"If nothing established the laws of physics then how would they even be laws in the first place? there has to be a catalyst for a law to exist, or else the law would not be able to materialize on its own as a reality."
As a practising earth scientist (university researcher), here are some definitions that might help.
A scientific law describes a set of predictable outcomes that will occur within a range of observed conditions. It has no observable exceptions, however our point of view as humans is limited. Laws are not the holy grail of science, they tend to be black boxes, and useful ones, e.g. Stephan Boltzman, and Weins laws. They do not however explain why or how the observations are predictable.
A Hypothesis is a conjecture supported by some evidence that with further testing may contribute to a working theory that helps to explain an observable phenomenon. These are falsifiable and tested in an attempt to build understanding.
A theory is a robust well tested framework that represents our best understanding of the reasons why of a set of observations is the way it is. This is the objective of science to advance our understanding of things.
The laws of science are not immutable, our understanding and perspective grows with a lot of hard work.
Laws and physical constants are often bandied about in philosophical discussions, and used inappropriately. They are not things that exist, just our tools for describing things that exist.
It's a lot like the René Magritte, painting of a pipe with the subtitle translated as "this is not a pipe". There is no rule book of immutable laws of the universe, just our paintings trying to reflect a better understanding of it.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
