Timeline for Is there greater explanatory power in laws governing things rather than being descriptive?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 hour ago | comment | added | Batperson | are already fairly certain it exists to be discovered. If you lose your car keys, is it easier to find them if you know they are in the living room or if they could be literally anywhere? | |
| 1 hour ago | comment | added | Batperson | I think it's not true that the laws-first conception provides no help in discovering new laws. On the contrary, it's a lot easier to discover something if you | |
| 15 hours ago | history | edited | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 87 characters in body
|
| 22 hours ago | comment | added | keshlam | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| yesterday | history | edited | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| yesterday | comment | added | keshlam | See addendum. I grant that you aren't provably wrong, as far as I can tell. Seems to me to be an unpromising track to pursue, but that's philosophy for you... | |
| yesterday | history | edited | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| yesterday | history | edited | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 996 characters in body
|
| yesterday | comment | added | Syed | your answer isn’t clear with respect to that. You stated that we can make predictions and you also stated, that so far nature hasn’t broken our models, but also simultaneously now seem to be saying that we have no way of knowing if the models actually correspond to nature inherently. You provided no reason for thinking this. Why aren’t the consistent predictions seen as evidence for them being explanatory? @keshlam | |
| yesterday | comment | added | keshlam | I'm talking about the right thing, but answering "no". You are asking whether there are abstractions behind reality. I don't think so, and I can't imagine how to test the idea or what difference it would make. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Syed | the question is if positing that mathematical laws are inherent to nature explains why they don’t change, as opposed to them being just descriptions. So no, technically you’re still talking about the wrong thing | |
| yesterday | comment | added | keshlam | You're focusing on the wrong thing. What you want to know, apparently, is why the fundamental forces of nature don't change, or at least didn't change enough on our time scale for us to see those changes. I think the only answer is that this happens to be the universe we are living in. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Syed | Yes so what explains the consistency of the laws and why many of them remain unbroken tomorrow if laws are just descriptions? | |
| yesterday | history | answered | keshlam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |