There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
The notion of laws came from an idea that the universe has a master whom it obeys. They are actually regularities we have observed and there's nothing to say that they won't change.
You understate your case; as new observations arrive the apparent regularities change and thus new or modified laws arise, this is (hopefully) a continuing process. I like your explanation of the origin of the term 'Laws'. It is an unfortunate term to use for a specific type of scientific description.
@Stefano Portoghesi Unless you can prove that multiverse is true, you have no way of explaining why physical constants are the way they are. Answer for this question can not come from science.
@@mattmatt245 The universe is the way it is. The idea that it could have been any other way is speculative and counterfactual as is any claim to know why it exists at all.
“Plato describes prisoners who are chained in a cave and can see only shadows that things outside cast on the cave wall. […] We have not been able to get out of this cave, but by looking long and hard at the shadows on the cave wall, we can at least make out the shapes of symmetries, which though broken, are exact principles governing all phenomena, expressions of the beauty of the world outside.” ~Steven Weinberg
I wonder if you understand that the word "we" means points to or indicates the user of the term - that is*you*and his immediate interlocutor and since you have no immediate interlocutor that just leaves *you and **only* *you*- there is no we, we being imaginary or a compound of piecemeal and seriatim experiences
So true! The simple answer is that they were written into the Big Bang. If they were not laid down at that point in time then we would not be here to discuss the issue!!
@@user-k229 I think he actually addresses the question in a different video in his series. The question of -- before the big bang, before there was anything, the presumption is that there were "laws" that ALLOWED things to come into being. Why were there "laws" to govern anything before there was anything? What made the laws exist in the first place? Unanswerable questions, but legit. This video however does not even touch that question.
He did actually address this question in this video, very clearly, but apparently most viewers here only have memory for the later half of the video. He said all non purely empirical laws come from a deeper set of laws, and the deepest as of now are those of the standard model. He then states that the answer to where the laws of the standard model themselves come from is we don't know.
With humility, I’m sad to say, Mr weinburgs assumption on “laws of nature” shows his lack of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. These “laws” are mere illusionary forces in the world. They are NOT an actual acting force in the world. Science is our way of bookmarking these occurrences and patterns we see in the future. And looking into Ghazalis work, sorry to say, but I’m just astounded by how mr. weingburg just brushes him aside as if he was some joke or intellectually dismissive
common atheist claim without merit. Laws are prescriptive - relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method. The history of the periodic table makes this abundantly clear. We were able to predict elements and their properties because the elements follow a rule and have a method by which you can predict. We have become aware of structures from Mathematics before we ever discovered them ( blackhole etc). the laws are not just describing what we see they are a pattern by which we have predicted things we haven't seen.
@@ImtoolVideos laws can be used to your advantage(in science) because they never change. It doesn't explain their existence even though you can use them to predict an outcome.
@@ImtoolVideos You're deliberately conflating SCIENTIFIC LAWS (which are descriptive only and don't propose any underlying mechanism nor hypotheses to test it) with the articles of a LEGAL SYSTEM (which are invented with the intention of prescribing behavior or responses to behavior.) Do some background reading about science.
Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random natural processes have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
Not closer to the truth on this one. The question remains unanswered. The title talks about where the laws come from but the question is what characterized them. Not the same.
With humility, I’m sad to say, Mr weinburgs assumption on “laws of nature” shows his lack of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. These “laws” are mere illusionary forces in the world. They are NOT an actual acting force in the world. Science is our way of bookmarking these occurrences and patterns we see in the future. And looking into Ghazalis work, sorry to say, but I’m just astounded by how mr. weingburg just brushes him aside as if he was some joke or intellectually dismissive
perhaps you don't quite understand that answers are merely the corpses of questions but you have been conditioned to be unable to remain alive awake and interesting in front of a question without killing it and you cannot free yourself from your conditioning any more than a computer can free itself from its programming
@@factsdontcare4feelings24...you start "with humility" and then pretend to have some deeper philosophical insight than Weinberg. Doubtful. Also, philosophy is great when done rationally along with observation and experimentation...but by itself is nothing more than "common sense"...in parentheses because our "common sense" is often proven wrong by observation and experimentation.
The question in the title is never addressed. Mr. Weinberg talks about the laws of the universe and how we "have them", but never adfresses why they exist or how they came to exist. They just "are". This discussion does not address how the laws came to exist.
The laws is integrated in the phenomena - if we have a magnetic phenomenon we also have laws of magnetism, if we have a biological living cell we also have laws of the living cell ...
The older I get the more mindblowing I find these laws. Elegance and Beauty are definitely apt. Even the simpler discoveries, I often bask in wonder for hours at. Imagine being that person who discovers a law. You're the first mind in human history to know it. The exhilaration must be like none other.
are not what you call "laws" merely descriptions? There are two kinds of law or rule: prescriptive and descriptive, not that law and rules are identical, but what men call laws in relation to phenomena of the conditions in which they find themselves are a descriptions of those phenomena are they not - they are describing what is invariably the case
What are you*Calling* law or laws, gravity, the square cube law, he inverse square law, the law of decreasing returns, the god-be-so-clever-that-he-never-made-two-mountains-without-putting-a-valley in-between law or what? Do laws *Pre_scribe or De*_scribe, predict or demand? A lawyer or philosophy of lawyer will tell you that law(in the sense of so-called 'man-made'laws) is a compound or portmanteau concept embracing hierarchies of norms , and that a human law is the function or product of a sovereign(one that is subject to *No_Authority* what soever. The late Lord Denning MR would tell you:"Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you"[ which is moot.] Idolater savages or Like_us_ists will tell you that universal laws are the commands of a certain idol fetish totem or image that they call god, so if you are going to discus law you will need to identify what kind or species of law you are proposing to discuss, because the term " law" will embraceanything and eveything from gravity the square cube law,the Law of Property Act1925, or the Common law or Ohm's law and all sorts so take..... your.. pick, but you must pick one or identify what *kind* of law you have in mind. You might say that all laws are rules but then clearly not all rules are laws.One Prof.Dicey would tell you that law is the command of a sovereign, backed by a sanction which sounds good but has no application to *all* instances of what it seeks to define, and is thus flawed. What you call discovering a law" can be merely an assertion such as Newton's laws of motion or Codner's law of religion(every religion gives rise to an equal and opposite religion); some laws describe others prescribe- You pick one or identify what kind of law you have in mind (associative dreaming apparatus or function) which will decide for you what law means in the sense of what associations are evoked by the word law. Some might say that if you could understand all the laws of to whatever *all* laws apply, you can predict*exactly* what will happen in a given set of conditions or familiarity with(one or another kind of) law enables you to make accurate predictions. Law can have as many meanings as there are men, and if you are going to discuss law it might be handy if you can pick one.
There are at least 3 kinds of different laws in nature. First laws describe physical substance, what things are in themselves. Second laws describe physical interactions between objects, why things form shapes. Third category are laws that conscious beings impose into the world and to themselves. But there are no laws that binds them all into a one single theory. So we can reason laws of material essence come from quarks and laws of interactions come from mesons binding quarks into material particles. Question remain where do laws of consciousness come from, essence of thought is electron, but their interaction is manifested trough space time. This is why people get confused by idea of supernatural, there are no laws deep down, only chaos and probabilities.
Great Summary, the third you speak of does seem to react from outside our observative or five senses. Are you familuar with the Eather? Some recent experiments surrounding the theory are quite extrordinary. It seems partial to the vandelbroth equation yet in experiments... take a mind of its own without the repetiveness? Quite baffleing actualy and still in its research infancies. Be Blessed...
@@jamesbarlow6423 Nietzsche was walking around his town with a lit lantern in his hand, yelling on people to show him where he could see a God. He should point in the blue skies and ask people to show him the infinite universe during the day light.
@@omega82718 How do you define nature in the first place? Because if you mean the universe, than you are basically asking "why is the universe the universe?". It's just how we humans create logical statements using our inherently self-limiting language.
@@billyoldman9209 my question is more fundamental, why is the universe the way it is instead of an other way? Why is the universe at all? And even more fundamental, why is there being in the first place?
@@omega82718 Well the universe is all that exists, so by definition it has no outside. Our notions about "other kinds of universes" are also contained in it as notions in our minds. As far as the eternal question of being goes, the starting point should probably be how we humans relate ourselves to the universe and how we create coherent interpretations of the signals from our senses. After all, it is us humans who constantly single out individual beings as distinct from the rest of the universe around us, and also categorize them at the same time. This is how every kind of knowledge is manufactured, be it modern or pre-modern or whatever. Which is also why the mainstream idea of "science with the human taken out" is complete delusion btw. But if you meant why is there anything at all, then the best thing we can do is to simply say "we don't know". Otherwise we just trap ourselves in abuses of language about the physicality of "nothing" and what came before the universe and other nonsense, like the Big Bang people do.
that is simply a truism is it not? - Of course so-called laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive because that is all they are- descriptions. That is self-evident
they do not "come from" anywhere - they are merely descriptions descriptions come from the describer; you might as easily enquire from where comes numbers which are also no more than descriptions are they not?
You just don’t want there to be a God. It’s a personal problem you have. You lack gray matter in an area in your brain. It really is as simple as that. It’s a good thing that 87% of the global population don’t share your problem.
Yes it is very misleading to post a video with a question in the title that Steven was not actually asked. People complain that he doesn't answer the question, but the interviewer never ask it.
Science is a methodology that leads toward useful and reliably predictive approximations from observed regularities. There may indeed be 'laws of nature', but if there are we are unlikely to ever find one through science, and even less likely to realize if ever we accidentally do run over one. What are referred to as 'laws' are approximations based on regularities from observations (which are necessarily approximations). To assert that from these we can describe 'laws of nature' in any prescriptive sense is unjustified.
I think we have discovered a theme of nature, at least: symmetry. Most of physics relates to symmetry. Is it a law? Probably yes since it was broken...
@@daves2520 there isn't a single answer to that question. The same regularity is explained by Newton one way, and by Einstein in another way. The question "where does it come from" to Newton is answered by his law of gravity, attraction between massive bodies; to Einstein that regularity comes from the relationship between mass and spacetime. So as you see, the question "where do regularities come from" doesn't have a single answer. It only becomes a relevant question, when it is answered within the context of the theory which purports to explain the regularity. It's a question that assumes there are "final answers", when the truth is any answer will always be relative to the knowledge we have at any moment. These regularities are just things we become aware of, and depending on how good of an explanation we have for them, we are more or less able to do different things that we would be had we not been aware of such regularity. However this answer will not satisfy you. You will say it just side steps the question, because you have the unconscious assumption that we live in a reality in which it is possible to get an answer to your question, which gives the answer in the same terms the question wants it to be.
Dave S exactly! Let’s just change some definitions and pretend like the universe doesn’t appear to be purposefully designed. I give these atheists an A+ in denying the obvious.
@@redeemedchannel5580 Sorry, I don't see in Jose's comment an Appeal to an "Intelligent Designer" argument ... He is just describing the dynamics of The Scientific Endeavor and appointing some Epistemic Issues ... Where the fook is a God in His Comment??
An inflation field external to universe that expands energy fluctuation / tiny grain could have relationship to mathematics, as the laws of nature that subsequently develop, likely through quantum fields, are mathematical? Maybe inflation field starts the particulars of mathematics from abstraction?
Language, maths and laws were invented by humans to communicate descriptions of things. Maths and laws are more efficient and fulsome than words at describing consistent relationships between things.
@Psychiatrysts Or maybe pretending as if modern physics was distinct and superior to natural philosophy is a result of human hubris and self-infatuation.
That you suppose that there could bean answer speaks volumes about you, as does your presumption of authority- presuming that someone can *tell* you which is characteristic of the kinderlander - Americans, that are such suckers for authority, that like the children they are, need to be *told* by some presumed grownup or expert, albeit that your child-like faith in authority or experts has a certain naive charm. You will just have to accept that some mysteries must remain mysteries forever. That there appear to be universal laws is incontrovertible, while the presumption that they have a" source" says more about the one doing the assuming than anything else, and it also gives an insight in to his religion or preconceptions, simultaneously forcing the question:"Is it passible to be free of *All religion or sets of preconceptions?" A mirror cannot reflect *Itself*.
Does your famous(and can only be)imaginary " the "universe" have a single controlling mind or fubction capable of*"Wanting"*? When you use the words " the universe" what*exactly* do you seek to convey thereby? You have *absolutely_no* idea? *that* you are about to demonstrate
What do you hope to have missed? It's pretty clear and explanatory. There is one deepest set of laws from which all other laws emerge. Where do those come from? We don't know. Does that mean the emergence goes on forever, or is there one final deepest set that somehow explain why they themselves are there by their own nature? WE DON'T KNOW, anyone can speculate whatever they want from there, but whatever their speculation is it will be no more than that until they can prove otherwise.
@@2CSST2 welcome to tautology 101! the deeper laws whence the laws of nature come from are themselves laws of nature. rules are rules! there's irony in there somewhere.....
Notice how he does not try to expain where these laws came from. He just excepts they exist. He does not seem to understand they did not just come about. They came from somewhere. The laws we are aware of came from an intelligence and we wrote them down in a law book. I think these laws also came from an intelligence and, we wrote them down in a science book.
Is a plasure to hear from people like Stiven Weinberg, that gave his part in the making of The Standard Model; thanx CTT for this but think would be there some graphics. - As you sayed ones stiven you dont count with gravity in the model so for sure is not compleate and to make it fit in the beuty of GR you add some dark stuff to let it work. If planets are all in some way kind of solids with exeption of Jupiter when compared with stars, why should stars behave like planets? planets kinda go down and stars just go up they are one for the other cant both be the same. PHYSICS, BIOLOGY AND CHEMESTRY really are some how all related to one annother, some how they share characteristics and probably they work in the same prinsipal. There is a video called: YOUR TEXT BOOKS ARE WRONG THIS IS ACTUALY WHAT YOUR CELLS LOOK LIKE in you tube, there you can see how we really work like and as any follower of this kind of programas will see that there inside the guys arm you really see the cosmos as far out from here and still is Physics. There is a video of mine in you tube called THE FLOWER OF LIFE OR DNA DECODED. - this video shows that a DNA PICTURE shows entanglement from north to south by pairs, the top side are pairs and the south are not pairs and they make a neutral at the ecuator that has both charges so it may go up or down as needed to balance the system. have combined the data from it and works well in Nasas data in astronomy so is no wonder they look and work in kind the same way. In the data there is THE PERIODIC TABLE in to many forms and realy same numbers may apear from any number actually, dont mention with some already known numbers as well some others not to well known but really they are simple. Part of this combinations are in numbers in the firs above video mentioned, its worth to take a look to them cant be just pure coinsidense at all.
Laws of nature for universe are determined after tiny speck / energy fluctuation of universe that inflation expanded? Energy of quantum fields as inflation expanded tiny universe set the laws of nature?
@Planet of the gibbons گیبون What leads you to suppose that religion necessarily has anything to do with whatever you mean by "God" - it doesn't or doesn't necessarily. The essence of religion is all that good/evil right/wrong morality/ethics mumbo-jumbo and it is that which causes all the trouble. There are plenty religions that make no reference whatsoever to whatever you mean by "God". Just so that you are clear I define religion when I use the word as any set ofrelated*unquestioned*beliefs assumption presumptions and norms, which latter embraces all that good/evil right/wrong morality/ethics mumbo-jumbo, and it is that latter which is the very essence of religion. Of course religion dangerous that it leads to the disease I-am-right. An idea whatever you mean by God, is neither sufficient nor necessary any set ofrelated*unquestioned*beliefs assumption presumptions and norms to qualify as religion.
@@vhawk1951kl My point is that a good person may do bad things due to ignorance, necessity, or accident. // This is a counterpoint to the claim that 'only religion can make good people do bad things.'
A great interview with an exceptional physicist!. Steven Weinberg is one of those scientists who can make complex ideas accessible to the Layman.. Well done Robert.
The question should be "Why is absolute nothing not possible?" Why? Because absolute nothing has no "time". Time is required for states to exist. Absolute nothing cannot be a state because there isn't enough time for it to exist. The laws of physics come from nothing.
Nothing, being a species of universal, can only be imaginary titch. Imaginary means cannot be directly immediately personal experienced other than as an idea or image in the associative/ /dreaming apparatus or function or mind. if it is an universal, it*can_only* be imaginary.
Always like listening to this eminent Scientist. I applaud you for bringing to the forefront an Islamic viewpoint on the Laws of Nature. I must say however. that Al-Ghazali's analysis was floored! Rather than negating a Creator, the existence of Laws, of Laws of Nature point directly to a Law Maker. It is our concept of what this Law-maker, may look like, that is in error and not the fact that a Law- Maker must exist. The Quran talks very clearly of the existence of Malaikha. These erroneously are translated as Angels. However this is not correct. Malaikha are the Forces of Nature such as Lightening, Thunder, Gravity, Light, Radiation and Sound etc etc. The Quran states that these forces of Nature are in utter obedience to the Creator. By this is meant, they ALL behave according to precise laws, hence can Mathematically be deduced. The Quran further stated 1400 years ago that all of these forces of Nature would eventually become subservient to Man, except one force!! I have up till today never been able to fathom which force this is!
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace Hi. Its possible. However, Physicists have been working on an anti-gravity device for a while. In my opinion they will succeed. So this would mean we would have subdued Gravity. Dark energy and dark matter is possibly akin to Zero point energy. This too, in my opinion will be able to be utilised by man, in the not too distant future. Thanks
@@user-k229 I was kidding, gravity is in our sight just they dont see it, to me gravity is light refraction, dark matter and dark energy at the end will be taken away they wont be needed. Maybe they should look to see how to high jack energy from space an anti-gravity artefact does not seem a posible thing to me.
Here's my answer - The LAWS OF NATURE-Come from it's extremes of what it does -The speed of light is the speed of this mass universe--I can go on & on-This laws are universal to the universe.
My thinking is that light cant be so rigid as not to change at all in speed, as the mosaic looks a turtle is faster in water than light to make the cosmos work, at the far vew the cosmos look much interconected and just 300000 not to say bit less is just to slow to really work.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace Your right it changes I'm just saying light alone is a constant speed of the universe and it varies with materials/weight& field changes of the atom.
@@einsteindrieu What I think is that light as soon it reaches 300000k/s it jumps to 3000000 then 30000000 and so on that to my thinking is almost instantaneous all over as newton kind of use to think; this actually solves the spooky action at a distance and more.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace I can only tell you a little at a time. Your thoughts are faster than that extreme speed 300000k/s and that is one force that does spooky action at a distance.
I saw Robert doing reporting for international news org about Corona I think it was. I forgot the company..but he looks quite a bit older now then in this video. Hair is less and gray.
There are at least two types of Laws of Nature. Descriptive Laws and Creative Laws. Descriptive Laws describe the perceived operations of aspects of our observable world. Example: E=mc2, describing the relationship of matter and energy and speed of light. Creative Laws meanwhile are laws that literally bring into existence, sometimes only for a brief time, aspects of our perceived reality. Example: QM wave function, literally”popping” into existence certain particles previously just part of a “superposition of probabilities.” Another might arguably be the law of gravity itself which Hawking says brings our very universe into existence in the macro world. Where do all these Laws of Nature come from? I suggest they come from the mind of man to help explain and understand his own reality. Laws of nature (usually couched in mathematical terms), are no different in that sense than moral laws, religious laws or socio-legal laws. And if the Multiverse exists, then other universes would encompass altogether different laws of nature; thus showing that our laws here are ultimately parochial or local in nature anyway. All quite mind-numbing. (Thank you by the way for these videos; many with world-renowned scientists such as Weinberg.)
I could not agree more quite clearly all these so-called laws are no more than descriptions of what invariably happens I think I would say there are descriptive laws and prescriptive laws; I have no idea what you mean by creative
“Allah is He, who created the sun, the moon, and the stars (all) governed by laws under His commandment.” (7:54) - [ ] “And He subjected the sun and the moon (to His law); each one runs its course for a term appointed.” (13:2), (31:29), (35:13), and (39:5) - [ ] “God is the One Who created seven heavens and of the earth a similar number. The command descends upon them so that you know that God has power over all things and comprehends all things in His knowledge.” (65:12) “And made the moon a light in their midst and made the sun as a (Glorious) lamp.” (71:16)h “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit.” (21:33) Blessed is He who has placed in the sky great stars and placed therein a[ burning ]lamp and a luminous moon.025-061. “It is not allowable for sun to reach the moon ,nor does the night overtake the day ,but each in an orbit ,is swimming.0q36.040 . - [ ] “Consider those (stars) that rise only to set. And move (in their orbits) with steady motion. And float (through space) with floating serene. And yet overtake (one another) with swift overtaking. And thus fulfil the (Creator’s) behest!” (79:1-5) 055:005:the sun and the moon [move] by precise calculation. 055.007:And the heaven He raised and imposed the balance. Sahih international: 051-007 By the heaven containing pathways. 081 ,15 Sahih international : so I swear by the retreating stars - 081.016 : Sahih international : those that run their courses and disappear . “Then He turned to the sky when it had been smoke and said to it and to the earth, condense willingly or unwillingly. And they said, “We condensed willingly.” (41:11) “He Who created the seven heavens, one above another: No want of proportion will you see in the creation of Most Gracious, so turn your face again; Do you see any flaw ... .... And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps ....” (67:3-5) “The sun and moon (are subjected) to calculations.” (55:05
He struggled [with definitions and what laws do and their immutable stability] while never answering the question, because as scientists we continually discover laws, where do natural laws come from? This is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. Where do the algorithmic laws and rules of gpt chat come from? They come from a law giver. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1 There is no mention of time or precription of material synthesis, because the Bible is not a science book, rather that is for man to discover - from God's creative works. "I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; [to discover his creative works] yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end." - King Solomon. Book of Ecclesiastese 3:9-11 Where do natural laws come from? The come from the Creator, the law giver.
Are we one of the eyes through which the universe beholds itself? And wonders. All things present in the universe, galaxies, conciousness, are an aspect of the physical universe. Otherwise you would not be reading this.
you are are you? Apparently you also do not understand or realise that the word "we" means, points to, or indicates, the user of the term - that is *you*sunshine and his immediate interlocutor and you are short of immediate interlocutors to the tune of any at all witch just leave you yes you and *Only* you
there being nothing else, but that all depends on what you mean by "the Lord" - and you have absolutely no idea, do you? If you mean a man is dead it may well be that he has been (for himself) destroyed forever the word for which is dead.
It's strange that some call the thing they think they'll spend eternity with the same name of the person "lord" that essentially enslaved peasants and serfs in the feudal system of the Middle Ages.
@@brad1368 Well do you find it equally strange that the word "bear" has multiple meanings as well? They are called Homonyms - words that are spelled the same but have totally different meanings.
The universe is here because time is necessary. Absolute nothing is an unstable mess, from that mess these laws of physics were "randomly" generated. The beginning was probably a random generator. A throw of the dice...
You say :"The universe is "*here*" because time is necessary. Absolute nothing is an unstable mess, from that mess these laws of physics were "randomly" generated." w Where is *"Here* and what is *" the universe"*- apart from imaginary? what kind of law/laws have you in mind? prescriptive or descriptive? In your innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment you have no idea? No surprises there; it does rather explain the sloppy use of language.
or or the word"God" is a conveniently brief label for whatever it is that is the source of all that is, which self-evidently is always been and had no source. The Mr God fantasy is plainly a fantasy. The idea of God is perfectly rational but the Misterr God fantasy is a fantasy ; pure anthropomorphism.
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
As a Philosophy Buff, Al-Ghazali is so hit or miss. But he was mostly miss, unfortunately. A much better philospher from the Islamic world would be Avicenna.
i think he miss quotes al ghazali the islamic philosopher , because al ghazali never rejected any laws ,either he miss understood his philosophie or read it wrong from wrong translation. becaus thats not what islam teaches.
Classis arrogant approach of a western academic. Ghazali is a skeptic and explains the nature of human observation. He claims the action of the burning of cotton might be the will of God because we are only able to observe the correlation, not the causation. He preassumes the invisible laws of nature are indeed the cause of events in the universe. Philosophy should be mandatory for every scientist.
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
How things work and why things work are two different questions. One doesn’t negate the other. Its like saying a man shot your wife and you said no the bullet came out of the gun and entered her skull and that’s why she died, true but you bring it up as if it denies that the man shot her. So next time someone tells you God did it what they mean is simply that. You can free to explain to them the mechanism in through God did. The material world is like expecting a rock to move without force acting on it. A universe without God is absurd.
neat point but you are in the land of the psyche or dreamland there are you not? There is no arguing with the ace point that"How things work and why things work are two different questions," which needed saying, but not all in dreamland or their habitual state and mine-and perhaps yours, can grasp that, because how and why appear so similar, but it is a good point well made." Dreams are true while... they.. last; can more be said of life?" -Havelock Ellis; that one little sentence can send all sorts of shocks all sorts of wheres. T some it is obvious and possibly axiomatic that the moment of falling asleep or the moment of the general anaesthetic cannot be experi..........................enced. From outside the refrigerator there is noway of directly immediately personally experiencing whether or not the light goes outwhen the door is shut. Death*Means* *No_After* or it is nor death? Here you and I are, falling to wards the adamant at whatever rate with only one possible outcome so certain that it might be said to have happened the moment we jumped or were pushed, or born, or first drew breath breath, and it is as if we smile and wave at the chap looking out of the window on the - say, 400th? floor and say:" So far so good" Are we all mad? th-cam.com/video/e8Z5xMhVGg8/w-d-xo.html
In Jeremiah 33, 35. it clearly talks about the laws of heaven and earth. As it says, "But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth." So already in Jeremiahs day around 600 BCE the Israelites believed in the laws of Heaven and Earth. In addition it was clear to them it was God who fixed the laws of Heaven and Earth.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public. There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
What does that have to do with anything? They also sacrificed animals and had no understanding of germ theory. Which is why you were lucky to live to 50 then. If "god" were so loving, you'd think he would have told someone to write down on a stone..."wash your hands for my sakes".
But laws were/are not made by nature intentionally. Nature is a brainless institution where everything happens logically. Things just happen and we try to understand and that's why we call it natural science.
Nature is not a brainless situation. There is no way for that to be true. No matter what. In fact, you cannot describe a brainless nature. It is an impossibility.
NATURE is just a substitute word for the inescapable cause of the physical laws. One leaves out the answer as to what is the nature, or the cause, of nature, because it doesn't sound scientific...
Steven is the one who reportedly said: " After you learn quantum mechanics you are never really the same again" and he has just realized QM has implications on biology? Quantum biology has been around for ages...😊
Ithink you may be trying to make bread witha lawnmower, or trying to use an apparatus or function for a purpose for which it is not suitable; you are trying to understand what-is-and-cannot-be-different, with the mind or associative dreaming apparatus, which is *Only_One* of you functions or parts or apparatuses, which is like trying to make bread with a lawn mower.
it is a fairly stupid question to start with, given that self evidently descriptions emanate from a describer and what are called laws are merely descriptions of what invariably happens or is experienced that fellow Kuhn seem to be a professional pour out from the empty into the void the empty being Kuhn himself. If he were not completely empty he would not ask meaningless contrived questions, but apparently he needs the money. It's a good living if you can make money out of inventing asinine and futile questions
There's no future discoveries in physics that will improve our understanding of chemistry. This is got to be wrong otherwise we'd understand life creation.
Nonsense . if there we no laws nothing would be possible. There is no practical difference between laws and properties and a property is only telling you what's possible.
When you say: There are no " laws", what do you seek to convey when you use the word laws, or put another way of what exactly and specifically do you declare to be none? Do you say there is no square cube law, no law of gravity no law of diminishing returns, no Ohm's law, no inverse square law or are you struggling to convey that you have no idea what the word law means nor how it could be variously understood? Or are you perhaps trying to convey that you suppose there to be no information whatsoever on the basis of which it is possible to make accurate predictions such as the coordinates of where a shell fired from such and such a gun with such and such characteristics will land , plus or minus such and such a margin? Is it not the case that you are being influenced by you boss and mistress/owner Mrs. Emotional(like/dislike) function? Does that not account for your complete poverty and innocence of impartiality? For all practical purposes your-and I copy and paste: "It is a meaningless statement. There are no "laws" to begin with and it(sic) does not come from anywhere" is a tantrum is it not?
Well,if you jiggled a universe full of chemicals and particles for 14 billion years,would you get humans? I doubt it. BUT,if you jiggled chemicals or particles for uncountable trillions of years? You might get a creator..who builds itself a Universe.
Ah" word salad" that worn-out cliche of the innocent of all intellectual ability or accomplishment, with a shorter attention span that that of a goldfish, or those who illustrate why the Elsies, or Lower Classes are so called.*Of_Course* you have " no idea" little Elsie, you have not the wits, but that is a matter of breeding, and not any fault on your part, since a being cannot choose his causes or parents. What are you calling "God" little Elsie?-That image idol totem or fetish to which you Like_us_ists or idolaters, Elsies are so addicted?
God, gods, spirits, fairies in the sky, or whatever you want to attribute creation to have zero evidence and as a theory only add another layer of complexity. If you have some evidence let us know. Otherwise it's just your emotion and psychology driving your insistence, which might be fine for you, but doesn't o much good for the search for objective truth.
Far more likely not answered, because they do not *understand* the question, or merely *assume* that it *can* be answered. The simplest and cheapest solution is to declare victory(or that you *have* answered the question) and leave the field. Meanwhile the idolaters declare that their image idol fetish totem or tedybear god can make universal(can only be imaginary) laws.
for being such a good scientist he is a terrible reader of history and philosophy. the "laws of nature" was a concept that was around a long time and develops from the Greeks through the monks. Ironically he's following the monks who were arguing against random miracle claims.
Who told you that"the "laws of nature" was a concept that was around a long time and develops from the Greeks through the monks.," and why do you believe them?-Just naturally as credulous as a kinderlander-American?
You can scourge GOD, but if you do don't preach universal law without purpose. Godel new this was logically impossible. Weinburg is smart but it doesn't mean he knows anymore than any of us.
@@GeoCoppens It is equivalent to saying, "How did the laws of nature come about?" Were they self-generated or were they created by a supernatural being? This is the age old question. Obviously, scientists and philosophers are still struggling with this question today. I happen to prefer the latter explanation myself; but as free agents, each person can decide for himself.
@@daves2520 The nonsensical answer is that they were "created" by a supernatural being. That could not be an answer! Why do the laws of nature have to "come from somewhere"?
The suggestion that the laws of nature came from somewhere started with physicists noting that the constants of nature are exactly what they need to be for life to develop on earth. Fred Hoyle, an avowed atheist, stated, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
With humility, I’m sad to say, Mr weinburgs assumption on “laws of nature” shows his lack of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. These “laws” are mere illusionary forces in the world. They are NOT an actual acting force in the world. Science is our way of bookmarking these occurrences and patterns we see in the future. And looking into Ghazalis work, sorry to say, but I’m just astounded by how mr. weingburg just brushes him aside as if he was some joke or intellectually dismissive.
I would think science would be agnostic about the reality of laws. If science can't show they exist in some absolute fashion how can it show they don't?
Pretty weak and very uneducated . He starts out with the unnecessary (and actually unbiblical and anti historical) premise that theism didn't adhere to their being laws. Theology recognized laws before science ever did.
One of the best channels and one of the deepest and truly most researching channels of the entire youtube's times
I like his voice and the way how to speak. It's so comfortable and pleased to listen.
He looks like a godfather.
Me, tto. Love listening to him, as much for his demeanor as for the content.
He looks like a bond villain though
@@addy7464 he ascertain and assured himself, no thrash spouting out of his mouth, brilliant mind that l revere...
Indeed.
May God bless you sir
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
The notion of laws came from an idea that the universe has a master whom it obeys. They are actually regularities we have observed and there's nothing to say that they won't change.
You understate your case; as new observations arrive the apparent regularities change and thus new or modified laws arise, this is (hopefully) a continuing process.
I like your explanation of the origin of the term 'Laws'. It is an unfortunate term to use for a specific type of scientific description.
That's nonsense. Laws of physics are unchanged and clearly point to an existence of transcendent creator.
@Joe Milosch Yeah, right....
@Stefano Portoghesi Unless you can prove that multiverse is true, you have no way of explaining why physical constants are the way they are. Answer for this question can not come from science.
@@mattmatt245 The universe is the way it is. The idea that it could have been any other way is speculative and counterfactual as is any claim to know why it exists at all.
“Plato describes prisoners who are chained in a cave and can see only shadows that things outside cast on the cave wall. […] We have not been able to get out of this cave, but by looking long and hard at the shadows on the cave wall, we can at least make out the shapes of symmetries, which though broken, are exact principles governing all phenomena, expressions of the beauty of the world outside.” ~Steven Weinberg
I wonder if you understand that the word "we" means points to or indicates the user of the term - that is*you*and his immediate interlocutor and since you have no immediate interlocutor that just leaves *you and **only* *you*- there is no we, we being imaginary or a compound of piecemeal and seriatim experiences
Never really gets around to addressing the title of the video.
So true!
The simple answer is that they were written into the Big Bang. If they were not laid down at that point in time then we would not be here to discuss the issue!!
@@user-k229 I think he actually addresses the question in a different video in his series. The question of -- before the big bang, before there was anything, the presumption is that there were "laws" that ALLOWED things to come into being. Why were there "laws" to govern anything before there was anything? What made the laws exist in the first place? Unanswerable questions, but legit. This video however does not even touch that question.
No one can
He did actually address this question in this video, very clearly, but apparently most viewers here only have memory for the later half of the video. He said all non purely empirical laws come from a deeper set of laws, and the deepest as of now are those of the standard model. He then states that the answer to where the laws of the standard model themselves come from is we don't know.
With humility, I’m sad to say, Mr weinburgs assumption on “laws of nature” shows his lack of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. These “laws” are mere illusionary forces in the world. They are NOT an actual acting force in the world. Science is our way of bookmarking these occurrences and patterns we see in the future. And looking into Ghazalis work, sorry to say, but I’m just astounded by how mr. weingburg just brushes him aside as if he was some joke or intellectually dismissive
Remember, the laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Then they don't explain anything by themselves. You're saying that things do X because they do X.
common atheist claim without merit. Laws are prescriptive -
relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method. The history of the periodic table makes this abundantly clear. We were able to predict elements and their properties because the elements follow a rule and have a method by which you can predict. We have become aware of structures from Mathematics before we ever discovered them ( blackhole etc). the laws are not just describing what we see they are a pattern by which we have predicted things we haven't seen.
@@ImtoolVideos laws can be used to your advantage(in science) because they never change. It doesn't explain their existence even though you can use them to predict an outcome.
@@ImtoolVideos
You're deliberately conflating SCIENTIFIC LAWS (which are descriptive only and don't propose any underlying mechanism nor hypotheses to test it) with the articles of a LEGAL SYSTEM (which are invented with the intention of prescribing behavior or responses to behavior.)
Do some background reading about science.
Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random natural processes have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
Not closer to the truth on this one. The question remains unanswered. The title talks about where the laws come from but the question is what characterized them. Not the same.
With humility, I’m sad to say, Mr weinburgs assumption on “laws of nature” shows his lack of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. These “laws” are mere illusionary forces in the world. They are NOT an actual acting force in the world. Science is our way of bookmarking these occurrences and patterns we see in the future. And looking into Ghazalis work, sorry to say, but I’m just astounded by how mr. weingburg just brushes him aside as if he was some joke or intellectually dismissive
@@factsdontcare4feelings24 ok hippie
perhaps you don't quite understand that answers are merely the corpses of questions but you have been conditioned to be unable to remain alive awake and interesting in front of a question without killing it and you cannot free yourself from your conditioning any more than a computer can free itself from its programming
@@factsdontcare4feelings24...you start "with humility" and then pretend to have some deeper philosophical insight than Weinberg. Doubtful. Also, philosophy is great when done rationally along with observation and experimentation...but by itself is nothing more than "common sense"...in parentheses because our "common sense" is often proven wrong by observation and experimentation.
Another great conversation. Thank you for these deeper conversation.
The question in the title is never addressed. Mr. Weinberg talks about the laws of the universe and how we "have them", but never adfresses why they exist or how they came to exist. They just "are". This discussion does not address how the laws came to exist.
The laws is integrated in the phenomena - if we have a magnetic phenomenon we also have laws of magnetism, if we have a biological living cell we also have laws of the living cell ...
The older I get the more mindblowing I find these laws. Elegance and Beauty are definitely apt. Even the simpler discoveries, I often bask in wonder for hours at. Imagine being that person who discovers a law. You're the first mind in human history to know it. The exhilaration must be like none other.
"There are no 'laws' that phenomena 'obey'!" ~Nietzsche
And he's right of course!
are not what you call "laws" merely descriptions? There are two kinds of law or rule: prescriptive and descriptive, not that law and rules are identical, but what men call laws in relation to phenomena of the conditions in which they find themselves are a descriptions of those phenomena are they not - they are describing what is invariably the case
@@vhawk1951kl . Good point re. a frequently misunderstood thing. As Nietzsche said, "There are no 'laws' that phenomena 'obey'!"
What are you*Calling* law or laws, gravity, the square cube law, he inverse square law, the law of decreasing returns, the god-be-so-clever-that-he-never-made-two-mountains-without-putting-a-valley in-between law or what?
Do laws *Pre_scribe or De*_scribe, predict or demand? A lawyer or philosophy of lawyer will tell you that law(in the sense of so-called 'man-made'laws) is a compound or portmanteau concept embracing hierarchies of norms , and that a human law is the function or product of a sovereign(one that is subject to *No_Authority* what soever. The late Lord Denning MR would tell you:"Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you"[ which is moot.]
Idolater savages or Like_us_ists will tell you that universal laws are the commands of a certain idol fetish totem or image that they call god, so if you are going to discus law you will need to identify what kind or species of law you are proposing to discuss, because the term " law" will embraceanything and eveything from gravity the square cube law,the Law of Property Act1925, or the Common law or Ohm's law and all sorts so take..... your.. pick, but you must pick one or identify what *kind* of law you have in mind. You might say that all laws are rules but then clearly not all rules are laws.One Prof.Dicey would tell you that law is the command of a sovereign, backed by a sanction which sounds good but has no application to *all* instances of what it seeks to define, and is thus flawed.
What you call discovering a law" can be merely an assertion such as Newton's laws of motion or Codner's law of religion(every religion gives rise to an equal and opposite religion); some laws describe others prescribe- You pick one or identify what kind of law you have in mind (associative dreaming apparatus or function) which will decide for you what law means in the sense of what associations are evoked by the word law. Some might say that if you could understand all the laws of to whatever *all* laws apply, you can predict*exactly* what will happen in a given set of conditions or familiarity with(one or another kind of) law enables you to make accurate predictions.
Law can have as many meanings as there are men, and if you are going to discuss law it might be handy if you can pick one.
RIP SW. Thanks for the unification theory of weak and em forces.
There are at least 3 kinds of different laws in nature. First laws describe physical substance, what things are in themselves. Second laws describe physical interactions between objects, why things form shapes. Third category are laws that conscious beings impose into the world and to themselves. But there are no laws that binds them all into a one single theory.
So we can reason laws of material essence come from quarks and laws of interactions come from mesons binding quarks into material particles. Question remain where do laws of consciousness come from, essence of thought is electron, but their interaction is manifested trough space time.
This is why people get confused by idea of supernatural, there are no laws deep down, only chaos and probabilities.
My universe works in balance to the deep as well up above as long there is energy to run it for which I need explosions in the small as well the big.
Great Summary, the third you speak of does seem to react from outside our observative or five senses. Are you familuar with the Eather?
Some recent experiments surrounding the theory are quite extrordinary. It seems partial to the vandelbroth equation yet in experiments... take a mind of its own without the repetiveness? Quite baffleing actualy and still in its research infancies.
Be Blessed...
"There are no 'laws' that phenomena 'obey'!" ~Nietzsche
And he's right of course!
@@jamesbarlow6423 Nietzsche was walking around his town with a lit lantern in his hand, yelling on people to show him where he could see a God. He should point in the blue skies and ask people to show him the infinite universe during the day light.
Gosh, you know*Everything* Brian
I don’t know why, but this gentleman reminds me of Mr Burns.
The laws of science are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are human constructs which match the behaviour of reality as close as we can fit them.
Then why nature behaves the way it does?
@@omega82718 How do you define nature in the first place? Because if you mean the universe, than you are basically asking "why is the universe the universe?". It's just how we humans create logical statements using our inherently self-limiting language.
@@billyoldman9209 my question is more fundamental, why is the universe the way it is instead of an other way? Why is the universe at all? And even more fundamental, why is there being in the first place?
@@omega82718 Well the universe is all that exists, so by definition it has no outside. Our notions about "other kinds of universes" are also contained in it as notions in our minds. As far as the eternal question of being goes, the starting point should probably be how we humans relate ourselves to the universe and how we create coherent interpretations of the signals from our senses. After all, it is us humans who constantly single out individual beings as distinct from the rest of the universe around us, and also categorize them at the same time. This is how every kind of knowledge is manufactured, be it modern or pre-modern or whatever. Which is also why the mainstream idea of "science with the human taken out" is complete delusion btw.
But if you meant why is there anything at all, then the best thing we can do is to simply say "we don't know". Otherwise we just trap ourselves in abuses of language about the physicality of "nothing" and what came before the universe and other nonsense, like the Big Bang people do.
that is simply a truism is it not? - Of course so-called laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive because that is all they are- descriptions. That is self-evident
they do not "come from" anywhere - they are merely descriptions descriptions come from the describer; you might as easily enquire from where comes numbers which are also no more than descriptions are they not?
You just don’t want there to be a God. It’s a personal problem you have. You lack gray matter in an area in your brain. It really is as simple as that. It’s a good thing that 87% of the global population don’t share your problem.
Would you please change the title of this video? The question, as described in the title is not dealt with.
Yes it is very misleading to post a video with a question in the title that Steven was not actually asked. People complain that he doesn't answer the question, but the interviewer never ask it.
At last someone talking sense on this program
Science is a methodology that leads toward useful and reliably predictive approximations from observed regularities. There may indeed be 'laws of nature', but if there are we are unlikely to ever find one through science, and even less likely to realize if ever we accidentally do run over one. What are referred to as 'laws' are approximations based on regularities from observations (which are necessarily approximations). To assert that from these we can describe 'laws of nature' in any prescriptive sense is unjustified.
"There are no 'laws' that phenomena 'obey'!" ~Nietzsche
And he's right of course!
I think we have discovered a theme of nature, at least: symmetry. Most of physics relates to symmetry. Is it a law? Probably yes since it was broken...
the question remains unanswered
be grateful for that small mercy, that a diamond has not been turned into a turd- made as small as you titch.
Laws are what legislators make. There are empirically discovered regularities in nature. Those are what scientists deal with.
Where do those regularities come from? Basically the same question.
@@daves2520 there isn't a single answer to that question. The same regularity is explained by Newton one way, and by Einstein in another way. The question "where does it come from" to Newton is answered by his law of gravity, attraction between massive bodies; to Einstein that regularity comes from the relationship between mass and spacetime.
So as you see, the question "where do regularities come from" doesn't have a single answer. It only becomes a relevant question, when it is answered within the context of the theory which purports to explain the regularity.
It's a question that assumes there are "final answers", when the truth is any answer will always be relative to the knowledge we have at any moment.
These regularities are just things we become aware of, and depending on how good of an explanation we have for them, we are more or less able to do different things that we would be had we not been aware of such regularity.
However this answer will not satisfy you. You will say it just side steps the question, because you have the unconscious assumption that we live in a reality in which it is possible to get an answer to your question, which gives the answer in the same terms the question wants it to be.
Dave S exactly! Let’s just change some definitions and pretend like the universe doesn’t appear to be purposefully designed. I give these atheists an A+ in denying the obvious.
@@redeemedchannel5580 Sorry, I don't see in Jose's comment an Appeal to an "Intelligent Designer" argument ...
He is just describing the dynamics of The Scientific Endeavor and appointing some Epistemic Issues ...
Where the fook is a God in His Comment??
First Name Surname I was referring to the initial poster and agreeing with Dave’s take on it. I didn’t even read Jose’s comment.
From Nature’s legislative branch
The title is very inappropriate for what he says.
An inflation field external to universe that expands energy fluctuation / tiny grain could have relationship to mathematics, as the laws of nature that subsequently develop, likely through quantum fields, are mathematical? Maybe inflation field starts the particulars of mathematics from abstraction?
Language, maths and laws were invented by humans to communicate descriptions of things. Maths and laws are more efficient and fulsome than words at describing consistent relationships between things.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
Question not answered. C'mon you experts can do better.
@Psychiatrysts Or maybe pretending as if modern physics was distinct and superior to natural philosophy is a result of human hubris and self-infatuation.
That you suppose that there could bean answer speaks volumes about you, as does your presumption of authority- presuming that someone can *tell* you which is characteristic of the kinderlander - Americans, that are such suckers for authority, that like the children they are, need to be *told* by some presumed grownup or expert, albeit that your child-like faith in authority or experts has a certain naive charm.
You will just have to accept that some mysteries must remain mysteries forever.
That there appear to be universal laws is incontrovertible, while the presumption that they have a" source" says more about the one doing the assuming than anything else, and it also gives an insight in to his religion or preconceptions, simultaneously forcing the question:"Is it passible to be free of *All religion or sets of preconceptions?" A mirror cannot reflect *Itself*.
The universe naturally wants stability because in the beginning Stability naturally was.
Does your famous(and can only be)imaginary " the "universe" have a single controlling mind or fubction capable of*"Wanting"*?
When you use the words " the universe" what*exactly* do you seek to convey thereby?
You have *absolutely_no* idea?
*that* you are about to demonstrate
the laws of nature come from deeper laws?! did i miss something?
the deep white sea?
Yup! Even deeper laws of nature that not so deep laws came from...an so on into infinite regress...😉
What do you hope to have missed? It's pretty clear and explanatory. There is one deepest set of laws from which all other laws emerge. Where do those come from? We don't know. Does that mean the emergence goes on forever, or is there one final deepest set that somehow explain why they themselves are there by their own nature? WE DON'T KNOW, anyone can speculate whatever they want from there, but whatever their speculation is it will be no more than that until they can prove otherwise.
@@2CSST2 welcome to tautology 101! the deeper laws whence the laws of nature come from are themselves laws of nature. rules are rules! there's irony in there somewhere.....
only two wiseacres pouring from the empty into the void.
Closer to truth but never close enough to find it...
closer and closer every day do da da is all I want to say to you.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace if you find truth, what else are you going to be looking for?
@@tomashull9805 how to make it work for our oun service to make a better world, thats good enough to me.
"The solution to the riddle of life in space
and time lies outside of space and time."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Notice how he does not try to expain where these laws came from. He just excepts they exist. He does not seem to understand they did not just come about. They came from somewhere. The laws we are aware of came from an intelligence and we wrote them down in a law book. I think these laws also came from an intelligence and, we wrote them down in a science book.
You assume they came from somewhere because your psychology dictates it. Can you prove it?
Is a plasure to hear from people like Stiven Weinberg, that gave his part in the making of The Standard Model; thanx CTT for this but think would be there some graphics. - As you sayed ones stiven you dont count with gravity in the model so for sure is not compleate and to make it fit in the beuty of GR you add some dark stuff to let it work.
If planets are all in some way kind of solids with exeption of Jupiter when compared with stars, why should stars behave like planets? planets kinda go down and stars just go up they are one for the other cant both be the same.
PHYSICS, BIOLOGY AND CHEMESTRY really are some how all related to one annother, some how they share characteristics and probably they work in the same prinsipal. There is a video called: YOUR TEXT BOOKS ARE WRONG THIS IS ACTUALY WHAT YOUR CELLS LOOK LIKE in you tube, there you can see how we really work like and as any follower of this kind of programas will see that there inside the guys arm you really see the cosmos as far out from here and still is Physics.
There is a video of mine in you tube called THE FLOWER OF LIFE OR DNA DECODED. - this video shows that a DNA PICTURE shows entanglement from north to south by pairs, the top side are pairs and the south are not pairs and they make a neutral at the ecuator that has both charges so it may go up or down as needed to balance the system.
have combined the data from it and works well in Nasas data in astronomy so is no wonder they look and work in kind the same way. In the data there is THE PERIODIC TABLE in to many forms and realy same numbers may apear from any number actually, dont mention with some already known numbers as well some others not to well known but really they are simple.
Part of this combinations are in numbers in the firs above video mentioned, its worth to take a look to them cant be just pure coinsidense at all.
Laws of nature for universe are determined after tiny speck / energy fluctuation of universe that inflation expanded? Energy of quantum fields as inflation expanded tiny universe set the laws of nature?
Wow , that is quite some religion you have there titch, did you invent it or or is someone else the one true messiah?
There is only the laws of the limited nature (man made) But the nature is unlimited
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil-that takes religion."
what is all that good and bad nonsense but religion?
@Planet of the gibbons گیبون What leads you to suppose that religion necessarily has anything to do with whatever you mean by "God" - it doesn't or doesn't necessarily.
The essence of religion is all that good/evil right/wrong morality/ethics mumbo-jumbo and it is that which causes all the trouble. There are plenty religions that make no reference whatsoever to whatever you mean by "God".
Just so that you are clear I define religion when I use the word as any set ofrelated*unquestioned*beliefs assumption presumptions and norms, which latter embraces all that good/evil right/wrong morality/ethics mumbo-jumbo, and it is that latter which is the very essence of religion.
Of course religion dangerous that it leads to the disease I-am-right.
An idea whatever you mean by God, is neither sufficient nor necessary any set ofrelated*unquestioned*beliefs assumption presumptions and norms to qualify as religion.
Questions: 1) do good people drive cars?
2) if I am atheist does my car absorb pollution?
@@nmarbletoe8210 "Good" meaning what?-Likeable by whose criteria and which of their functions?
What are you calling pollution?
@@vhawk1951kl My point is that a good person may do bad things due to ignorance, necessity, or accident. // This is a counterpoint to the claim that 'only religion can make good people do bad things.'
A great interview with an exceptional physicist!. Steven Weinberg is one of those scientists who can make complex ideas accessible to the Layman.. Well done Robert.
Did he even answer the question?
No!
The question should be "Why is absolute nothing not possible?"
Why? Because absolute nothing has no "time". Time is required for states to exist. Absolute nothing cannot be a state because there isn't enough time for it to exist.
The laws of physics come from nothing.
Nothing, being a species of universal, can only be imaginary titch. Imaginary means cannot be directly immediately personal experienced other than as an idea or image in the associative/ /dreaming apparatus or function or mind. if it is an universal, it*can_only* be imaginary.
if we use physics 100% we can not go further than earth atmosphere
Always like listening to this eminent Scientist. I applaud you for bringing to the forefront an Islamic viewpoint on the Laws of Nature.
I must say however. that Al-Ghazali's analysis was floored!
Rather than negating a Creator, the existence of Laws, of Laws of Nature point directly to a Law Maker. It is our concept of what this Law-maker, may look like, that is in error and not the fact that a Law- Maker must exist.
The Quran talks very clearly of the existence of Malaikha. These erroneously are translated as Angels. However this is not correct. Malaikha are the Forces of Nature such as Lightening, Thunder, Gravity, Light, Radiation and Sound etc etc. The Quran states that these forces of Nature are in utter obedience to the Creator. By this is meant, they ALL behave according to precise laws, hence can Mathematically be deduced. The Quran further stated 1400 years ago that all of these forces of Nature would eventually become subservient to Man, except one force!! I have up till today never been able to fathom which force this is!
maybe gravity? or what about dark matter or dark energy?
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace
Hi. Its possible.
However, Physicists have been working on an anti-gravity device for a while. In my opinion they will succeed. So this would mean we would have subdued Gravity. Dark energy and dark matter is possibly akin to Zero point energy. This too, in my opinion will be able to be utilised by man, in the not too distant future. Thanks
@@user-k229 I was kidding, gravity is in our sight just they dont see it, to me gravity is light refraction, dark matter and dark energy at the end will be taken away they wont be needed.
Maybe they should look to see how to high jack energy from space an anti-gravity artefact does not seem a posible thing to me.
Steven cool !!!!!!!!!
More More More
How do you like it? How do you like it?
Here's my answer - The LAWS OF NATURE-Come from it's extremes of what it does -The speed of light is the speed of this mass universe--I can go on & on-This laws are universal to the universe.
My thinking is that light cant be so rigid as not to change at all in speed, as the mosaic looks a turtle is faster in water than light to make the cosmos work, at the far vew the cosmos look much interconected and just 300000 not to say bit less is just to slow to really work.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace Your right it changes I'm just saying light alone is a constant speed of the universe and it varies with materials/weight& field changes of the atom.
@@einsteindrieu What I think is that light as soon it reaches 300000k/s it jumps to 3000000 then 30000000 and so on that to my thinking is almost instantaneous all over as newton kind of use to think; this actually solves the spooky action at a distance and more.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace I can only tell you a little at a time. Your thoughts are faster than that extreme speed 300000k/s and that is one force that does spooky action at a distance.
I saw Robert doing reporting for international news org about Corona I think it was. I forgot the company..but he looks quite a bit older now then in this video. Hair is less and gray.
Where do the laws of nature reside? In an atom? In a neutrino? In space? In an infinitely small bit of space? Hello Zeno.
There are at least two types of Laws of Nature. Descriptive Laws and Creative Laws. Descriptive Laws describe the perceived operations of aspects of our observable world. Example: E=mc2, describing the relationship of matter and energy and speed of light. Creative Laws meanwhile are laws that literally bring into existence, sometimes only for a brief time, aspects of our perceived reality. Example: QM wave function, literally”popping” into existence certain particles previously just part of a “superposition of probabilities.” Another might arguably be the law of gravity itself which Hawking says brings our very universe into existence in the macro world. Where do all these Laws of Nature come from? I suggest they come from the mind of man to help explain and understand his own reality. Laws of nature (usually couched in mathematical terms), are no different in that sense than moral laws, religious laws or socio-legal laws. And if the Multiverse exists, then other universes would encompass altogether different laws of nature; thus showing that our laws here are ultimately parochial or local in nature anyway. All quite mind-numbing. (Thank you by the way for these videos; many with world-renowned scientists such as Weinberg.)
I could not agree more quite clearly all these so-called laws are no more than descriptions of what invariably happens I think I would say there are descriptive laws and prescriptive laws; I have no idea what you mean by creative
“Allah is He, who created the sun, the moon, and the stars (all) governed by laws under His commandment.” (7:54)
- [ ] “And He subjected the sun and the moon (to His law); each one runs its course for a term appointed.” (13:2), (31:29), (35:13), and (39:5)
- [ ] “God is the One Who created seven heavens and of the earth a similar number. The command descends upon them so that you know that God has power over all things and comprehends all things in His knowledge.” (65:12)
“And made the moon a light in their midst and made the sun as a (Glorious) lamp.” (71:16)h
“It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit.” (21:33)
Blessed is He who has placed in the sky great stars and placed therein a[ burning ]lamp and a luminous moon.025-061.
“It is not allowable for sun to reach the moon ,nor does the night overtake the day ,but each in an orbit ,is swimming.0q36.040 .
- [ ] “Consider those (stars) that rise only to set. And move (in their orbits) with steady motion. And float (through space) with floating serene. And yet overtake (one another) with swift overtaking. And thus fulfil the (Creator’s) behest!” (79:1-5)
055:005:the sun and the moon [move] by precise calculation.
055.007:And the heaven He raised and imposed the balance.
Sahih international:
051-007 By the heaven containing pathways.
081 ,15 Sahih international : so I swear by the retreating stars -
081.016 : Sahih international : those that run their courses and disappear .
“Then He turned to the sky when it had been smoke and said to it and to the earth, condense willingly or unwillingly. And they said, “We condensed willingly.” (41:11)
“He Who created the seven heavens, one above another: No want of proportion will you see in the creation of Most Gracious, so turn your face again; Do you see any flaw ... .... And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps ....” (67:3-5)
“The sun and moon (are subjected) to calculations.” (55:05
He struggled [with definitions and what laws do and their immutable stability] while never answering the question, because as scientists we continually discover laws, where do natural laws come from?
This is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. Where do the algorithmic laws and rules of gpt chat come from? They come from a law giver.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1
There is no mention of time or precription of material synthesis, because the Bible is not a science book, rather that is for man to discover - from God's creative works.
"I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; [to discover his creative works] yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end." - King Solomon. Book of Ecclesiastese 3:9-11
Where do natural laws come from? The come from the Creator, the law giver.
Design in the very beginning , waiting for human being to discover
Are we one of the eyes through which the universe beholds itself? And wonders. All things present in the universe, galaxies, conciousness,
are an aspect of the physical universe. Otherwise you would not be reading this.
you are are you?
Apparently you also do not understand or realise that the word "we" means, points to, or indicates, the user of the term - that is *you*sunshine and his immediate interlocutor and you are short of immediate interlocutors to the tune of any at all witch just leave you yes you and *Only* you
@@vhawk1951kl so clever, so irrelevant
2:17 Here Weinberg is just begging the question.
He's not...
God love him, he's with the Lord now.
there being nothing else, but that all depends on what you mean by "the Lord" - and you have absolutely no idea, do you? If you mean a man is dead it may well be that he has been (for himself) destroyed forever the word for which is dead.
It's strange that some call the thing they think they'll spend eternity with the same name of the person "lord" that essentially enslaved peasants and serfs in the feudal system of the Middle Ages.
@@brad1368 Well do you find it equally strange that the word "bear" has multiple meanings as well? They are called Homonyms - words that are spelled the same but have totally different meanings.
The universe is here because time is necessary. Absolute nothing is an unstable mess, from that mess these laws of physics were "randomly" generated.
The beginning was probably a random generator. A throw of the dice...
You say :"The universe is "*here*" because time is necessary. Absolute nothing is an unstable mess, from that mess these laws of physics were "randomly" generated."
w Where is *"Here* and what is *" the universe"*- apart from imaginary? what kind of law/laws have you in mind? prescriptive or descriptive?
In your innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment you have no idea?
No surprises there; it does rather explain the sloppy use of language.
His talk about al Ghazali isn’t accurate!
The Creator, the God, is who set all of laws in nature........natural laws showed the existence of the Creator, the God
or or the word"God" is a conveniently brief label for whatever it is that is the source of all that is, which self-evidently is always been and had no source.
The Mr God fantasy is plainly a fantasy. The idea of God is perfectly rational but the Misterr God fantasy is a fantasy ; pure anthropomorphism.
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
As a Philosophy Buff, Al-Ghazali is so hit or miss. But he was mostly miss, unfortunately. A much better philospher from the Islamic world would be Avicenna.
no direct answers, diverted response.
He wasn't posed the question in the title of the video. It is the person who uploaded the video who mislabeled it.
i think he miss quotes al ghazali the islamic philosopher , because al ghazali never rejected any laws ,either he miss understood his philosophie or read it wrong from wrong translation. becaus thats not what islam teaches.
The only thing he was correct about was about Ghazali. The cotton burns because God determine what law it follows.
Classis arrogant approach of a western academic. Ghazali is a skeptic and explains the nature of human observation. He claims the action of the burning of cotton might be the will of God because we are only able to observe the correlation, not the causation. He preassumes the invisible laws of nature are indeed the cause of events in the universe. Philosophy should be mandatory for every scientist.
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
Didn't answer
How things work and why things work are two different questions. One doesn’t negate the other. Its like saying a man shot your wife and you said no the bullet came out of the gun and entered her skull and that’s why she died, true but you bring it up as if it denies that the man shot her. So next time someone tells you God did it what they mean is simply that. You can free to explain to them the mechanism in through God did. The material world is like expecting a rock to move without force acting on it. A universe without God is absurd.
neat point but you are in the land of the psyche or dreamland there are you not?
There is no arguing with the ace point that"How things work and why things work are two different questions," which needed saying, but not all in dreamland or their habitual state and mine-and perhaps yours, can grasp that, because how and why appear so similar, but it is a good point well made." Dreams are true while... they.. last; can more be said of life?" -Havelock Ellis; that one little sentence can send all sorts of shocks all sorts of wheres. T some it is obvious and possibly axiomatic that the moment of falling asleep or the moment of the general anaesthetic cannot be experi..........................enced. From outside the refrigerator there is noway of directly immediately personally experiencing whether or not the light goes outwhen the door is shut. Death*Means* *No_After* or it is nor death? Here you and I are, falling to wards the adamant at whatever rate with only one possible outcome so certain that it might be said to have happened the moment we jumped or were pushed, or born, or first drew breath breath, and it is as if we smile and wave at the chap looking out of the window on the - say, 400th? floor and say:" So far so good"
Are we all mad? th-cam.com/video/e8Z5xMhVGg8/w-d-xo.html
In Jeremiah 33, 35. it clearly talks about the laws of heaven and earth. As it says, "But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth." So already in Jeremiahs day around 600 BCE the Israelites believed in the laws of Heaven and Earth. In addition it was clear to them it was God who fixed the laws of Heaven and Earth.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
There is just no curing you fcuk-the-commandments anthropomorphic idolaters of your idolatry is there? You cling onto your wretched totem fetish, image or idol like grim death, don’t you?
What does that have to do with anything? They also sacrificed animals and had no understanding of germ theory. Which is why you were lucky to live to 50 then. If "god" were so loving, you'd think he would have told someone to write down on a stone..."wash your hands for my sakes".
But laws were/are not made by nature intentionally. Nature is a brainless institution where everything happens logically. Things just happen and we try to understand and that's why we call it natural science.
Nature is not a brainless situation. There is no way for that to be true. No matter what. In fact, you cannot describe a brainless nature. It is an impossibility.
Even, if somehow, you were the only brain in nature, you would be a brain in nature. Does it hurt being stupid?
It's a good thing we poor stupid old fools have you to put us straight your splendiferousness.
NATURE is just a substitute word for the inescapable cause of the physical laws. One leaves out the answer as to what is the nature, or the cause, of nature, because it doesn't sound scientific...
matter follows atomic weight naturally so does light.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace naturally...
what exactly, little abuser of capital letters, are you calling or perhaps screaming "nature".
You have no idea?
This you are about to demonstrate
Steven is the one who reportedly said: " After you learn quantum mechanics you are never really the same again" and he has just realized QM has implications on biology? Quantum biology has been around for ages...😊
every thing is jointed and when part of the chain is broken then there come problems
2+2=4 beautiful
Touch a hot stove, you get burned. Easy to understand.
Burned by a hot woman: The supernatural is outside understanding.
Ok now, let me get this straight - *where* do the laws of physics come from?
Ithink you may be trying to make bread witha lawnmower, or trying to use an apparatus or function for a purpose for which it is not suitable; you are trying to understand what-is-and-cannot-be-different, with the mind or associative dreaming apparatus, which is *Only_One* of you functions or parts or apparatuses, which is like trying to make bread with a lawn mower.
Messuring of appearances will not get us to truth
A pleasant chat. Strange how folks actually expected an answer. You should know better.
Would've been interesting to hear the occult beliefs of someone from big science though, but he dodged the bullet instead.
it is a fairly stupid question to start with, given that self evidently descriptions emanate from a describer and what are called laws are merely descriptions of what invariably happens or is experienced that fellow Kuhn seem to be a professional pour out from the empty into the void the empty being Kuhn himself. If he were not completely empty he would not ask meaningless contrived questions, but apparently he needs the money.
It's a good living if you can make money out of inventing asinine and futile questions
There's no future discoveries in physics that will improve our understanding of chemistry. This is got to be wrong otherwise we'd understand life creation.
lol true
He is talked so much but did not answered the basic question. Who makes these laws?? don't beat about the bush
It is a meaningless statement. There are no "laws" to begin with and it does not come from anywhere.
@Psychiatrysts for sure matter follows atomic weigh at all levels.
Nonsense . if there we no laws nothing would be possible. There is no practical difference between laws and properties and a property is only telling you what's possible.
When you say: There are no " laws", what do you seek to convey when you use the word laws, or put another way of what exactly and specifically do you declare to be none? Do you say there is no square cube law, no law of gravity no law of diminishing returns, no Ohm's law, no inverse square law or are you struggling to convey that you have no idea what the word law means nor how it could be variously understood?
Or are you perhaps trying to convey that you suppose there to be no information whatsoever on the basis of which it is possible to make accurate predictions such as the coordinates of where a shell fired from such and such a gun with such and such characteristics will land , plus or minus such and such a margin?
Is it not the case that you are being influenced by you boss and mistress/owner Mrs. Emotional(like/dislike) function?
Does that not account for your complete poverty and innocence of impartiality?
For all practical purposes your-and I copy and paste: "It is a meaningless statement. There are no "laws" to begin with and it(sic) does not come from anywhere" is a tantrum is it not?
@@vhawk1951kl If there are laws in nature that would imply a lawgiver or a creator of the law and there is no evidence such a creator exists.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace Atoms are mostly empty space, or perhaps pure empty space ultimately.
Well,if you jiggled a universe full of chemicals and particles for 14 billion years,would you get humans? I doubt it. BUT,if you jiggled chemicals or particles for uncountable trillions of years? You might get a creator..who builds itself a Universe.
Long word salad. Basically we have no idea it’s just not allowed to be God.
Ah" word salad" that worn-out cliche of the innocent of all intellectual ability or accomplishment, with a shorter attention span that that of a goldfish, or those who illustrate why the Elsies, or Lower Classes are so called.*Of_Course* you have " no idea" little Elsie, you have not the wits, but that is a matter of breeding, and not any fault on your part, since a being cannot choose his causes or parents.
What are you calling "God" little Elsie?-That image idol totem or fetish to which you Like_us_ists or idolaters, Elsies are so addicted?
God, gods, spirits, fairies in the sky, or whatever you want to attribute creation to have zero evidence and as a theory only add another layer of complexity. If you have some evidence let us know. Otherwise it's just your emotion and psychology driving your insistence, which might be fine for you, but doesn't o much good for the search for objective truth.
Not answered because they dont like the answer.
Far more likely not answered, because they do not *understand* the question, or merely *assume* that it *can* be answered.
The simplest and cheapest solution is to declare victory(or that you *have* answered the question) and leave the field. Meanwhile the idolaters declare that their image idol fetish totem or tedybear god can make universal(can only be imaginary) laws.
very biased. only his theory is beautiful
physics was a brain surgery lession
for being such a good scientist he is a terrible reader of history and philosophy. the "laws of nature" was a concept that was around a long time and develops from the Greeks through the monks. Ironically he's following the monks who were arguing against random miracle claims.
Who told you that"the "laws of nature" was a concept that was around a long time and develops from the Greeks through the monks.," and why do you believe them?-Just naturally as credulous as a kinderlander-American?
You can scourge GOD, but if you do don't preach universal law without purpose. Godel new this was logically impossible. Weinburg is smart but it doesn't mean he knows anymore than any of us.
He never really answered the question, "Where do the laws of nature come from." He sidestepped that one better than a politician.
@@daves2520 The laws did not "come from somewhere".
@@GeoCoppens It is equivalent to saying, "How did the laws of nature come about?" Were they self-generated or were they created by a supernatural being? This is the age old question. Obviously, scientists and philosophers are still struggling with this question today. I happen to prefer the latter explanation myself; but as free agents, each person can decide for himself.
@@daves2520 The nonsensical answer is that they were "created" by a supernatural being. That could not be an answer!
Why do the laws of nature have to "come from somewhere"?
The suggestion that the laws of nature came from somewhere started with physicists noting that the constants of nature are exactly what they need to be for life to develop on earth. Fred Hoyle, an avowed atheist, stated, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
With humility, I’m sad to say, Mr weinburgs assumption on “laws of nature” shows his lack of understanding regarding the philosophy of science. These “laws” are mere illusionary forces in the world. They are NOT an actual acting force in the world. Science is our way of bookmarking these occurrences and patterns we see in the future. And looking into Ghazalis work, sorry to say, but I’m just astounded by how mr. weingburg just brushes him aside as if he was some joke or intellectually dismissive.
I would think science would be agnostic about the reality of laws. If science can't show they exist in some absolute fashion how can it show they don't?
Pretty weak and very uneducated . He starts out with the unnecessary (and actually unbiblical and anti historical) premise that theism didn't adhere to their being laws. Theology recognized laws before science ever did.
yeah the first baby on his first day in the world discovered laws of nature.