# Laws of Physics [closed]

Here is a thought.

Let us assume the there is an infinite uni-directional line of balls. And it is being jumbled up again and again, randomly. (say by 'God'!)

I in my limited experience/capacity can 'observe' only 10 balls. And I see that the positions of balls alternate in pairs. Say if balls are numbered 1 to 10, ball at position 1 takes 2 position and 2 comes to 1's position and this keeps repeating. And similarly for balls (3,4) to (9,10) - I call this pattern a 'Law' - "Balls alternate with their immediate following neighbor if they are at odd position or with their immediate preceding if they are at even position". (That such a pattern will be there is guaranteed by the fact the line of balls is infinite and jumbling is random - an assumption about infinity and randomness)

Assume suddenly I'm able to observe 20 balls and the above rule breaks - so I come up with another cleverer rule that applies to all 20 balls and claim this is the 'new' universal law.

But in reality / in totality there is 'no' pattern - there is 'no' law - there are just local patterns that emerge in this game which is actually 'random'.

Is the above a valid way of looking at Physics? What are the arguments against it? How can we be sure that there are universal laws without having the capacity to observe the entire universe?

• I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it does not have the form of a question. The content seems to imply multiple questions, you could make actual questions out of it, it could be many, and interesting! – Volker Siegel Mar 14 '20 at 8:33
• "How can we be sure that there are universal laws without having the capacity to observe the entire universe?" by itself is actually a pretty good question! – Volker Siegel Mar 14 '20 at 8:37
• That it is possible to find laws that describe patterns valid over everything we can observe is already an amazing thing in itself. This much works, since that's precisely what physics is about. So the game is definitely not 'random'. Now if by universal laws based on the observation of all the universe you mean that every observed detail has to be mathematically modelled, then that IMO is confusing the map with the territory and set up a whole new ambition: that of ensuring that the whole universe is a mathematical model. – Stéphane Rollandin Mar 14 '20 at 9:06
• @aman_cc You got a interesting answer and upvotes. It will get closed, but it will stay here as useful, which is pretty good. (It can not get new answers after closing, but it's not deleted). The last sentence alone asks a question much deeper than you might expect, it is a excellent way of looking at physics. I keep my close vote, but give it an up vote too. – Volker Siegel Mar 14 '20 at 12:47
• this answer of mine is relevant physics.stackexchange.com/questions/349587/… – anna v Mar 14 '20 at 17:10

One of the key aspects of a theory is to specify its domain of validity in which it is self consistent. In your example of when we observe just $$10$$ balls, we have a “law” that is valid in that domain. So you may ask what the is point of the “law” when it isn’t valid for $$20$$ balls? Well, in the domain of validity we can use that law and build a framework and all will be well and good. For example Newton’s laws are not valid in the atomic scale, so it isn’t universal. But are they of no use? Definitely not!