Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Kjetil

Can the laws of nature change?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What should Objectivists answer when people say things like "We must be open to the hypothesis that the constants of the laws of physics / the laws of nature may be subject to change"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should Objectivists answer when people say things like "We must be open to the hypothesis that the constants of the laws of physics / the laws of nature may be subject to change"?

Change from what to what?  By what method? What is the basis (evidence) for the hypothesis?  Is skepticism the basis for knowledge?  Is certainty possible?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

laws of natures are in fact laws of causality which in fact law of identity applied to action. To change that one has to change an identity of an object involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should Objectivists answer when people say things like "We must be open to the hypothesis that the constants of the laws of physics / the laws of nature may be subject to change"?

 

They should one up that: the laws of nature aren't just subject to change, they WILL change. The laws of nature are context dependent, just like the rest of human knowledge. They can change with context. 

 

We pretty obviously don't fully know the entirety of the Universe, so it's also very clear that our context of knowledge will change, and with it the laws of nature will too.

 

laws of natures are in fact laws of causality.

No, causality is the epistemological basis for the laws of nature.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

laws of natures are in fact laws of causality which in fact law of identity applied to action. To change that one has to change an identity of an object involved. 

 

Totally agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that the Universe is significantly different now then it was right after the Big Bang.  Elements had not yet formed, until it cooled a bit (someone can elaborate).  And the Universe may be a significantly different 15 billion years from now.  I'm not aware of any coherent theory (quantum, relativity) that doesn't have holes in it.  So we'd be hard pressed to state that we have some omniscient understanding of the "laws of nature" in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'ultimate' laws of nature are just the facts about how the world works that aren't further reducible.

 

The relevant question is whether a certain 'law' is the sort of thing that is capable of changing.  For instance, gravity could become stronger per mass if the thing that causes gravity is able to change in a way that it creates a higher value for gravity.

 

As an analogy.  If we lived on a planet with an almostly perfectly constant temperature (a bit silly example), then encountering temperature would lead to us thinking the laws of nature changed.  However, what really happened is that we discovered our theories weren't incorporating something.

 

Likewise, gravity strength can't change if the strength of gravity is just a basic fact about matter.  But gravity can change if its really a fact about how some variable thing is 'sitting' in relation to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...