Difference between laws of reality and laws of nature/science

[sciman55]

What are the differences between the laws of nature/science and reality? What are some examples of those laws?

[orbsycli]

hmmm...it might just be my lack of knowledge, but I don't think there are any specific laws to reality. the laws in our reality ARE the laws of science.

[Qfwfq]

According to Kant, there are no laws of reality (noumena), only laws ascribed to the phenomena by our intellect.

[paradox]

there is something i often use in my sig
according to the laws of physics a bumble bee cannot fly
but our reality (or their) is different isn't it ?
i'm sure there are other similar 'issues'

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

According to Kant, there are no laws of reality (noumena), only laws ascribed to the phenomena by our intellect.

Kant was not a scientist.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by sciman55

What are the differences between the laws of nature/science and reality? What are some examples of those laws?

About the laws of nature/science, there are many and you can find them in a good physics reference book. However, about the laws of reality.The law of the senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch are the laws of reality but only, and I repeat only, to the individual experiencing the information gathered by these five senses.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by paradox

there is something i often use in my sig
according to the laws of physics a bumble bee cannot fly
but our reality (or their) is different isn't it ?

I heard it that basically, no one informed the bumblebee...

Maddog

[maddog]

I need to ponder this question awhile... Laws of Reality would imply we could deterministically answer the
question, "What is Reality ?" Or more simply, "What is Real ?" These are philosophical questions.
Physics answers with what do you observe (as in physical evidence). I ask, "is there more ?"

Maddog

[TINNY]

Originally Posted by maddog

I need to ponder this question awhile... Laws of Reality would imply we could deterministically answer the
question, "What is Reality ?" Or more simply, "What is Real ?" These are philosophical questions.
Physics answers with what do you observe (as in physical evidence). I ask, "is there more ?"

Maddog

THe notion that everything we think only exists in our minds as ideas is an archaic philosophy called idealism which originated in Germany during the time of Kant and co.

My opinion is that there is one fundamental reality, which is a unified whole represented by a single law. However, we can view the fundamental reality from many different perspectives. One, through our naked eye. Another would be the quantum view of reality. These are just a manifestation of the true nature of reality viewed from a certain way of observatoin.

Scientific laws are not the laws of reality. They are laws that describe our understanding of reality from our relative view of it. The holistic law of reality might be similar to what is called monism (go figure at wiki).

[MortenS]

Originally Posted by paradox

there is something i often use in my sig
according to the laws of physics a bumble bee cannot fly
but our reality (or their) is different isn't it ?
i'm sure there are other similar 'issues'

Actually, this is just urban folklore..no scientists has ever claimed that bumble bees cannot fly..if you trace the statement back to its origin, you will see that a flight machine constructed in the proportions of a bumble bee cannot fly. It is a fallacy to deduce from this that the bumble bee cannot fly. (one simple moment to ponder: bumble bees has mobile wings, all our flight machines have steady wings)