April 21st, 2008Does Nature Have Laws?
Science, because of its apparent success seems to tell us that nature follows some laws in a universal fashion. Science has in fact for role to find such laws in the empirical data collected by experiments done in specific domains. The question is whether 1) nature has laws by itself or that 2) science is finding laws where there is not any by considering only a restricted part of nature or that 3) nature appears to have laws because of the “nature” of the mind.
As we will see later 2) and 3) can in some way be related. 1) on the other hand pose a problem: If the laws are part of nature itself, are they themselves governed by laws? If not, it would means that finally nature (that have to include the laws as part of itself to be considered complete) is not entirely governed by laws. If it has, these higher laws would also needs yet higher laws ad infinitum. So in brief, we answered the question: Nature does not have laws in itself. But what does it means? Lets look first at the other two possibilities and answer this question later on.
2) is probably the most modest claim and fit nicely with what we know about science. For example, currently no fundamental laws (that would theoretically explain everything) are available. Instead scientists use particular laws for particulars domains. More precisely, scientists use general theory of relativity for macroscopic scales, quantum mechanics for microscopic scales and classical laws in between. Similarly, in chemistry or biology several other laws are used even if theoretically (as assumed by a reductionist account of nature) everything could be reduced to physical laws. Classical physics physics is for example an approximation of (and thus is included in) relativity when speed are near zero relative to the speed of light and of quantum physics when the scales are near infinity relative to the Planck constant. But there is no general law for deciding if we have to use quantum physics or the theory of relativity in a particular situation. The border is undefined, even blur. It is for this reason that today, the most important task of theoretical physicists is to find a new theory encompassing the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Such an attempt is for instance string theory and quantum gravity. But this is still to be confirmed whether these new theories are complete and whether we can apply the reductionist assumption for explaining biology or chemistry for example by these “fundamental” theories.
It is quite normal then to agree that science, at least now has only found laws that concern only a small part of nature and agree with 2). But most of scientist would argue that the goal of science is to find universal laws that would explain everything and that it is possible to find it. Let imagine for a moment that it is indeed possible; would it not imply that nature has laws in itself? If yes, then we get the problem cited above. If not, the only alternative possibility is 3): laws found by science are the product of the mind and that nature itself has no laws.
Let’s analyze 2) in more details. If laws are only found in specific area of the world, what makes us choose these specific ones other than other? Is it not because of our human nature, of our way to evolve in the world? Science is a process by which a species (humans in this case) survives in the world. Our mind then attribute this as pertaining to nature itself because this interpretation permits us to survive.
2) and 3) are finally the same. 3) lets the possibility that we can find laws pertaining to the whole nature while 2) is more modest. But 3) itself would not explain why there is laws in the first place for the same reason than 1) is not possible. So in fact 3) and 2) pertain to the same idea: Nature has no laws but it is the nature of the mind (at least the human mind) to give order where there is no.
I promised to answer the question: What is the meaning of a nature with no law in itself? In fact the meaning will not be find here because it seems as we see for science that for a meaning to be understandable by a human mind it has to be settle down by some specific law, some logical law. And as we saw nature does not behave this way. Nature is not logical. It has no law in itself. In one sense it is in a state where many different interpretation are possible. Each of these interpretation having there specific set of laws but not of them are describing nature in itself.