Philosophy
The Metaphysics of Laws of Nature and the Regularity View
Quick fact
The regularity view, famously associated with David Hume, holds that a law of nature is simply a regularity—a pattern of constant conjunction—that we project onto the world. Yet, the most sophisticated version, the 'best system' account, tries to pick out which regularities count as laws by requiring them to be theorems of the simplest, most powerful axiomatic system of nature.
Why this is interesting
We all expect the sun to rise tomorrow, but what makes that expectation more than a habit? Is there a real 'law' behind it, or just a pattern?
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Metaphysics of Laws of Nature and the Regularity View
Think of nature as a vast movie. The regularity view says that a 'law' is just a recurring scene—like balls rolling when pushed. There's no hidden script dictating the scenes; the pattern is all there is. When we say 'it's a law that F=ma', we're not describing an invisible force that makes objects obey; we're summarizing what objects actually do, over and over. This is a deflationary view: it denies that laws have any 'oomph' or necessity. The 'best system' version adds a twist: among all the patterns, the laws are the ones that would appear in the simplest, most comprehensive summary of all the facts—like a compact formula that captures the most data with the fewest rules.
A deeper explanation
The regularity view reduces laws to de facto regularities, which means that the 'lawfulness' of a pattern depends on how well it fits into the best system. This avoids the mystery of 'nomic necessity' but faces problems: it seems to make laws too contingent (any regularity could be a law) and fails to explain why regularities hold. In contrast, necessitarian views, such as David Armstrong's, posit that laws are relations of necessitation between universals—properties are connected by a genuine nomic tie. This explains why the pattern holds, but at the cost of positing abstract entities. The debate thus hinges on whether we need necessity in nature or can make do with patterns. Understanding this trade-off is key to grasping the metaphysics of laws.