This conversation is closed.

why our universe has laws of physics?

is it possible a law without any lawyer?
who is lawyer of laws of physics?

Stephen Hawking:
"God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"

the Bib Bang is based on assuming laws of physics

  • thumb
    Jun 4 2011: SR:
    most scientific answer:
    We don't know why we have laws of physics.
    more logical answer:
    "why" refers to a "reason": the question may be irrelevant, as there doesn't need to be a telos.

    grammatical:
    "Law" in physics is something else as "law" of a country. A bit confusing, but that's due to language.
    So in physics: no need for a law maker
    in politics and society: need for a law maker


    [next one is of topic, so admin: feel free remove this if you think this has no contributory value]
    SR: If you are unable to place your own thoughts (about what you think the answer is) between brackets (i.e. temporarily release the assumption that what you hold to be true as facts), you will have hard times understanding what other people think about it (the questions you ask).

    I think you try and ask questions to "prove" we should be Muslim. Let me tell you this: your dogmatic approach has little to no effect when it comes to convincing.

    I hope you can understand my point of view. (I admit I hereby failed to ignore you, as I fear you will reply with more questions that in your opinion would need me to conclude to convert to Islam)
    • Jun 5 2011: Good point with mentioning the difference between Law in Physics and Society.
      Laws of physics are not something imposed by someone.

      They are our observation of the matter around us. There might be event no laws of physics as such. Laws of physics are our way of describing the world. Indeed, as religion uses the notion of "god" for description of the universe, and they say god is the thing we can't understand. Similarly, scientists describe the universe with the notion of laws of physics, and they say reason for laws of physics are something we yet don't undertand.

      To sum up, religion has god, and science has laws of physics. By purpose; Laws of physics = God = Mythes of different cultures = Description for our universe.

      The only difference is that there are ways to show laws of physics are real (at least for us as matters in this world), but there is no way to show god or other mythes are real.
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2011: You can estimate the likelihood of any of them...
        And concerning physics, the estimates are near 1 (0.9999 likely to be real)

        So be careful: uncertainty doesn't mean utter relativism
        • Jun 11 2011: I will correct. There have been no way to show god or other mythes are real so far.
        • Jun 12 2011: Dear Naiem Yeganeh,
          you mean only scientific ways or all ways including philosophical ways?
        • thumb
          Jul 16 2011: I am interested on which premise the calculation of 99.9% is made. I am not touting Islam, in fact I am directly opposed but statistical near-certainties based on imaginary numbers and limited calculations can't possibly be so accurate.
    • Jun 7 2011: Dear Christophe Cop,
      Congregate for having the power to say "don't know"

      "there doesn't need to be a telos"
      This is based on an assumption:
      assuming that The death is the finish of life.
      This is a very risky assumption and not proved yet:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
      http://parapsych.org/ sleep and many more facts are still unknown.

      ""Law" in physics is something else as "law" of a country."
      Its clearly correct. Relevance? law of a country was only an example to better understanding the topic.

      "So in physics: no need for a law maker"
      Yes, what about out of physics? This is not a physics question.

      "SR: If you are unable to place your own thoughts"
      Sorry, right. OK. I hope TED had such instructions documented.

      "I think you try and ask questions to "prove" we should be Muslim."
      No. my try is other thing. My try is to people have a true and correct Image of truthful Islam and people understand Islam is different of Muslim. With no care that if they convert or do not convert. I agree your view about my approach. And I am looking for better approaches.
      Do not fear. You claimed you are passionate about truth. You should know truth is not cheap and you should pay expensive prices for truth. And first price is leaving prejudice about what you do not know or you are not sure about it. The distance of truth and lie is 4 finger.(between eye and ear).
      [if this is off topic here please lets not continue here.]
      • thumb
        Jun 7 2011: ["there doesn't need to be a telos"
        This is based on an assumption:
        assuming that The death is the finish of life.]

        False
        I state that I don't need to assume a telos (or goal)... so I leave out an assumption.

        I don't assume anything about what happens after death either... (at least not in this argument).
  • thumb
    Apr 19 2011: Is it possible to have a lawyer without laws? ;-)
    • thumb
      Apr 19 2011: Adding on that, are there laws that don't apply to the lawyer? ;-)
    • Apr 19 2011: yes possible.
      consider a lawyer with no need to set a law. and set law when needed. lawyer can set law but now not need to set.
      it is possible but not important. what now exist is laws of physics. so this question (lawyer with no law) is useless.
      the important question is:
      is it possible a law without any lawyer?
      our world is controlled by laws of physics and these laws shaped our universe including earth after Big Bang during Billions of years and we think the maker of world are these laws.
      but who is the lawyer?
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2011: And what government accredits that lawyer?
        • Apr 19 2011: not always any lawyer needs to be accredited.
          it depends on the level of power of lawyer.
          if the power of a lawyer is unlimited higher than power of all governments together, then that lawyer not need to be accredited.
          peoples who their job is lawyer are under control of power of government and are forced to be accredited.
          a powerful lawyer who set law for universe no need to be credited by a government of a very very small part of universe (earth)
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 19 2011: you mean we made the law of gravity? or we discovered it?
          law of physics exist and we just discover them or we make them?
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2011: Ahmadi you are not completely understanding my question. How can there be a lawyer that exists in a complete vacuum, without any "laws" of nature governing his being?
        • Apr 20 2011: nature is all material.
          when a lawyer is not material it can exist beyond the material and universe and vacuum.
          who enforce laws of nature itself is not part of nature.
          it is very very larger and more powerful than nature and universes.
          if you not limit lawyer to material lawyer, you get your answer.
          lawyer of universe is bigger than universe.
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2011: "nature is all material.
        when a lawyer is not material it can exist beyond the material and universe and vacuum."
        In that case, your analogy breaks completely, because lawyers exist within the boundaries of law, and law exists within the boundary of lawyers.

        Besides, you aren't really talking about "lawyers" if you give them the role of "law definers". That's a role for politicians... but even that breaks the analogy, because politicians are (theoretically...) bound by the laws they give.
        • Apr 20 2011: Dear Vasil Rangelov,
          law exist within the Kingdom of power of lawyer.
          lawyer is not limited within boundaries of law, while exist and control within and out the boundary of law.
          why you think lawyers exist within the boundaries of law?
          lawyer means who set and execute law in universe. (maybe lawyer is not a suitable word)
          anyway name is not important if you understand me. now I checked dictionary. one meaning of lawyer is who define and set law.
          this is about laws and lawyer of universe. not about laws and lawyers of a country.
          the lawyer of universe is not limited in universe.
      • thumb
        Apr 23 2011: "this is about laws and lawyer of universe. not about laws and lawyers of a country.
        the lawyer of universe is not limited in universe."
        But that's precisely my point. Because of this vital difference, your analogy is completely invalid, and you therefore can't use it to argue your point.

        "why you think lawyers exist within the boundaries of law?"
        Because that's the case in the context of which the analogy is presented - a lawyer/judge/policeman/politician/citizen/inhabitant who breaks the law is still a "criminal". If that's not the case in the universe (which is the thesis you're presenting), the analogy is not applicable.

        "now I checked dictionary. one meaning of lawyer is who define and set law."
        The point stands. Regardless of what word you use to label someone who defines and sets law, the fact is in the context of your analogy (our world), the one who fits the label is bound by the same laws (s)he defines and sets.
        • Apr 26 2011: Dear Vasil Rangelov,
          this is argument:
          (please consider driving law as example)

          1-law is a stated term
          2-the force is needed to apply the law
          3-to apply the law enforcer and administrator is needed
          4-our universe already has laws of physics

          SO:
          our universe has administrator or administrators.

          then the next question is:
          "who or what is the Administrator of our universe?"
      • thumb
        Apr 26 2011: That's slightly better (it doesn't assume the law enforcer is also the definer)... but whatever you call the "law enforcer", we still go back to the fact that he is part of the system, bound by the laws he is enforcing. If he is above the law - if the laws don't apply to him - we go back to something else I've said before - that he is a tyrant, or at best, an a-hole.

        If you mean "administrator" in the "computer administrator" sense, I should also add that once a computer is started, it doesn't need a human intervention to run. Even if we assume we had a designer who created the universe and started it, with all laws and everything, that doesn't mean he's still out there monitoring and affecting us. And let's also keep in mind that just as "the computer universe" may claim to have a designer in our image (if we had programs that are that mature), and we may claim we have a designer in God's image, that still leaves the question of what created God? And what created the creator of God? And so on and so on.

        If in God's viewpoint no conscious being/force created him... then God is an atheist.
        • Apr 27 2011: "it doesn't need a human intervention"
          computer is working by laws of physics. if law not exist, no atom will work properly and then no molecule will work proper and then no material including CPU, Hard,.. so all atoms of a computer needs monitoring and affecting to work proper. its like saying of a fish: when I am in a box of water so I do not need any more anyone to take care of me. (fish can start working but if no monitoring and cleaning water after some days fish will die)


          ", it doesn't need a human intervention to run."
          who push the start button?

          "doesn't mean he's still out there monitoring and affecting us."
          not important, monitoring or not monitoring.
          what important is administrator is looking us and who run the system can stop it anytime and can do any punishment or reward to any part of system created.

          "what created God?"
          why every creator should have another creator?
          finally this chain can not be unlimited and we name the final creator with no creator "God".

          "And so on and so on."
          we name final creator God.
          is unlimited chain possible rationally?

          "God is atheist"
          interesting saying. agree. thanks

          and updated version is:
          "there is no atheist but God"

          there is a interesting Persian poem:
          one day one person wanted to have no guest.
          one guest came to his home and knocked the door.
          the person in home said:
          "no one is here"

          why we exist?
          is existence possible with no creator?
          can "nothing" become "thing" with no creator?
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2011: Let me just say there is a flaw in your thinking, although I don't agree with SR Ahmadi. When you say " but whatever you call the "law enforcer", we still go back to the fact that he is part of the system, bound by the laws he is enforcing." you're missing an important point, that is only true in the context of human law. For example, humans also determine some laws concerning animal life (access to certain areas, reproduction) and in that case we are not under the obligation of respecting those laws because they are not made for us but only by us.
          Any god wouldn't have to be within the system of law he had set simply because he wouldn't share our nature, he would be a very different kind of being, related to us not as our equal, but superior, much like the relation we establish with animals.
    • Apr 22 2011: This is pretty insightful. Religious people like to claim that everything needs a creator except the creator(huh?) But following their own argument then comes who made the physical laws that allow the creator to exist. That's even further along chain. Nice.
      • Apr 26 2011: yes there is chain.
        earth created nature, sun created earth, galaxy created sun, big bang created galaxy, water, gas ....
        the first thing God created was wisdom (=accepting advice).
        more chains is here:
        http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/ (sermon 1, creation of Earth and Sky and the birth of Adam)

        but is chain possible unlimited rationally?
        philosophers say unlimited chain is impossible.
        we name final creator God.
        you say unlimited chain is possible rationally?
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2011: Can we really call them laws? A law is an agreement between people on how to behave towards each other in a given situation. Physics could be seen as a set of facts that are just there and we must accept them at our peril if we do not. Example if you jump out of an airplane at 1500 feet and have no parachute you are going to go splat and die. No agreement was made with the fact of gravity it just happens ( by the way I do not recommend any one test this idea LOL). They are there where they came from is inherent in the physical structure of our universe. It is there because the universe exists (does that make any sense?). Well thanks for asking the question PEACE and JOY in your day
    • Jul 27 2011: Dear James Turner,
      I know difference of human law and natural law.
      human has free will and can disobey laws. but nature has not ability of disobey. nature is like a robot with no free will and only do commands.
      perhaps name of law for nature be wrong. but changing name does not change the situation. the fact and concept still exist with any name:
      our universe shows a special behavior among many possible behaviors.
      for example why earth always should turn over sun in the same direction every day?
      why we can not change direction of earth?

      about jumping our of an airplane please note agreement is for when two part have free will and power to sign or not sign. but we have no power against nature. nature did not ask us how to behave. did you decide which country to be born?
      agreement is for when there is free will.
      please not absence of free will has no conflict with law. law can exist without free will. example: laws human make for robots.
      because we have used to see laws always with free will of disobey so we think law always is with free will.
      it is like talking about water with a fish.
      yes the are inherent. but how nature got this inherent?

      "It is there because the universe exists"
      why do we exist?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

      peace.
  • Jul 19 2011: The universe does not have laws of physics!!
    We humans invented them and many others to try and explain our observations of the universe. When a set of laws becomes insufficient, we come up with new models. However, please note that our perception of the universe, wether direct (using our captors) or through man made machines, is so limited, so our laws only try to model what we perceive.
    • Jul 20 2011: "The universe does not have laws of physics!!"
      do you know difference of Invent and discover?
      you know earth and sun and universe were working from billion years before human discover laws of physics.
      so how universe worked before human discover such laws?
      by little change in laws of physics all the universe will destroy.
      many laws of physics are still not discovered. so how universe is now working?
      universe does not wait for human invents.
      I am not talking about what human made.
      I am talking about laws is managing universe very exact.
      you know when exactly the new next years starts. this is amazing driving of earth which reach destination at time.
      • Jul 20 2011: SR,

        Do you know the difference between invent a description and the reality it is describing? That we discover how something works, and invent a law to describe it, does not mean the "law" describes perfectly such reality, nor that the universe was waiting for us to describe its workings as a "law." We might as well have described it as a property, for example, the property of gravitation, and you would have no way of making such equivocations.

        All the rest of your post is nonsense based on not paying attention to what Karim was trying to explain to you. Our models try and represent reality, but reality does not care, nor is it affected by our models. It has no feelings. Reality just is.
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2011: very well put.
        • Jul 23 2011: Dear Gabo,
          I call invent a description=discovering.
          what is invented did not exist before and human make it. at discovery realty exist but human know it and learns how it works and explain one aspect of realty how works.
          please explain in your view what is different of realty and Nature?
          realty exist if we describe it or not describe it.
          I agree you unless this that you say:"laws of physics are property of realty" I disagree this one.
      • Jul 23 2011: "please explain in your view what is different of realty and Nature?"

        Nothing, reality and nature are the same.

        You might disagree, but you have no basis for disagreeing. (Please read the other answers.)
        • Jul 26 2011: in my view Nature is collection of all material things.
          but realty is all exist that includes material universe (nature) and non-material universe (like the universe we enter in SOME sleep dreams)
          something like this:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
          I say realty is collection of all universes.

          about my basis I can refer to some facts that can not be explained in material universe.
          for example deja vu:
          "Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception (ESP) is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science.[5] Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause."
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

          or NDE
          or some sleep dreams
          or such facts against established principles of science
          and all support the human being material body+non-material aspect (soul)
  • thumb
    Apr 19 2011: strangely, our universe does not have laws of physics. laws are man made. what exists in the world is some sort of order, some sort of predictability, some sort of regularity. laws are just man made attempts to describe these regularities in human-understandable format.

    why regularity exists? i don't know, and i believe noone does.
    • Apr 19 2011: you mean you order to apple to fall? by setting law of gravity by you?
      no no
      gravity law exist and human not made it.

      laws of physics are not man made. laws of physics exist from past. human just discover them.
      • thumb
        Jul 16 2011: What he is saying is that the acknowledgement of truth and the ability to understand truth are not the same. I think a similar way to help you understand from your own perspective would be to ask you how Allah created the universe. Not the action itself but the mechanics. It is an acknowledgement of the limitation of man's capacity to reason.
        • Jul 26 2011: Dear Dan,
          "how Allah created the universe. Not the action itself but the mechanics."
          http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/1.htm
          The Creation of the Universe

          "It is an acknowledgement of the limitation of man's capacity to reason."
          agree. God always do works using tools. not direct.
  • thumb
    Jul 27 2011: NOTE: To Self

    Do not attempt to engage S.R. Ahmadi in an intellectual discussion. Simply accept that, for him, all answers come from Allah, the Koran is inerrant, he is always right and anything that does not conform to his understanding is always wrong.

    Accept that there is absolutely no possibility of shifting his understanding in any way. He is (in his own mind) simply "right."

    If you do find yourself in one of his threads (for example by clicking on the picture of a "Recent Commenter") wish him a pleasant good afternoon and quickly and quietly, leave.

    UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD YOU ATTEMPT TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION WITH HIM - just nod politely, smile, and leave (never to return.)

    :-) Bye Bye.
    • Jul 27 2011: Dear Thomas,
      1-first wisdom then Allah,
      2-In some debates I have changed my views for example about evolution but first I need proof and evidence not dogma about materialism and disbelieving God without any proof and so on. what I see is only dogma against God and Islam with no proof. you have grown with TV and movie and books feeding from one source and they have carved their beliefs to your brain and I do not see chance they change.
      3-if you can not prove some thing do not accuse others. this is not my problem.
      4-always proof and evidence is true.
      5-you have send many post to me but you never showed any proof and only repeated your beliefs (dogma) 6-you never engaged any rational argument with me and only accusing me.

      about your last statement:
      http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/74:49

      :-) Bye Bye.
  • Jul 11 2011: the Big Bang theory has some assumptions including this:
    The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the cosmological principle.[citation needed] The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

    These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[43] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the solar system and binary stars while extrapolation to cosmological scales has been validated by the empirical successes of various aspects of the Big Bang theory.[notes 4]

    If the large-scale Universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the CMB.[notes 5] The Universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.[44]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Underlying_assumptions

    but still the question remains:
    why our universe has laws of physics?

    why people not believing in God not reply? and are silent?
    • Jul 16 2011: Because the question has hidden premises. Because the question seems a lot like the wrong question. Because your belief in a god does not change anything. because there is no need to assume anything other than the universe being what it is to "account" for such laws.

      Those who don't believe in gods should deconstruct and find your hidden premises rather than try and answer a question whose answer might just be: the universe has physical laws because either they define what the universe is, or they are an emerging property of some more basic fundamental properties of what makes the universe what it is.

      This is like asking: "why does matter have mass." Well, mass is a measure of matter. So the question does not make sense. Why shouldn't mass be part and parcel with matter?

      See?
      • Jul 16 2011: "Because the question has hidden premises."
        irrelevant.

        " Because your belief in a god does not change anything."
        irrelevant

        "Because the question seems a lot like the wrong question."
        what is wrong in this question?

        "because there is no need to assume anything other than the universe being what it is to "account" for such laws."
        so there is no need for any question. this is also a question.

        "Those who don't believe in gods should deconstruct and find your hidden promises rather than try and answer a question whose answer might just be:"
        mine is not hide. please only reply the question.

        "the universe has physical laws because either they define what the universe is"
        !!. laws exist because they define? define is result of laws not the cause of laws.

        "or they are an emerging property of some more basic fundamental properties of what makes the universe what it is."
        OK. no problem. so we have a chain of causes. so what is the cause of "some more basic fundamental properties"?

        "This is like asking: "why does matter have mass.""
        no it is not like this. mass is property and entity of matter. but law are not. laws of physics made the universe. and laws of physics are not property and entity of universe.
        this is question is not of kind of question "why matter have mass"

        please see:
        Stephen Hawking:
        " the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
        it means laws and universe are two. not like mass and matter which are one. when you see sky is blue. sky and blue are not two separate thing. but when one thing makes other think they are two.
        mass and matter are one thing. but mass is an attribute of matter. laws of physics are not attributes of universe.
        but if one ask"why universe is large?" then you are OK. large is attribute of universe and question makes no sense.
        • Jul 16 2011: SR,

          It is silly not to read the whole answer before responding. It is sillier to read only a few words in a sentence and answer without understanding the complete sentence. So read and understand before attempting to answer. Your lack of reading comprehension is annoying.

          If the big bang is the product of the laws of physics it does not mean that the universe and the laws are separated. Bricks are built out of clays, and their properties thus depend on the properties of clay, but not all clay is used to build bricks. That does not mean that bricks are not made of clay, nor that their properties are separated from the properties of clay. The laws of physics are either an emerging property of more basic properties of reality, or they are such basic properties of reality. So, who said that our universe was something apart from reality? Who said that if the universe big banged because of the laws of physics then it is separate from the laws of physics?

          Why should these laws have a cause? If they had a cause then why should the most fundamental properties of reality have a cause? Why can't they just be? Why can't lines of causation stop in reality, in fundamental properties, rather than in a magical being? No reason at all. Only superstitious people who want to hold to their delusions.

          Knowing or not knowing if the big bang happened does not mean people stops thinking. It means people don't know. That's very different. And not knowing something does not mean that we have to accept a magical being as an explanation. It just means we don't know. I told you before. Some time ago we humans didn't know much about thunder. Did that make Thor or Zeus real? Of course not. Not knowing if the big bang happened or why, or how, does not make your god, nor any other gods, real either.
      • Jul 18 2011: By separate I mean separate identity. But they are together.
        Universe is not built out of laws. Universe is built out of matter. But laws control the shape of universe.
        Example:
        You have some steel wool with no order. Then you near a magnet and they find a ordered shape. The magnet field is like the laws of physics for universe.
        Matter without laws of physics are only some random matter.
        Example:
        cyclotron makes some artificial laws for particles inside it. When cyclotron is off those laws disappear.

        Our universe is inside a huge cyclotron which makes laws of physics for our universe that shape random matters.

        Universe is made of matter and properties is like properties of matter.

        What you men by realty? What is its exact definition?
        realty made laws or laws made realty? What is that? Realty is God?
        Who/what made realty?
        I think my mean of separate and yours are not same.
        "Why should these laws have a cause? "
        Is it possible logically have no cause?
        "most fundamental properties of reality"
        What is this? First define this.
        "Why can't they just be?'
        Being needs a reason. You know our universe has a start (near 14.5 B years ago) so one day they were no and they they became. So there is a reason (cause) for a nothing >thing.
        First defined realty and fundumental properties. If you have no define so you are believing with no reason that is called Delusion.

        "No reason at all."
        This is a Delusion. Please let people think and find reason.

        "And not knowing something does not mean that we have to accept a magical being as an explanation."
        Yes science does not know. But the only way of knowledge is not science. We also have logic and wisdom and we can understand causation law.

        "Did that make Thor or Zeus real?"
        People call causes in chain of causes different names. But all causes finally reach a final cause. Also Big Bang is a cause in chain of causes.
        Yesterday named Zeus and today named Big Bang and tomorrow named other.
        But when human finds final cause?
        Also unlimited
      • Jul 18 2011: Also unlimited chain of causes (not unlimited time) is impossible logically (philosophy)

        "Not knowing if the big bang happened or why, or how, does not make your god, nor any other gods, real either."
        Yes. But we can understand there is a final cause. (any name you like: Zeous, nature, laws of physics, fundamental, realty, Big Bang, final cause, God, …)
        • Jul 18 2011: 1. They are not separate. My clay example is better than your magnet example because the universe and the laws are inseparable. You can separate the magnet from the steel wool. Laws do not control anything, laws are descriptions of how the matter/energy/whatever conundrum works, not commands that they have to obey. Read this carefully before you say something nonsensical like "then can universe disobey?", because if the laws describe how something works, it means that's how it works. If they were commands then the universe could "disobey." Got it? Please understand this well first. I repeat, understand this first.
          2. Reality is everything that exists. No need for reality being "made."
          3. Why should there not be some fundamental properties/laws that require no cause? Why would this not be possible? That's what "fundamental" means, something that lies at the bottom of whatever, be that a chain of causes, or whatever else. That's where you want to put your delusion (your god), while I rather put the fundamental laws, which are, again, abstractions of how reality operates, not independent orders commanded by some overzealous immense immaterial being. Descriptions of how things work as laws do not mean that these descriptions are decrees. I repeat, understand this before answering.
          4. I don't care whatsoever if unlimited chains of causes are philosophically impossible or not. I have not proposed such a thing.
          5. Your whole discourse is based on equivocation and misunderstandings of both science and philosophy. It is useless and fallacious. My answer again: laws are either the emerging result of more fundamental properties of reality (of which our universe is part), or part of such fundamental properties. Laws are thus properties of the universe, just like mass is a property of matter. There is no need to stop chains of causes outside of reality and into some intelligent and immensely powerful being that has never being shown to exist.
      • Jul 20 2011: I disagree you. laws of physics are not property of universe. if so there is a paradox:
        please note I do not mean the magnet itself. I mean what changes the wool. I mean the magnetic field as example of laws of physics.

        "You can separate the magnet from the steel wool. "
        also laws of physics can be separated from universe and matter remains.

        "laws are descriptions of how the matter/energy/whatever conundrum works"
        yes. but why the matter of universe should obey the laws?

        "read this carefully before you say something stupid like "then can universe disobey?""
        in other comments I said about the enforcer of laws.

        "If they were commands then the universe could "disobey." "
        not anything receiving command has the ability of disobey. like robot.
        human has free will and can disobey.

        "because if the laws describe how something works"
        yes. but why universe obey the laws?
        also you please understand me.

        "2. Reality is everything that exists."
        OK. existence.

        " No need for reality being "made.""
        this is a claim. you know our universe not existed before Big Bang. any way universe has a start. you mean nothing becomes thing with no cause?
        do you disagree cause law?

        "3. Why should there not be some fundamental properties/laws that require no cause?"
        for cause law. universe has start. why started? it is cause. we go back in cause chain.

        "Why would this not be possible? "
        it is irrational. also science say universe has a start. does your wisdom accept a start with no cause?

        "That's where you want to put your delusion (your god), while I rather put the fundamental laws"
        OK. so your "fundamental " is my God only in two name. anyway there is a final cause with no cause. unless you can prove unlimited chain of causes is possible which philosophers could not yet.

        does your "fundamental laws" has intelligence and the ability of design? if yes it is the God if not so who the universe is designed?
        • Jul 20 2011: 1. You may disagree as much as you want, yet you won't change reality. The laws are inseparable from the universe. Tell you what, you show me an experiment where they separate gravitational forces from matter, and I might start thinking whether you are right or wrong. In the meantime, you are plainly wrong.
          2. I told you not to make this nonsensical question. The universe is not obeying laws, the universe is being what it is. We conceptualize how the universe behaves as "laws." But they are descriptions, not actual commands. Can you understand the difference at all? Asking why the universe obeys is nonsensical because it is like asking why does matter obey the law of having mass.
          3. It does not matter if the universe had a beginning, that does not mean it was "made" by somebody. If you ask "who made this" you are already forcing us to accept your premise (that someone has to do everything). It is a fallacy called charged question.
          4. It is not irrational to think that there are fundamental properties that require no cause. It is irrational to think that there would not be fundamental properties. You said yourself that there can't be infinite regression of causes, didn't you? So, take a decision is it possible or not to have an infinite regression of causes? If not, then there can be fundamental properties that require no cause. That the universe started does not mean there is no fundamental properties requiring no causes.
          5. Nope, your god is not fundamental "laws," nor properties, my "fundamentals" are in this reality, not outside of it, no intelligence, not beings, no magic.
          6. Why should the universe be designed?

          Please don't answer until you have made sure you understand what I am saying. I think I am repeating too much.
      • Jul 20 2011: "4. I don't care whatsoever if unlimited chains of causes are philosophically impossible or not. I have not proposed such a thing."
        but this is a real question in front of you and escaping questions does not solve them.

        "Your whole discourse is based on equivocation and misunderstandings of both science and philosophy."
        perhaps. also you perhaps.

        "laws are either the emerging result of more fundamental properties of reality"
        no problem. so I repeat the same question about " fundamental properties of reality"

        "Laws are thus properties of the universe"
        I disagree this. because if you read the Big Bang theory it says laws of physics existed before universe and the laws made universe so laws are not properties of universe. universe is made of matter under control of laws of physics.
        if laws are properties of universe so you should change the BB theory and you should reply why Big Bang happened?
        Stephen Hawking:
        " the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
        consequence means that laws are not properties of universe. because properties of a thing can not exist when that thing still not exist.

        also if we assume laws are properties (your scenario) then Big Band is consequence of what?

        "mass is a property of matter.'
        agree

        "There is no need to stop chains of causes outside of reality "
        final cause is inside realty.

        "never being shown to exist."
        are you sure? Avesind in book Asfar showed it well.

        http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Muhammad%20Baqir%20As-Sadr%20-%20Our%20Philosophy.pdf

        http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Muhammad%20Baqir%20As-Sadr%20-%20The%20Revealer,%20The%20Messenger,%20The%20Message.pdf

        please read the comments of J Ali here about philosophy.
        http://www.ted.com/conversations/1602/why_don_t_people_believe_in_go.html
        • Jul 20 2011: I already said somewhere that there is no reason why a chain of causes should not end in this reality, rather than go to a magical realm that has never being shown to exist.

          There is no "perhaps," your discourse is based on equivocation. You want "natural laws" to mean "commands by a god," when all they mean is "human concept trying to describe how the universe/reality works." Pretending that they are the same as our edicts is a plain and clear equivocation.

          No matter how much you disagree, read carefully: that our universe was formed because of the laws of physics does not mean that it is separated from them. Our laws describe how reality (our universe is all we can test of this reality!) behaves. Thus, the universe has been what we tested and what our "laws" describe. Thus it can't be separated from such laws. Again, laws describe how the universe works. How can the way the universe works be separated from the universe itself? Be careful and understand this: Laws are not commands, they are description of how reality works, which we discover by studying this universe. Thus they describe how the universe works. Saying that you can separate the laws from the universe is like saying you can separate the roundness from a wheel. We know wheels work because they are round, we could call this the "law of roundness." That does not mean that the wheel "obeys" such law. It is just its inseparable property, which we describe as a law.

          Got it? Please now don't answer unless you understand what I said. OK? If you insist on the same mistakes I will just stop answering.
          Man, go study science first. It takes years of learning, and it is thus nonsensical for you to come just assuming from a few words about the big bang, and an equivocation with the word "law."
      • Jul 23 2011: Dear Gabo,
        I understand what you say. But understanding you not mean accepting anything you say. And disagreeing not mean not understanding.
        Please use proof and evidence and do not accuse me to I not understand.

        "I might start thinking whether you are right or wrong.'
        Please say the result.

        Yes we can not change realty.

        you made an example:
        brick is made of soil. yes properties of brick is like properties of soil. but what determines the shape (behavior) of brick? there is some law that determine the shape of brick. those laws are not properties of brick.
        for example:
        "the shape of brick should be cube" this is a statement. but to apply this statement (or law) there is a human or machine needed to apply this law. I call it obey. OK you offer any other name. but this fact exist in universe.
        Stephen Hawking also theory of Big Bang says:
        " “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
        if we consider your hypothesis then laws of physics are properties of universe.
        if x is property of y then y can not be consequence of x. because property of a thing can not exist before that thing itself exist. it is paradox. when a property exist that the thing itself exist. laws of physics can not be existed after BB and at the same time laws are cause of BB. this is paradox. a cause should exist before effect. not after it.
        this proves laws are not properties of universe.

        "The universe is not obeying laws"
        Perhaps I not used proper words. But the concept remains true. There is some rules like gravity (two matter should absorb each other). Consider another rule that I make it: two matter should repel each other. Why universe does not behave as my rule? I call it obeying a rule. What name you suggest?

        Science usually says "how … works?"
        But philosophy says :" why …. Works in this behavior?
        Science says how Big Bang happened?
        Philosophy says why Big Bang happened?

        "We conceptualize how the universe behaves as "laws." '
        Agree and this is science. But I want to
        • Jul 23 2011: Hi S.R.

          No paradox. See what happens if I say:
          "Planets are the consequence of the laws of gravity"

          Sure, the planets would not exist without gravity "first," but gravity can be part of something more fundamental to the planets, their matter/mass. Thus gravity can be both, what shaped the planets, and a property of these planets (actually of their mass). Right? But I am still open for you to show me a planet that was shaped by gravity, yet has no gravity itself.

          Apply that to the universe. The universe is part of a bigger/deeper nature, with some natural laws/properties. If such properties gave it the form/shape of a universe, it does not mean that the properties are not also part and property of the universe, your equivocation notwithstanding.
      • Jul 23 2011: "We conceptualize how the universe behaves as "laws." '
        Agree and this is science. But I want to ask why?

        "But they are descriptions, not actual commands."
        Agree. They are descriptions. What you define actual command? Command is only for human? In my view a law of physics is a command. For example the law of gravity. Why two matter should absorb each other? This is not amazing? While there is nothing between them!

        "Can you understand the difference at all?"
        Yes I understand. But I think problem is words.

        "Asking why the universe obeys is nonsensical because it is like asking why does matter obey the law of having mass."
        This two question are not from one type. You first should prove laws of physics are properties of universe. Universe is made of matter so you should prove laws of physics are properties of matter.
        If a thing is always along with other thing this not mean it is property of other even if they are along each other for 100 Billion years.
        Property is what not exist when entity not exist. But laws of physics existed before Big bang. Because those laws made our universe.

        "3. It does not matter if the universe had a beginning, that does not mean it was "made" by somebody. If you ask "who made this" you are already forcing us to accept your premise (that someone has to do everything). It is a fallacy called charged question."
        Agree. You are correct. Better to ask what? OK? I mean the cause.

        "So, take a decision is it possible or not to have an infinite regression of causes?"
        I say: "there can't be infinite regression of causes" and we call the final cause with no cause the God. If you call it "fundamental properties" OK. They are the same with two name.

        "Nope, your god is not fundamental "laws," nor properties, my "fundamentals" are in this reality"
        My God is both in and out of reality.
        • Jul 23 2011: .
          You say:
          "For example the law of gravity. Why two matter should absorb each other? This is not amazing? While there is nothing between them!"

          I say:
          Why should they not absorb each other? Why should they be commanded to do so rather than such thing just be the way nature works? How do you know there is nothing between them? Where did your knowledge of relativity go, since you studied physics?

          You say:
          "and we call the final cause with no cause the God"

          I say:
          So, "God" is the fundamental properties of reality, our universe included? Fine by me, as long as you don't pretend that this "God" is outside of reality and commanding stuff, and intelligent, and worried about our sexual lifestyles. After all, I doubt gravitation has intelligence, and is worried about sexual lifestyles, and wants to burn me in hell if I don't believe in it, or can give me eternal life, or has prophets ...
      • Jul 23 2011: "6. Why should the universe be designed?"
        Please first define design and then please read this short book. (it is very valuable and is not from human. It is from God about design of world. make sure it worth the time of reading it.)
        http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/

        "Please don't answer until you have made sure you understand what I am saying. "
        I did my try. Please forgive me.

        "I already said somewhere that there is no reason why a chain of causes should not end in this reality"
        agree. but there is proofs from philosopher that there is a final cause. I am not a philosopher and this proof is not simple. But I quote from philosophers.


        "rather than go to a magical realm that has never being shown to exist."
        An example: http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Muhammad%20Baqir%20As-Sadr%20-%20Our%20Philosophy.pdf

        "You want "natural laws" to mean "commands by a god," when all they mean is "human concept trying to describe how the universe/reality works.""
        I agree you that this is Pretending . But not that there is two kind of natural laws:
        1- human concept trying to describe how the universe/reality works.
        1- Behavior of universe/reality regardless of human describe them or not.

        If human not describe them they not exist? They depend of human?
        I mean laws that exist and control realty. Not what human describes.

        Any name you select finally there is some laws that universe/reality behave exactly as those laws describe. (even before human describe them)
        What you call this fact? I call obey. What you call?
        But about what/who enforce those laws I agree I had Pretending.

        "that our universe was formed because of the laws of physics does not mean that it is separated from them. "
        This is my proof: A result can not exist before its cause. Property [laws] can not exist before existence of entity [reality/universe].
        If matter has mass. Mass can not exist before matter exist. Universe is made by laws of physics. If laws are property of universe please solve this parado
        • Jul 23 2011: (That link to "philosophy" neither shows any magical realm, nor any magical being, to exist. It's fallacious.)

          You said:
          "I mean laws that exist and control realty. Not what human describes."

          I say:
          I know what you mean. I have tried to fix your mistake. There are no laws that control reality. reality has properties, thus it behaves according to such properties. We have conceptualize the way the universe works as laws, but they don't depend on us discovering or describing them. How many times should I repeat this?

          You said:
          "What you call this fact? I call obey. What you call?"

          I say:
          I call this fact "the universe works this way because that's the way it is."

          I repeat, planets are part of the matter of our universe shaped by gravitation. Does this mean that gravitation is separated from the planets? Can we say instead that the planets are shaped by gravitation yet gravitation is still part of the planets (ultimately their mass)? Well, our universe is a part of nature shaped by basic properties ("laws" of physics) of such nature itself, but that does not mean that the universe is separated from these properties. Clear now? If I say "the planets formed as a consequence of the laws of gravity" does it mean that the "laws" of gravity are separated from the planets? Well, if your answer is no, then you can see that talking about the universe as a consequence of natural "laws" does not make it separated from such "laws," other than by a semantic misunderstanding.
      • Jul 23 2011: If laws are property of universe please solve this paradox.I showed my proof and I did not accuse you do not understand me. Please show your proof and do not accuse me. Proof and evidence and talk in peace is better .

        "laws describe how the universe works. "
        Agree.
        "How can the way the universe works be separated from the universe itself? "
        Example: laws of driving. Say cars should not pass red light. The laws are separate of behavior of cars. Also law of gravity say two matter should absorb each other.

        "Laws are not commands"
        Why? Actually laws are command. Because we always have seen universe obey laws we think they are not commands. It like ask a fish: what is water?
        We have used to see every day universe obey commands. But if one day earth say I want to change my direction around sun then you see it is not obeying. Yes this is stupid but not impossible. Why universe every day should behave the same as yesterday?

        "they are description of how reality works,"
        description and law and description are the same. Why we fight on words?
        Ok. Lets ask: why our universe work as descriptions of physics?

        "Saying that you can separate the laws from the universe is like saying you can separate the roundness from a wheel."
        No they are not the same. Laws are not property of universe. You need to first prove laws are properties of universe. You only repeat this with no proof.
        I need proof. Not repeat.

        "wheels work because they are round"
        This is not a law. A law predicts the behavior of nature.
        Roundness does not mean working of wheel.
        A wheel can be round but not work. But in law if terms of law are met the prediction of law will be done certainly.

        Round is property of wheel. But laws of physics are not properties of universe.
        What about experiment of magnetic field?

        "Man, go study science first. '
        I spent at least 7 years of my life studying physics and working in lab.
        • Jul 23 2011: There is no paradox. I told you already. If our universe is part of a bigger nature, then we can think of these "laws" as properties of such nature that shape parts of it into universes, such as ours. Thus, our universe, as any part of nature, cannot be separated from these properties. I don't need to prove that the laws are properties of the universe. You have to prove that they are not, because so far nothing indicates otherwise. You can't just come and repeat "laws are not property of universe" without showing any proof yourself other than semantics, then ask me to prove otherwise. Here's a paradox for you, if our universe can be separated from those properties we have called "laws," why then were we able to "discover" them by studying how the universe works?

          Equivocation example, human laws are not the same as laws of physics. I can drive against driving laws. The universe can't stop being what it is. We fight over words because you are making an equivocation based on words. "Properties" cannot be equivocated as "laws" can. Just see your mistake comparing driving with workings of the universe.

          The universe behaves the same every day because the universe is what it is, not what it is not. This is tautologically true. There is no obeying, there is just being. The "laws" of physics are called so because of our original preconceptions. Language has limitations, preconceptions have limitations.

          I doubt you studied physics very well. You don't seem very familiar with modern physics (like relativity).

          Please read all my answers again. You are just not understanding. You accuse me of repeating, but I repeat because you repeat.

          If you just repeat again, rather than understanding, I will just stop answering. No point in continuing. Enough already for other readers to understand, even if you don't.
      • Jul 26 2011: "There is no paradox. I told you already. If our universe is part of a bigger nature, then we can think of these "laws" as properties of such nature that shape parts of it into universes, such as ours."
        this can be true and not paradox. but if in this case laws be parts of bigger nature and not properties of our universe. please note we are talking about our universe. you say laws are properties of our universe and I say although the laws and universe are together but laws are not properties of our universe (but can be properties of anything out of our universe like a bigger nature).

        "Thus, our universe, as any part of nature, cannot be separated from these properties."
        why? this thus is irrelevant of its previous argument.


        "I don't need to prove that the laws are properties of the universe. "
        so do not claim it. you can do not accept me but at least do not say what you cant or not want to prove.

        "You have to prove that they are not'
        I showed some proof (magnetic field experiment. and paradox of how property of a thing can exist before that thing itself exist? according to universe is result of laws of physics)

        "if our universe can be separated from those properties we have called "laws," why then were we able to "discover" them by studying how the universe works?"
        discovering something is irrelevant of its being separate or not separate?
        whats relation?
        human can discover properties and separated or not separated things.
        also you still have not proved they are properties. this is

        If you say "properties" you are already forcing us to accept your premise (that laws are properties of universe). It is a fallacy called charged statement.

        "Equivocation example, human laws are not the same as laws of physics. I can drive against driving laws. The universe can't stop being what it is."
        this is related to having or not having "free will". any way both driving laws and nature laws are only some statements. who do laws is different are different. not laws.
        • Jul 26 2011: SR,

          Now you are just being stubborn. Please pay very close attention:

          I don't have to "prove" that the laws are properties of the universe. Why? Because this is tautologically true. I don't have to prove that red is the color we perceive at wavelengths between X and Y. Those wavelengths are part of the definition. What defines our universe, the way it behaves, we have described as "laws." But nothing indicates them to be something separated from the universe. Nothing, just your misplaced semantics and stubbornness at taking the word "law" too seriously.

          I did not say "natural laws are *****exclusive***** properties of the universe" I said "natural laws are properties of the universe." Please note the difference. Gravity is not an exclusive property of planets, but they are part and parcel with planets as much as with any matter/mass. Gravity comes with mass, and there is no way around. Therefore, gravity is a property of mass, thus gravity is a property of planets. Not exclusive properties of planets, but as inseparable from planets as from any bigger nature. Got it now? I don't have to prove it. It is obvious. Unless you can show me one instance where they can separate our universe from its natural laws, then you might have some reason. But semantics are not reasons. Again, study. We call these behaviour "laws," but they are not truly "laws." We conceptualize them as such, but they are not like human laws at all. Please get it now.
      • Jul 26 2011: "The universe behaves the same every day because the universe is what it is"
        this is not the reply of this question. any behavior has a cause. this reply "because the universe is what it is" is not a satisfying reply to this question. behavior is different of property.

        "There is no obeying"
        proof?

        "there is just being"
        any being has a reason. the job of science is to find reasons. if some one ask why we die for caner and some one reply "there is just being". so never cause of cancer will be found.

        "The "laws" of physics are called so because of our original preconceptions. "
        physics professors were not stupid they could use word "property" in their language.

        "I doubt you studied physics very well. "
        perhaps. also I doubt you understand difference of law and property.

        You accuse me of not understanding. please reconsider.
        • Jul 26 2011: I don't care if you find the answer satisfactory or not. Things are what they are. Aren't they?

          Physicists call them "laws" because of historical reasons and tradition. It is easier for them to understand what they are talking about, than to change the whole system. In molecular biology we have something called "the central dogma." The word "dogma" was a big mistake because there are no dogmas in science, and the name has caused lots of confusion. Yet, the concept has survived with that problematic name for decades because it is easy to refer to it that way than try and agree on something else. Molecular Biologists are not stupid, but we still talk about "the central dogma."

          I understand perfectly the difference between laws and properties. You don't understand the difference between what we call "laws" in nature, and what we call "laws" in human endeavours.

          I know you don't understand. No need to reconsider. You just demonstrate it again and again.
      • Jul 26 2011: "(That link to "philosophy" neither shows any magical realm, nor any magical being"
        The magical being is the primary cause of everything.
        I think you did not read carefully.
        "
        In the previous chapter, we reached the conclusion that the highest and most primary principle of the
        universe or the world in general is a cause necessary in essence, to which the chain of causes leads.
        Now, the new question is this: 'Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first
        source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?' Putting this question in a
        philosophical form, we say: ' Is the efficient cause of the world the same as the material cause, or it is
        not?'"

        Please read chapter four.
        Chapter Four: Matter or God.

        "There are no laws that control reality. reality has properties,"
        Oh my God! Please prove this or do not repeat this. This is only your belief with no proof. Why you enforce your belief?

        "thus it behaves according to such properties."
        Behavior can not caused by property.
        Any behavior has a cause.
        What is your define of behavior?

        "We have conceptualize the way the universe works as laws, but they don't depend on us discovering or describing them."
        Agree this. work of universe needs an enforcer. Work of universe is limited in especial rules. Why universe works only in this limited way?

        "I call this fact "the universe works this way because that's the way it is.""
        This is a circular reply and is not the real reply.
        Any working has a reason. Also work of universe is very exact. Why universe not work in other way? Why speed of light is fix and is not other speed?
        I know universe works in this way. But why in this way and so exact and designed?

        "Does this mean that gravitation is separated from the planets?"
        Yes. Because you yourself say "universe shaped by gravitation" this means gravitation should have been existed before universe to can shape it. How can gravitation be property of universe and shape it at the same
        • Jul 26 2011: I read your link all right. It is fallacious and proves nothing.

          No need to prove. It is obvious that the laws refer to how the universe behaves, thus part of what the universe is.

          The workings of the universe don't need an enforcer. Why would them exactly? Because you misunderstand the word "law" when referring to nature's behaviour? That's just ridiculous. The universe works in this "limited" way because that's what defines it. This is not circular. It is tautological.

          You must be kidding me. So, gravitation is not part of a planet because gravitation shaped the planet? really?

          Gravitation can be a property of a planet, but does not need to be an exclusive property of a planet, does it? If the universe is shaped by gravitation it does not mean that gravitation is not a property of the universe, it just means it is not an exclusive property of the universe. Planets don't lose their mass after being shaped by gravitation, nor do they lose their gravitation. Same with the universe. Some mass gets to be shaped as planets, some mass does not get to be shapes as planets. Gravitation is still a property of any mass, be it shaped as planets or not. Same with the universe.
      • Jul 26 2011: "Does this mean that gravitation is separated from the planets?"
        Yes. Because you yourself say "universe shaped by gravitation" this means gravitation should have been existed before universe to can shape it. How can gravitation be property of universe and shape it at the same time?
        For example if you shape a pot so you exist before pot exist.(but soil exist before you. But soil is not pot). So what exist before some thing is separate of that thing.
        ANY PROPERTY OF A THING CAN NOT EXIST BEFORE THAT THING ITSELF EXISTED.

        "Well, our universe is a part of nature shaped by basic properties ("laws" of physics) of such nature itself, but that does not mean that the universe is separated from these properties. "
        There is a contradiction between;
        1- "our universe is a part of nature shaped by basic properties ("laws" of physics) of such nature itself"
        2- that does not mean that the universe is separated from these properties
        Both can not be correct at the same time. If you accept 1 automatically 2 is wrong. If you accept laws are out of universe and made universe so before universe exist that laws existed. So laws are separate.

        "If I say "the planets formed as a consequence of the laws of gravity" does it mean that the "laws" of gravity are separated from the planets?"
        Yes. Because so laws existed before planets exist. And this means separation.

        Also I have a new question:
        Why that bigger nature has laws of physics?

        You see that there is a chain of causes and finally you should accept a primary cause or prove that unlimited chain of causes are possible (which is proved to be impossible by philosophers but I cant explain short).
        • Jul 26 2011: Nope, planets are made of mass, but not all mass is planets. Gravitation exists "before" the planets, but gravitation is still a property of planets because the planets don't stop having gravitation. Thus I can accept both, that the universe was shaped by natural laws, and that the natural laws are properties of the universe. This should be clear by now.

          "Why that bigger nature has laws of physics?"

          Why not?

          I don't have to accept a primary cause other than natural laws themselves. I have not suggested an unlimited chain of causes. You seem to have a hard time understanding. Natural properties are at the base of the whole thing. They are what they are. Period. That's the "primary cause(s)." I don't need a magical being as a conclusion of anything. Got it now?
      • Jul 26 2011: "Why should they not absorb each other? "
        I did not say this. I asked why they should absorb? This question is to better understand me.

        "Why should they be commanded to do so rather than such thing just be the way nature works?"
        Because they are absorbing and not other behavior. Doing a special behavior among many possible behaviors means to me obeying a command to do only that special behavior. Yes this the way nature works. But why this way? Why not other way? (I know why is not the question of science and science ask how)

        "How do you know there is nothing between them?"
        Gravity is not a thing.
        Dr. Jesse L. Greenstein of the California Institute of Technology wrote:
        "The detection of gravitational waves bears directly on the question of whether there is any such thing as a "gravitational field," which can act as an independent entity. … this fundamental field hypothesis has been generally accepted without observational support. "

        "Where did your knowledge of relativity go, since you studied physics?"
        It is my mind.

        "So, "God" is the fundamental properties of reality, our universe included? "
        All the really including our universe and nature is full of causes and all causes finally (rationally) should have a primary cause. Any natural cause (like Big bang or other) you find can Indeed have another cause and as unlimited chain of cause is impossible rationally so Indeed there is a primary cause. I call it God and you call it what you like.
        [please note the God I mean is different of God church says. God I say is not a man and is not 3 and 1 at the same time. It can not be material and it is only one]. Please do not prejudice me by your Image of religion.
        Indeed gravitation can not have Intelligence and prophet and …
        gravitation is only one member of long causes chain and gravitation has another cause. The primary cause important and I do not think science can find it before our death! There is ocean of unknown and limited scientific research.
      • Jul 26 2011: Hi Dear scientist Gabo,
        I respect and appropriate all scientists.
        "who taught me one letter made me servant"
        prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

        "
        Hi S.R.

        No paradox. See what happens if I say:
        "Planets are the consequence of the laws of gravity"

        Sure, the planets would not exist without gravity "first," but gravity can be part of something more fundamental to the planets, their matter/mass. "

        Please note if Planets are the consequence of a thing. Then all the planet including its matter is consequence of that thing.

        “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

        It means all the universe including all planets and all the materials are made from nothing and all of universe (including material itself) are consequence of laws of physics.
        So laws of physics can not be also property of matter/mass. Because matter/mass itself is result of laws of physics.
        So laws of physics existed before any matter/mass exist. This means laws of physics are separate from matter/mass also.
        We can consider a universe with laws of physics but with absolutely no matter. This is what was before start of universe.

        "But I am still open for you to show me a planet that was shaped by gravity, yet has no gravity itself."
        Gravity is an example of laws of physics. All planets and all matter are result of laws of physics.
        Also if I can not show you something does not prove I am wrong. All our universe is in territory of laws of physics. Perhaps out of our universe such thing exist. But I can not show you anything from there.

        Bigger nature is not impossible but same question apply to that bigger nature.
        Bigger nature is like this hypothesis:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2011: Gabo, why continue? :s
        • Jul 26 2011: Adam,

          You are absolutely right. Thanks!

          Bye S.R.
      • Jul 27 2011: Dear Gabo,
        "I don't have to accept a primary cause other than natural laws themselves. I have not suggested an unlimited chain of causes. You seem to have a hard time understanding. Natural properties are at the base of the whole thing. They are what they are. Period. That's the "primary cause(s)." I don't need a magical being as a conclusion of anything."

        so you accepted "natural laws" (=Natural properties?) are primary cause of realty (existence).
        now I have a question
        does this primary cause you accept has designing ability?
        if you say then it is my God only with different name.
        if you say no I ask you why our universe has design?
        and if you say our universe does not have design I refer you to such questions:
        http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/

        logically you need to know that magical primary cause.

        also all the universe including matter itself is result of laws of physics. and this means laws of physics existed before matter exist. and this means laws of physics including gravity are not properties of matter.
        by laws of physics I means laws governing universe. not what human describes. perhaps what human describes is wrong. like Newton laws. also Einstein laws are not perfect and have errors.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics

        "The assumptions of naturalism that underlie the scientific method have led some scientists, especially observationalists, to question whether the ultimate reason or source for the universe to exist can be answered in a scientific fashion. the principle of sufficient reason seems to indicate that there should be such an explanation, but whether a satisfactory explanation can be obtained through scientific inquiry is debatable. A scientific examination of cosmogony using existing physical models would face many challenges. equations used to develop models of the origin do not in themselves explain how the conditions of the universe that the equations model came be in the first
      • Jul 27 2011: Dear Gabo,
        you are right I do not understand you. because you did not provide any rational argument for proving your claims. so there is nothing to I understand it.
        you define understanding by accepting your claim without proof?
        you say:
        "No need to prove."
        "I don't need to prove that the laws are properties of the universe."
        and so on.
  • Jun 4 2011: Your answer is ME. I AM THE LAWYER OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
    Prove me wrong.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      Jun 5 2011: prove yourself correct
      • Jun 11 2011: You prove me wrong mate. God did never prove himself correct, nor should I.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 11 2011: He did and more than that you are who you are ............
        • Jun 18 2011: "God did never prove himself correct, nor should I."
          God proved by Koran
        • thumb
          Jun 18 2011: I'm going to write a book that says that Naeim is the almighty. Will that be proof enough? I'm going to write a lot of ambiguous passages. Those that seem to agree with the science in 50 years I'll claim to be miracles and the others I'll just the say the science is probably wrong.
        • Jun 19 2011: if your books are so magic so please write a book that I am bill gates.
          If I became bill gates by your book I promise to pay you 1 Billion$ as reward.
          any book of any human has errors and conflicts.
          so what after 50 years?
          are you sure your book will remain miracle after 1000 years? and will not have any scientific error?
    • Jun 7 2011: "I AM THE LAWYER OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
      Prove me wrong."
      so please change law of gravity and say to an apple go up from tree.
      only one apple is enough to we accept you are lawyer.

      perhaps what you heard is other thing:
      two philosopher were talking. one asked other:
      ca you prove where is center of universe?
      other said:
      its right here. disprove it.
      • Jun 11 2011: Why should I do that? I don't get commands from you. I do whatever I wish. Sounds familiar?
        • Jun 18 2011: because you claimed:
          "I AM THE LAWYER OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS."

          "I do whatever I wish."
          if God exist, God do with you whatever wish before and after your death.
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2011: S.R., this is brilliant, you're asking Naeim to prove himself in the exact same way as we ask God or Allah to prove himself. But each time we are met with the scorn of believers who say "why does God need to prove himself to you?". As a believer in Naiem I say to you why does he have to prove himself to you mere mortal?
        • Jun 19 2011: Allah proved himself for people at time of prophets by showing many miracles. for example Moses (PBUH) made bird with mud and made it alive.
          and Koran is for our time.
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2011: Your two philosophers aren't up to date with the science. There is no center to the universe.
        • thumb
          Jun 18 2011: Matthieu............Do you believe that the universe is infinite ? Is that your reason ?
        • Jun 19 2011: what is proof that universe has no center?
          human does not know the dimensions and boundaries of universe. then how know about its center?
      • thumb
        Jun 19 2011: No the universe isn't infinite.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2011: Your existence is finite. Your authority is material.
  • thumb
    May 6 2011: Because Stephen Hawking does not know anything but Physics!!!!
  • thumb
    Apr 22 2011: they are called laws in the same way scientific ideas are called hypotheses, theories...these are linguistic constructs aimed at other human beings not at describing the universe. You're looking at the word 'law' from a totally wrong angle.
    • Apr 23 2011: Matthieu Miossec,
      please say the right looking at "law"
      any word we use anyway our universe is enforced. why?
      for example earth has always same direction around sun. this shows earth is not free and is enforced.
    • Apr 23 2011: Dear Matthieu Miossec,
      please explain "not at describing the universe"
      so what is law?
      can you say what is definition of law?
      for example what is meaning of "law of gravity"?
      • thumb
        Apr 23 2011: See Wikipedia:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
        • Apr 23 2011: Dear Vasil Rangelov,
          I have studied atomic physics at universality.
          I want to know what is the looking angle of Matthieu Miossec.
      • thumb
        Apr 28 2011: I think you're confusing human-made law with scientific law?

        Human laws reflect each society or group with each one having a set of different laws. These laws change constantly each generation. We don't have the same set of laws that society had 100 years ago and our current laws will not be intact 100 years from now. Because 'human' laws are in constant flux there need to be an enforcer or some sort of policing structure (ie a governing body) to mandate and regulate these laws otherwise they wouldn't exist.

        Scientific laws for the most part are best common practices that have been arrived through rigorous experimentation and in accordance to the current majority of interested and relevant scientific parties (sometimes even several conglomerate scientific bodies) serve as the current definition or methodology for defining or at the very least to aid in understanding a particular behaviour of nature. These laws also change and evolve but usually based on which competing schools of methodology measure the test of time in terms of large scale accuracy or in simpler terms which seems to provide better proof for a certain scientific observation.

        The use of the word 'law' is homonymic in nature.

        I thought you studied 'atomic physics', you should know this right?
        • Apr 28 2011: human-made law was just an example for better understanding of physics law. no confuse.
          the main difference between human made law and physics law is that human makes law and no need to discover them because human himself made them and know what is making.

          but about physics law scientists does not make law. but law already exist in nature and scientists discover it. its like finding a missing thing.

          I think you explained how physics laws are discovered, not why they exist.

          the question is "why law exist", not "how an existing law was studies and known?"

          please note earth is turning around sun and has a speed. if there be no force then earth will no more turn and will go out of galaxy in a straight line way and we go out of galaxy riding in earth.
          we named that force gravity. but name is not important. the question is why this force exist? and what is the enforcer?
          is it possible a force without no enforcer?
  • Apr 19 2011: " Lex est, quod notamus "
    Laws of phisics are the human attempt to describe and comprehend what exists, or be more precise what we can see or comprehend. But how much we can see?
    • Apr 19 2011: Dear natasha nikulina,
      you are right, human always try to know and describe what exist.
      but before we discover a law that law existed before for Billions or years.
      why these laws exist in our universe?
      if we not attempt to describe nature, then no law of physics exist?
      laws of nature exist if we attempt pr not attempt.
      but why our universe has laws?
      • Apr 19 2011: You mean, why our universe is so beautifully ordered? I wish I knew :)
        • Apr 19 2011: I mean many laws exist in our universe. for example law of gravity.
          why these laws exist?
          if these laws are set by a lawyer? if yes who is that lawyer? if that lawyer is God?
          beautiful order is result of laws of physics.
          please read question again.
      • Apr 19 2011: Re laws of phisics, the physicist Paul Dirac once said, " A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experiments.''
        So the truth of a scientific insight was being judged in terms of asthetic criteria. The history of science is rich in examples. So, maybe the universe is governed by Beauty and Harmony and laws are secondary, they simply reflect our understanding of existing reality. They can change or at least be questioned?
        • Apr 20 2011: when there is no law there is chaos and no beauty will exist in chaos.
        • Jul 21 2011: Paul Dirac's equation eventually led to the discovery of anti-matter. This led to the comprehension of how Emptiness was only empty on average, and can generate matter, while repaying energy borrowed in the future. And today, we are also almost able to synthetise anti hydrogen molecule.
          Sorry, this has noting to do with this (too) long debate, but please bear in mind that our ''reality'', is only our collective perception of the universe through our consciousness. The universe might be and is certainly something else to other consciousness.
          To better understand, one would have to escape our time-space dimension prison. Good luck with the job ha ha... Enjoy.
      • Jul 21 2011: To better understand, one would have to escape our time-space dimension prison.


        -- Eventually I will, in due time, unfortunately, there is no escape from this,
        but i can't say I am in a great hurry, I love being here, contemplating about timeless, spaceless
        nothingness :-)
        • Jul 23 2011: at some sleep dreams you are out of time and space.
  • Jul 27 2011: In support of Gabo.
    We have a legacy from the Newtonian epoch. That was the time when scientists were dyed-in-the –wool theists, including Newton. The term “Laws” of physics was introduced as an equivalent to “Laws of God”. This early motive for choosing the term “law” to describe the properties of nature leads to misconceptions among those who are not deeply involved in scientific research but also those who are not well informed about the history of science. Mind, how the 17th and 18th century scientists borrowed the Greek word “Atom” which means “indivisible” and used the concept to denote the smallest chemical entity of matter. That chemical concept was proven wrong when subatomic particles were discovered. But the word “Atom” is so rooted and entrenched in scientific literature that its usage persists to this day.

    However, there is another, more basic issue that I want to emphasize. Many people fall prey to anthropocentric concepts in their arguments about ultimate existential questions. There is general tendency by many to use human language (e. g. purpose, order, first cause, free will, design, beauty, evil, benevolence, plan…etc) as a locomotive and as a frame for cosmic processes. This is inappropriate practice. It works for philosophy, theology and social sciences but it does not work for natural sciences. We need to recognize that natural processes do not follow human-laid social, ethical and philosophical concepts.
    Could we be more humble and try not to imprison the universe by our conceptual frameworks?
    Could we be modest and be able to realize that we are living on a speck of matter on the periphery of non-personal, hostile vast universe that was neither made for us nor dictated by our emotions and philosophical contemplations?
    • Jul 27 2011: Dear A Latif,
      1- name is not important. even if human now did not discovered laws of nature (or any other name) our universe had a special behavior. not important what you call this behavior but this universe is working in a special way and does not change that way. even if the name of this special behavior is apple then I ask why our universe works in apple way? this is irrelevant of language. this is about behavior and the way of working of universe.
      I am not sure this is scientific question of not because of such branches in science:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony
      philosophy and science finally are facing same questions.

      question is nature of human. you mean question and challenging is to imprison the universe?

      are you sure vast universe was not made for us?
      when you use "made" word this means there is a maker. so better to ask the maker for who made this universe. or you mean universe is made with no maker? do you agree universe has design?
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Jul 27 2011: Lawyer of laws of physics?

    I would say my physics lecturer. *seriously not being sarcastic*
  • thumb
    Jul 27 2011: S.R, Please take some courses in science! It will help you understand so much!
  • thumb
    Jul 27 2011: i'm really distrurbed by the fact that all conversations were forcibly set to expire, but this anti-scientific religious propaganda, possibly financed by some untold government organization from iran, is still open ended. how could that happen?
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2011: There are lots of chemistry in the universe and at least in a tiny part of universe there is biology as well :)
    • Jul 26 2011: yes,
      better to call them all laws of nature.
      what about marketing in universe? :) does other planets have marketing?
      what about other universes?
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2011: The tiny planet of the huge universe where so far we know biology is there, in that, some part of biology doing marketing and impacting the whole planet even beyond :)
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 26 2011: Iqbal,
      so you are terrorist and perhaps you are brother of Bin Laden. wait for US military to occupy India to find you.

      [your comment was not serious and I replied same. perhaps admin want to delete it]
      • Comment deleted

        • Jul 26 2011: I said that comment because your comment was similar comments of Muslims.
          I do not know bout Buddhists and Hell. hell has a Judge and that Judge decides to punish or forgive. I am not Judge of hell. ask himself.
          I think none of us fit him.
          I am happy I can at least make you fun. this is good.
  • Jul 21 2011: Still there my friend ??
    Don't worry too much, Just belive (like i do) that God created the Time - Space dimension, to imprison our conciousness. Actually, it is far more complex, but this should help you out get answers and close or change the debate. Good luck friend, and don't worry too much..... Live your life, and enjoy it; in the end that is what you are supposed to do ;) If you need ''explanations'', and you are not ''prepared'' things can get messy. Good day, friend.
    • Jul 23 2011: I am still in time-space dimension.
      thanks for your advice.
  • Jul 16 2011: 1. Why would the universe have no laws of physics?
    2. Why should we not assume that there are laws of physics?
    3. Why should we not assume that the laws of physics are part of the universe, or an emerging property, if not a basic one, and so on?
    4. Who said that the big bang is the latest in cosmology?
    • Jul 16 2011: "1. Why would the universe have no laws of physics?"
      what means this? universe already has them.

      "2. Why should we not assume that there are laws of physics?"
      we can assume. no problem. my question is about the assume.

      "3. Why should we not assume that the laws of physics are part of the universe, or an emerging property, if not a basic one, and so on?"
      we can assume. who said we should not assume? but the assume of one theory itself is another question.

      "4. Who said that the big bang is the latest in cosmology?"
      usually people believe it. if you ask people what caused BB usually what they reply? simply say we do not know but we are looking for it! only this and finish! no more think!
      few people have other reply for it.
      also Stephen Hawking said: the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
  • thumb
    Jul 15 2011: Hello! "assuming that The death is the finish of life." Reversed argument. Your assume THERE is something after life. Prove it. No one ever measured dead people coming back to life in modern times. Dead people live in imagination and photo-albums.
    Then: Where is heaven? telescopes do not show a place with dead people in the sky having a good time. You ASSUME heaven exists. Prove it. S.Hawking: "there is no heaven". "THE END OF TIMES". You assume it. In the "self-reproducting inflationary universe" by Dr. Andrei Linde,(google the pdf, page 102) "the universe is IMMORTAL". If this is right, you wait in vain. "BEGINNING OF OUR UNIVERSE": Again, you assume. Andrei Linde´theory makes "the existence of an INITIAL big bang IRRELEVANT". See P.104: "all parts of the universe were created simultaneously in an initial big bang singularity. The necessity of this ASSUMPTION, however, is NO LONGER OBVIOUS". "We ASSUME the universe was created at the same moment". "HARMONY ": Again, you ASSUME. Linde´theory: "each domain has DIFFERENT LAWS OF PHYSICS"."According to that scenario, we find ourselves inside a domain with our kind of physical laws, not because domains with alternative properties are impossible but because our kind of life cannot exist in other domains": Domains with different laws of physics ? WHAT HARMONY IS THAT? Religion will always fail in front of science because science is self-correcting in time (based on observation). And proving the existence of gods is pointless. It has NO INFLUENCE on our experiments, tested with the same outcomes or probability again and again. If god exists it is a passive observer in a universe without beginning, self-reproducing in infinite chaotic variations. It is your personal belief to see a creator out there and I respect it. I do not hold the truth and no one here does. Our universe is much stranger than we think. The only certitude is that we will die. May you all be happy and free from suffering, that´t what matters !
    • Jul 18 2011: "No one ever measured dead people coming back to life in modern times. "
      some NDE experiences are back to world.
      but I agree death=not back
      if some one back then it is not death!

      "Dead people live in imagination and photo-albums."
      this is if human is only material.
      but religion (Koran) says human=body (material) + soul (non-material)

      "Where is heaven?"
      do you know what is out of our universe?
      also our universe is universe of material. heaven is not in our universe. many universes can exist parallel.
      one for soul (the universe you are at some sleep dreams)
      one for Heaven and heal
      and one for our material universe
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

      "telescopes do not show a place with dead people in the sky having a good time. "
      please note Koran says people enter heaven and Hell after Judgement day. and between death and Judgement day people are in another universe called Barzakh
      please read this:
      http://www.al-islam.org/the-hereafter/

      "You ASSUME heaven exists. Prove it."
      it is based on proofs of prophets. prophets (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, (PBUT)) showed proofs and evidences for their claims. their today proof is Koran.

      S.Hawking: "there is no heaven"
      proof?
      "the existence of an INITIAL big bang IRRELEVANT"
      OK. but topic is about laws of physics. not BB

      laws exist with or without BB

      "each domain has DIFFERENT LAWS OF PHYSICS"
      agree. each universe has different laws of physics

      "Religion will always fail in front of science because science is self-correcting in time"
      which religion you mean?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
      each is different case.

      "If god exists it is a passive observer in a universe without beginning, self-reproducing in infinite chaotic variations. "
      why passive? you think evolution works with no control?
      perhaps without beginning in time. but not without beginning in causes chain.
      please expand your think beyond time.
      the problem is after death if we are not all material.
  • Jun 30 2011: why our universe has laws of physics?
  • Jun 4 2011: One more question? Is it possible to have a God without a God. In other words, if God made the universe, who made God? If God has always been there by itself, why universe can not be there by itself.
    • Jun 7 2011: unlimited chain of cause is impossible and what has no creator is called God.
      universe is material and both philosophy and science say universe could not existed for unlimited time and has a start time. (Big Bang in science). and philosophy says existence of universe without any cause is impossible.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Jun 7 2011: right, well said SR
      • Jun 11 2011: The unlimited chain is a neat way to skip the question. We know that universe can exist for unlimited time (there is a few TED talks about this particular topic) and the idea of multiverse also says it could be there from unlimited past.

        Scientists don't believe that Big Bang is the beginning of universe. They believe Big Bang is the beginning of universe. Yet they don't naively conclude that because we don't know what happened before Big Bang, thus; some super-natural thing called God has made it.

        The universe (or multiverse) can exist by itself and can alone be the god. What you see as matter are just effects of the laws of physics and nothing has gets created or destroyed.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jun 11 2011: I would like to know that TEDtalks .
          It's is right the scientist don't naively conclude that, this is normal and has to be so (as long as we think that science isn't 'naive' ) but they also can't say that God wasn't the being who created the universe .
          The idea of multiverse isn't an argument for the unlimited time of our singular universe .
        • Jun 12 2011: "We know that universe can exist for unlimited time"
          can you show some evidence for it?
          you mean unlimited time in past or in future?

          please read this again:
          "Scientists don't believe that Big Bang is the beginning of universe. They believe Big Bang is the beginning of universe."

          please not science perhaps have some hypothesis about it. but as I said philosophy says unlimited chain of causes is impossible (not science).

          "The universe (or multiverse) can exist by itself"
          proof?

          "What you see as matter are just effects of the laws of physics"
          yes. but why our universe has laws of physics?
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: Dear S.R

          One funny fact is that religious people refer to a 1000 year old book (or more?) as the truth. And when every single scientific discovery has proved you wrong, instead of turning the page and embracing universal knowledge: you set back gods appearance in earth matters.

          When has any religious book talked about dinosaurs, black holes, and the big-bang? now that you see that things were here before mankind, you say that God was before the things that were before mankind, but what you obviously can't see, and what atheists have seen since the beginning, is that gods appeared with mankind.

          Big bang and physics, are way more complicated than these beliefs. Religion used to be an answer when we couldn't find one; today it has become a weapon to oppress the poor and keep them in ignorance, the main purpose of wars and deaths, religion the sickness of humanity. You can put it in parallel with antibiotics: at first its good and helps you, but if you're not careful and don't stop taking them, they can kill you. Religion has today not given a single valuable answer, and you're only answer to things as we can see in this discussion are: do you have proof? how do you know? ect...

          Now, you are a fanatic, I'm obviously never going to convince you, and even though my points, and arguments, are simple they are true; because based on thousands of years of history, as on the other hand religion is pretty much the same as it was a long time ago.
          Please tell me how it has evolved??

          The question I have for you is: why are you religious? (you can answer as I could say why I'm an atheist) And why a refined person like you don't want to go with human evolution of thought? And as I love exploring different point of views, please don't answer by asking proof, all the religious people I know use that :/

          PS: If the quality of my English is bad, Its not my first language.

          Voltaire: ''moins de superstitions, moins de fanatisme; et moins de fanatisme, moins de malheurs."
        • Jun 18 2011: "One funny fact is that religious people refer to a 1000 year old book (or more?)"
          why funny?
          how much is the age of 2+2=4?
          do you refer it?
          any thing old is false?

          "And when every single scientific discovery has proved you wrong"
          for example?
          show only one scientific discovery proving Koran has one error.
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/2328/is_koran_scientifically_a_mira.html?c=243619

          "When has any religious book talked about dinosaurs, black holes, and the big-bang? "
          why a holy should say all things? some is enough.

          "gods appeared with mankind. "
          who made Koran?

          "the main purpose of wars and deaths, religion the sickness of humanity.
          its greed. not religion.
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/2524/what_s_your_opinion_about_the.html?c=241688

          "Please tell me how it has evolved??"
          by revelation and making Koran.

          "why are you religious?"
          Koran

          "why a refined person like you don't want to go with human evolution of thought? "
          I want and there is no conflict.

          "Voltaire: ''moins de superstitions, moins de fanatisme; et moins de fanatisme, moins de malheurs.""
          prove Koran is superstitions
  • May 27 2011: what is final conclusion of this topic?
    can we consider this argument as a proof for existence of a enforcer/manager/creator of our universe?
    yes or not?
    if yes why you do not confirm?
    if no what is your evidence?
  • May 3 2011: can we have the honor of seeing comment of Stephen Hawking here?
  • Apr 26 2011: is it possible that some creatures created these laws? that is, perhaps human beings are in fact living in a condition (what we call the universe) that is created by another species, and how they created it is out of our knowledge and imagination. they created the laws, that is how everyhting is going to behave. just like your fish pradox. we human beings don't know what is the origin of the laws, but then, some creatures might have created these laws. just like fish in a tank can never figure out why there is water. they think this is how the universe looks like, full of water. but they never know that human put the water into the tank.
    • Apr 27 2011: "is it possible that some creatures created these laws?"
      yes possible:
      this is one possiblity:
      Koran says God has many angles special for executing laws of physics and Indeed angles are creatures:
      http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/43:19 (angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful)
      and its explain:
      http://www.al-islam.org/sahifa/dua4.html :
      (the keepers of the rain,
      the drivers of the clouds,
      14 him at whose driving's sound is heard the rolling of thunder,
      and when the reverberating clouds swim before his driving,
      bolts of lightning flash;
      15 the escorts of snow and hail,
      the descenders with the drops of rain when they fall,
      the watchers over the treasuries of the winds,
      those charged with the mountains lest they disappear,
      16 those whom Thou hast taught the weights of the waters
      and the measures contained by torrents and masses of rain; )

      http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/1.htm (Among them are the protectors of His creatures)

      "some creatures might have created these laws."
      yes, agree. maybe our universe is created inside a larger universe. like galaxy comparing universe.
      also as another theory for scientists Koran and Muhammed sayings say that our universe is first sky and totally there is 7 sky like onion.
      http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/71:15
      http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/67:3

      if some creatures have created these laws then we have a chain and next question is:
      "is this chain of creatures limited and has a final creator or it is unlimited?"
      "is unlimited chain possible rationally?"
  • Apr 26 2011: other questions are:
    why we and our universe exist?
    if for Big Bang, then:
    why Big Bang happened?
    does not Big Bang need any energy?
    what is the source of energy of Big Bang?
    usually any explosion has a chaos shape.
    why the result of Big Bang is not chaos?
  • Apr 26 2011: You may be the victim of a translation issue in regards to "law". When speaking of a "law" in English science literature, we do not need to refer to a "lawyer". This is a false association between legal policies enforced by groups and scientific theories which have sufficient evidence to be considered "laws" by the overall group of scientists. Laws of science are our interpretations and theories, supported by many observations. The support of a theory which explains an observation does not necessitate "an enforcer" of that observation beyond what is explained in the theory.

    Perhaps it would be possible to rephrase the question? As it's worded, it comes across as a logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Apr 25 2011: I do think that someone have created this universe and have set the law of physics but I don't know how to answer at your question because in my opinion the universe is how it is only because has this laws of physics (if this laws of physics wouldn't exist , this universe wouldn't exist, the laws of physics are a part from the universe ) so your question is reduced to me at something like : why the universe is universe? which doesn't make too much sense , what do you meant to say by this question?
    • Apr 26 2011: Dear Eduard Ghiur,
      yes right,
      but can your wisdom and rational think accept there exist a law with no enforcer behind it?

      "why the universe is universe?" is axiomatic and needs no reason.

      universe is universe because both are one. our rational say "universe is universe"

      "why the universe is universe?" question can not be compared by question of this topic.

      this question is not axiomatic and can have a rational answer:
      (please consider driving law as example)
      1-law is a stated term
      2-the force is needed to apply the law
      3-to apply the law enforcer and administrator is needed
      4-our universe has already laws of physics applied
      SO:
      our universe has administrator or administrators.

      then the next question is:
      "who/what is/are the Administrator(s) of our universe?"
      • thumb
        Apr 26 2011: and once that question gets answered, who will write the draft bill to repeal the law...of gravity.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Apr 27 2011: I believe in a creator.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        May 1 2011: "“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”" I agree with Stephen Hawking on this , perhaps the universe can create itself but this doesn't prove that the universe isn't created.
        • May 3 2011: in that case still the question remains:

          "why our universe has laws of physics?"
  • Apr 21 2011: laws of physics in our universe for humans is like water for a fish in a deep ocean.
    if you ask a fish at the end of a deep and dark ocean: "why our universe has water?" it is like you ask a human "why our universe has laws of physics?"
    maybe the fish reply you: what is water? I do not know water. I not need water. let me do my play. I do not want to believe in sun and its energy and it is not important who created water and me and everywhere is like here. but fish do not know there is air and sun out of water.
    laws of Nature for fish is not laws of Nature for human.

    are the laws of physics at out of our universe same as laws of physics in our universe?

    that fish never seen air. never seen light, never seen sun. and fish do not know sun.
    the story of that fish speaking about sun is the story of human speaking about God.

    Even after all this time The sun never says to the earth, "You owe Me." Look what happens with A love like that, It lights the Whole Sky. ~ Hafiz

    http://lh5.ggpht.com/_kqBaOUq7bS4/ShoZj0XnDOI/AAAAAAAAAEs/gv0tSDhW5GE/P5230099.JPG
  • Apr 21 2011: Dear Vincine Fallica,
    finally who is the enforcer of laws of nature?
    who is lawyer of laws of nature?
    please read sayings of hawking.
  • Comment deleted

    • Apr 19 2011: Human laws are not always based on God's laws. for example driving laws.
      science discover and describe laws of nature like law of gravity.
      this is the other form of question:
      why Nature is geometric and mathematical?
      When it comes to comprehending the laws of nature, we are the 'describer' or 'discoverer', not 'lawyer'
      if we set another law instead of law of gravity in universe, then we are 'lawyer'
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 19 2011: Dear ,
          why you say "there is no such thing as a 'lawyer'"? are you sure there is no lawyer? can you prove what you say? isn't it better to say at least: "I do not know"
          why they are necessary building blocks? what you say is other form of same question
          why our universe has such necessary building blocks?
          this is the same question. just in other form
      • Apr 20 2011: Just little contribution here:

        >Human laws are not always based on God's laws. for example driving laws.<

        ALL human laws exist to preserve homeostasis in the face of the physical world. For example: We obey driving laws so we are subject to laws of physics that enable us to continue living (stopping at red lights), vs. other laws of physics that would impede our life (not stopping and thus possibly crashing).
  • Apr 19 2011: I think the analogy you were going for was laws without enforcement.

    There are 2 obvious fundamental misunderstandings in your proposition.

    1-They are called laws because humans gave them that name.

    2-The laws of nature cannot be broken, so they do not need an enforcer.
    • Apr 19 2011: Dear Deaven Morris,
      name is not important, law or order or other name. why they exist in our universe?
      why laws of nature can not be broken? I know law of nature can not be broken by human. but question is why these law of nature exist? can these law exist by no lawyer?
      can the law of nature be broken by lawyer of laws of nature?
      we think the law of nature can not be broken because we have not seen these laws be broken before. but if we see one time one law of nature is broken then we accept the law of nature can be broken.
      • Apr 19 2011: If we see a law of nature being broken, then we change our idea of it. It is no longer a law then.

        I think I already made the point that laws that cannot be broken do not need enforcement.

        The question about why order exists in the first place is is a much bigger question. It has a a lot(well everything) to do with the very fabric of space-time.
        But then you can ask why is their space-time?
        My answer to that can only be it is because it is, and if it weren't we certainly wouldn't be talking about it.
        • Apr 20 2011: Dear Deaven Morris ,
          why laws of nature can not be broken? are you sure can not? if you not see it broken it means that law never break?
          if you not seen it just mean you not seen. not mean it cannot be broken.
          why laws that cannot be broken do not need enforcement.
          if a law can not be broken it shows the high power behind that law.
          any law need enforcement to be executed.
          with no enforcement no law will be executed.
          how you accept a law being carry out with no enforcement?
          please think more about this:
          "laws that cannot be broken do not need enforcement."

          laws that cannot be broken has unlimited enforcement.
      • Apr 20 2011: Why have a police force if it is impossible to steal etc.?
        • Apr 20 2011: if it is impossible to steal, then police is useless. if consider police is just for steal.
  • Apr 19 2011: Stephen Hawking:

    God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics,

    http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/09/02/god-did-not-create-the-universe-gravity-did-says-stephen-hawking/