Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)

  • 191 Replies
  • 34712 Views
?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2006, 07:42:36 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
What happens at or below the electron level is fundamentally random.


How can you make such bold assumptions about things we don't understand? It is infinitely more likely that it is a complex system rather than NO system at all.


I never said there wasn't a system, I simply said that it was random. A random system may be hard to wrap your head around, but so is the rest of quantum theory.


"Random system" is self-contradictory. A system cannot produce random values, otherwise it would not  be a system. The idea that something can be random is ludicrously improbable when you think about it; it isn't even logically possible.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2006, 07:50:44 PM »
Ubuntu, you are too free with your jargon, and in being so you build straw-man arguments such as "'Random system' is a contradiction in terms."  You simply feel that "system" is defined to mean the same thing as "deterministic system", and it looks like nobody here agrees that that's a good definition.

As for what you feel is a lack of understanding on the part of scientists as to what goes on on small scales, it turns out that your conception of the state of scientific knowledge is just plain wrong.  Scientists are fairly confident that they know how things work on fairly small scales, small enough to have plenty of room to detect probabilistic behavior and still have a theory to describe that behavior.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2006, 08:09:21 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Ubuntu, you are too free with your jargon, and in being so you build straw-man arguments such as "'Random system' is a contradiction in terms."  You simply feel that "system" is defined to mean the same thing as "deterministic system", and it looks like nobody here agrees that that's a good definition.

As for what you feel is a lack of understanding on the part of scientists as to what goes on on small scales, it turns out that your conception of the state of scientific knowledge is just plain wrong.  Scientists are fairly confident that they know how things work on fairly small scales, small enough to have plenty of room to detect probabilistic behavior and still have a theory to describe that behavior.


If a random value is produced by a system how can it be random? Let's say we generate (for convienience's sake I'll pick a number) 42. Either a) our value is produced by nothing or b) our value is produced by a system. If it has no cause it doesn't make a lot of sense, and if it is produced by a system it can't be random (unless the the system is random. Then we will have the same problem to deal with and we start back at the point of origin in our thought).

The system would have to create this value, effect, energy, matter, force, whatever it is that we are dubbing "random." If the system works along the lines of 12 + 30 there we have a source for 42.

Let's say the a fundamental particlem cube-shaped particles called Okopipi's which interact by exchanging energy through even smaller photon-like particles called Yuzi are further than present understanding.

If a trillion tiny particles called Okopipi's make up a Boneko, a trillion of which makes up a Lonhern, a trillion of which make up a Xebian, a trillion of which make up a Zonadite, a trillion of which make up a Tekton, a trillion of which make up a String, or Electron, or Quark, and we see unexpected behaviour from these subatomic particles, this would be due to the behaviour of Yuzi and Okopipi's not an unknown source of Chaos from the Realm Beyond.

By claiming something is random you will have to defend that it comes from NO SOURCE because if a random outcome is generated by a system, known or unknown, a) the system must be random (in which case we are faced with the same problem all over again) or b) it is in fact, not random, because a system produced it, and the system cannot produce random values unless it too is random, where we would need to either a) create infinite systems (turtles all the way down) - which still would not have a random source - or b) claim that there is no source at all for these random values and that they simply came from nothing.

Lack of knowledge does not equal randomness, as lack of cause for the seasons does not mean that God is responsible.

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2006, 08:22:24 PM »
Ubuntu,

It pleases me to see such a young mind hard at work on this.  You are thinking deeply about this and being critical of what you're being told--that's a good thing.

However, you're trying to do exactly what Einstein did.  He claimed that if one were intelligent enough to predict every particle movement, force, etc. then one ought to be able to predict the exact future (more or less he believed this).  He claimed: "God does not play dice" when many quantum physics experiments came back showing that the universe works at random.  However, it has been shown that he was wrong.  Stephen Hawking said "Not only does God play dice, he throws them where we can't see them."

If you're going to try and disprove quantum physics do so not by making the assertion that it is "impossible" but by explaining the experimental observations with a better "more complex" theory (as you put it).  But before you try to do that, read The Elegant Universe.  All you have to do is get to about page 125 and you'll realize that the odds are stacked against you.  Plus, it's a really good book for learning this complex kind of science.  Keep up your critical thinking and keep searching for the truth!

-Knight
ooyakasha!

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2006, 08:27:53 PM »
Dearest Knight,

The experiments you have mentioned are based on a lack of understanding. Probability can only exist with a) lack of knowledge or b) randomness, and randomness can only exist with Chaos. That means that these experiments are demonstrating "Humans have a lack of knowledge" or they are stating the behaviour of particles has no cause or source.

~Ubuntu

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2006, 08:29:55 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Dearest Knight,

The experiments you have mentioned are based on a lack of understanding. Probability can only exist with a) lack of knowledge or b) randomness, and randomness can only exist with Chaos. That means that these experiments are demonstrating "Humans have a lack of knowledge" or they are stating the behaviour of particles has no cause or source.

~Ubuntu


Yeah. You just go tell that to the entire physics community.
the cake is a lie

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2006, 08:34:14 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Dearest Knight,

The experiments you have mentioned are based on a lack of understanding. Probability can only exist with a) lack of knowledge or b) randomness, and randomness can only exist with Chaos. That means that these experiments are demonstrating "Humans have a lack of knowledge" or they are stating the behaviour of particles has no cause or source.

~Ubuntu


Yeah. You just go tell that to the entire physics community.


You can say something is random, but how is that good enough if you don't explain how randomness works? Either it is based upon a system, in which case it isn't random or it has no cause.

"Lack of knowledge doesn't change reality."

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2006, 09:27:03 PM »
Quote from: "Desu"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "Desu"
I seem to remember hearing/reading somewhere that there's not enough computing power in the Universe for Laplace's Demon, which seems reasonable I guess.


"Computing power"? You mean, as in, my Athlon 64 couldn't handle it all? =P


Err... Well, no.
Quote
There has recently been proposed a limit on the computational power of the universe, ie the ability of Laplace's Demon to process an infinite amount of information. The limit is based on the maximum entropy of the universe, the speed of light, and the minimum amount of time taken to move information across the Planck length, and the figure turns out to be 2130 bits. Accordingly, anything that requires more than this amount of data cannot be computed in the amount of time that has lapsed so far in the universe.


Desu and I discussed if, and how it would be, hypothetically possible for Laplace's Demon to exist. This may sound like lunacy, but there's no real consequence to any of it:


A) 1. The demon could be non-matter and exist outside of the Universe and observe it (yes, technically he would be part of the same Universe).


B) The demom could stop time (as in, freeze everything from moving) everywhere in the Universe except for himself and predict everything and...

1. Remove himself from the Universe when he is done, as to have as little effect as possible (with his prediction made as if the space he occupied were only empty space). He could possibly transfer the knowledge to a second demon who would be frozen in time while the predicting was going on, who would be able to summon partial information about the future from memory. A little Holism might make things easier for demon #2.

2. Predict everything except himself and have a small amount of error depending on his effects in the future.

3. Predict everything including himself and be stuck computing forever as he would have to predict his own computing, and predict his prediciting of his own computing etc...


Can anyone think of any other ways this would be possible?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2006, 10:24:32 PM »
So, maybe the states of certain systems are what they are without cause or source?  Certainly that is the explanation given by quantum theorests when particles are observed in one of a superposition of many possible states...
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2006, 07:42:16 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
So, maybe the states of certain systems are what they are without cause or source?  Certainly that is the explanation given by quantum theorests when particles are observed in one of a superposition of many possible states...


You will have quite a challenge using that as an argument:

If the Universe is fundamentally random, why do events procceed in a logical, non-random order?

Quote from: "dysfunction"
What happens at or below the electron level is fundamentally random.

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2006, 08:10:03 AM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
If the Universe is fundamentally random, why do events procceed in a logical, non-random order?


It would seem that way in everyday life.  However, on the quantum level events do not proceed in a non-random order.  You need to pause for a second and think about this.  Go to the library and get the book I told you to read.  Start at page 85 (if you only want to read about the quantum stuff--however, I suggest you start at the beginning, as that's the best part of the book).  From page 85 on it will teach you about the "Microscopic Weirdness" of the Universe.

Quote from: "Brian Greene"
What business does probability have in the formulation of fundamental physics?  We are accustomed to probability showing up in horse races, in coin tosses, and at the roulette table, but in those cases it merely reflects our incomplete knowledge.  If we knew precisely the speed of the roulette wheel, the weight and hardness of the white marble, the location and speed of the marble when it drops to the wheel, the exact specifications of the material constituting the cubicles, and so on, and if we made use of sufficiently powerful computers to carry out our calculations we would, according to classical physics, be able to predict with certainty where the marble would settle...  Quantum mechanics, on the contrary, injects the concept of probability into the universe at a far deeper level.  According to Born and more than half a century of subsequent experiments, the wave nature of matter implies that matter itself must be described fundamentally in a probabilistic manner.  For macroscopic objects like a coffee cup or the roulette wheel, de Broglie's rule shows that the wave-like character is virtually unnoticeable and for most ordinary purposes the associated quantum-mechanical probability can be completely ignored.  But at a microscopic level we learn that the best we can ever do is say that an electron has a particular probibility of being found at any given location.


Quote from: "Brian Greene"
According to quantum mechanics, the universe evolves according to a rigorous and precise mathematical formalism, but this framework determines only the probability that any particular future will happen--not which future actually ensues.


The book goes on to describe how Einstein thought the same thing as you, that the reason probability was turning up in quantum physics was because of "some basic incompleteness in our understanding."  But, according to the book, "...Einstein was wrong."

Once again, you're arguing exactly what Einstein argued... except you aren't using any evidence for the argument.  You're just saying that the only reason probability plays a role is because we aren't omniscient.  However, this book, and quantum physics, disagrees.  Come on.  Read the book.
ooyakasha!

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2006, 08:24:11 AM »
Quote from: "Knight"
It would seem that way in everyday life.  However, on the quantum level events do not proceed in a non-random order.


Either you are claiming that every event we see in our every day lives is random and it's a coincidence we have had order insofar or that matter is not made out of subatomic particles.

Pick your argument. Neither are logical.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2006, 09:01:49 AM »
Ubuntu. You're rejecting the findings of scientists over most of the last century. You're sounding like a Flat-Earther. Stop it.
the cake is a lie

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2006, 11:20:25 AM »
Ubuntu, you're arguments are made up of unfounded claims.  Any one of us can ignorantly claim that something is true (yes, even if it goes against sixty years worth of experimental data).  But you're ignoring what everybody is saying and you keep saying the same thing to argue.  Provide some evidence for your thoughts on this matter.  Properly refute quantum physics.  Do something like that.  You aren't going to get anywhere running on this hamster wheel of rhetoric you keep putting out.
ooyakasha!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2006, 04:53:31 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
If the Universe is fundamentally random, why do events procceed in a logical, non-random order?


I'm feeling a little too lazy to read the Brian Greene quotes at the moment but I'm sure they're insightful.

Briefly, order can arise out of randomness.  The important quantity to measure is information, and a signal can have information and be random at the same time.  If the distribution is not uniform, then the random data is meaningful.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2006, 05:31:07 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
If the Universe is fundamentally random, why do events procceed in a logical, non-random order?


I'm feeling a little too lazy to read the Brian Greene quotes at the moment but I'm sure they're insightful.

Briefly, order can arise out of randomness.  The important quantity to measure is information, and a signal can have information and be random at the same time.  If the distribution is not uniform, then the random data is meaningful.


Also: the 'clockwork' physical laws we have, such as Newton's laws of motion, are just approximations, albeit exceedingly accurate approximations. This mechanistic, Newtonian order doesn't truly exist, but it approximates certain aspects of universal function so well that we may treat it as if it were a perfect description.
the cake is a lie

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2006, 01:38:48 AM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Dearest Knight,

The experiments you have mentioned are based on a lack of understanding. Probability can only exist with a) lack of knowledge or b) randomness, and randomness can only exist with Chaos. That means that these experiments are demonstrating "Humans have a lack of knowledge" or they are stating the behaviour of particles has no cause or source.

~Ubuntu


Einstein said the said thing Ubuntu. Einstein was proved wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Many experiments have tested his ideas in the EPR paper, which are the same ones that you keep spouting off here. So far all of them have proved him wrong. There is no deeper understanding, there are no hidden variables. Things really are random on the quantum scale. I suggest you read The Elegant Universe, Entanglement, or The Fabric of the Cosmos. All are also avalible on audiobook on www.audible.com for those of us with horrible ADHD or with busy lives(ie. myself).

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2006, 11:37:30 AM »
Let's think about this for a minute now.  We got sidetracked arguing over whether the universe is essentially random or complexly ordered at the quantum level.  We can say, scientifically, that the order was random (because quantum mechanics tells us that).  But does this even really matter to the argument that Ubuntu first proposed?

Ubuntu said that the present was brought about by a series of events (essentially at the quantum level).  Large-scale events occur at the small-scale level.  So essentially, every event would have its root cause in the small-scale stuff.  Now Ubuntu said something wrong when he claimed that it was going to be ordered (and predictable by really powerful supercomputer) how the universe acted after the big bang until the present.  This is the part we got sidetracked on.  His implication of the argument was--I believe--that we don't control what happens because it is the only way it could have happened.

We know that, if time were reset, it wouldn't happen the same because of the randomness of the universe.  But that doesn't change the notion that this is the only way things could have happened.  The reason this is the only way things could have happened is because they happened like this.  Follow?  Even though quantum events happen at random, that doesn't change the fact that they:
1) Occur
2) Are part of a large-scale chain reaction
3) Have brought about the present

So the implications of this argument could very well be that, because of the random events at the quantum level, the present day has been effected.  That is to say, since we don't control the events at the quantum level as they're occurring, we also cannot control any other events that are caused by these random events.  Thus, we would not have free will because everything is essentially made up of events that we have no control over.

Now, I admit, I'm not sure about this argument.  It could very well be (I'm not a physicist so I don't know) that events are not just assimilations of quantum events.  This argument only works if the random quantum events are the base of all other events.  Now, the question is, are there any events that aren't essentially caused by events at the smallest scale?  And if not... if all events are composed of the random assortment of quantum events... doesn't that mean that we don't have free will, because these reactions to these quantum events are the only possible reactions (and we do not control them)?  Think about it.
ooyakasha!

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2006, 12:41:52 PM »
In addition to the previous post, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene has something to say about this subject starting on page 16.

Quote from: "Brian Greene"
A staunch reductionist would claim that...in principle absolutely everything, from the big bang to daydreams, can be described in terms of underlying microscopic physical processes involving the fundamental constituents of matter.  If you understand everything about the ingredients, the reductionist argues, you understand everything.


This theory of the universe is called reductionism (or the reductionist philosophy).  What is unclear, though, is whether or not these microscopic physical processes actually prevent us from having free will.  Like, is it just a sum of a bunch of these processes that cause me to type these words, or is the brain somehow separated from these rules?
ooyakasha!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2006, 12:46:50 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Like, is it just a sum of a bunch of these processes that cause me to type these words, or is the brain somehow separated from these rules?


I would also like to ask whether we are comfortable saying we have free will if processes in the brain determine our actions.  The distinction here is that maybe it is not appropriate to say that "I" and "my brain" are one and the same entity.... I do not particularly adhere to the view that these entities are different but there are some who do.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #50 on: August 31, 2006, 12:48:49 PM »
Quote from: Ubuntu
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
What is my computer desk made of?

You could answer: metal, wood, or plastic.

And I would say: bamboo.

Your lack of knowledge does not change the reality of my desk. The ancient Egyptians lack of knowledge about molecules does not make them nonexistent.


That's basically what I said but bias'ed towards the idea of reality existing outside of the mind.

Just a little "for your information".
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2006, 12:52:42 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Knight"
Like, is it just a sum of a bunch of these processes that cause me to type these words, or is the brain somehow separated from these rules?


I would also like to ask whether we are comfortable saying we have free will if processes in the brain determine our actions.  The distinction here is that maybe it is not appropriate to say that "I" and "my brain" are one and the same entity.... I do not particularly adhere to the view that these entities are different but there are some who do.


A common philosophical debate is the body and the mind.  Are you the body, or are you the mind?  People often say, "Well, both!"  What if there was an after-life.  What are you then?  Clearly your body is rotting in the ground.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*

Northrider5

  • 732
  • Winter Scourge
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #52 on: August 31, 2006, 01:30:00 PM »
Or God resurrects your body, don't forget that.
Courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood Muslim.

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #53 on: August 31, 2006, 05:27:46 PM »
I was not specifically referring to a religion when mentioning the "After-life".
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #54 on: August 31, 2006, 05:46:52 PM »
You guys are off topic.  What do you think about the idea that microscopic, random events are the cause of larger-scale events?  That quantum events have occurred at random for the entire age of the universe and have brought about the present-day?
ooyakasha!

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #55 on: August 31, 2006, 06:40:21 PM »
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Knight"
Like, is it just a sum of a bunch of these processes that cause me to type these words, or is the brain somehow separated from these rules?


I would also like to ask whether we are comfortable saying we have free will if processes in the brain determine our actions.  The distinction here is that maybe it is not appropriate to say that "I" and "my brain" are one and the same entity.... I do not particularly adhere to the view that these entities are different but there are some who do.


A common philosophical debate is the body and the mind.  Are you the body, or are you the mind?  People often say, "Well, both!"  What if there was an after-life.  What are you then?  Clearly your body is rotting in the ground.


Er... maybe there isn't a "you" at all. http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/symposia/metzinger/Marcello.pdf

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #56 on: August 31, 2006, 07:22:23 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Er... maybe there isn't a "you" at all.


Having not yet read the article, I tentatively state that this is my view.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #57 on: August 31, 2006, 07:25:51 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
What do you think about the idea that microscopic, random events are the cause of larger-scale events?  That quantum events have occurred at random for the entire age of the universe and have brought about the present-day?


The problem with that is that the exact nature of the probability distributions for quantum-level systems are well-known by scientists, in the important sense that they can say that certain events occur "on the quantum" scale and certain ones occur "on the classical (larger) scale".  The conventional view (recently challenged by some researches I know) is that randomness on the quantum scale doesn't really effect processes on classical scales.  Maybe it does once in... some period much much longer than the age of the universe, but it's rare.

On the other hand there are things like asymmetries in the early universe which could have been quantum in nature and which led to the development of whole galaxies.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #58 on: September 10, 2006, 10:17:03 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
The problem with that is that the exact nature of the probability distributions for quantum-level systems are well-known by scientists, in the important sense that they can say that certain events occur "on the quantum" scale and certain ones occur "on the classical (larger) scale".  The conventional view (recently challenged by some researches I know) is that randomness on the quantum scale doesn't really effect processes on classical scales.  Maybe it does once in... some period much much longer than the age of the universe, but it's rare.


If that is true, then the Universe is deterministic (over 99.999% of the time).  :idea:

I still dispute that anything random can exist... and if something random does it exist it pretty much incomprehensible.

[Sorry for not bothering to construct my argument formally]

Causality, Determinism, and Free Will ('Tis an illusion!)
« Reply #59 on: September 10, 2006, 10:30:19 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
The conventional view (recently challenged by some researches I know) is that randomness on the quantum scale doesn't really effect processes on classical scales. Maybe it does once in... some period much much longer than the age of the universe, but it's rare.


I see what you're saying.  However, a lot of people seem to think that all processes are results of microscopic events.  Brian Greene seems to be one of them actually.  

Quote from: "Brian Greene on page 17 of The Elegant Universe"
My own feeling is that they do not represent new and independent laws of physics.  Although it would be hard to explain the properties of a tornado in terms of the physics of electrons and quarks, I see this as a matter of calculational impasse, not an indicator of the need for new physical laws.
ooyakasha!