Laws and meta-laws of nature: Conservation laws and symmetries

Abstract Symmetry principles are commonly said to explain conservation laws—and were so employed even by Lagrange and Hamilton, long before Noether's theorem. But within a Hamiltonian framework, the conservation laws likewise entail the symmetries. Why, then, are symmetries explanatorily prior to conservation laws? I explain how the relation between ordinary (i.e., first-order) laws and the facts they govern (a relation involving counterfactuals) may be reproduced one level higher: as a relation between symmetries and the ordinary laws they govern. In that event, symmetries are meta-laws; they are not mere byproducts of the dynamical and force laws. Symmetries then explain conservation laws whereas conservation laws lack the modal status to explain symmetries. I elaborate the variety of natural necessity that meta-laws would possess. Proposed metaphysical accounts of natural law should aim to accommodate the distinction between meta-laws and mere byproducts of the laws just as they must accommodate the distinction between laws and accidents.

[1]  M. J. Osler.  Laws and symmetry , 1993 .

[2]  Ori Belkind,et al.  International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 2007 .

[3]  M. Redhead,et al.  Symmetry in intertheory relations , 1975, Synthese.

[4]  Peter Kosso.  Fundamental and accidental symmetries , 2000 .

[5]  M Duggan,et al.  Inward bound. , 1993, The Health service journal.

[6]  P. Havas.  The connection between conservation laws and invariance groups - folklore, fiction, and fact , 1973 .

[7]  Van Fraassen,et al.  Laws and symmetry , 1989 .

[8]  Marc Lange.  An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics: Locality, Fields, Energy, and Mass , 2002 .

[9]  Marc Lange.  Natural Laws in Scientific Practice , 2000 .

[10]  H. M. Collins,et al.  Dreams of a Final Theory , 1999 .

[11]  How to Account for the Relation between Chancy Facts and Deterministic Laws , 2006 .

[12]  K. Brading,et al.  Symmetries in physics: philosophical reflections , 2003, quant-ph/0301097.

[13]  Martin Gardner,et al.  The Ambidextrous Universe , 1964 .

[14]  P. Frank,et al.  Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 1968 .

[15]  E. Wigner.  Events, Laws of Nature, and Invariance Principles. , 1964, Science.

[16]  J. Bigelow,et al.  The World as One of a Kind: Natural Necessity and Laws of Nature , 1992, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[17]  Eugene P. Wigner,et al.  THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS AND USE OF THE GEOMETRIC INVARIANCE PRINCIPLES , 1965 .

[18]  Laws, Counterfactuals, Stability, and Degrees of Lawhood , 1999, Philosophy of Science.

[19]  Conservation laws in physics , 1967 .

[20]  Harvey R. Brown,et al.  Dynamical versus variational symmetries: understanding Noether's first theorem , 2004 .

[21]  Harvey R. Brown,et al.  Symmetries and Noether's theorems , 2003 .

[22]  Marc Lange,et al.  laws and their stability , 2005, Synthese.

[23]  Michael Clark,et al.  Varieties of Necessity , 1972 .

[24]  Conservation Laws in Classical and Quantum Physics , 1954 .

[25]  D. Gross,et al.  The role of symmetry in fundamental physics. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  William Demopoulos,et al.  Physical theory and its interpretation : essays in honor of Jeffrey Bub , 2006 .

[27]  D. Rosseinsky.  Fearful symmetry , 1987, Nature.

[28]  Marc Lange,et al.  Who’s Afraid of Ceteris-Paribus Laws? Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Them , 2002 .

[29]  Marc Lange.  The autonomy of functional biology: a reply to Rosenberg , 2004 .

[30]  Jeremy Butterfield,et al.  On Symmetry and Conserved Quantities in Classical Mechanics , 2005, physics/0507192.