The “laws of physics” are mathematical models (abstractions) created by humans. And those abstractions are embedded in the physical world (our brains, written text, magnetic disks etc.)
Actually, we are only bound to the laws of physics within the limits of our understanding. As our understanding grows, those laws become less and less restrictive. I think it's an interesting analogy or parallel for the case we are discussing.
It's based on another meme that the laws of physics are a restriction of behavior rather than construction of behavior. And that's why they are thought to conflict with unrestricted behavior.
No that's not what is being said. The laws of physics are a mental model. There is something they map on to, but we can only form an incomplete map. They're a reduction in order to understand, and thus as much as they're formed by our observations, they're equally informed by our biases and limitations.
Btw, laws are not actually things. They're descriptions that are reified by some people. What you have are things in the universe that have natures that their natures lead to detectable patterns. A law of physics is just a shorthand way of saying "things of this kind behave in this way". It's very important to understand this instead of assuming the universe is some vacuous collection of natureless things that are governed from the outside by some "laws".
Measured by conscious observers, and results perceived by conscious observers. There is no way around it.
The laws of physics are “universally” agreed truths about certain mental phenomena experienced by the conscious observers that conscious observers have so far interacted with.
Well then - I guess you'd really hate physics then, a field that reduces everything you see around you to a series of equations with a tad of randomness thrown in for good measure.
Now then - if you don't believe humans obey the law of physics - well then - that's your problem.
I have never understood the opposition to the law of physics you seem to hold.
What is the alternative? That we merely observe rigid patterns that are baked into physical reality? Isn't whatever is 'baked in' more or less a 'law of physics'?
If these are just 'brute facts' are they not then 'laws'? Maybe governance is too strong an word for the correspondence but what is the alternative?
To subjugate the creator to that which it created is a bit funny.
reply