 Most generally both Boyle and Hobbes viewed the natural world as composed of bits of matter in motion. Even if there were some points of agreement between the versions of mechanical philosophy offered by both Boyle and  Hobbes,[8]  there are important differences. A crucial difference between the two relates to the status (or lack thereof) of Laws of Nature. While Boyle talked about the laws of nature as established by God (see entry on  Boyle, section Laws of Nature),  Hobbes restricted discussion of laws to the laws of human conduct discovered by those who escape the state of nature and create a commonwealth. In contrast to laws of the natural world, Hobbes articulated a priori principles of motion at the foundation of his physics in De Corpore VIII.19 and IX.7. Rather than being known as laws of motion, issued by some divine lawmaker, these Hobbesian principles of motion are explicated by thought experiments and seem to rely upon a version of the principle of sufficient reason (Jesseph 2006: 132). Although Hobbes held that they were true of all human experience, since Hobbes holds that we cannot know the actual causes of natural phenomena he would have to admit that nature might, unbeknownst to us, act otherwise. However, despite these differences, the primary dissimilarity that emerges between Hobbes and Boyle concerning the air-pump experiments is one of method as it relates to the status of experiments/experience (see entry on  Boyle, section Philosophy of Experiment).