# Why does the universe obey scientific laws?

As far as anyone is aware, the universe consistently acts according to predictable laws (and scientific inquiry exists to determine those laws). Is there any metaphysical reason for this? Is such a question even answerable?

EDIT: I think my question was misunderstood, so I'll try to clarify. I know about the mathematics question, but this question is, why is the universe consistent? It's related to the problem of induction: just because all hitherto observed emeralds are green doesn't necessarily mean that all emeralds are green. Yet, those who have hypothesized that emeralds are green have (thus far) been found to be correct. In other words, as far as anyone can tell, the universe is consistent to the point where much of its behavior is predictable using known laws and statistics. Is there any philosophical discussion regarding why that appears to be the case?

FURTHER EDIT: The question is more fundamental than the simple, 'why are all emeralds green', to which the answer is obviously, 'because if it wasn't green, we wouldn't call it an emerald', and once I formulate the question better, I think that the answer becomes obvious. Let's use an actual law, F=ma. We've checked rocks, we've checked feathers; we've checked slow moving objects and fast moving objects, and yet, lo and behold, the law always seems to be true, and it's stayed true for at least a few hundred years (but we can reasonably assume that it was just as true a millennium ago). Now, I ask the metaphysical (in the most literal sense) question: why is this law always true? Why does the universe behave so consistently?

-
I suggest replacing 'scientific laws' with 'mathematical constructs'. That is, reality seems to be fundamentally mathematical. Lots of discussion has been had about this observation! – labreuer Jun 30 '14 at 17:12
Uhm... We have defined the laws based on the universe's behavior, so of course they're consistent with it and it's consistent with them. In the places where we suspect the two diverge, research continues in an effort to refine the models to the point where they are consistent; in the places where two models agree with the universe but not each other, research continues to try to find ways to further test them and distinguish which model works better. That's inherent in rational thought, not just in science... – keshlam Jul 1 '14 at 3:15
What is the alternative? – Praxeolitic Jul 1 '14 at 7:52
It's not that universe obeys, it's just that the "scientific laws" are constructed so that they suit the way the universe is. – Cthulhu Jul 1 '14 at 8:51
`It's related to the problem of induction: just because all hitherto observed emeralds emerald is green doesn't necessarily mean that all emeralds are green.` If the gem is not green, then it does not fit the definition of emerald. Thus all emeralds are green, no exception. I do not study philosophy, but from engineering POV it makes sense... – jnovacho Jul 2 '14 at 10:33

I like immortal squish's answer, but I'm going to take it a step further.

Physics (and other science) as we know it is a way to describe how the universe behaves. If gravity worked in reverse, but it was consistent about it, that would be the physics. It's perfectly valid to say that the universe has a set of physics, for example. A different universe could have a different physics - at least in theory.*

However, that doesn't say anything as to why the universe has a consistent set of physics in the first place. The answer to that is that we don't know if it does. We only know what the physics in the area we're able to explore. Light could travel in spirals before it gets within the "bubble" of physics as we know it, where it begins traveling in a straight line. However, there is no evidence for this, nor can there be, by definition - everything in our area behaves consistently, according to the one set of physics.

If physics weren't consistent from moment to moment, at least in our local area, then it's highly unlikely anything even remotely resembling intelligent life as we understand it would have been able to emerge. If gravity started varying in how quickly it falls off, or the nuclear force equations changed, or suddenly there were one fewer type of quark, then everything would fly apart, or crush together, or annihilate itself, or so on. That is not to say that there can't be other physics - just that what we do have has to be consistent.

* Side note: This theory is a big part of how many science-fiction stories get around the apparent restriction on FTL travel - the traveler dips into other universes where the physics allows for it, or pulls some of it here, or otherwise goes "around" physics with other universes/dimensions/etc.

Just to edit in some of the things I've been saying in comments:

Is this just the anthropic principle? Sortof, in a much more general form than it's usually used. We can conceive of intelligence in a different universe with radically different physics. That isn't to say we can describe how consciousness could exist in a universe where gravity fell off twice as fast or one where atoms didn't hold together into molecules, but we can conceive that that awareness could exist. (See Boltzmann brains, for example).

What was that about life evolving? I've corrected it to "emerge". I didn't intend to invoke evolution. Spontaneously generated intelligence (such as the aforementioned brains) would count as "emerging", but definitely not "evolving".

Why couldn't we conceive of such an intelligence? Mostly, because of the lack of the ability to convey information. If fundamental particles (whether or not they're the same fundamental particles we have) don't behave in consistent manners, then there's no way to know anything about them or any larger structures based on them. We see color because of the wavelengths associated with a photon. If that photon suddenly became a proton, it would no longer convey that information. And without the ability to receive information from the environment, there's no way to observe (in the quantum sense) anything. And intelligent life that is unable to observe is incomprehensible to us.

-
+1 from me. It's the second paragraph that addresses what I was actually asking about; sorry if I was unclear. But as noted, even if we can't actually prove anything learned by induction (and so yes, it could in fact be that the universe isn't consistent) it has been so far (as far as we can tell). Just to clarify then, is the final answer an appeal to the anthropic principle? (In that in any universe, or any part of our own universe, only in systems that adhere to consistency support the beings that would question it) – Matt Jul 1 '14 at 6:30
@Matt - A very generalized form, yes. Basically, "Without consistency, it's impossible to have anything that we would recognize." We can conceive of a universe with different physics and what those physics may imply for how things work, but we can't conceive of how inconsistent physics would work, let alone an intelligent being that can survive said inconsistent physics. – Bobson Jul 1 '14 at 12:33
One funny way a science fiction show called Futurama gets around the speed of light issue is that the ship doesn't physically move - the universe moves around it. Of course, this is the speed of light after it's been raised somehow hundreds of years in the future. Don't ask how those 2 sentences can describe the same universe. – trysis Jul 2 '14 at 0:25
@avgvstvs - No, we know that based on what we can see it doesn't twist. The whole point is that if physics were different beyond a certain area, then after crossing over the transition into our area, everything would behave exactly as expected, because it's now obeying known physics. ----- For the record, Occam's Razor is a valid argument against this being the case, but it's not proof of any sort. – Bobson Jul 2 '14 at 15:22
If physics weren't consistent from moment to moment, at least in our local area, then it's highly unlikely anything even remotely resembling intelligent life as we understand it would have been able to evolve. This is circular reasoning. You invoke evolution as part of your explanation, but evolution is a scientific theory, and the question is why the universe obeys scientific laws. As a counterexample, it's easy to imagine a universe that contains intelligent life, that doesn't obey any scientific laws, and that is run according to the will of a god. – Ben Crowell Jul 3 '14 at 16:18

I say it's not that the universe acts according to "scientific laws," but rather that these laws are a tool for people to use to quantify how the universe works.

In other words, the universe works how it works. Not according to any laws or conventions, but because "that's how it is." The fact that the universe seems to operate in a consistent manner allows us to apply labels to elements of those operations, which some people call "scientific laws" (which is outdated scientific speak, anyway).

-
It's a non trivial fact the universe is consistent. An incredibly improbable event. I was hoping for a bit more than "that's just the way it is" :) – yters Jul 2 '14 at 0:03
@yters: Google "anthropic principle". If it weren't consistent, you probably wouldn't be here to hope for anything. :) – cHao Jul 2 '14 at 2:07
Saying it is an incredibly improbable event suggests that we have other universes to compare it to, or at least firm knowledge of universes existing that do not operate in the same manner ours does. Since nothing in this universe seems to operate by chance, there is little reason to assume that chance played a role in how this universe turned out (that doesn't mean there aren't other ways a universe COULD have come about or operate, but without evidence there is no basis for treating those as anything but hypothetical). – immortal squish Jul 2 '14 at 14:30
Good point @cHao, just as there is not much random about life only occurring on planets that can actually support it (e.g. Earth), there is not much chance of life as we understand it in a universe without consistent physics/properties. Everything from how life acquires energy to how it reproduces is inextricably tied to the consistent operation of the universe. So even if there are inconsistent universes out there, organisms like us wouldn't be well suited to it. – immortal squish Jul 2 '14 at 14:41
Well, just to chime in: The phrasing of initial question seemed to presuppose that there is a reason the universe operates the way it does (beyond the fundamental mechanics of the universe). Asking "Why" in this context inherently assumes that there is some intelligence and/or agenda justifying why everything is the way it is. I believe that to be an incorrect position from which to start. – immortal squish Jul 14 '14 at 19:20

The lawfulness of the Universe originated with the philosophy of the Stoics. Prior to the Stoics, there were many philosophies that were rooted in religion and religious ontology. In these, the Universe was lawful because the gods and cosmic scheme operated as they did. In contrast, the Stoics asserted that the Universe was lawful, regardless of the nature or source of those laws:

"Everything is subject to the laws of Fate, for the Universe acts according to its own nature, and the nature of the passive matter it governs." Wikipedia

The lawfulness of the Universe is not derived from induction, but it does facilitate inductive methods. The lawfulness of the Universe exists prior to -- ex ante -- to any attempts to understand it, including inductive methods.

Creationists disagree on this. The Creationist view is, taken literally, the laws of the Universe can change at any time and change by any arbitrary degree to bring about the will (end goals) of the Creator. Emphasis: these changes are due to an exogenous Creator. This is not something you can anticipate or understand with the system of the Universe.

The lawfulness of the Universe is rooted in the mechanisms of causation at a physical level. If there is no meta-process of change operating on these mechanisms of causation, then those mechanisms won't change. Once "Natural Philosophers" let go of religious and Creationist belief systems, there was no theory of meta-process for change. Furthermore, experimentalist who assumed stationary causal processes were not surprised. (Or, any "surprise" was later attributed to mistakes and errors.)

The Medieval philosopher Duns Scotus was perhaps the first to advocate inductive methods to investigate the lawfulness of the Universe. Paraphrasing: "We don't have to sample every data point, but only a great many. What we find will represent the whole." And: "We don't have to keep sampling every possible data point."

If the Universe is not lawful (i.e "lawful" = same laws operating at all times, in all settings, and independent of all observers), then experimental science would founder. No experiments would be repeatable. Now experimental science is not perfect and not all scientific experiments are easily reproducible. But for the most part experimental science is successful and viable. This doesn't prove the lawfulness of the Universe, but it adds weight of evidence against the proposition that the Universe is unlawful.

It should be noted that the precursors of the idea of a lawful Universe go back much farther, to Plato's Ideal Forms, to Pythagoras' Transcendental Philosophy, and to the Pre-Socratics. What these early systems lacked was an explicit and formal process for specifying mechanisms. Starting with Galileo, Newton, and Kepler, the laws of the Universe could be specified in mathematics in a way that fully characterized the causal mechanisms.

-
Would you cite the bit about "the Creationist view"—especially "the"? – labreuer Jul 1 '14 at 1:35
The problem of induction also supports "the Creationist view": the regularity of nature is not guaranteed. Karl Popper in Logic of Scientific Discovery goes as far as to say that science must be agnostic as to allegedly unrepeatable (this includes law-breaking) events (22-23). Furthermore, the idea that knowing a final cause would eliminate the need to discover formal, material, and efficient causes is unfounded. I am not a Creationist, but I dislike misrepresentations of them, on principle. – labreuer Jul 1 '14 at 5:46
Yeah, in my view, the stoics were thinking about natural laws, while the "god is law" approach is basically saying that natural laws are just like legal laws, except that they are given to us from the outside of the universe. – Luaan Jul 3 '14 at 8:47
If the Universe is not lawful (i.e "lawful" = same laws operating at all times, in all settings, and independent of all observers), then experimental science would founder. No experiments would be repeatable. The restrictive definition in the first sentence isn't consistent with the strong conclusions in the later sentences. For example, the universe could operate according to certain laws except on the rare occasions Zeus causes something miraculous to happen. Science would work just fine in such a universe, and in fact the only way to recognize the miracles would be that they violate laws. – Ben Crowell Jul 3 '14 at 16:22

Lets take the counter-proposal - the world does not act in accordance with any laws. What does this mean? It would mean that there are no observable regularities ever.

Then the sun may or may not rise tommorow; today you might speak English at 3 O'Clock and at 5 O'Clock you are are a Donald duck; this spoon I am holding might fall uptowards the sky and that tree is actually a pyramid; when I add 2 to 2, I get 7; when you do it, you get 12;

There can be no meaning attached to a world without laws. You could conceivably take that a world without law, has a law: the law of no laws. But one doesn't have to go so far - that is to attend to such reflexive paradoxes.

Metaphysically the world must act in accordance to some law - it may not be easy to discern fully - and historically it hasn't been; its been a long haul over two and a half millenia to get as far as we have now.

The question is how that law comes about; Hume applying the strict logic that you are suggesting, showed that causality & induction are problematic; and suggested that human psychology was in part to inform regularities; this was affirmed by Kant who placed the mechanism deeper than psychology; it is in the very fabric of the mind - he called it the intuition; for the mind to experience the world it must already have a notion of space, time & causality; these are what he called the conditions for experience.

-
Great answer. But this is exactly the problem that Meillassoux responded to in After Finitude. He argues that we can never know that we are not in the universe you describe - in fact we must be certain that we are, since it makes no sense for us to think that we are not. He uses a mathematical justification, but you could see his argument as saying that perhaps everything we know is '3 O'Clock' in your description - at '5 O'Clock' we will be Donald Duck, but we are still looking at too local a set of observations to rule out the sudden and disorienting changes to the universe. – jwg Jul 1 '14 at 8:54
@jwg: what does Meillassoux mean by Finitude? Sure, it is possible that the universe might undergo some sudden change, but what I'm driving at is that this change will be determined by some law that we have no cognisance of; whereas from your summary of Meillassoux he seems to be tending to Unlawful - ie aribtrary. – Mozibur Ullah Jul 1 '14 at 9:10
It's hard to summarize what Meillassoux said, and I probably couldn't be as clear as he himself and some others. 'Finitude' comes from the mathematical argument about probability that he uses - roughly if the world of 'possible universes' were finite, we would be able to reason that it is completely improbable to live in an unstable universe, but yet experience stability. However, if we see the space of 'possible universes' as (uncountably) infinite, probabilities behave differently, and it is no less unlikely that we live in an 'arbitrary universe', but in a piece of 'arbitrary stability'. – jwg Jul 1 '14 at 9:40
There is no way to disprove a hypothesis that the observable world (including you and your memories) was created this morning and will drastically change right after you finish reading this comment. We can only assume that the world really acts and will continue to act according to some fixed laws, but we can't ever be sure. This assumption is reasonable and useful, but it's only based on Occam's razor - if we don't have any evidence to presume that our world is, say, a simulation experiment that'll have arbitrary effects from outside, then we assume that it's simple and regular. – Peteris Jul 1 '14 at 10:03
Lets take the counter-proposal - the world does not act in accordance with any laws. What does this mean? It would mean that there are no observable regularities ever. The negation of the statement "the universe obeys scientific laws" is not necessarily "the universe never obeys any scientific laws." It could be "cases exist in which the universe violates scientific laws," or "the laws governing the universe are not scientific (could be religious, etc.)." – Ben Crowell Jul 3 '14 at 16:26

Science is frequently misunderstood as wanting to define everything: in fact, science is merely a tool for describing everything, and in fact must always be open to counter-examples, to review, to new evidence, and to refinement.

Indeed, scientific process requires that any "law" be held to be true only as long as it is convenient to do so: if some piece of counter-evidence or a single counter-example be found then the "law" which had previously been held must, of necessity, be re-examined. The counter-evidence or counter-example is itself subject to similar scrutiny, of course.

So how does this relate to the original question:

the universe consistently acts according to predicable laws...Is there any metaphysical reason for this?

The simple answer is no, there is no metaphysical reason that dictates that it must be so. It is merely convenient for us that we have, so far, discovered a set of rules which are self-consistent and which have managed to explain everything that we have observed. Or, more accurately, no-one has yet come up with a counter-example which has torn up the rule book and told us to start again, because we've so far been able to adapt or refine the models which explain everything.

It is inevitable that our understanding of the universe will improve over time and that the model will evolve, and nothing yet has shaken the scientific foundation upon which we build our explanations, but there is no certainty that this will remain the case indefinitely - it is always conceivable that there will be a scale at which "laws" simply stop applying and that we have to concede that they only apply on our local scale.

Or perhaps they only apply temporarily and will, at some point, stop.

-
I think your answer is just glibly assuming. This debate is called the anthropic principle. – virmaior Jul 1 '14 at 1:08
Or perhaps your own assumptions have clouded your ability to read what I said in the way that I meant it. – ClickRick Jul 1 '14 at 6:48
The paragraph in question is "The simple answer ... explain everything." There's some weird conflation going on there. On the one hand, you're asserting carte blanche there is no metaphysical reason why the rules of the universe work out. Then, you're discussing the rules of the universe as explanatorily powerful but defeasible. The meaning changes between the two sentences. The latter refers to the way we define the rules of the universe; the former the ordering of the universe itself. Our understanding's tentativeness says nothing about the order in the universe itself. – virmaior Jul 1 '14 at 7:35

Is such a question even answerable?

No, it isn't. It's easy to construct counterexamples in the form of hypothetical universes in which there are no scientific laws.

For example, we could have a universe in which everything that happens (weather, love affairs, crops growing) is the result of the whims of a group of gods who live on the top of Mt. Olympus. You could argue that this universe has laws, e.g., that if you fail to sacrifice a dove to Zeus he may blast you with lightning. But these aren't scientific laws, and we can make them as mysterious and inconsistent as we like.

Many arguments made here have seemed to assume that the only alternative to a fully lawful universe is one with no natural laws whatsoever, but that's not true. There are quite reasonable counterexamples that interpolate between the extremes of a totally-unlawful Olympian universe and a purely naturalistic universe. For example, I have a colleague who's a physicist and who believes that the universe does normally operate according to scientific laws, but she also believes that Jesus performed the miracles described in the gospels. In her view, I suppose that the fact that walking on water violates Newton's laws of motion is the whole reason why it's an impressive miracle, even for illiterate people in the ancient world who only had an intuitive feeling for Newtonian mechanics; that would presumably be why God chose it as a way of persuading people to follow Jesus.

There's been some discussion of an anthropic explanation for why our universe has scientific laws. This doesn't work for two reasons. (1) It's circular reasoning. The anthropic explanation invokes naturalistic processes such as evolution to explain why we exist as intelligent forms of life, and says that if the universe had been entirely unpredictable, then intelligence would not have had any adaptive value. But evolution is a scientific theory, so by assuming evolution as the explanation for intelligent life, we're assuming the success of scientific theories, which is what was supposed to be proved. (2) This explanation is also flawed because it assumes that the only alternative to a perfectly lawful universe is one that's totally unlawful. The lawful-except-for-Jesus universe is consistent with naturalistic evolution of intelligent life, including intelligent beings who do science.

-

(1) A non-universal theory is a problematic explanation. If a theory doesn't apply universally then either there is an explanation of why it doesn't reply or there is no such explanation. If there is an explanation then that explanation is universal. If there isn't then your theory has a serious problem that should be fixed: it has an unexplained qualification.

(2) The laws of physics allow the existence of universal computers. Any finite physical system can be simulated by a universal quantum computer operating on a finite number of qubits. There are also subsets of the repertoire of the universal quantum computer that can simulate some systems, such as the classical Turing machine and classical computational networks. These require only the ability to compose a small number of primitive operations. As a result the laws of physics do not forbid you from understanding how anything works.

(3) This is connected with a problematic assumption in your question. Scientific knowledge is not created by induction. Induction is a variety of justificationism: the idea that it is possible or desirable to show that your ideas are true or probably true. If you assess ideas using argument then the arguments have premises and rules of inference and the result of the argument may not be true (or probably true) if the premises and rules of inference are false. You might try to solve this by coming up with a new argument that proves the premises and rules of inference but then you have the same problem with those premises and rules of inference. You might say that some stuff is indubitably true (or probably true), and you can use that as a foundation. But that just means you have cut off a possible avenue of intellectual progress since the foundation can't be explained in terms of anything deeper. And in any case there is nothing that can fill that role. Sense experience won't work since you can misinterpret information from your sense organs, e.g. - optical illusions. Sense organs also fail to record lots of stuff that does exist, e.g. - neutrinos. Scientific instruments aren't infallible either since you can make mistakes in setting them up, in interpreting information from them and so on.

We don't create knowledge (useful or explanatory information) by showing stuff is true or probably true for reasons so how do we create knowledge? We can only create knowledge by finding mistakes in our current ideas and correcting them piecemeal. You notice a problem with your current ideas, propose solutions, criticise the solutions until only one is left and then find a new problem. Experiments are useful only as criticism. Ideas can't be derived from experiment any more than from any other set of premises. Rather, the idea is that you work out how the consequences of one theory differ from those of another. Then you conjecture ideas about experimental setups that would enable you to see the relevant consequences and criticise them. Once you have a setup that works about as well as you can make it work you use it to do the test. If the results are compatible with one theory and not the others then you may have successfully refuted some false ideas. Sometimes a purported successful experimental test will be successfully criticised because a test is a conjecture about something that happened and that conjecture may be wrong, so experiments don't prove anything, nor do they support ideas.

If your propose a universal theory then it is easier to criticise than a theory that you have hedged because if you find any exception to the theory you have to discard it. As a result you can make faster progress.

For more on non-justificationist epistemology see "Realism and the Aim of Science" by Karl Popper, especially chapter I, "Objective Knowledge" by Karl Popper, chapter 1, http://fallibleideas.com/, http://fallibleliving.com/. For some stuff on epistemology and universal computation, see "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and a couple of papers:

-

"In the external world the idea of law is the same as the internal - the expectation that a particular phenomenon will be followed by another, and that the series will repeat itself. Really speaking, therefore, law does not exist in nature. Practically it is an error to say that gravitation exists in the earth, or that there is any law existing objectively anywhere in nature. Law is the method, the manor in which our mind grasps a series of phenomena; it is all in the mind. Certain phenomena, happening one after another or together, and followed by the conviction of the regularity of their recurrence - thus enabling our minds to grasp the method of the whole series - constitute what we call law." Swami Vivekananda, Complete Works, Vol 2, pages 94-95.

-

In your question, you imply that "the universe consistently acts according to predicable laws". This is not quite true, although violations of the laws are so rare, short-lived, and unpredictable that it is practical to ignore them. There is a huge body of anecdotal evidence for bizarre events that violate the laws of physics. Scientists typically ignore them or dismiss them as fraud or mental disturbance. This is a sensible policy for scientists, because these phenomena are unrepeatable and unamenable to scientific investigation. As far as planning our lives is concerned, at any scale and in any field of human activity, we may conveniently and safely ignore such phenomena, and it matters not a jot whether we believe in them or not. (Occasionally, though, some of us will get a surprise.)

Accordingly, the revised question should be "Why does the universe almost always, but not quite always, act according to predicable laws". The difference is small but philosophically significant. The extra complexity of the question suggests that the answer will be harder to find.

-
Whoa, really? There's a 'huge body of anecdotal evidence' of violations of the laws of physics? First of all, how reliable is this evidence? Second, doesn't that just mean that there are unexplained physical phenomena? The 'laws of physics' merely exist to describe the universe as we observe it. If it's observed differently, we should update our model. (And I think Van Inwagen has an essay on miracles as falsifying laws of nature but I can't look for it right now) – Matt Jul 4 '14 at 16:33
@Matt: I expect the majority of rational and scientifically educated people to disagree with me, as you do and as I did for many years. Assessing the reliability of this enormous ragbag of anecdotes requires the same kind of analysis as in judging whether people are honest or sane. These phenomena are so irregular that they do not remotely fit physical laws. Updating physical laws to accommodate them would be like updating the laws of arithmetic to say that 2 + 2 = 4 except that, very rarely, 2 + 2 = 5. I discount miracles, for reasons that would break the 500-character limit. – John Bentin Jul 4 '14 at 17:28
Ok then. Just don't expect any upvotes if the majority of the academic community disagrees with you (no offense of course, that's just the way things work) – Matt Jul 4 '14 at 18:12
@Matt: Yes. By the way, the high vote-up for your question may be because (1) it's a good question and (2) a highly up-voted question is broadcast to the Stack Exchange generally, and so may draw in many infrequent visitors to the Philosophy site, which raises its potential to get even more votes. – John Bentin Jul 4 '14 at 19:32
Thanks. Also, on exception to known physical laws, my opinion: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/914/… (if you're interested) – Matt Jul 4 '14 at 20:26

No "laws of the universe" are universal.

They work to a certain scale of statistical observation. With more observation or new instrumentation they invariably fail. New laws reconstitute symmetry, then fail in turn.

The most fundamental law of physics is the second "law" of thermodynamics. It can only be argued statistically from a given scale of observation. Yet is the "most fundamental" law.

Conclusion: Laws of physics reconstitute symmetry. They are our way of exporting entropy. What we call "the universe" is better conceived of as our entropy exporting "membrane."

-

Our science & laws are limited to our reach and understanding which depends on the period we exists and mainly the sense with which we perceive it. But there is a science which supersedes all and which is beyond any perception and which is very consistent and is n dimensional. It could be termed as super science or supreme science or real GOD which obeys a perfect rhythm.

-

We do rely on "instrumentation" in order to move beyond the limiations imposed by our senses.

Still..we do use the same "mind" normatively to extrapolate. This is "normally" an error however since any observed phenomnen is only just that: observed. Is the subject round or square or trapazoidal? There certainly are boundaries but yet again we find ourselves back to instrumentation in order to measure, define, explain. But to extrapolate...to infer from one law an even greater "law" assumes the impossible. Basically we have to go "Star Trekking" to find out. In short "mistakes will be made."

-

## protected by Community♦Jul 1 '14 at 1:48

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).