Talk:Physical law

The section "Description" is a nonneutral point of view. The rest of the article is not as bad, but still mostly carries a subtle bias in favor of the existence of universal, eternal, absolute laws. For example, even the sentence which suggests we might not know the ultimate physical laws still assumes the existence of physical laws in the sense put forth under "Description". Critical 02:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About Users Critical and CStar

For the record, the user Critical ( talk, contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.

For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk, contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page, Chalst's talk page, and Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users. It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll. But I wasn't the perpetrator. This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well. CSTAR 01:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Knowledge and epistemology

I wasn't aware of this page until the little incident alluded to by the above discussion brought it to my attention. Now that I'm here though I do have some remarks about the article (Yikes but I won't dare touch it)

• Doesn't the first paragraph mix two things which should be separate? (1) What is a physical law is and (2) how we obtain physical laws.

Now it is arguable that one can't meaningfully separate the two. I don't think I believe that, but I'm certain willing to listen to an argument in favor of this.

• Do physical laws have to be generalizations? If so, how general do they have to be? Generality does seem to be a desirable property of physical laws, but again I don't think this really gets to the heart of the matter. Some kid discovering the principle that toys fall when let go, has discovered a physical law.
• The properties of physical laws listed in the Description section, should have more clearly identified source attribution, that is some comment such as

• Universality (R. P. Feynman, The Feynman lectures on XYZ, 1971).

Some of these I find hard to believe can be attributed to the sources mentioned. For instance, the property of Omnipotence to Feynman? Maybe, but I find it hard to swallow that he would have said something like that.

CSTAR 17:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

References are now clearly distinguished.--Johnstone 14:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Movable type

What is a "movable type" law of nature?

The distinction seems spurious, at least without further clarification and some reference. Statistical laws can also be laws of nature; many well-known laws are.CSTAR 14:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Confusing Sentence, and Concerning the Usage of "Law"

"Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Principia Mathematica, and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity."

How does that make sense, especially given what the paragraph above it states? A law is not the same as a theory. --Apostrophe 18:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Despite what I write here, I see no great error in the article. It accurately describes the subject in the context of its typical usage. I guess I am only interested whether there is sufficient objection (other than mine, as I will describe) to the semantics of the phrase "physical law" to include noting such an objection in the article.

There is an argument to be made, perhaps elsewhere, for a return to at least a weakly more positivist perspective in scientific discussions; here, I only ask whether there is avoidable confusion, identified by Apostrophe, in comparing "physical law," an historical verbal construction, with "theory," which is a more modern and more meaningful formalism.

The reason the sentence Apostrophe cites makes no sense (Apostrophe is right to question it) is that the usage of the word "law" in this context has a metaphorical, social and literary source, rather than a source in the practice of scientific enquiry. The usages "physical law," "scientific law," "law of nature" and so on descend to us from the period when Western thinkers and investigators- in the process of developing techniques of reductionist enquiry- presumed a supernatural world where "natural lawgiving" entities existed. One goal of enquiry about the world, for them, was to ever more clearly describe the nature of such esoteric "laws" that are followed by the natural world, these laws being prescribed from outside of nature.

Whether or not a supernatural lawgiver exists, the presumption of the supernatural (including "irreducible complexity" and so on) is no longer part of scientific enquiry. But the metaphorical usage, "law," remains embedded throughout the literature, especially throughout the "meta-literature," that is, that literature that seeks to relate the practice of science, scientific ideas and the current state of scientific enquiry to non-scientists, and that that is used to teach science.

The continued use of this word seems to be a problem. One sees that "laws" are made by people, obeyed by people, flaunted by people, ignored by people, enforced by people, altered or abolished by people, to prescribe the behavior of people. People may invoke supernatural inspiration for the laws they prescribe, of course. No one has ever received a ticket for breaking a "physical law."

Continuing to use "law" in this way also invites the intrusion into scientific discourse- through the exploitation of what amounts to an archaic, misleading metaphor- of new avatars of old supernatural ideas, unnecessarily implying as the usage does the existence of an associated sentient "lawgiver." Few who now invoke the phrases "law of nature" or "physical law" intend this.

It would be helpful if the use of "law" in this context were just abandoned. It makes no sense to describe the more or less regular way in which objects in the world behave by resorting to such loaded social metaphors. It doesn't take much thinking to find alternate, less baroque phrases that would serve just as well; "observed basic nature;" "natural behavior;" "basic behaviours;" "observed fundamental behaviors;" "fundamental natural behavior" and so on. These examples aren't devoid of metaphor (maybe only organisms "behave?") or undesirable suggestion of unapparent hierarchy, but they're descriptive and pretty neutral. Smarter people can do better, I'm sure.

If the NSF and the NCSE and other entities who seek to clarify the distinction between "science" and "not science" were to urge that we abandon these archaic terms (including also the oxymoron "scientifically proved" for the meaningful and more accurate "clearly and convincingly supported by evidence" and so on) and substitute others that (in English, anyway) are more neutral, I predict the chief objections would come from those who desire to continue to insert supernatural cause and other "not science" propaganda into science curricula. Eliminating the semantic quagmire these terms instigate would be a simple step toward clarity, reducing confusion in the minds of those who mistake metaphor for synonym. Have you ever noticed, listening to or reading discussions aimed at lay persons of theories of a multiple-dimensional world, how the notion of "dimension" as described by a physicist (who means by this something like "linearly independent degree of freedom") is obviously misinterpreted to mean something else entirely by many in the audience (something instead like "an alternate physical world, where Spock has a beard")?

I fear I've gone too long. I'm new to Wikipedia. The question is whether the article can support a (short) linguistico-philisophico critique addressing Apostrophe's question? Or, whether such an objection is so insignificant that it should not be attached. Rt3368 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

in the vein of what Rt3368 has addressed in the above, well-spoken and long-winded monologue, I would like to (briefly) bring forth and put very strong emphasis, if i may, on a very important fact that needs to be taken into consideration by all, and within the article of discussion as well...

==Laws as definitions== Those laws which are just mathematical definitions (say, fundamental law of mechanics - second Newton's law $F={\frac {dp}{dt}}$), or uncertainty principle, or least action principle, or causality - are absolutely correct (simply by definition). They are extremely useful - because they can not be violated nor falsified.

I have personally falsified the state of "absolute" correctness of these statements-- simply by writing this comment. In fact, the moment I-- or anyone-- doubted the correctness of these statements, they were immediately falsified. There is only ONE Truth, ONE principle that is correct in the absolute regarding Science, and that is that NOTHING in Science is EVER correct in the absolute.

I think I will leave it at that.

Moosa17 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Laws as Idealizations

in the laws as approximation section, where would laws like say, the Gas Laws fit into the various types mentioned? they are not precisely an approximation, because they are exact if applied to an ideal gas, the only snag being that in real life there aint no such thing, leaving one with the uneasy feeling that rather than the law being the approximation, it is the real stuff out there that is regarded as an approximation to the ideal.

Unreferenced

Tag added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClairSamoht (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed absurd veri policy tag. The article is referenced. What is the problem? Please specify your objections rather than slapping an absurd tag on the page - Communicate! Vsmith 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all laws are physical laws

What about the law of natural selection??--Filll 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about it? This article is about physical laws, clearly distinguishing it from other-than-physical laws. Xihr 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, scientific law redirects here.--Filll 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful about recent edits

They look like unsourced OR to me, and personal rants. Comments?--Filll 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

'Stable' or 'Eternal'

The section about the character of laws of nature notes that laws are 'stable', yet the source used (Davies, 1992:83) worded this stronger: 'Eternal'. I must say I prefer the word 'stable'. However, 'stable' has a 'temporary' ring that 'eternal' does not have: Did laws become stable? Can they become unstable? etc.

My impression is that quite some scientists might go with the word 'eternal' yet quite some philosophers and physical cosmologists might go with the word 'stable'. What do you think? --Matti 09:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsupportable "Distinctions?"

This article seems better now than the last time I read it. The second paragraph attempts to define a difference in usage between "physical law" and "religious law," "civil law" and so on. This distinction is properly repeated elsewhere in the article.

What's missing is a critique on the appropriateness of the use of "law" at all. Despite Feynman, et. al., "law" is a problem because it implies lawgiver. In 1965, this colloquialism had little moment. Today, particularly in the U.S., its moment is greater. In 1965, Richard Feynman could get away with derisiveness with respect to the analysis of "vilozoverz." In the era of Antonin Scalia, that dismissiveness is dangerous.

I have trouble with the distinction made, under the heading "Description", between "physical law" and "theory", that "Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws" and so on. This seems to be an arbitrary distinction. Newton's "Laws" of Motion (to use an over-cited example) are no more "simple" than Maxwell's equations (in say, the form of the Heavside Four), and we refer to this representation as a theory. Similarly, the distinction between "that a thing happens" and "why and how a thing happens" isn't very compelling. I don't think that Quantum Electrodynamics explains at all "why" any of the behaviors it predicts happen.

This confusion results directly from trying to explain the use of a misleading, anachronistic "custom" of usage- a language game that was lost a long time ago and that now only invites comparison of an implied Lawgiver with Lawgiver(s) of revealed truth described in religious texts and traditions. No such comparison is warranted, but it entices.

The only thing we see in our observations are a great deal of phenomena that may be approximately described by more or less complex mathematical relations. That is beautiful and powerful and useful enough. The use of colloquial language like "Law" is both inadequate and misleading.Rt3368 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Expert needed

What constitutes a physical/scientific law is a topic in philosophy, specifically metaphysics and philosophy of science. Yet no relevant philosophers or specific theories on the subject appear to be cited in the article; it doesn't even mention Hume. (Feynman was a physicist, but not exactly a specialist in this area. The study of what constitutes a physical law is rather different from the study of the laws of physics.) This article definitely needs some attention from someone versed in the subject. I have added a notice to this effect.

Incidentally I don't think this article should be in WikiProject Physics. 'Physical law' is not the same as 'law of physics' - any scientific law is a 'physical law'. And (to repeat myself) the study of what constitutes such laws is not really part of physics. (Physics aims to work out the particular laws of physics that obtain in this universe.) Ben Finn 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article ought not be in WikiProject Physics. But no scientific enquiry is rightly interested in any sort of 'law of physics' or any other sort of 'law'. Laws are made and enforced by lawgivers who are either persons or deities. The natural world- our observations of which are an object of scientific enquiry- is a collection of perhaps interconnected phenomena which exhibit more or less regular dynamic or static aspects. That's all. "Laws of Motion", "Laws of Thermodynamics", the "Gas Laws" etc. are merely anachronistic, colloquial, parochial and historical usages. No one ever had to pay a fine for breaking Newton's "Laws". Trying to explain this away by saying "By `Physical Law' we don't mean anything like `civil law'..." and so on is unsatisfying. What we really mean when we use this word, "law" in this way is that we are respecting what Hume (I agree he's the one to cite rather than Feynman) would identify as mere historical "custom". It is a custom moreover with no scientific value. Rt3368 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Equally, the categorization of this article as part of WikiProject Physics is mere custom. Rt3368 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me this article is categorised that way because physicists regard the term "Physical law" as being a synonym for "Law of physics". I'm sure most members of the general public would agree. Moreover, the text of the article reflects the usage in physics, except for a sentence someone added to the lead. If you want an article describing the usage of "Physical law" in philosophy, write your own and add a disambiguation; don't vandalise this one. PaddyLeahy 07:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't vandalized anything and don't intend to do so. The article already strays very far indeed into "philosophy", as it stands. If the article said essentially,

"Physical Law is a colloquialism used in the sciences to refer to relations that are more or less regular between measurable physical phenomena. It is a designation used to identify relations of this type that are considered particularly useful for scientific enquiry, important and profound."

If all the article said was something like the above, then I would strongly agree with it and agree that it was an appropriate entry for WikiProject Physics.

Instead, we have a "Description" section with appeal to authority (Feynman, et. al.); invocations of "beauty" and "simplicity" etc. which are utterly subjective; we invoke a puzzling demarkation between "Physical Law" and "theory" which is entirely arbitrary:

"Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts..."

etc.

We add to these the philosophically-loaded attribute of "truth" ("`Physical Laws' are true." What does this mean?). This is followed close-on by the section "Laws as approximations"- and of course approximations can be true- but which includes

"...laws which are just mathematical definitions... are absolutely correct (simply by definition)... they can not be violated nor falsified..."

Really? Let us consult our Popper and Quine. The example (force equals the first time derivative of momentum) isn't a mathematical identity. It's a statement that a regular relation is observed between independently measurable physical quantities.

Then we have, in the section "Origin of laws of nature",

"So to large extent laws of nature are not laws of nature per se..."

Good grief.

I don't think I can reasonably be accused of introducing "philosophy" into the article (since I have never altered it) or of threatening to do so. I'm unsatisfied with the squishy writing, examples of which I've mentioned here. I don't think the article is at all clear. If it just said something like what I wrote above, "a colloquialism used in the sciences..." and so on, or something a little more elaborate, it would be clear.Rt3368 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with similarly-named article

I notice there is a separate article Laws of science (?previously and more accurately called List of laws of science), about the particular physical laws that obtain in this universe (rather than what constitutes a physical law). It seems to be some of this article could be moved there, and perhaps that article or this one renamed, so as to distinguish between the two more clearly. I'd suggest that one article be purely about the actual laws, and the other (this one) purely about what constitutes a law (i.e. this article with improvements as discussed above). This article could be renamed 'Law of nature' (or perhaps 'Scientific law'), which is I believe is a more usual term in philosophy, and removes the potential confusion that the term 'Physical law' is not limited to laws of physics. Ben Finn 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

True?

Laws of nature are not just "true", as it used to say in the article. For example Newton's law of gravity is only an approximation to Einstein's more exact general theory of relativity. It works very well in a broad class of situations, but it is completely wrong in some.