Rate this post

There are laws that many of us like to abide by: like not speeding in a school zone or throwing garbage away because we want the places we live to be clean and beautiful. The law of certain composition and the law of multiple proportions are the first two of the three laws of stoichiometry, the proportions by which chemical elements combine to form chemical compounds. The third law of stoichiometry is the law of reciprocal proportions, which forms the basis for determining the equivalence weights for each chemical element. The weights equivalent to the elements can then be used to calculate the atomic weights of each element. Our relationship with the laws is complicated. And all the ones I mentioned are created, applied or not, voted and tested by the people. These could be considered a human law, some of which have no moral imperatives, such as stopping at a traffic light or driving on the right side of the road. An example that comes to mind is the concept of cannibalism. Although cannibalism is considered absolutely unacceptable in most parts of the civilized world, it is accepted in some societies and is not considered evil. In this case, this idea is simply relative to society and not a fundamental understanding among humanity. What I want to touch on briefly in this article is not just laws, “The Law” or the legality and morality of laws, but a certain word – authority. Let me ask the question this way: when it comes to an authority in your life, what is worse: the absence of law or absolute law? The term “scientific law” is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, although the social sciences also contain laws.

[11] For example, Zipf`s law is a law in the social sciences based on mathematical statistics. In these cases, laws may describe general trends or expected behaviors instead of being absolute. Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions; In particular, they predict that the new observations will be in accordance with the given law. Laws can be falsified if they conflict with new data. Any law that follows the rules of nature and a law that is immutable. It may be an absolute law, but it is exercised in an abstract sense and not always in reality. See Natural Law. Some laws are only alignments with other more general laws and are good alignments with limited scope. For example, Newtonian dynamics (which is based on Galilean transformations) is the low speed limit of special relativity theory (since the Galilean transformation is the slow approximation of the Lorentz transformation). Similarly, Newton`s law of gravity is a low-mass approximation of general relativity, and Coulomb`s law is an approximation of quantum electrodynamics at great distances (relative to the range of weak interactions). In such cases, it is common to use simpler and rougher versions of the laws instead of the more precise general laws. Many scientific laws can be reduced to a mathematical equation.

For example, Newton`s law of universal gravity states: There are no laws here or no application of a law. This means that everyone becomes a law for himself. Here, individuals act on the basis of what they think is right, and since we can`t even agree and play nicely with the laws we have, we would certainly disagree and play well if there are none at all. Some laws are passed or repealed, such as the recent federal decision on Roe v. Wade, where people both celebrated and prosecuted. Since a society does not exist without laws or borders, some must be created for society to function. That`s when laws are created to combat society`s problems and create borders, and the ones you have have positive laws. But on what do they base these limits? While it seems logical that someone should not commit murder in a society, how is this idea easily accepted as a basic component of society? I have taken a philosophy course in the past and these kinds of questions have been raised as to how the absolute law is determined and whether it is only relative to this society or whether it is a fundamental part of humanity that is simply understood.

I am not sure I agree that this concept of absolute law is based on “natural” law. If you look at animals in the wild, they kill themselves quite often. But is murder “naturally” bad for people? “A good scientist is one who always asks the question, `How can I be wrong? “Coppinger said. In terms of the law of gravity or the law of independent assortment, continuous testing and observation have “optimized” these laws. Exceptions were found. For example, Newton`s law of gravity collapses when looking at the quantum (subatomic) plane. Mendel`s law of independent assortment collapses when the traits of the same chromosome are “linked”. “In science, laws are a starting point,” said Peter Coppinger, associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose Hulman Institute of Technology. “From there, scientists can then ask the questions: `Why and how?` It is postulated that a particle (or a system of many particles) is described by a wave function, and this fills a quantum wave equation: namely, the Schrödinger equation (which can be written as a non-relativistic wave equation or a relativistic wave equation). The solution of this wave equation predicts the temporal development of the behavior of the system, analogous to the solution of Newton`s laws in classical mechanics. So I think the concept of absolute law works well.

Many laws take mathematical forms and can therefore be given as an equation; For example, the law of conservation of energy can be written as Δ E = 0 {displaystyle Delta E = 0}, where E {displaystyle E} is the total amount of energy in the universe. Similarly, the first law of thermodynamics can be written as d U = δ Q − δ W {displaystyle mathrm {d} U=delta Q-delta W,}, and Newton`s second law can be written as F = {displaystyle F=} dp⁄dt.