Key Moments
Do Laws of Nature Govern Reality? | Michael Tooley
Closer To TruthWant to know something specific about what's covered?
We've already dissected every moment. Ask and we will deliver (with timestamps).
Key Moments
Laws of nature might be more than just observed regularities; they could be fundamental relations between universals, even if never instantiated.
Key Insights
Michael Tooley proposes that laws of nature are relations between universals, not mere constant conjunctions of events, which helps circumvent skepticism about laws.
The principle that the probability of an effect is a function of the probability of the cause needs modification for probabilistic laws, incorporating a 'weight' for the law itself.
While many fundamental physics laws are temporally symmetric, the existence of temporally asymmetric laws like the Liénard-Wiechert and Jefimenko equations is crucial for grounding a robust theory of causation.
Tooley argues that we are not directly aware of the 'earlier than' relation; instead, it's derived from causal relations, supporting a view where temporal properties are analyzed rather than basic.
The governing law approach suggests laws can exist even if they have no instances, illustrated by the hypothetical first experience of purple or a differently configured brain potentially having specific color qualia.
Laws as relations between universals, not just conjunctions
Michael Tooley advocates for a metaphysical view where laws of nature are not simply descriptions of repeated events (constant conjunctions), but rather fundamental relations between universals (properties or types of things). This approach, shared with philosophers like Dretske and Armstrong, offers an advantage in confirming laws. If laws were merely observed regularities, the sheer number of instances required for absolute certainty would be problematic, especially with an infinite number of events like those in electromagnetism. By positing laws as direct relations between properties, Tooley suggests that such relations can 'drag along' instantiations, thus explaining why if property F is instantiated, property G necessarily follows. This non-reductionist stance aims to provide a more robust foundation for laws, avoiding the skeptical problems that arise from purely empirical regularities.
Addressing probabilistic laws
A key principle in Tooley's account is that the probability of an effect is a function of the probability of its cause, but not vice versa (a posteriori probability of effect depends on a priori probability of cause). However, this principle requires a correction when dealing with probabilistic laws of nature, as found in quantum mechanics. For these laws, the a posteriori probability of an effect is a function of both the a priori probability of the cause and a specific 'weight' or probability intrinsic to the law itself. This adjustment acknowledges that probabilistic laws don't offer certainty but a degree of likelihood. Tooley views this modification as consistent with his earlier account, extending the core principle to accommodate the probabilistic nature of certain natural laws.
Temporal asymmetry in physics and its causal implications
A significant challenge to Tooley's view of causation, which he sees as intrinsically directional, comes from the perceived temporal symmetry of fundamental physics laws. If all laws operated equally in both time directions, it would be harder to defend an irreducible, directional concept of causation. However, Tooley highlights that not all physical laws are symmetric. He points to the Liénard-Wiechert and Jefimenko equations in electromagnetism, which demonstrate temporal asymmetry. These equations allow for determining future states from present causes but, crucially, do not permit working backward from later states to determine prior causes in the same definitive way. Textbooks often employ arbitrary choices or additional assumptions to resolve this, but the underlying equations contain this asymmetry. According to Tooley, the existence of even a few temporally asymmetric laws is sufficient to provide a grounding against total skepticism about causation, without requiring that the majority of laws exhibit this asymmetry.
Causation as the basis for temporal relations
Tooley argues against the idea that time itself, or temporal properties like 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' are fundamental. He rejects views that treat tense properties as basic or that hold the 'earlier than' relation as foundational. Instead, he favors a view where causal relations are primary. We are not directly aware of the 'earlier than' relation itself, but rather infer it from causal connections. This is illustrated by a thought experiment involving a demon that could manipulate brain states to mimic the experience of causation. Tooley's favored approach, influenced by David Lewis, analyzes the 'earlier than' relation in terms of causation. This leads to a conception of time where temporal properties are derivative: 'pastness' means being causally prior to present events, and 'futurity' means being later than present events.
The nature of time and reality
From this causal analysis of time, Tooley adopts a 'growing block' view of reality. In this model, events happen and causally give rise to later events, but the totality of existing events expands over time. The passage of time is understood as the continuous coming into existence of later events through causation. This stands in contrast to a 'block universe' view where all past, present, and future events are equally real. Tooley's approach allows for the possibility that the causal chain could terminate, meaning there might be no future events, leading to a universe that is constantly growing.
The possibility of uninstantiated laws
A significant implication of the governing law approach, particularly the non-reductionist view, is that laws of nature might exist even if they are never instantiated by any events. Tooley presents arguments for this, such as the case of someone about to experience the color purple for the first time. If an asteroid were to strike and prevent this first experience, the counterfactual statement 'If the asteroid had not struck, then this being would have experienced purple' remains plausible. The truth of such counterfactuals, Tooley suggests, depends on the existence of a law connecting the relevant brain states or properties to the quale of purple, even if that law has no actual instances. Similarly, variations in brain structure could, in principle, lead to different qualia based on potential, uninstantiated laws.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Software & Apps
●Organizations
●Books
●People Referenced
Common Questions
The governing law view proposes that laws of nature are not mere constant conjunctions of events, but rather represent relations between universals. This perspective suggests that if one property is instantiated, the relation to another property necessitates the instantiation of that second property as well.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
A philosopher who, along with Fred Dretske and Michael Tooley, proposed that laws of nature are relations between universals.
A philosopher of science and physics whose work is noted for potentially overlooking the temporal asymmetry in certain physics laws.
A philosophy department head in Australia from whom Michael Tooley learned about the concept of no asymmetry in fundamental laws of physics.
A philosopher whose theory of causal analysis of the earlier-than relation Michael Tooley favors.
Equations mentioned as being temporally asymmetric, countering the general assumption of temporal symmetry in fundamental physics.
Equations discussed in relation to Maxwell's equations, which Jefimenko pointed out relate states of affairs at simultaneous moments rather than establishing a temporal asymmetry, contrary to initial interpretations.
The foundational equations of electromagnetism, which Jefimenko analyzed to show their potential for temporal asymmetry when properly interpreted.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 37 summaries
22 minWhy Physics Needs Counterfactuals | Chiara Marletto
30 minIs Dark Energy Changing Over Time? | Saul Perlmutter
36 minThe Dark Matter Puzzle | Saul Perlmutter
24 minWhere Do the Dark Energy Numbers Come From? | Saul Perlmutter
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free