Single Idea 16246

[catalogued under 26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 5. Laws from Universals]

Full Idea

My own view is simple: the laws of nature ought to be accepted as ontologically primitive. …They are preferable in point of familiarity to such necessitation relations between universals.

Gist of Idea

Rather than take necessitation between universals as primitive, just make laws primitive


comment on David M. Armstrong (What is a Law of Nature? [1983]) by Tim Maudlin - The Metaphysics within Physics 1.4

Book Reference

Maudlin,Tim: 'The Metaphysics within Physics' [OUP 2007], p.15

A Reaction

I think you make natures of things primitive, and reduce laws to regularities and universals to resemblances. Job done. Natures are even more 'familiar' as primitives than laws are.

Related Ideas

Idea 9411 There are no laws of nature in Aristotle; they became standard with Descartes and Newton [Mumford]

Idea 16247 Laws are primitive, so two indiscernible worlds could have the same laws [Maudlin]