Laws of Nature

1. Introduction

Philosophers and scientists commonly speak of laws of nature as if they are the deep principles that structure reality and make the world intelligible. Classical mechanics, quantum theory, and evolutionary biology are all said to state laws that govern motion, interaction, and change. Yet there is substantial disagreement about what, if anything, such “laws” are over and above the patterns we observe.

In contemporary philosophy, discussion centers on three interconnected roles that laws appear to play:

• They underwrite explanation and prediction, allowing us to answer why-questions and anticipate future events.
• They support counterfactual reasoning, informing judgments about what would have happened under different conditions.
• They seem to involve a distinctive kind of necessity—often called nomic necessity—that is stronger than mere coincidence but different from logical or mathematical necessity.

Most debates turn on whether this apparent structure reflects objective features of the world or primarily our epistemic and practical interests. Realist views claim that laws are robust constituents of reality (as regularities, necessary connections, primitive governing principles, or grounded in causal powers). Anti-realist and pragmatic views instead treat laws as especially useful generalizations, models, or norms that help organize experience without committing to heavy metaphysics.

Historically, the idea of laws of nature has shifted from ancient notions of cosmic order, through medieval theistic conceptions of divine legislation, to the mathematically formulated laws of early modern mechanics. Contemporary work expands these discussions to probabilistic laws, symmetry principles, and the status of laws in non-fundamental sciences.

This entry surveys the main philosophical accounts of laws of nature, their historical development, and their implications for issues such as scientific explanation, determinism, theism, and political thought, while presenting the principal arguments on multiple sides of each debate.

2. Definition and Scope of Laws of Nature

Philosophical accounts typically begin from a working characterization: laws of nature are general principles or regularities that purport to describe how the natural world systematically or necessarily behaves, and that play a central role in explanation, prediction, and counterfactual reasoning.

Core Traits Often Attributed to Laws

Many philosophers highlight a cluster of features commonly associated with lawhood:

Realists about laws often treat these traits as clues to an underlying metaphysical structure. Anti-realists typically treat them as features of our best scientific frameworks or reasoning practices rather than of an independent realm of nomic facts.

Scope: What Counts as a Law?

There is also disagreement about which scientific principles qualify as laws:

• Fundamental vs. non-fundamental: Some restrict “laws” to the axioms of final or fundamental physics; others extend lawhood to higher-level sciences (e.g., Mendel’s laws, Hardy–Weinberg law).
• Deterministic vs. probabilistic: Many contemporary theories recognize probabilistic laws, raising questions about whether probability statements can be genuinely lawlike.
• Exact vs. ceteris paribus: Idealized or “other things being equal” generalizations—common in economics and biology—are sometimes treated as laws, sometimes not.
• Symmetry and conservation principles: Some accounts include conservation laws and symmetry constraints as paradigmatic; others classify them differently (e.g., as meta-laws).

These definitional and scope questions structure later debates: different theories of lawhood often aim, in part, to capture which of these features and domains should count as central to laws of nature.

3. The Core Metaphysical Question

The central metaphysical issue about laws of nature is often framed as: In virtue of what do laws hold, if they hold at all? That is, what makes it the case that certain generalizations are laws rather than mere accidental truths?

Several sub-questions structure this inquiry:

• Ontological status: Are laws real features of the world (e.g., relations between properties, primitive governing facts), or are they better understood as descriptive summaries, models, or tools?
• Dependence and grounding: Do laws supervene on the arrangement of particular events (as Humeans maintain), or do they instead govern or constrain that arrangement in some more robust way?
• Nature of nomic necessity: If laws involve a special form of necessity—nomic necessity—how does this relate to logical, mathematical, and metaphysical necessity? Is nomic necessity reducible to other modal notions, or is it primitive?

Different theories of laws answer these questions in systematically different ways:

The core metaphysical question thus concerns whether lawhood is reducible (to regularities, universals, or powers), primitive, or merely representational, and how these options interact with broader commitments in metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science.

4. Historical Origins and Ancient Conceptions

Ancient thinkers did not usually speak of “laws of nature” in the modern sense of explicit, exceptionless rules imposed on matter, yet they developed influential ideas about cosmic order and natural regularity that later contributed to law-of-nature talk.

Greek Philosophical Traditions

Pre-Socratic philosophers often posited underlying principles (archai) or elements (e.g., water, air, apeiron) and cycles, but without a developed concept of laws. With Plato and Aristotle, the focus shifted to rational and teleological structure:

• Plato portrayed the cosmos as ordered by a divine craftsman (Timaeus) according to intelligible mathematical patterns.
• Aristotle explained regularities by appeal to forms, natures, and final causes. Nature acts “for the sake of” ends, and what we now call laws appeared in his work more as tendencies or natural motions grounded in forms than as legislated rules.

Aristotle did use analogies with political law, but the dominant picture was teleological order rather than mechanical law.

Stoicism and the Logos

The Stoics introduced a more explicitly law-like conception of cosmic order. They posited a rational, providential logos that pervades the universe, determining events according to a strict causal nexus (heimarmene):

"

“The universe itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul.”

— Chrysippus, fragment (reported in later sources)

Many scholars regard Stoic talk of universal reason and fate as a precursor to later ideas of universal natural law, though it remains embedded in a pantheistic and teleological framework.

Hellenistic and Roman Developments

Epicureans such as Epicurus and Lucretius emphasized the regular behavior of atoms moving in the void, supplemented by the controversial “swerve.” Their emphasis on patterns of atomic motion and chance has been seen as a distant ancestor of later atomist and probabilistic views, though they lacked a formal notion of physical law.

Roman thinkers, jurists, and statesmen developed the idea of lex naturae (law of nature) primarily in ethical and political contexts, but some, such as Cicero, hinted at a cosmic moral and natural law:

"

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature.”

— Cicero, De re publica

These ancient conceptions—teleological order, rational logos, and regular atomic motion—provided conceptual resources that later medieval and early modern philosophers reinterpreted into a more explicitly legalistic and mechanistic conception of laws of nature.

5. Medieval Theology and Natural Law Traditions

In medieval thought, the idea of law was systematically connected to divine governance, and this shaped emerging conceptions of natural order. The distinction between eternal law, natural law (in ethics), and laws of nature (in the physical sense) was not always sharply drawn, but important precursors emerged.

Divine Law and Eternal Law

Influenced by Christian theology and late antique philosophy, medieval thinkers such as Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas developed a hierarchical view of law:

• Eternal law: God’s rational plan for creation.
• Natural law (ethico-political): Participation of rational creatures in eternal law.
• Positive law: Human and ecclesiastical legislation.

Although focused primarily on morality and governance, this framework implicitly treated the order of the cosmos as a manifestation of divine reason.

Aquinas writes:

"

“The very idea of the government of things in God the ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law.”

— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 91, a. 1

Some historians see this as a conceptual bridge between ancient teleology and later talk of laws of nature understood as divine commands to matter.

Natural Philosophy and Regularity

Medieval natural philosophers (e.g., in the Aristotelian tradition) largely retained teleological explanations—objects act according to their natures and tendencies—but increasingly couched these within a theological framework:

• God sustains the regular behavior of things in accordance with their natures.
• Miracles are exceptional acts of God that do not abolish order but exceed or suspend usual patterns.

Debate arose about whether God is bound by the order He creates or can freely suspend it. This had implications for whether natural order was seen as necessary or contingent upon divine will.

Voluntarism, Nominalism, and Contingency

Late medieval thinkers such as William of Ockham and other “voluntarists” emphasized divine freedom and omnipotence:

• Natural order is contingent on God’s will, not His intellect alone.
• God could have created different patterns of natural behavior.

Some scholars argue that this voluntarist emphasis on divine legislation and contingent order paved the way for early modern views in which laws of nature were conceived explicitly as divine commands imposed on matter, rather than as necessary emanations from eternal forms or natures.

6. Early Modern Science and Mechanistic Laws

In the 17th century, the concept of laws of nature acquired its more familiar scientific meaning, closely tied to the mechanistic worldview and the rise of mathematical physics.

Laws as Divine Legislation

Early modern natural philosophers often conceived laws explicitly as commands issued by God to passive matter. For example:

• René Descartes formulated “laws of nature” in his Principles of Philosophy as rules God has established for the motion and collision of bodies.
• Robert Boyle spoke of “physical laws” as resulting from God’s free imposition of order on matter.

This theological voluntarism coexisted with a strong mathematical and mechanical orientation: nature operates like a machine following divinely instituted rules.

Newton and Universal Mathematical Laws

Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) is often regarded as a turning point. He formulated explicit universal laws of motion and law of universal gravitation:

"

“The motions of bodies in all cases… are governed by the three following laws.”

— Isaac Newton, Principia, Book I, Axioms or Laws of Motion

Newton’s laws were:

• Mathematically expressible (e.g., F = ma, inverse-square law for gravitation).
• Universal in scope (applying to terrestrial and celestial bodies alike).
• Treated as axioms from which observed phenomena could be deductively derived.

Although Newton personally framed them within a theistic context, later interpretations allowed for more de-theologized readings, paving the way for secular notions of law.

Mechanism and the Decline of Teleology

The early modern period saw the replacement of Aristotelian final causes with efficient-causal, mechanical explanations. Introductory contrasts often include:

Figures such as Galileo, Huygens, and Leibniz contributed alternative mathematical formulations and metaphysical interpretations (e.g., Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason and pre-established harmony), but they broadly shared the commitment to lawlike, mathematically tractable regularities as the key to understanding nature.

By the end of the 18th century, the notion of a complete set of deterministic laws specifying the evolution of the universe (as in Laplace’s demon) had become a prominent ideal, deeply shaping later debates over the metaphysics of laws.

7. Regularity, Necessity, and the Humean Challenge

David Hume’s work in the 18th century is often taken as posing a fundamental challenge to robust, necessity-involving accounts of laws. Hume distinguished between constant conjunction—the repeated pairing of types of events—and any supposed necessary connection binding them.

Hume’s Analysis of Causation and Law

Hume argued that:

• We observe one event following another, not any further tie of necessity.
• The feeling of necessity arises from habit or custom after repeated associations.
• Claims about necessary connections go beyond what is given in experience.

This analysis undercut the idea that laws reflect intrinsic, observable necessitation in nature. On Hume’s picture, nature presents a “mosaic” of particular events arranged in patterns, but not linked by metaphysical bonds.

The Regularity Conception

Building on Hume, a regularity view of laws emerged:

• Laws are exceptionless regularities or true universal generalizations (e.g., “All F’s are G’s”).
• There is nothing more to lawhood than the fact that such regularities obtain.

Later Humeans developed this into more sophisticated views (e.g., best-system accounts), but the basic challenge remained: explain lawhood without positing mysterious necessities.

The Necessity Question

This gives rise to a key debate:

Critics of Humeanism argue that mere regularities cannot account for the modal force, explanatory power, and counterfactual support associated with laws. Humeans, in turn, contend that positing irreducible necessities is metaphysically extravagant and epistemically problematic. This tension frames much of the contemporary discussion of laws.

8. Humean Best-System Accounts

Modern Humeans often articulate their view of laws through the Best-System Analysis (BSA), most prominently associated with David Lewis, though related ideas appear in earlier work by Mill and Ramsey.

Core Idea

On BSA, the world consists fundamentally of a Humean mosaic: a distribution of local, particular matters of fact across space and time, devoid of necessary connections. Laws are then characterized as follows:

• Consider all true descriptions of the mosaic expressible in some ideal language.
• Among these, evaluate candidate systems of axioms by criteria of simplicity, strength (informative power), and sometimes fit (especially in probabilistic contexts).
• The best overall system—the one that optimally balances these virtues—contains the laws of nature as its axioms or theorems.

Thus, lawhood is a matter of being part of the best deductive systematization of all particular facts, rather than a separate ontological category.

Key Features

Strengths and Objections

Supporters emphasize parsimony and alignment with empiricist scruples: the ontology includes only particular facts plus a descriptive system. They argue that this suffices to explain:

• Why some generalizations qualify as laws (they feature in the best system).
• How laws support prediction and explanation (via their role in the best system).

Critics raise several concerns:

• Explanatory circularity: Some contend that BSA cannot explain why certain patterns hold; it only redescribes them.
• Modal and counterfactual grounding: Opponents argue that counterfactuals and modal claims require more than mere global fit to actual facts.
• Language- and measure-dependence: Worries arise about how to make the “best system” objectively defined, independent of the choice of language or simplicity metric.
• Accommodation of chance: Incorporating objective probabilities via “fit” has prompted debates over whether Humeanism can fully capture probabilistic laws.

Despite these objections, best-system Humeanism remains a central and actively developed approach to the metaphysics of laws.

9. Necessitarian and Governing Theories of Law

In contrast to Humean regularity views, necessitarian and governing theories posit real, irreducible necessities associated with laws. They aim to capture the intuition that laws make things happen rather than merely summarize what occurs.

Nomic Necessitation Between Universals

One influential strand (e.g., D. M. Armstrong) analyzes laws as relations between universals:

• Universals (properties like mass, charge) are the basic ontological units.
• A law is a necessitation relation between universals, often written as N(F, G), meaning roughly: “It is a law that all F’s are G’s.”
• The existence of this relation makes it metaphysically necessary (or strongly nomically necessary) that whenever something is F, it is G.

On this view:

Critics question the nature and knowability of the N-relation and whether such necessities are empirically accessible.

Primitivist Governing Laws

Another family of views treats lawhood and nomic necessity as primitive. Figures such as Tim Maudlin argue:

• Laws are fundamental entities or facts in our metaphysical inventory.
• They govern the evolution of the world by constraining which histories are possible.
• Attempts to reduce lawhood to regularities, universals, or other relations are misguided.

On this approach, the modal force of laws is not further analyzed; instead, it is stipulated as basic. Some formulations place these primitive laws at the core of the initial value formulation of physics: given an initial state plus the laws, the physically possible evolutions are determined (in deterministic cases) or probabilistically constrained.

Shared Motivations and Challenges

Both necessitarian and primitivist views aim to secure:

• Robust modal structure: Laws are more than descriptive; they entail or constrain what can happen.
• Grounding of explanation and counterfactuals: The necessity attached to laws is supposed to underwrite explanatory and counterfactual practices.

Objections include:

• Metaphysical opacity: Critics argue that positing primitive nomic necessities or N-relations leaves their nature unexplained.
• Epistemic access: It is contested how finite empirical data justify beliefs about such strong necessities.
• Compatibility with some physics: Certain interpretations of quantum theory and emergent phenomena are thought to sit uneasily with rigid necessitation, though proponents propose ways of adapting these views to probabilistic or non-fundamental laws.

These theories constitute the main anti-Humean alternatives in contemporary debates over laws.

10. Dispositional Essentialism and Causal Powers

Dispositional essentialism proposes that laws of nature are grounded in the essential dispositions or powers of natural entities. Instead of treating laws as external constraints or as mere summaries, this view locates modal structure in what things are.

Core Claim

On dispositional essentialism:

• Natural kinds (e.g., electrons, water) and fundamental properties (e.g., charge, mass) have essences that include causal dispositions.
• Laws express these essential dispositions: to be an electron, for instance, is essentially to have certain tendencies to behave in specific ways under given conditions.

Different formulations include:

Lawhood on the Powers View

On this account:

• Laws are not fundamental additions to the ontology; they “fall out” of the essences of things.
• Nomic necessity is explained by essential necessity: if F essentially disposes to G in conditions C, then “if F & C, then G” is necessarily true in any world where F exists.
• Laws are therefore modally robust but can be local to the existence of particular kinds (if a kind does not exist in a world, its associated laws do not apply there).

This is sometimes contrasted with views that treat laws as “free-floating” principles independent of the nature of their bearers.

Advantages and Difficulties

Proponents argue that dispositional essentialism:

• Aligns with scientific practice that appeals to capacities, tendencies, and mechanisms.
• Avoids brute nomic facts by tying laws to essences instead of primitive law-statements.
• Offers a basis for counterfactuals (what would happen if the same powers were placed in different circumstances).

Critics raise concerns:

• The metaphysics of essence is itself contested, and some see it as no less mysterious than primitive laws.
• Handling theoretical change can be challenging: if laws derive from essences, significant revision in science may seem to imply revisions to essences.
• Multiple realization and higher-level kinds complicate the mapping from micro-level powers to macro-level laws.
• The treatment of probabilistic dispositions remains debated: some argue that powers can have inherently probabilistic manifestations; others see tension between essential dispositions and chance.

Despite these issues, dispositional essentialism is a prominent contemporary strategy for grounding laws in causal powers rather than in external governing principles or bare regularities.

11. Anti-Realism, Instrumentalism, and Pragmatic Views

Not all philosophers accept that laws of nature correspond to a robust ontological category. Anti-realist, instrumentalist, and pragmatic views treat law-talk primarily as a feature of scientific practice and reasoning, rather than as describing metaphysically weighty structures.

Core Themes

These approaches typically share several commitments:

• Ontological modesty: Avoid positing unobservable necessary connections, primitive law-facts, or essences beyond what is required for empirical adequacy.
• Methodological focus: Emphasize how laws function within explanation, prediction, and unification, without inferring that they mirror a distinct realm of entities.
• Semantic or pragmatic reinterpretation: Recast statements apparently about laws as shorthand for claims about models, regularities, or rules of inference.

Representative Positions

Debates and Criticisms

Supporters argue that:

• Apparent exception-riddled or ceteris paribus character of many scientific “laws” is better captured by a pragmatic or model-based understanding.
• Radical theory change in science suggests caution in reifying laws as timeless features of reality.
• Many explanatory successes can be accounted for in terms of idealization, approximation, and modeling rather than literally true universal statements.

Critics contend that:

• Such views risk undermining the objectivity of science: if laws are merely tools, it becomes harder to distinguish genuine discovery from convention.
• Counterfactuals, modal reasoning, and scientific explanation seem to presuppose that there is something more than convenient classification.
• Many scientists view themselves as discovering real constraints in nature; systematically reinterpreting this as merely instrumental is seen by some as revisionary.

Anti-realist and pragmatic perspectives thus provide an important foil to realist theories, highlighting the complexities of scientific practice and the potential gap between theories of lawhood and the actual uses of “laws” in science.

12. Laws, Explanation, and Counterfactuals

Laws of nature are widely thought to be central to scientific explanation and counterfactual reasoning. Philosophers disagree both about how this dependence should be analyzed and about what it reveals about the metaphysics of laws.

Laws in Deductive-Nomological and Causal Explanations

The Deductive–Nomological (D–N) model, associated with Carl Hempel and others, characterizes many explanations as:

• Deductions of the explanandum (event or regularity) from:
  • Initial or boundary conditions, plus
  • At least one law of nature.

On this view, laws are essential premises in explanatory arguments. Explanations differ from mere predictions chiefly in that they reveal how the event fits under general nomic patterns.

Later approaches (e.g., causal-mechanical models) emphasize causal processes and mechanisms. Laws still play a role by:

• Constraining which causal stories are admissible.
• Describing stable relations exploited in mechanistic accounts.

Counterfactual Dependence and Laws

Many analyses of counterfactuals (e.g., David Lewis’s possible-world semantics) take laws as part of the standard of similarity among worlds:

• Worlds that respect the actual laws are typically treated as more similar to ours than those that violate them.
• The truth of “If A had occurred, B would have occurred” is evaluated relative to worlds that minimally differ from the actual world while still obeying the laws.

Other accounts (e.g., interventionist theories used in causal modeling) rely on structural equations often thought to encode lawlike dependencies; interventions are evaluated against a fixed “background” of normal operations.

Implications for Theories of Law

Different metaphysical views attempt to explain this tight link:

Debates center on whether a given account can adequately capture:

• The asymmetry of explanation (why we explain later by earlier events, not vice versa).
• The objectivity of counterfactuals, especially in stochastic or highly idealized contexts.
• The way laws seem to distinguish genuinely explanatory generalizations from mere correlations.

Thus, explanatory and counterfactual roles are not merely applications of law-talk; they are often used as tests for the adequacy of competing metaphysical theories of laws.

13. Probabilistic Laws and Contemporary Physics

Many key theories in contemporary physics employ probabilistic rather than strictly deterministic laws. This raises questions about how probabilistic statements can be lawlike and how different metaphysical views of laws accommodate them.

Probabilistic Laws in Physics

Prominent examples include:

• Quantum mechanics: The Born rule assigns probabilities to measurement outcomes based on the wave function.
• Statistical mechanics: Laws connect microstates and macrostates via probability distributions (e.g., Boltzmann and Gibbs frameworks).
• Decay processes: Radioactive decay is modeled as a probabilistic process with a characteristic half-life.

These laws specify chance distributions or transition probabilities rather than unique outcomes.

Metaphysical Approaches to Probabilistic Laws

Different accounts of lawhood extend their frameworks to incorporate objective probability (chance) in distinct ways:

A central question is whether probabilities are irreducible aspects of laws (e.g., genuine propensities or objective chances) or can be reduced to features of frequencies, symmetries, or epistemic states.

Determinism, Indeterminism, and Lawhood

Some interpretations of contemporary physics are deterministic at a fundamental level (e.g., certain formulations of classical mechanics and some interpretations of quantum theory), treating probabilities as ignorance measures. Others are genuinely indeterministic, with laws specifying only probability weights over possible outcomes.

Philosophers debate:

• Whether indeterministic laws can still support robust notions of nomic necessity and governance (now over probability distributions rather than outcomes).
• How Humean and anti-Humean approaches respectively handle chancy laws without collapsing chance into mere patterns of actual frequencies.
• The role of symmetry principles and conservation laws—often exact even in probabilistic theories—in the overall landscape of laws.

Probabilistic laws thus serve as a testing ground for theories of lawhood, probing whether they can handle objective chance and indeterminism in addition to deterministic regularity.

14. Laws, Natural Kinds, and Scientific Practice

The relationship between laws of nature and natural kinds is central to understanding how laws feature in actual scientific work, beyond abstract metaphysical accounts.

Natural Kinds and Lawlike Generalizations

Many scientific laws are formulated over kinds of entities: electrons, genes, ideal gases, predators, etc. The idea of a natural kind—a category unified by real, objective features—has been used to explain why certain generalizations are projectible and explanatorily powerful.

On realist views about kinds:

• Kinds possess shared underlying structures or essences.
• Laws reflect stable relations among these structures, enabling reliable inference to unobserved cases.

On more deflationary or pragmatic views:

• Kind terms may reflect useful groupings for modeling and prediction.
• Apparent “laws” often hold only relative to idealizations or restricted domains.

Ceteris Paribus Laws and Special Sciences

In many fields (biology, psychology, economics), purported laws take ceteris paribus form: they hold “other things being equal,” allowing for exceptions when interfering factors are present.

This raises questions about whether such generalizations should count as genuine laws, as lawlike tendencies, or as heuristic rules within complex systems.

Laws in Scientific Method and Theory Choice

Philosophers of science examine how laws figure in:

• Model-building: Laws provide constraints; models often simplify or idealize law-governed relations.
• Unification and explanation: Theories that systematize diverse phenomena under relatively few laws are often prized for their unificatory power.
• Classification and discovery: The search for regularities informs the identification of new kinds (e.g., elements, species, particle types), and conversely, new kinds can suggest new laws.

There is debate over whether fundamental physics is uniquely law-bearing, with other sciences depending on it, or whether multiple levels have their own autonomous laws (e.g., Mendelian inheritance, ecological principles).

Some accounts (e.g., dispositional essentialism) see laws as flowing from natural kinds; others (e.g., Humeanism) treat both kinds and laws as part of the best systematization of the mosaic. Anti-realist perspectives may regard both as pragmatically selected categories and principles geared toward specific explanatory and predictive aims.

15. Laws of Nature, Theism, and Miracles

The relationship between laws of nature and theism has been a central theme in both philosophy of religion and philosophical theology, particularly regarding divine action and miracles.

Theistic Conceptions of Laws

Historically, many theists have interpreted laws as:

• Expressions of divine will or wisdom: Laws are the means by which God orders creation.
• Stable patterns reflecting God’s faithfulness, enabling prediction and rational inquiry.

In classical theism, God is often seen as sustaining the existence and operations of created things in accordance with these laws. Deistic conceptions emphasize God as initial legislator, establishing laws and then not intervening thereafter.

Miracles and Law-Violation

Miracles are frequently characterized as exceptions to or violations of laws. Philosophical discussions revolve around several questions:

• Are miracles incompatible with strict, exceptionless laws?
• Can a miracle be understood as an event that does not conform to the laws that otherwise govern nature?
• Or should miracles be seen as within a broader theistic framework in which laws describe only the ordinary course of nature?

Hume famously defined a miracle as:

"

“A violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle… is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”

— David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X

This formulation has prompted extensive debate about the evidential status of miracle reports and the very concept of law-violation.

Alternative Theological Models

Some theistic philosophers propose alternative pictures:

• Concurrentism: God continuously acts with created causes; laws describe stable patterns of this concurrence, while miracles involve distinctive modes of concurrence without literal law-breaking.
• Secondary causation: Laws describe the operations of created causes; miracles are additional divine actions rather than negations of created causal powers.
• Non-interventionist models: Some suggest God acts through indeterministic laws (e.g., quantum events) without violating them, by subtly influencing which of several permitted outcomes occurs.

These models intersect with metaphysical views of laws:

Discussions also explore whether the intelligibility and orderliness of laws provide any support for theism, and how different understandings of law affect classic arguments about the coherence and evidential force of miracles.

16. Laws, Determinism, and Human Freedom

The connection between laws of nature and determinism raises questions about human freedom, responsibility, and agency. Determinism is typically defined as:

"

Given the laws of nature and the complete state of the world at one time, only one future history is physically possible.

Laws and Deterministic Dynamics

Many classical physical theories are interpreted as deterministic: the laws (often expressed as differential equations) plus initial conditions uniquely fix the evolution of states. On this picture:

• The laws structure the space of physically possible histories.
• Determinism is a matter of the mathematical form of laws (e.g., first-order differential equations) and suitable conditions on solutions.

Some interpretations of quantum theory and other physical frameworks, by contrast, suggest indeterministic laws, with probabilities governing possible outcomes.

Freedom and Compatibilism / Incompatibilism

Philosophers distinguish positions on the relation between determinism (underwritten by laws) and free will:

The source of the constraint—laws or past states—figures prominently in classic arguments such as Peter van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument,” which treats the laws and past as beyond an agent’s control.

Role of Law Metaphysics

Different theories of lawhood may influence, but do not by themselves settle, these debates:

• If laws are governing necessities, they may be seen as imposing a strong modal fixity on future events, which some incompatibilists emphasize.
• If laws are Humean summaries, determinism is still a structural feature of the pattern of events, but some argue it appears less “imposed” and hence less threatening.
• Dispositional and powers-based accounts may ground determinism or indeterminism in the essential tendencies of agents and environments.

Indeterministic laws do not automatically secure meaningful freedom. Some argue that mere randomness is as inimical to responsibility as strict determination; others contend that certain kinds of indeterminism (e.g., in decision-making processes) might underwrite robust alternative possibilities.

Thus, debates about laws, determinism, and freedom intersect but remain partially independent: how one conceives laws can shape intuitions about determinism’s force, yet questions of agency and responsibility involve additional normative and psychological considerations.

17. Laws, Natural Law Theory, and Political Thought

The term “law of nature” also figures prominently in ethical, legal, and political philosophy, where it historically intersected with, but is conceptually distinct from, physical laws of nature. Philosophical discussion often traces how these strands influenced each other.

Natural Law in Moral and Legal Theory

Natural law theory in ethics and jurisprudence holds that:

• There are objective moral principles grounded in human nature, reason, or divine order.
• These principles function as standards for human law (positive law), which should conform to natural law.

Classical formulations can be found in Aquinas, who defined natural law as rational creatures’ participation in eternal law. Early modern thinkers such as Grotius, Hobbes, and Locke developed secularized or altered versions, using “laws of nature” to denote:

• Norms of self-preservation or sociability (Hobbes).
• Moral rights and duties in a pre-political “state of nature” (Locke).

Interaction with Scientific Laws

Although conceptually distinct, the metaphor of law in physics and in moral-political thought sometimes interacted:

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the success of mechanistic science influenced political thought, encouraging views of society as subject to regularities or “laws” (e.g., in social physics, later in classical economics). At the same time, some natural law theorists appealed to scientific conceptions of human nature to support claims about rights, property, and governance.

Critiques and Reinterpretations

Later critics, including legal positivists and some political theorists, questioned:

• Whether “laws of nature” in morality are coherent or empirically grounded.
• The legitimacy of deriving normative claims (what ought to be) from descriptive laws (what is).

Contemporary discussions remain attentive to the potential slippage between physical and moral senses of “law of nature.” Some argue that invoking natural laws in political debate can obscure value judgments behind an aura of scientific objectivity; others maintain that appeals to law-governed human nature can support universal human rights or constraints on political power.

Philosophers of law and politics thus examine both the historical influence of scientific law-talk on political theory and the conceptual distinctions between descriptive natural laws and normative natural law doctrines.

18. Objections, Puzzles, and Ongoing Debates

Philosophical work on laws of nature has generated a range of objections and unresolved issues. These often function as stress-tests for competing accounts of lawhood.

The Distinction Problem: Laws vs. Accidental Generalizations

A classic puzzle is how to distinguish genuine laws from mere regularities, such as:

• “All cubes of gold in the universe are smaller than 1 km on a side.”

Humean views appeal to best-system criteria (simplicity, strength) to demarcate laws. Critics argue this is insufficiently sharp or depends on language and pragmatic choices. Anti-Humeans invoke necessitation or essences, but face questions about how we identify these from finite data.

The Epistemic Access Problem

Necessitarian and primitivist views postulate real necessities or primitive law-facts. Skeptics ask:

• How can we justifiably infer such strong metaphysical claims from limited observations?
• Could multiple, distinct systems of laws be equally compatible with all possible evidence?

This connects to broader worries about underdetermination and the reach of metaphysical inference from science.

The Governing vs. Descriptive Tension

Some argue that:

• If laws govern events, they must be distinct from those events; but then one can ask what governs the laws.
• If laws are merely descriptive, they seem unable to ground robust modalities or explain why patterns hold.

Different views attempt to navigate this by:

No consensus exists on whether any of these strategies fully dissolves the tension.

Ceteris Paribus and Idealization

The prevalence of ceteris paribus laws and idealized models raises questions about whether strict, exceptionless laws exist outside of highly controlled or imagined contexts. Some argue this undermines strong law realism; others contend that:

• Underlying exact laws may still hold at a more fundamental level.
• Ceteris paribus clauses can be made precise via lists of defeating conditions or by appeal to best-explanation criteria.

Metaphysical Scope and Pluralism

Other ongoing debates include:

• Whether there is a single correct metaphysical account of lawhood or whether pluralism is appropriate across domains or levels of description.
• How laws interact with emergence, symmetry principles, and space-time structure, especially in cutting-edge physics.
• Whether modal notions (possibility, necessity, counterfactuals) should be analyzed in terms of laws, or vice versa.

These puzzles ensure that the philosophy of laws remains an active field, with new proposals and refinements continually responding to perceived shortcomings of existing theories.

19. Legacy and Historical Significance

The concept of laws of nature has had a profound impact on both scientific practice and philosophical thought, shaping understandings of nature, rationality, and human place in the cosmos.

Transforming the Image of Nature

The shift from ancient teleological and mythological views to a universe structured by impersonal, mathematically expressible laws contributed to:

• The rise of modern science, with its emphasis on generalizable, testable principles.
• The decline of explanations in terms of intrinsic purposes, replaced by law-governed dynamics.
• New ideals of objectivity and predictive control, influencing technology and industry.

The law concept supported an image of nature as ordered yet contingent, inviting systematic investigation rather than resignation to capricious forces.

Influences Beyond Physics

Law-of-nature talk has radiated into many domains:

The metaphor of law has thus served as a powerful unifying theme, even where its applicability is contested.

Ongoing Philosophical Significance

Philosophical inquiry into laws continues to inform:

• Interpretations of fundamental physics (determinism, chance, symmetry, space-time).
• Accounts of scientific realism, modeling, and idealization.
• Debates about free will, theism, and the status of moral and political norms.

The legacy of the law concept is therefore twofold:

1. Historically, it crystallized a new way of conceiving nature—as structured by general, often mathematical principles.
2. Philosophically, it remains a focal point for questions about what there is, what can happen, and how we come to know the structure of the world.

Across changing scientific theories and metaphysical fashions, the idea of laws of nature persists as a central tool for articulating the deep order—whether descriptive, governing, or merely pragmatic—that we ascribe to the universe.