Q&A: On the Physico-Theological Proof — The Cause of the Laws
On the Physico-Theological Proof — The Cause of the Laws
Question
If a logical or mathematical basis is found for the laws of nature, then there is no proof from their complexity. Clearly there is such a basis even if God exists, for the laws as they are known to us are only a factual description of reality, and there must be a reason they operate on the world, [unless you assume that the laws are only an illusion and God does everything…]
In particular, according to your approach that there is a flaw in the “God of the gaps,” this too is included, since science may one day find an explanation in the necessity of the laws, [but you did not explain what the flaw is in the God of the gaps, you only proved that if so science would not have developed]
[Not so related — at Berkeley University they search for frequencies; obviously if they find them that indicates life, since we go by what is familiar, knowing that life exists]
Answer
If you want to ask something, please formulate the question clearly and in an orderly way. Not in riddles.
Discussion on Answer
Maybe I didn’t explain enough:
There are two issues: 1. Why the laws exist.
2. Once laws exist, how do they affect the world [for example, state laws affect because of the punishment given to one who violates them; mathematical/logical laws exist because of their necessity.]
If the laws of nature are derived from logic, then question 1 does not exist. [As the Rabbi wrote in the book The First Available Being.]
My claim is that if we know the answer to 2, then question 1 will automatically be solved, and question 2 requires an explanation even if God exists.
Thanks for everything; the Rabbi’s books and website have helped me a lot. I feel tremendous gratitude.
I don’t understand. In my view there cannot be a purely mathematical-logical source for the laws of nature. They are not merely formal (rather, they contain some non-necessary content). If they had a purely logical source, then there would be no difference between mathematics and physics (observation in physics would not be required).
I didn’t understand question 2. What does it mean, how the laws affect things?
I don’t understand what’s unclear. How do the laws of nature affect the world?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The laws as they are known to us are only facts[!]. For example, gravity—objects are drawn to the earth. “The force of gravity” is a force that necessarily exists, because observation discovered its existence.
What does “gravity” mean? The essence of the force is not understood by us!!!!!!!!
My claim is that if we know the answer to this question, [what gravity is, or any other law] we will understand their cause, and if they have a cause [perhaps a necessary one] the proof collapses, because then one need not say that someone legislated these laws.
I don’t understand what you don’t understand that isn’t understood. I don’t understand what you’re asking. There is gravity and it causes attraction between bodies. That’s all. What do you want to understand here? Do you want to see the force with your eyes?
And when you know the answer to that question, please update me, and then we’ll think further.
I want to see the force with my eyes. Yes. Or with the eyes of the mind.
Right. I won’t see it. But it exists! Besides the fact that objects are attracted, there is also a force!!!!!!!!
The statement “there is gravitational force, therefore objects are attracted” has 3 possibilities:
1. Dissonance, saying words without understanding. Objects are attracted, but we do not mean that a force of gravity exists.
2. There is a God who governs the world; He makes it appear as though there are laws according to which it operates.
3. There are laws of nature! There is gravity even though I do not understand what it means.
Assuming the Rabbi does not make assumption 2 and does not understand 3, the assumption is that the laws of nature do not exist! Even then one must understand why they exist.
If we assume that there are laws of nature—they have an explanation even if apparently we will not find the explanation in our world.
If an explanation exists, whatever it may be, it refutes the physico-theological proof.
[And if you say this also about randomness—the cosmological proof is weakened as well.]
I would be glad if you would explain what you mean by the sentence “there are laws of nature.”
Thank you very much.
I also join the question of making it intelligible what these laws are and how “gravity” actually pulls. Is it some abstract theoretical entity (one?) that moves all the particles throughout the entire world? And how does it pull them? (It really seems similar to free will moving electrons “without a physical cause.”) Because of that I am very inclined toward a “conventionalist” view of forces, and I try to make do only with conservation laws.
By the way, I seem to remember that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance made a big deal out of this matter of laws of nature being mysterious demons sawing through the space of the world.
Cardigno,
That’s not what I meant. I may very much want to understand the laws of nature, but I think this desire will never be fulfilled.
My question is: even though I may never understand the laws of nature[!], when I say laws of nature I mean that there are existing laws! If laws exist, they have an explanation. Maybe a necessary one. [And even if not, there is still an explanation.]
If there is a cause for the laws, there is no proof of the existence of God.
So in one respect I’m in the same boat as you. If the “law” is some kind of spiritual entity that generates the physical phenomena (what you call “the laws exist”), then I’m not looking for a cause for the existence of that entity any more than I look for a cause for the physical world itself (and both this and that are proof of a Creator, as Rabbi Michi writes—both their existence and the complexity that comes from them, and likewise even if there is another “entity” that produces laws and is the cause of the laws before us). It’s just that the thing itself is hard for me to grasp.
[I’m not sure about the theoretical foundation, but when solving with Lagrangians one doesn’t deal with forces, only with energies and conservation laws (symmetries). That is, I remember they showed equivalence to Newton’s laws, but I don’t know whether somewhere there in the theory they use the hypothesis of forces (I think not). Conservation laws are somehow easier for me to understand than laws of nature such as gravity, though even about that I’m not sure there is a difference. And if there are no forces in the world, then how does the wondrous miracle happen that one can solve things with forces as well (usually more difficult and exhausting) — honestly I haven’t the faintest idea. In general my mouth has been hanging open ever since I saw that the principle of least action reconstructs mechanics on its own, to this day. I do not understand this black magic.]
In any case, let’s listen for an answer.
Since none of us has any idea what the force of gravity looks like (does it even have a look?), I don’t understand the point of this whole discussion. As I understand it, it does not touch the physico-theological proof in any way. Whatever the law may be, it is special and creates interesting things, and therefore it requires a cause or a creator. That’s all. And even if there is no such entity as the force of gravity (and then there are no gravitons, for example), still the mode of operation of the law of gravity requires explanation.
And in the teleological formulation (for Lagrangians and Hamiltonians) it is even stronger.
I don’t see any point in this discussion.
We’re not on the same wavelength.
I’m very interested in what gravitons look like; I’m also interested in last year’s snow. Also the sunset in Indonesia.
I’ll explain my question: the “law of communicating vessels” does not make me wonder who created it; gravity causes it—there is a logical explanation on the basis of the laws known to us [even though they are not understood]. Gravity is the wonder, and understanding it and understanding the basic laws of the world is an impossible task, since we are inside it, and we have no ability to understand its essence, and therefore also all the laws that came into being in its creation.
But there is an explanation, and I will explain why there certainly is an explanation [in addition to God]—because after [or before] the laws exist, forces exist!!! This means there are not demons called gravitons that chose to pull everything toward them; rather, it is a deterministic force in objects, and a force in their very essence must have a meaning, even if someone created the force—still, He created a force!! And a force necessarily has an explanation of how it operates.
[“How,” not “why.” If we know how, we will also know why.]
I ask that the Rabbi explain what he means when he says “graviton”!
1. A demon / God / witches / any supernatural force — there is not really such a force in nature.
2. A force that really exists in objects — there is a real force in nature.
3. Force and the law of gravity are one and the same, our subjective description of reality; in reality itself there are no forces at all, and apart from “I think therefore I am” we know nothing about reality.
If 2 is correct, there must be an explanation of what the force is [such that there is a law that reveals to us that the force exists],
even if there is no chance that we will find the explanation, that does not mean it does not exist—just as God exists even if no one recognizes Him, so too the explanation of the force necessarily exists, and again, not necessarily an explanation of why it exists, but also an explanation of how it exists would seemingly solve for us the riddle of why it exists.
Sorry for the length. I really had trouble expanding the explanations; I do not see another side.
I’ve completely lost you, and this discussion seems to me a waste of time. So with your pardon I’ll stop here.
Too bad, because for me this is very important. As far as I’m concerned, it refutes the proof for God.
I’d be glad if the Rabbi would just express his opinion on whether there really are natural forces or not.
There are two options regarding the laws of nature—
1. There are no laws that really cause anything to act. There is simply a way things always operate in order to “hide the Creator,” who in fact causes everything in our world.
2. The laws have a reason why they operate as they do.
If there is a logical reason for the laws, then there is nothing surprising about their complexity, [or alternatively—even if that claims to explain reality, the existence of the Creator still does not provide an explanation].