Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Laws of Nature
Message-ID: <115@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Apr-84 18:30:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.115
Posted: Mon Apr 30 18:30:11 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 03:17:05 EDT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 37

[]
Andrew Koenig:

> The laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.  In other words,
> the last sentence above is a misstatement.  When the laws of physics
> say that the energy lost by (A) equals the energy gained by (B), they are
> not really saying that that MUST happen.  Rather, they are saying what
> DOES happen, based on all the experiments that everyone has been able
> to conduct so far.  This sort of law is always subject to revision in
> the light of new evidence (as Einstein's discoveries revised Newton's
> laws of motion), and is best considered as a description of the way
> the universe IS rather than how it must (or should) be.

I think this is mincing words.  When you over-extend the analogy, of course
it will fall apart.  The Law that is implied is a (the) true physical law
or laws that describe the motions of the billiard balls, not man's best guess
at the time.  The point, which you are only emphasizing, is that the laws do
not of themselves *cause* anything.  A true physical law describes what MUST
happen because that's the way things are; it is, in a sense, a "truth."
It's not like the speed limit, which we may care to break, or Newton's "Law",
which may be imperfect.  I think this is what is meant by the analogy.
(I note that later on in his article, Andrew warns us about reasoning with
analogies...)

> In any event, it seems to me at least as plausible to say that the laws
> of nature are the cause of EVERYTHING as to say that they cause nothing.

This seems 180 degrees from the earlier paragraph.  If they cause things,
then they are (in your words) "prescriptive."  Which is it?

> And what is the cause of this "pressure?"  If everything must have a cause,
> so must this.  If some things may be causeless, why not the universe?

Because you can't reverse entropy.

	-- David Norris        :-)
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david