GameOver22 said:
We do not empirically verify laws. We empirically verify the implications of laws, and we use this to infer whether a law is viable. Talking of laws as if they exist is misleading, particularly in conjunction with your argument that something cannot come from nothing. This argument is talking about physical things. I think you would admit there is a fundamental difference between a tree and a law, hence, when we talk of a law existing, we mean something fundamentally different from when we say a phsyical object exists. Your argument is treating both the existence of laws and the existence of things as if they are the same, which they are not. That is my criticism. In other words, the fact that an object cannot exist in nothingness does not mean that a law cannot exist in nothingness. |
I'm taking this subject right now. Philosophy of Physics. If you're interested look up the work of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn as to what science is, and what we are doing when we do an experiment.
There is a lot of debate on this and unlike physics itself there isn't a right answer. Tomorrow I have to turn in an assignment on "Are laws merely patterns?", arguing for and against all these kinds of things.
