Why the fundamental laws of nature is the way it is?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of fundamental laws of nature, questioning why these laws exist as they do and exploring the implications of different possible laws. It touches on philosophical considerations regarding the arbitrary nature of these laws and their relationship to the existence of self-reflective observers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a sense of arbitrariness in the fundamental laws of nature and questions why these specific laws exist rather than a different set.
  • Another participant asserts that there is no answer to the question posed, suggesting acceptance of the current state of affairs.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that a universe with different rules would be unstable, implying that the current laws may provide a necessary stability.
  • One participant proposes that the existence of these laws follows from underlying principles, though specifics are not elaborated.
  • A participant indicates that they have pondered this question for an extended period, suggesting a personal connection to the inquiry.
  • A link to the anthropic principle is provided, which may relate to the discussion but is not elaborated upon in the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the question of why the fundamental laws are as they are. Multiple competing views are presented, with some accepting the current state without explanation and others offering speculative reasoning.

Contextual Notes

The discussion lacks specific definitions of "fundamental laws" and does not clarify the assumptions underlying the various viewpoints. The implications of the anthropic principle are not fully explored within the thread.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the philosophical implications of physics, the nature of scientific inquiry, and the anthropic principle may find this discussion relevant.

PhysicsMonk
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
The world seems to me to be rather arbitrary. I don 't know if people feel the way I do.

Scientists apply for government grants to gather data, and conduct experiments. Some scientists look at the data, and write down equations. If those equations are sufficiently fundamental, then some people called them fundamental laws of nature. Later on, more people do experiments, look at equations, and attempt to write down a set of( or one) equations that is suppose to express even more fundamental deep regularities. The question I wonder about is "why?". Why these regularities? Why don 't we live say live in a universe with a completely different set of fundamental laws? I can 't imagine self-reflective observers can live in a universe with a logically contradictory set of laws, but why now a universe with a set of non-contradictory set of laws? The laws cannot be too simple, because there might not be any life. So, why don 't we live in a universe with a set of consistent laws, and complex enough set of laws that are able to produce self-reflective thinkers?
 
Space news on Phys.org
There is no answer to this. It's just the way it is.
 
You seem to answer your own question. A universe with different rules would be not only strange, but quite unstable.
 
My favorite answer is "because it follows from the principle underpinning the laws."
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Bootstrap model and different laws?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Can Cosmic Inflation and String Theory change fundamental laws?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Nature and The Universe, How can Nature being conscious, know what it is doing ?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Could MWI create universes with fundamentally different physical laws?
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
Undergrad Scientific law vs. theory, Newton vs. Einstein
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Graduate Questioning Hubble's Law: Does the Expanding Universe Theory Hold Up?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Acceleration in Newton's second law
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Radiation from charge ; nature of laws
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K