A philosopher might say that there is a huge asymmetry between ontology — what exists — and epistemology — what we can know about what exists. It seems to me that science, given its method, must confine its observations to observables. But then it depends on non-observables in order to discern the behavior of what it observes. I am referring to the laws of the universe, to mathematics, and to logic itself.
You wrote that “where the laws of the universe come from is, of course, outside the scope of the theory.” I’m wondering whether this question is even a scientific question. For as you note, “To describe the formation of the laws of the universe, you need some kind of meta-laws and where do they come from?”
It seems here we are leaving physics altogether, and venturing into metaphysics. For what it’s worth, I think that Intelligent Design has a toe in the latter, for it seems to be looking for meta-laws operating behind or above the physical laws. I imagine this may partly account for the hostility ID receives from large sectors of the scientific community, on the grounds that ID is engaging in metaphysics, not science.
Further, ID frankly declares that there’s more going on in the universe than random matter in its motions can account for; it finds the Newtonian interpretation of the universe to be “incomplete.” And to the extent that Darwinist theory is itself premised on the Newtonian view, that may mean that orthodox evolutionary theory is incomplete, as well. (Please note, I said “incomplete,” not “false.”)
This view does not sit well with scientific materialists, to say the least.
Plus Darwinist theory gives no account of the origin of life. In its original formulation, it was merely assumed that God made life; and then Darwin explained what happened to it thereafter.
But then maybe “what is life?” is not a scientific question at all? What is your view, VR?
Yet I am aware that many scientists today — generally from outside the biological sciences — have begun to ask that question. They may be physicists, astrophysicists, information theorists, mathematicians. Some are operting within the “ID movement”; surprisingly, many are not. An astrophysicist friend who is not gives this account of “what is life?”:
“Life lives at the frontier between the realms of Finite Existence and Infinity. Non-Existence is filled with all potential possibilities, and all potential possibilities at all levels of existence form together an infinite realm that is called Infinity. Infinity is the infinite chain of all potential possibilities in their chain reactions driven by a creative agent. At each link in this chain a generative agent recreates the potential possibilities towards a complete coverage of all possible possibilities, driving them towards infinite fertility. In comparison, Existence is but a small morsel, a string of beads on the thread of Infinity. The realm of the Finite cannot exist without the realm of Infinity, since the Finite can change only by its connection with Infinity, and it can maintain itself only by continuously changing.” [Attila Grandpierre, “The Nature of the Universe”]Is this science, or is this philosophy speaking to science? It seems clear to me that such statements resonate with ideas first produced by the great philosophers of classical Greece. Personally, I am amazed by the number of “Platonists” working in the fields of science and mathematics today….
Anyhoot, I’m just wool-gathering here, VR. I don’t know what the answers to the above questions might be. But then again, I’m a philosopher, not a scientist. And historically, the role of the philosopher has been to isolate and ask the great questions, not to solve them. I think the latter is the task of science.
So it seems to me the two disciplines actually depend on each other, in the last analysis. JMHO FWIW
Thank you so very much for writing, VR, for sharing your thoughts with me….
It's the "not science" part that gets them in trouble.
Asking for a definition is not a scientific question in itself, no. It could be part of the endeavor, however. You need definitions and to understand when a definition may be tripping you up.
We really don't know what to do with viruses, for instance, if we apply definitions of "life" that include functions beyond self-replication. However, the history of viruses is somehow interwined with the history of life in some way we don't yet understand.
One clue: I can produce similar text with a bit too much alcohol in my system.