Had this debate with some people earlier…
Curious about your opinions…
If we completely removed them all, The Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of matter, et al… Could life exist?
It spawned from a debate about the existence of God no less.
Life is defined by some as that which reverses local entropy. If we didn’t have entropy, then I guess we couldn’t have life.
I should also point out that if you removed the Laws of Science, the Universe would be a weird place. I mean, you think Salvador Dali’s mind is weird, but I’m talking WEIRD. It’s difficult if not impossible even to think about a place like that.
Chaos is difficult to define.
The phrase “Remove the laws of Science” really doesn’t have a particular meaning. Envisioning a universe without any laws means a universe where such simple matters as geometry have no specific meaning Here or there cannot even be assumed not to be interchangeable.
Alive? How can that be differentiated from not alive?
In fact, what would differentiate the portions of the Universe that did exist from the portions which did not? I find it very hard to discuss the nature of a thing which cannot even have existence as a characteristic.
Tris
Rule of Reason: “If nobody uses it, there’s a reason.”
Do you mean the laws of science or the laws of physics? Science is merely the search for new knowledge. Life existed long before science (please excuse the nitpick).
The so-called laws of physics, however, are the rules by which matter operates. They define that matter is made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of smaller particles ad infinitum. They define gravity, energy, matter, and all of the other building blocks of the universe. The answer to your question depends on whether you’re asking about changing the laws of physics, or removing them altogether.
Say, for example, that I am a child. I have lots of toys, and I like to build tiny buildings out of them. I can build things out of Lego. I could alternatively use play-dough. I could also use those little wooden logs that you make miniature log cabins out of. I could draw an entire city with my crayons. I have a lot of other toys, but these aren’t my only tools for building. I could go outside and make a sand castle. If it’s winter, I can make a snow fort.
Each of these toys/pastimes has a similar effect, but with totally different rules. My snow for has to be cold. My lego blocks fit together in a specific way. A drawing is two-dimensional, while those logs are three-dimensional. I can’t mix-and-match between the different types, either; otherwise, things get messy very quickly. Each building method has one thing in common, though: I need something to build with.
As long as there is something to build with, you can build. If there’s nothing to build with, you’re out of luck.
Does that make sense, physics-wise?
If you phrase the question properly (“Can life exist if we remove the laws of nature”) then you will see how little sense it makes. If nature has no laws, then what can possibly exist?
The answer is yes, but it wouldn’t be “human” life and it wouldn’t be logical in any way we can understand.
I don’t understand the question.
How on earth do you remove the laws of physics?
OK. Please read the above question without the phrase “on earth”.
what?
i don’t even know what constitutes life.
i mean what is life?
i think this is more of a debate than anything.
cuz science define life as cell organisms, plus other criteria. 
so without science, how do you define life?
If you got rid of the “laws” wouldnt that more or less mean that physics and nature would still exist, but there would be no universal laws governing what happens? Such as gravity in some places, anti-gravity in others, no gravity elsewhere, new-gravity=which is like gravity, but only affects your pants- in other places. All jumbled together?