Difference between laws of reality and laws of nature/science

[Qfwfq]

Fundamentally a philosophical argument, yes, although this doesn't mean "not a scientific one".

 

I don't know the context ot that Kant quote, but I think this is generally the discussion of epistemology.

The context is a wacking good part of the book I mentioned, "Critique of pure reason" which is an undertaking to lay the metaphysical foundations of natural philosophy, as science was called back in those days. Starting from the boundaries with epistemology, he argues about what knowledge we can gain prior to experience.

 

The term noumenon is introduced well into the work, after having lengthily discussed the distinction between phenomena and "things in themselves".

 

The question is whether we actually can "know" anything, versus percieve that we know.

The original question was about the laws of reality. In a sense, reality does what it wants to do and nobody will throw it into jail. In our perception, we observe regularities that we try to explain as being "rules" but this is just an attempt to glean something about "how reality works". We do find rules having a striking predictive value.

 

Popper, totally anti-inductionist, considers these rules as being "myths" that one proposes and that are then held up to the test; imo there is quite a bit more to it than that and induction does have a role.

 

As for knowing vs. perceiving that we know, there is a type of knowledge that is independent of reality, you might call it metaknowledge, you can certainly count in logic and mathematics. Anything built on ideas without requiring material verification, only consistency. Kant calls this type of thing pure knowledge.

[Qfwfq]

You might note that this argument is tied closely to determinism. That is, a determinist might argure that our perceptions of ourselves (and our world) are all causal, and hence that perceptions themselves are not "real". If one were to hold to that position, it pretty much erases any value of the scientific method, since our perceptions cannot be trusted.

That's not what I understand determinism to be at all, idealism is more what considers that we can only suppose there to be a reality, that our perceptions represent.

 

I see no contradiction between determinism and scientific method.

[Qfwfq]

would it be correct to say that laws of reality is noumena and laws of nature(as we perceive it) is phenomena?

Correct or not, that certainly isn't how the two terms are meant. I wouldn't say the laws are one or the other thing, I'd say the laws concern them.

[paradox]

Applying the least appropriate of phyisics laws isn't an excuse to say that the laws of phyisics are violated and I find that kind of argument nothing but facetious.

i never meant to imply that the laws of physics are being violated

this is more what i had in mind, if i may quote

 

The reality is bumble bees fly, and I submit that this is also a physical reality. We just don't understand the physical laws well enough yet to explain this phenomenon properly.

 

in other words, i believe we just don't know enough

laws are still to be proven, found whatever

untill then, someone should explain to all those bees there are laws to obey :)

[Fishteacher73]

in other words, i believe we just don't know enough

laws are still to be proven, found whatever

untill then, someone should explain to all those bees there are laws to obey

 

Did not the proverbial apple fall on Newton's head before he described gravity? The laws do not need our understanding nor vocalization to exist..

[infamous]

Did not the proverbial apple fall on Newton's head before he described gravity? The laws do not need our understanding nor vocalization to exist..

 

Very true, very true; Fishteacher.

[paradox]

Very true, very true; Fishteacher.

 

I am also agreeing on that one Fish

I'm just not sure did you say that to make a point/prove me wrong ?

 

:o too bad, cuz' I agree

[Qfwfq]

i never meant to imply that the laws of physics are being violated

this is more what i had in mind, if i may quote

Uhmmmm, let me quote:

well, isn't this the perfect thread to say you might be wrong

bumble bee is too small, and her wings are not as adequate as birdwings for example

this is exactly what the author of this topic had in mind, there are laws of (our known) science that contradict 'reality'

Who knows what you meant to imply, then.

 

in other words, i believe we just don't know enough

laws are still to be proven, found whatever

untill then, someone should explain to all those bees there are laws to obey

Which laws are those impudent bumblebees disobeying?

 

We can't claim to know all the laws of physics perfectly but this doesn't concern the matter of bumblebee flight, that is only a matter of working it out in detail in terms of physics. Known physics. I truly doubt we'd have to revise the laws of physics in order to understand every detail of bumblebee flight, at the most it could imply broadening understanding of the complicated topic of fluid dynamics.

 

In any case the example of bumblebees says nothing about the question of laws of reality as opposed to laws of nature or whatever.

[paradox]

Uhmmmm, let me quote:

Who knows what you meant to imply, then.

;) you already quoted

 

page 2

there are laws of (our known) science

[Qfwfq]

(our known)

Which ones?

[questor]

since the universe has mathmatical order, and since chemical combinations can be predicted, and since we can go to the moon, and since the sun will most surely come up

in the east tomorrow, can't we say that reality exists and follows certain natural laws, whether or not we are aware of them?

[Qfwfq]

can't we say that reality exists and follows certain natural laws, whether or not we are aware of them?

Quite right, scientists only do their best to gain a bit of insight.

[Erasmus00]

well, isn't this the perfect thread to say you might be wrong

bumble bee is too small, and her wings are not as adequate as birdwings for example

this is exactly what the author of this topic had in mind, there are laws of (our known) science that contradict 'reality'

 

According to the laws of quasi steady-state aerodynamics, insects cannot produce enough lift pressure to fly. The mechanism whereby they achieve flight must involve unsteady flows interacting with the dynamically changing wing surfaces. Insects represent some of the most versatile and maneuverable of all flying machines. Many of them can hover, turn in their own length, decelerate rapidly, role over, loop, and even land upside down on a ceiling.

 

Man, I hear this all the time, and it simply isn't true. A bee can't fly like a hawk or an airplane flies. BUT, bees are very small, all insects are. At that size, fluid dynamics works quite differently, at the bee's scale the air acts as a much more viscous fluid. Bee flight is not impossible, and the current laws of fluid dynamics do not in fact prevent a bee from flying. They just say that a bee doesn't fly like a hawk or like an airplane.

-Will

[Doctordick]

According to Kant, there are no laws of reality (noumena), only laws ascribed to the phenomena by our intellect.

I think I would have to agree with that! I have been scanning old posts and, you know, there have been lot of interesting issues brought up on this forum.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

What are the differences between the laws of nature/science and reality? What are some examples of those laws?

The difference is that scientific laws can change, or at least not hold under some conditions (see how Newton Law of Gravity has to be modified under conditions within a vacuum). Also, there are many laws of science.

 

However, there is only one "law of reality" and it never changes, it holds under all conditions, it is called the Law of Identity (or A=A).

[HydrogenBond]

Humans define their own reality. For example, is the glass half empty or is it half full? The same sensory data is entering both sets of eyes, but the filters within the human mind decide what we will call reality. The optimist sees the glass half full, while the pessimist sees the glass half empty. If the world had 51% pessimists, then culture would teach it is half empty. That becomes what we call reality. If you don't agree, you are out of touch with reality.

 

The laws of science try to hold up independent of the human perception of reality. The scientist might ask, " before we took this poll, did you put water in the glass or did you dump some of the water out? If the pollers said, "we added water to the half way point. With that data, the scientists would conclude it is half full. This could then be demonstrated again and again to make the two opposing human realities one scientific reality.

[Rade]

Humans define their own reality. For example, is the glass half empty or is it half full? The same sensory data is entering both sets of eyes, but the filters within the human mind decide what we will call reality. The optimist sees the glass half full, while the pessimist sees the glass half empty...

I agree, that each human "defines" its own reality, but I hold that "reality itself" (what can also be called the metaphysical given) is undefined. Both optimist and pessimist agree that the glass has 1/2 of something (e.g., the undefined metaphysical given), and that something is called, Reality.