? Will the next universe have the same laws? Will the next incarnation of Existence even be a universe?

[@GurmitBSingh]

Very interesting

[@bradleyadams4496]

The universe is logical. It is the reason why I believe the laws of nature derive from superior logic.

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi Bradley, I would amend your statement with the observation that it is the reliability and consistency of the physical universe that allows the application of formal logic, this gives us the means to describe the apparent relationships between those apparent forces of nature, those descriptions can lead to working hypotheses which explain some of the dynamic relationships, again where those relationships appear to be reliable and consistent we promote those hypotheses to the status of 'law', essentially a figment of human imagination, but the are all still only attempts at describing what is happening and are always subject to instant refutation if significant error is repeatedly demonstrated. This all of course based entirely on some fundamental axioms which are assumptions we make because that is simply the best we can do at this time, the primary one here being thatb there is an actual physical universe that conforms to its own systematic order regardless of our beliefs or opinions. This assertion is one which might at some point in the future be refuted but until then it is all we have, we certainly cannot prove it!. Cheers, Richard.

[@bradleyadams4496]

We can't prove it but we can know it. The entirety of the universe is contained within the mind. Experience in the universe completes the construction of the universe and allows the universe to begin. Humans can know the universe is real even though they can't prove it is real because life is distinct from matter. To the matter of us, it doesn't matter whether to look both ways before you cross a street, but to life it matters to be very careful throughout the duration of life, and since you're human, you also need to factor a safe place to sleep.@@richardharvey1732

[@barryfoster453]

Ok, so how did the entity with superior logic come to exist?

[@bradleyadams4496]

The observable evidence of the instant of creation is lost to time. We can only theorize about the origin, and we have no way to observe beyond the universe. What I can deduce about the universe is that it is truely real. People's faith is real because we are real features of the universe. We are not living during the time of the pinnacle of human discovery and understanding, but it's likely that there will be people of faith billions of years from today because everything cannot be observered and understood from observation.@@barryfoster453

[@user-wx6pf2bc2r]

He's He's a freebie..

[@sammy4211]

May lords grace be us upon all belivers

[@user-dp9ch8xb5q]

Say: "Behold all that is in the heavens and the earth," but neither Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) nor warners benefit those who believe not.

[@adrianwright8685]

4:00 ? For me "a Theory" and "a Law" have always been pretty much the same thing: People speak of Newton's law or theory of Gravity. Observations are what the law/theory try to explain.

[@vinm300]

"Creation" by Peter Atkins That was a great book, and it's aged well

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

The laws aren’t fundamental, they’re just the limits from the current and the current started at the Big Bang for us and that difference cascaded through all these to create something new, like expansion isn’t just up down left right but energy allows expansion to change through the matter. Like nature couldn’t make a computer or stuff without a version of us and we are within the bounds of creation and probably one of the easier things to create through nature and its variables. There’s no reason that we are us but just like everything changes and evolves, over greater time, the difference is greater and time is a measure of distance from points or to points so it’s all how you use the reality. If anything is possible then why hold ourselves back with emotions and stuff? Well that’s cuz we are our emotions so we must guide the nature to a difference using nature.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

The Laws of Nature are mere human conventions; 'We see the world not as it is, but as we are.' (Anaïs Nin) So the laws of nature are how we explain the world in a way that accords to our own human nature. Except one true law of nature: the Law of Idappaccayatā.

[@busarawise]

The way we see the world might oscillate and it may erroneously appear that the laws are changing to fit into our present reality but the fact of the matter is that the laws of nature are unchanging same way as the mind behind the law giver is unchanging. God is unchanging.

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@busarawise The "laws of nature" come from exactly the same place "gods" come from.

[@brendangreeves3775]

Nature is essentially relational and dynamical. It is the logical constraints that form in the dynamic, that determine what can happen. An event is fundamentally about energy transfer.

[@Akira282]

At it's core, it is indeed about energy transfer or "passing the torch" metaphysically

[@Heaven351]

From where law emerge ???? Answer : From Human Mind through introspection and pattern recognizing through space and time No creator God is needed to make laws , the human intelligence is enough

[@iamZubairShaikh]

Forget about the Law...who gave the perfect value system to all matters. No Law can exist without the specific values and their relation to other matters so as to form or fuse to make other matter.

[@CrystalPalace1861]

Put it simple has I could the value of the constants express always a relationship or a ratio between variables. The fabric of spacetime universe it's like if you're living in a 2 dimensional surface inside of a circle where π it's a constant derived from the relationship between radius and perimeter. Therefore the constant emerges from the calculus that we develop to explain our surrounding reality but it doesn't means that π was a value predetermined for the "creation of universe". Bottom line the constants are something “a posteriori” instead the “a priori” interpretation.

[@francesco5581]

but "a posteriori" we see a stable, elegant and complex universe. "a priori" there must be something aiming for that. Since "randomness" is either not a creative force and not interested "a priori" to create anything complex. So is the "a posteriori" observation that reveal the fine tuning.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

The laws of nature aren’t laws, they’re just the bounds of OUR current. Like the current of earth and its matter are in a spot where it’s mixing but portions are stable. The stable areas like a bunch of water will be a medium and other matter and energy succumb to the connections when dealing with it. Like if i had an ocean then it’s big enough to have stable areas but then differences cause change so the change needs to be stable and the difference in environment will differ the complexity, continuity, like all factors.

[@timterrell8678]

The laws are the same uniformly across the universe. Everything is moving toward entropy and nothing is violating the laws.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

@@timterrell8678 there are things that are outside our bounds of knowledge but just how the water is medium for things so to is an empty/ presumed empty space. The space allows for the differences and those differences lead to a massive expansion but you can’t instantly get computers or sophisticated things. I mean maybe there’s a chance the universe could have just blew up and made us but the thing wasn’t instant and it took tons of other connections like a cascade to certain points and those points are connected to others. It’s not that the laws are fundamental but that our universe or the area so far matches the rest of the area like a pitcher separated the water and parts that make the cool aide from that outside so that the inside is a little stable and can make something else. Cells do it, the planet does it, galaxies are similar to a giant thing of mixing cool aide but different because the cool aide didn’t have a lot of things for life but earth is a point that was created and this point can lead to differences and from that we kinda grow the same as the universe, expanding but not just up down left right but through all the connections and our brains and body are made the same way, so just as our mind expands through difference in chemical processes it also uses it all as like a language and we deconstruct to grow, just like how planets smash and grow differences. I think our universe might be inside something like a cell and the outside of our area might be different beyond imagination so we aren’t grown enough to leave this environment and survive because at this point we have barely anything that interacts with our current universe like we are barely understanding the construction of it and how things are formed but we still look back and don’t understand. Just like how humans can’t see certain light or energy, we also can’t process certain forms of energy like radiation, so once our genes and such evolve greater and expand to include greater things and connections leading to greater processing and more efficiency so we can survive different environments. That’s also why we have space suites, our bodies. It’s so wild to think about and all the differences that can connect. Reality is like a giant puzzle at this point and we can see the shapes and patterns but like a 2 year old sometimes we slam a square at a circle and even though it doesn’t fit, there may be ways to slip through just like viruses and like bad ideas plaguing the society or even tyrannical governments. So i don’t believe they are fundamental everywhere but here in our area it’s more fundamental, like these are the bounds of our universes processes and stuff. I think as we expand and see difference so too will our fundamentals. Sorry for the long reply. I don’t harbor any ill intent with my words just trying to explain my thought/theory. I mean it’s similar to how the human body evolves, the planets aren’t alive because of a lot of things but small life can expand rapidly to encompass a planet if the right area is formed. Maybe god and no god are the same and we just don’t understand. Like 2 sides of the same coin but every position every potential is within its area because outside the area, the potentials limit but might make something new, like a hand picking it up and a new thing emerges.

[@timterrell8678]

@@user-if1ly5sn5f There’s no sound in empty space because it’s not a medium for it to travel. Life started out as single cellular life for 3 billion years on earth before becoming multicellular. We aren’t the center of the universe and will be extinct in only a blink of time in the span of the universe.

[@chungdhn0624]

Thanks!

[@jago76]

I thought the discussion might be about why the laws of nature exist in the first place. But still very thought provoking.

[@Don.Challenger]

Perhaps the laws of nature are what they currently are because any original alternates that could have substituted were inflated away (only our small piece is still left around here and any competitive patches are beyond interaction way far over there).

[@Resmith18SR]

No one can predict what the Scientific paradigm will be 100 or more years from now. Science should become the New Religion that provides humanity with knowledge of their origins and what possible futures our species can achieve.

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

So... where do the laws of nature come from exactly....??

[@barryfoster453]

Time. From the original parameters within the first trillionths of a second of the Big Bang, time is the key (even though it was very short!) as it is time which determined how the particles behaved, or rather how the quarks arranged in those trillionths of a second. Time (under pressure) allows hydrogen to burn into helium - a change in the structure of the atom, and that is a time period we can actually observe. But fundamental particles also use very short amounts of time (Planck time) to determine what they will be.

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

@@barryfoster453We don't have a clue where do time and the original parameters come from. And by the way, the Big Bang theory has been on very shaky ground since galaxies older than the alleged theoretical age of the Universe have been discovered... According to the laws of physics as we know them, these things shouldn't even exist. Yet they do.

[@barryfoster453]

@@Samsara_is_dukkha Ha, ha, I knew you would say about time! Time is, I admit, just plain weird. But the original parameters which form matter come from the multiverse idea, of course...that if you have enough universes coming into and out of existence, then the one we're in will be Goldilocks. Although the Big Bang itself is looking iffy due to the JWT findings, the very idea of a beginning is still very much valid. It's just that the time of it (its origin in time) evidently cannot yet be determined. I certainly think we have 'physics' wrong. I'm not a believer in Black Holes or dark matter/energy. I don't believe physics 'breaks down' inside a black hole at all, I think they are quark stars, and the laws of physics as we know them still apply inside. Dark matter/energy is a joke, and has come out of the 'science' which surrounds climate change (also total BS).

[@mikel4879]

Yes, Peter, "the law is a fundamental framework of understanding". The problem here is that the understanding is wrong. There are many so-called "laws" in the domain of physics, chemistry, natural evolution, etc. But by simplifying and concentrating the understanding to the bare fundamentals, human brain should be able to get to the true cause of the universal dynamic. So, what's the fundamental causal base of all these laws? 🤔

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

mathematics interacts with values of energy? mathematics from change in time?

[@Rey.Nasido]

Those who coded the simmulation, ergo, India.

[@davidtate166]

Enjoy the 7 fundamental laws of nature.yes

[@studlord9970]

When snow melts, where does the white go?

[@davidhess6593]

They don't "come from" anywhere. They're part of the nature of the eternal Universe.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

I’m currently thinking that laws are logically coherent relations between different objects, real or imaginary, given their nature/value. Painting with a broad brush, an example would be something like: If we have oxygen, and it is what it is, and we ignite it with a spark, then it will combust. If we have wet clay, and we expose it to dry heat, then it will harden. And these values are granted and observed by God, so it’s an idealist metaphysic.

[@user-dp9ch8xb5q]

God commanded us to look at the heavens and the earth that He created, controlled by precise scales Say: "Behold all that is in the heavens and the earth," but neither Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) nor warners benefit those who believe not.

[@timterrell8678]

We know how clay dries and how fires are made. We used to credit things like that to Gods but now know better. We know the sun will engulf the earth and vaporize it in the future. It’s time to move past beliefs in supernatural beings.

[@timterrell8678]

@@user-dp9ch8xb5q Why would a God create humans he knows that won’t believe in him to torture them for eternity? Especially when he is the hide and seek champion and can’t be detected to interact with earth just like anything else that doesn’t exist.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

@@timterrell8678 Right, we know all of those things based on our assumption that there is uniformity in nature-that the future will be like the past, or that induction is reliable. The question in this video is trying to get at what could possibly justify that assumption. If we use the fact that we observe uniformity in nature to justify our assumption that there is uniformity in nature, then we’d be begging the question. This is formally known as the “Problem of Induction.” What that leaves us with is an assumption that remains unjustified at every given moment.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

@@timterrell8678 I’ll toss my few cents towards your second comment as well. 1) I think a solid argument could be that a God would create free agents because there is intrinsic goodness in freedom. 2) If those free agents choose to be away from God, and if God is the only true source of goodness, then those free agents have actually chosen to torture themselves by choosing lesser goods incapable of satiating a parched soul, like opting for a warm glass of milk on a hot day in the middle of a desert. 3) Free agents can seek God, and a good God would actually want this. We can unpack those if you want, but those are a few things worth considering if you haven’t already done so. 👍🏻

[@harryelise2757]

Oh yes they come from something, this question needs to be broken down into multiple questions. This is an incomplete question. You do not understand the particulars of existence, so there's more to this. I'm the one 🕐 the world has been waiting for, I'm going to prove it?

[@SurrealMcCoy]

Yes, you are the one. But the universe hasn't been waiting.😄

[@John777Revelation]

Hi RLK and Dr. Peter Atkins, Happy Holidays! Thanks for sharing. Much Blessings to you. 🙏 Lord-Jesus-Christ ✝c✝o✝m

[@georgegrubbs2966]

The laws are inherent. They do not come from anything or anywhere.

[@tixximmi1]

To be inherent is to created. Same thing. I consider the Laws of Nature the Holy Spirit. And just one question? Can Gravity Co-exist with Quantum Mechanics? Tell me there isn't any intelligence behind it.

[@georgegrubbs2966]

@@tixximmi1 Nope. Nature wasn't created. It is eternal and infinite, the foundation from which all emerged. Yes, gravity, the curvature of spacetime, can coexist with quantum mechanics, the physics of subatomic phenomena.

[@MartinLopez-mo7tm]

​@@georgegrubbs2966, prove it.

[@mesplin3]

​@@tixximmi1 Consider everything. Potatoes are a thing so they are part of everything. God is a thing, so it is part of everything. Dreams are a thing, so they are a part of everything. What is the origin of everything? Origins are things. So if everything had an origin, then at least one thing would have an origin that is itself. For example, if God were the origin of everything, then God's origin would be God. I hold the position that everything doesn't have an origin. It just exists.

[@tixximmi1]

@@mesplin3 Potatoes are not part of everything. It's the other way around, everything is part of any individual "thing". I'd rather quote Zappa and proclaim, the Universe and everything else, is just ONE NOTE.

[@charlesbadrock]

Mythology is very powerful in the human psyche

[@tomarmstrong1281]

The manner in which nature acts and reacts depends on nothing more than the interaction of the chemical constituents of the basic matter of our universe.

[@truefact844]

All these people that talk of such high minded subjects, they never seem like they would be fun on a night out.😉

[@simonhibbs887]

Unlike the laugh a minute funsters that hang out in the comments 🥳

[@glenncurry3041]

Oh how desperate I am to spend a night out with such like minded people!

[@dr_shrinker]

@@simonhibbs887that’s funny. 😂 but I have a better one…. If you wake up next to a hot person, after a hard night of drinking, it means you’re the ugly one! 😂😂😂😂

[@christianrelloso2649]

Yeah. We share something that we all have.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@dr_shrinker I’ll have to tell that one to my wife. ❤️

[@karl5395]

What evidence do we have that the laws of nature are evolving ?

[@dondattaford5593]

The laws of this realm we know that what about the laws of mind

[@davidrichards2113]

“God's Wrath on Unrighteousness For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

He was wise to point out those that are God given legibility that we can read . The human dashboard and our plagiarizing paradolia is in our heads and irrelevant to the universe . But most people think of the extreme physical prescriptions we grant deterministic value upon .these are from the ancient chaldeans and their the origin of such an interpretation useing evolutionary primordial soup mythology

[@timterrell8678]

Gods are primordial mythology. Evolution is a well established and documented fact of reality. Millions of Christians have no problem with evolution. It’s the intellectually lazy ones that reject science.

[@ripleyfilms8561]

empindlement charge of sedimentry and basic equatioN

[@olivierdelyon8196]

These laws come from da Universe,there.......😲🫡

[@subhuman3408]

5:47

[@anirudhadhote]

Hi Sir, I have a simple question. Inside a factory at the end of the shift a supervisor and his co-worker are counting the produced objects, the objects are approximately the size of a tennis ball. It is their daily routine,the worker counts the objects as he takes it from the production lot and puts it inside a bag. The role of the supervisor is to keep watch so that there is no mistake while counting. One fine day, before starting the counting process, the supervisor looks at the lot and writes down some random three digit number as quantity of the produced items, in short he assumes that the actual quantity would probably match with that number. Now the question is what are the chances of that actual quantity matching exactly with that random number?

[@barryfoster453]

I presume you stated this to show that there is no such calculation possible to determine the actual figure (the chances) without knowing the random number that was written down and the average daily number of objects. For example, the daily number could be 100, but the supervisor could foolishly write 999. You say 'matching exactly' but you also say that the supervisor assumes a 'probable' match. 'Probable' is a high degree of certainty, but is undefined. He could be hopeless at guessing, so the calculation isn't possible. You have used a three digit number, which means there are 900 possible numbers, so you could say that the chances are 900 to 1...but as I said, you don't define the daily quota, so his 'probable' guess to match exactly cannot be known.

[@xxxs8309]

The laws come from the forces.

[@r2c3]

physical properties last only for as long as the physical structure they're part of... there could be other properties that we have yet to discover though 🤔

[@ihatespam2]

And yet they seem to not have any significance, since the system works without them. The Standard Model explains all physical interactions.

[@r2c3]

in the contrary, I'd say, they give significance to everything, including any model you or anyone can think of...

[@pascalonyango2427]

​@@r2c3what other properties and what significance do they give to everything?

[@r2c3]

@@pascalonyango2427 when two hydrogen atoms combine with an oxygen atom the property of wetness is created... like this, there's countless other examples that you can find on our planet alone... and possibilities are countless, if you take under consideration the size of the visible Universe... without their properties, any object or elementary particle cannot even exist, therefore an object's existence and significance is dependent on the properties it has...

[@stellarwind1946]

Where do we go if science leads us to untestable conclusions?

[@rick6429]

Laws are part of nature, they have nothing to do with anyone’s personal god.

[@SoulThrashingBlackSorcery]

We already know consciousness exists outside the body from the Global Consciousness project and the stargate project. Why doesn't acedmian ever acknowledge this?

[@timterrell8678]

The Global Consciousness Project is run by The Institute of Noetic Sciences. Noetic science is pseudoscience. On their own website they admit to using prayer and meditation for knowledge. Your curiosity of why it’s not accepted science is now answered.

[@ihatespam2]

Important points. Many people get a bit carried away with speculation and forget that most of the big developments were built on our past knowledge and didn’t suddenly make past knowledge obsolete. But there is a trend of distrust of established science and Dunning Kruger-ites.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

Do you know about dark matter and dark energy? It's a fancy placeholder for, we don't have the damndest idea what 95% of the universe is. You cocky materialists make me laugh.

[@ihatespam2]

@@TJ-kk5zf only a rookie calls it materialism. It’s physicalism. Of course I’ve “heard” about the speculation about dark matter. Have you listened to Sean Carrols explanations of the Standard Model, which shows that further info is unlikely to change it or effect causality on our scale. All that quantum Deepok nonsense is beyond you and I and what we can comprehend, but the experts, don’t support any of these Newage stories people project on it. They write books to impress non-mathematicians and non-physicists who really need to believe that they have a soul and are connected to eternity because their death denial still controls them. Look at your motives not speculations that are beyond your understanding.

[@toma3447]

He doesn’t know where they came from! He has faith they came about naturally.

[@timterrell8678]

You’re being intellectually dishonest.

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Laws of universe come from cause & effect but are not perfect.

[@mobiustrip1400]

WHOOSH! 😂

[@stoictraveler1]

I wonder if we are picking apart some grand magic, revealing (or interpreting) things which the magician never considered because he did not need to.

[@SumNumber]

To realize where these constants come from you have to first recognize the intelligence behind them and how the relationship between all laws , known and unknown , work together in a fantastic relationship between them throughout everything that is known . :O)

[@George-kg9vf]

The question is wrong. The right question is "From where does the synthetic laws come from?"

[@davidholman48]

Maybe the laws of nature exist because it's impossible for them not to.

[@michaelanderson3096]

The second law of thermodynamics have been violated - super fluid helium fountain experiment. Energy can be created, but not destroyed. Guass' Law for magnetic fields 😮.

[@drsatan3231]

Citations needed. I tried Googling "superfluid helium fountain experiment" but got a bunch of stuff about the helium foundation effect, none of which appears to be relevant

[@briangarrett2427]

Good to see you again, Peter. Very solid chap! He used to drive a Rolls around Oxford - pure class!

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

Driving a Rolls around Oxford doesn't add any credibility to any argument nor does it add any value to a human being.

[@briangarrett2427]

@@Samsara_is_dukkha false

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

@@briangarrett2427 How about driving a Lamborghini around L.A? Does that add to one's IQ?

[@briangarrett2427]

@@Samsara_is_dukkha i didn't say anything about iq.

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

@@briangarrett2427 Quite right. You didn't. But your statement clearly implies it as it clearly links the type of vehicle the man drove with "high qualities" (aka "class"). Since there are plenty of examples of complete idiots, including ruffians, scoundrels and criminals driving prestige cars around the world, the irrelevance of such connexion is clear and obvious.

[@davidtate166]

Science rules..

[@aporist]

Where Do the Laws of Nature Come From? Some of Nature, most of Academia.

[@shawnosborn8887]

It comes from nature and you cant know it.

[@glenncurry3041]

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan.

[@blijebij]

Then while making progress you will stumble upon a great problem, cause in the end reality is broader then the spacetime bubble we are at. Not everything of reality can be measured and proven. In the end things will get purely hypothetical as technology will reach a saturation level. End game.

[@rafiqbrookins4931]

"Science", scientific thinking, scientific inquiry, and the scientific method is limited to what "the human being alone" can "observe" which itself is very limited! For example, according to current science understanding, 95% of the Universe is "unobservable" therefore science in and of itself is unable to provide any answers to questions regarding nearly 100% of the universe! With this being the case then where does one turn to in their hopes of answering such questions that "science" is absolutely powerless to provide answers for? Hope in future scientific discoveries!? That's tantamount to belief! Maybe they will, maybe they won't! Maybe life after death exists, maybe it doesn't, that's another way of describing belief and "faith" which involves and certain level of hope! Science and it's scientific method is inherently a very limited epistemological approach to understanding anything. The scientific method is the major belief in science which makes science undoubtedly a pseudo-religion! Science is powerless to answer the more important questions like, why does the universe exist at all? From where did the universe come from? Where does light itself originate from? What happened before the universe was brought about and what comes after the universe ends? What is the origin of life and consciousness? The only alleged answers to any of these questions that science has attempted to provide without a doubt requires a great degree of belief to accept them as factual. Science has the very powerful ability to tell us that, fire is hot and when one applies fire to another substance it then is able to heat that substance up as well. This is a basic general metaphorical fundamental explanation of the ins and outs of science and it's potential since it's inception and defines it's limits as well. What fire actually is, why it exists to begin with, where fire originated from, why fire appears the way that it does (why, not how!), why fire is hot, and what "exactly" and "precisely" takes place in the process of fire being applied to another substance thus heating it up, etc. "science" is perfectly incapable of providing answers to no matter how much time is involved. Science is essentially a glorified way of using and applying basic logical and cognitive rationality through observation which anyone with the proper tools and intellectual background can discern, understand, and relay to the degree that science has without any real understanding of the matter. Water is comprised of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Great. What is Hydrogen exactly? Why does Hydrogen exist? Where does it come from originally? What is it's nature the way that it is? Why Hydrogen and Oxygen to make Water and why not Neon or Aluminum? The answers to these questions that science would if at all provide wouldn't be perfectly undeniably true or perfectly understood because no one would ever know if they've exhausted the full understanding on the matter without having actually "originated" it in the first place! This immediately brings us to "Almighty God", The Originator and Author of existence! He and only He alone can adequately answer these questions in their totality. Science will never ever be able to because of it's fundamental and inherent limits which science and scientists worldwide and historically refuse to acknowledge exists! Science is limited and simply can not and is incapable of answering "all" of the questions there is, period. Religion provides all of the answers to all of the questions in single verses and sentences! For example, Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 1: الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَجَعَلَ الظُّلُمَاتِ وَالنُّورَ ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ يَعْدِلُونَ All praises and thanks be to Allah, Who (Alone) created the heavens and the earth, and originated the darkness and the light, yet those who disbelieve hold others as equal with their Lord. Verse 2: هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن طِينٍ ثُمَّ قَضَىٰ أَجَلًا وَأَجَلٌ مُّسَمًّى عِندَهُ ثُمَّ أَنتُمْ تَمْتَرُونَ He it is Who has created you from clay, and then has decreed a stated term (for you to die). And there is with Him another determined term (for you to be resurrected), yet you doubt (in the Resurrection). Verse 3: وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ يَعْلَمُ سِرَّكُمْ وَجَهْرَكُمْ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْسِبُونَ And He is Allah (to be worshipped Alone) in the heavens and on the earth, He knows what you conceal and what you reveal, and He knows what you earn (good or bad). Verse 4: وَمَا تَأْتِيهِم مِّنْ آيَةٍ مِّنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ إِلَّا كَانُوا عَنْهَا مُعْرِضِينَ And never an Ayah (sign) comes to them from the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord, but that they have been turning away from it. Verse 5: فَقَدْ كَذَّبُوا بِالْحَقِّ لَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِيهِمْ أَنبَاءُ مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ Indeed, they rejected the truth (the Quran and Muhammad SAW) when it came to them, but there will come to them the news of that (the torment) which they used to mock at. Verse 6: أَلَمْ يَرَوْا كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِن قَبْلِهِم مِّن قَرْنٍ مَّكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَا لَمْ نُمَكِّن لَّكُمْ وَأَرْسَلْنَا السَّمَاءَ عَلَيْهِم مِّدْرَارًا وَجَعَلْنَا الْأَنْهَارَ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهِمْ فَأَهْلَكْنَاهُم بِذُنُوبِهِمْ وَأَنشَأْنَا مِن بَعْدِهِمْ قَرْنًا آخَرِينَ Have they not seen how many a generation before them We have destroyed whom We had established on the earth such as We have not established you? And We poured out on them rain from the sky in abundance, and made the rivers flow under them. Yet We destroyed them for their sins, and created after them other generations. Verse 7: وَلَوْ نَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ كِتَابًا فِي قِرْطَاسٍ فَلَمَسُوهُ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ لَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ And even if We had sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) a Message written on paper so that they could touch it with their hands, the disbelievers would have said: "This is nothing but obvious magic!"

[@simonhibbs887]

>”Hope in future scientific discoveries!? That's tantamount to belief! “ Let me introduce you to Empiricism. This is, as you wrote previously, the position that we can only observe, and can only know anything based on such observations and the observed results of our actions. This is inherent to the scientific method. Hope does not imply certainty, it’s just a probabilistic estimation. Maybe we will answer the fundamental questions, maybe we will not. There’s no belief implied in that. We can just be more or less hopeful of it. >”Science and it's scientific method is inherently a very limited epistemological approach to understanding anything.” Correct. This is implicit in Empiricism and the operation of the scientific method. >”The scientific method is the major belief in science which makes science undoubtedly a pseudo-religion!” Not correct. Empiricism and the scientific approach are fully cognisant of their limitations. Philosophers of science have been writing about this for hundreds of years. Also science explicitly includes a process for falsifying scientific theories, all it takes is evidence. Nothing is taken on faith, and everything is contingent on evidence. >”Science is essentially a glorified way of using and applying basic logical and cognitive rationality through observation which anyone with the proper tools and intellectual background can discern, understand, and relay to the degree that science has without any real understanding of the matter. “
 An excellent summary of what science is and how it works. I’ll take it! >”This immediately brings us to "Almighty God", The Originator and Author of existence! He and only He alone can adequately answer these questions in their totality.”
 OK, let’s go back and look at something you wrote at the top of your comment. >”Science", scientific thinking, scientific inquiry, and the scientific method is limited to what "the human being alone" can "observe" which itself is very limited! Right, science is based on observation because all of human knowledge is based on human observation. This isn’t a special limitation of science, it’s a limitation of the human condition. That’s true of everything humans know, including what we know about our culture and history, what we read in books, etc. This includes what we know about religion. It’s all just what we sense and experience. That's why different people from different cultures have different religious beliefs. Religion doesn’t have any special back door into our minds. Even if it did, such knowledge and experience would also be available for scientific analysis. Science is simply human observations and experiences subjected to rigorous standards of evidence. That’s all. Non-scientific analysis is just considering our observations and experiences with lower standards of evidence. I'll just add one comment, since science does not address the reasons why the universe exists, it's probably not possible for us to use science to falsify belief that a divine being of some sort created the universe. I can argue that such belief is not rational, but that argument has nothing to do with science or scientific evidence, it's purely a philosophical argument. Science has nothing to say on this, that's why there are plenty of theists who are scientists. For example suppose one of the various multiverse theories proves to be true, does that disprove god? Of course not, are we going to say that an infinitely powerful god could not create a multiverse if they so chose? Are we going to say that if god chose to create life through a process of evolution, that this was beyond divine power? I think that's absurd. Where theistic claims do intersect with science is where theistic beliefs make specific falsifiable claims about states of affairs in the world. If scientific investigation proves them false that can be come a problem. I would argue though that this is not really a clash between religion and science, it's a clash between religious claims and verifiable reality. However it seems like there will always be some set of religious beliefs that are consistent with and therefore unfalsifiable by any scientific evidence.

[@infinitygame18]

if you dont want to WOKE others than Fir feed Roit ,the inner child will be happy of GOD will go again to enjoy sleeping like you allmBloody Phool or Ray will shout and WOKE all the truth there love & laws of reality that fire will melt your snowhouses in reality , baki sab masti hai , aur kuch bhi nahi ray , Alone Ray

[@dsj82]

The Sun

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Law of Nature pictures reality phich out It isnt Nature phich problems but unpredictable conscieusness show imperfect phich proceendings. Law of phich pictures undertermist universe show limites of phich proceendings.

[@davidhess6593]

The concept of an all powerful Creator God is naive. For example can God create a weight so heavy that He can't lift it?

[@yuser9744]

.

[@MrWholphin]

Anything will do, but ‘we don’t do God’

[@yili3339]

Nature is no God, nature is from God.

[@Paine137]

God is no Unicorn, God is from Unicorn. Persuasive, isn’t it.

[@mrtienphysics666]

From God!

[@timterrell8678]

Why would that God create laws that don’t allow himself to exist?

[@mrtienphysics666]

@@timterrell8678 God works in mysterious ways.

[@timterrell8678]

@@mrtienphysics666 Are you being sarcastic mr666?

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

​@@mrtienphysics666, there’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼 There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.‬🤓 It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩

[@kimsahl8555]

The laws comes from the observer system, and is integrated in the phenomena.

[@mickshaw555]

Who framed the tenets of the observer system?

[@kimsahl8555]

The observer (try) to describe the observer system and the laws of nature. The laws determine the property of Nature. @@mickshaw555

[@kimsahl8555]

The maker was the potential to the realized observer system. @@mickshaw555

[@CandidaProut-hr4uk]

Gibberish.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Its a billion dollar question ...

[@alexandartheserb7861]

God is creator by invisible math laws on visiable Aether for Observer. Those 3 are 1

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Hahahahahaha

[@dr_shrinker]

I would have to say, ABC liquor stores!

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Atkins is a joke. Him and his laughable arguments have been refuted many times over

[@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce]

Agreed all Atkins can do is call people lazy and thinks that makes him a great intellectual

[@moshebenamram6020]

Didn't explained. The more you talk, the more is known that you don't know what you're supposed to know