I have been thinking about the possible views on laws of nature vs nature. On the one hand, the safest bet seems to be one where laws of nature are our mental constructions that map to how the shared world works, so that with those mental constructions we can know what we can expect to happen in repeatable circumstances of the same kind (such as the weight due to law of gravity for a pebble versus for a bigger rock), and, aided with logic, can even tell what will happen in newer circumstances of different kinds (such as the expected path from the law of gravity along with laws of motion for a moving rock) that have not been performed before.
This is more like the laws of nature as rules of a mysterious game show—where we don't know how we ended up there or why— but we realized we can learn some rules of the game while playing—but we can never know whether the game is closed under those rules or even if it is all a dream, or whether we can recreate a new game from them, or even whether it is a category error to hope for them. More like playing the game, the witness. In this view, we can know as much as we can about the universe, but our understanding may always be open-ended and tentative, and something mysterious perpetually remains.
The other is a more pompous view where one thinks the universe is like a game of life with some primitive elements and definte ways for the ways the primitive elements behave, and everything else, even the whole universe, could be deduced from them, and if we have those primitive elements and can supply the same conditions, can give birth to a new universe. etc. I think the former view is safer, more historically justified, than the latter, which I think is more characteristic of modern physics.
I think culture also played a role in favoring one view over the other. Historically, when science was culturally entwined with religion, the latter view was more favoured, with god behind the fundamental laws and the primitive stuff. Then later, atheism adopted the same view but without anyone behind the screen. But I think, regardless of belief in a deity, the former view is more justified on historical grounds. And it, ironically, does evoke in me a stronger feeling of mystery and even reverence, without a destination for that reverence.
The latter view, seeing laws of nature as the universe's ultimate rulebook, nevertheless has its advantages. It provides a sort of emotional conviction (a sense of ``it cannot be otherwise'). That conviction is needed to do mathematical proofs and reasoning effectively. For some reason, it feels hard to do mathematical reasoning with tentative facts—it's perhaps a psychological effect. The mind more forcefully and easily sees the conclusions that follow when presented with absolute truths than when presented with tentative observations or truths.
But the latter view has the drawback of assuming that fundamental laws can be associated only with the very small. This may not be true. Even in the latter view, the laws of nature can stay fixed over time, but may act at different times in the history of the universe. For instance, the law of evolution by natural selection may be a fundamental law, but one that manifests only at a later stage in the universe's history. Many such higher-level fundamental laws may exist for complex systems. More like how a new rule of a game can start applying only after many missions, and a large part of the plot has already been completed. This, also, I think reconciles the two views. Because now we never know, just by looking at what has come so far, or even the smallest, that we have looked at everything we need to observe or deduce the fundamental laws of the universe. The universe is more like an unfolding Christopher Nolan movie.
This is more like the laws of nature as rules of a mysterious game show—where we don't know how we ended up there or why— but we realized we can learn some rules of the game while playing—but we can never know whether the game is closed under those rules or even if it is all a dream, or whether we can recreate a new game from them, or even whether it is a category error to hope for them. More like playing the game, the witness. In this view, we can know as much as we can about the universe, but our understanding may always be open-ended and tentative, and something mysterious perpetually remains.
The other is a more pompous view where one thinks the universe is like a game of life with some primitive elements and definte ways for the ways the primitive elements behave, and everything else, even the whole universe, could be deduced from them, and if we have those primitive elements and can supply the same conditions, can give birth to a new universe. etc. I think the former view is safer, more historically justified, than the latter, which I think is more characteristic of modern physics.
I think culture also played a role in favoring one view over the other. Historically, when science was culturally entwined with religion, the latter view was more favoured, with god behind the fundamental laws and the primitive stuff. Then later, atheism adopted the same view but without anyone behind the screen. But I think, regardless of belief in a deity, the former view is more justified on historical grounds. And it, ironically, does evoke in me a stronger feeling of mystery and even reverence, without a destination for that reverence.
The latter view, seeing laws of nature as the universe's ultimate rulebook, nevertheless has its advantages. It provides a sort of emotional conviction (a sense of ``it cannot be otherwise'). That conviction is needed to do mathematical proofs and reasoning effectively. For some reason, it feels hard to do mathematical reasoning with tentative facts—it's perhaps a psychological effect. The mind more forcefully and easily sees the conclusions that follow when presented with absolute truths than when presented with tentative observations or truths.
But the latter view has the drawback of assuming that fundamental laws can be associated only with the very small. This may not be true. Even in the latter view, the laws of nature can stay fixed over time, but may act at different times in the history of the universe. For instance, the law of evolution by natural selection may be a fundamental law, but one that manifests only at a later stage in the universe's history. Many such higher-level fundamental laws may exist for complex systems. More like how a new rule of a game can start applying only after many missions, and a large part of the plot has already been completed. This, also, I think reconciles the two views. Because now we never know, just by looking at what has come so far, or even the smallest, that we have looked at everything we need to observe or deduce the fundamental laws of the universe. The universe is more like an unfolding Christopher Nolan movie.