To that I would answer that things don’t “obey the laws of physics” in any greater sense than that the “laws” of physics are principles that we’ve formulated based on how we’ve observed that nature behaves.
We have exactly zero proof that there is some inherent property of nature that always and forever will prevent heat from moving from cold to hot, even though that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It’s just that we have never observed a process that violates the second law (people have tried very hard to break this one), and have a decent explanation for why we’re not able to break it.
If some process is developed or observed that violates the “laws of physics”, that just means we need to figure out where the “laws” are wrong, and revise them, which is how science moves forwards!
So short answer: Things obey the laws of physics, because whenever we observe something that breaks the laws, we revise the laws to allow for the newly observed behaviour.
This is what makes science fundamentally different from most belief systems: The only core principle is that anything can at any time be disproven, and everything we think we know is potentially wrong. By truly internalising that core belief, there’s no amount of proof that can turn your worldview upside down, because your core principle is that everything you think you know is potentially wrong, only being a more or less good approximation to the true underlying nature of the universe, which we can never really know anything about.
I saw your comment much earlier but was in the middle of my workday and I didn’t have time to review it until now, so I apologize for the delay.
Your answer is interesting, insightful and educational, for all of which I am grateful. I hadn’t considered that perspective and it is all of the adjectives I listed previously.
However, I don’t think it answers at least what I meant by the original question, even if it does answer the literal question I asked. That’s on me for not using sufficiently specific language. What I meant wasn’t “why do things obey the laws of physics as we understand them” or “why do things obey the laws of physics as we’ve defined them” but more “whatever the laws of physics truly are as defined by the universe, what makes the content of the universe obey them?” I was quite young when I asked my dad the question, so at the time I pictured little Marvin the Martian style physics policemen following atoms around enforcing the law, but I suspect that’s not correct.
My question is possibly more philosophical than scientific (or realistically answerable). At that age I was certainly not aware of the simulation hypothesis, which seems like a good starting point, but also raises more questions. Regardless, I appreciate the clearly genuine effort behind your answer as well as the pontification it inspired, at least for me.
An aside: your comment reminded me of the “Maxwell’s Demon” Abstruse Goose comic (which sadly I can’t find to link here) and this Simpsons bit, which clearly I was able to find to link.
I want to reiterate one last time that people who try to answer questions and educate others are extremely valuable and I meant nothing negative about your comment. Thank you for responding.
To that I would answer that things don’t “obey the laws of physics” in any greater sense than that the “laws” of physics are principles that we’ve formulated based on how we’ve observed that nature behaves.
We have exactly zero proof that there is some inherent property of nature that always and forever will prevent heat from moving from cold to hot, even though that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. It’s just that we have never observed a process that violates the second law (people have tried very hard to break this one), and have a decent explanation for why we’re not able to break it.
If some process is developed or observed that violates the “laws of physics”, that just means we need to figure out where the “laws” are wrong, and revise them, which is how science moves forwards!
So short answer: Things obey the laws of physics, because whenever we observe something that breaks the laws, we revise the laws to allow for the newly observed behaviour.
This is what makes science fundamentally different from most belief systems: The only core principle is that anything can at any time be disproven, and everything we think we know is potentially wrong. By truly internalising that core belief, there’s no amount of proof that can turn your worldview upside down, because your core principle is that everything you think you know is potentially wrong, only being a more or less good approximation to the true underlying nature of the universe, which we can never really know anything about.
I saw your comment much earlier but was in the middle of my workday and I didn’t have time to review it until now, so I apologize for the delay.
Your answer is interesting, insightful and educational, for all of which I am grateful. I hadn’t considered that perspective and it is all of the adjectives I listed previously.
However, I don’t think it answers at least what I meant by the original question, even if it does answer the literal question I asked. That’s on me for not using sufficiently specific language. What I meant wasn’t “why do things obey the laws of physics as we understand them” or “why do things obey the laws of physics as we’ve defined them” but more “whatever the laws of physics truly are as defined by the universe, what makes the content of the universe obey them?” I was quite young when I asked my dad the question, so at the time I pictured little Marvin the Martian style physics policemen following atoms around enforcing the law, but I suspect that’s not correct.
My question is possibly more philosophical than scientific (or realistically answerable). At that age I was certainly not aware of the simulation hypothesis, which seems like a good starting point, but also raises more questions. Regardless, I appreciate the clearly genuine effort behind your answer as well as the pontification it inspired, at least for me.
An aside: your comment reminded me of the “Maxwell’s Demon” Abstruse Goose comic (which sadly I can’t find to link here) and this Simpsons bit, which clearly I was able to find to link.
https://youtu.be/tuxbMfKO9Pg
I want to reiterate one last time that people who try to answer questions and educate others are extremely valuable and I meant nothing negative about your comment. Thank you for responding.