BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/707800
Where do the laws of physics come from?

So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48

My BothAnd worldview, based in-part on Information Theory, implies that the answer is "yes". The physical universe came into existence with "laws" built-in. Just as a hen is born with all the eggs (stem cells) she'll ever have. Early scientists referred to the consistent regularities in nature as "laws", by analogy with the social laws of humanity, that are intended to regulate behavior. In the metaphor, there is an ultimate authority, not necessarily to design the laws, but to authorize (sanction) them. Yet, the analogy was based on the prevailing system of monarchy. Today, we might as well assume that Nature (Society) established its laws by consensus (about what works). However, since we have no information from the "time before time", the author or lawmaker or systematizer of the fertilized Singularity (cosmic egg) is anybody's guess.

The goal (Final Cause) of systematic regulation is to minimize negative, and to maximize positive, actions & changes --- to keep the system on track toward a desirable future state, or away from undesirable states. But who evaluates those states : the king or the populace, or both? Some "habits" are good (brushing twice a day) and some are bad (inhaling carcinogenic smoke). But both are focused on specific goals -- either short-term pleasure or long-term health. Are natural laws & constants random & arbitrary, or systematic & intentional, and for long or short-term benefits? Is the universe characterized by random noise, or by systematic processes? Science places its bets on the latter.

However, pragmatic Science is usually focused on short-term benefits from understanding Nature. Under the reductive microscope, both good & bad actions are observed. Some organisms consume (good) and others are consumed (bad). And those oppositions tend to cancel-out to a neutral, neither-good-nor-bad, system -- it simply works. But from a telescopic perspective, evolution is known to have begun in an un-promising explosion (expansion) from nothing to something. Yet, the world we now observe has produced finely-tuned (regulated) eco-systems that consistently stave-off dead-end Entropy, by harnessing & regulating the flow of life-enhancing Energy. From the simplicity of a stem-cell Singularity, the universe has matured into a complex organism, that promises to continue extracting order from Entropy into the far-off future.

Therefore, our universe is obviously a self-organizing organism, and evolution is a creative program -- generating animated Life & inquisitive Mind from inert Matter & random Energy. What, then, is the essence of organization : Self-regulation or Serendipity ; Law & Order or Lawless Disorder ; Innovation or Stagnation? Yet, it's also obvious today, that the world is not self-existent. So, both the physical substance and the abstract rules of regulation must have pre-existed. In that case, the philosophical question arises : was that Creative Act Intentional or Accidental? Your answer may reveal your positive or negative attitude toward the social- or eco-system you find yourself inextricably entangled with.


PS___It's not a question of either Matter or Laws, but of Both-And. In isolation, Matter is inert, but in conjunction with Rules of behavior, simple substance evolves in a positive direction towards physical Complexity and meta-physical Self-awareness.

It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." ___Wikipedia — Alkis Piskas

I think this description of Natural Laws makes an important point. The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, in part by analogy to human intentions & choices. The logical organization of Nature "implies" the rational intention to create Causes that produce Effects that can be detected & manipulated by rational methods to result in desirable ends. In other words, the ability to choose between Good & Evil.

Random accidents reveal no logical connection between Cause & Effect. But human Reason is attuned to such meaningful relationships, because linking causes & effects is valuable for survival in a dynamic world, where effects can be either Good or Bad. Perception of such causal links allows organisms to choose the Good and to eschew Evil. But, as far as we know, only human reason has analyzed the complex inter-relationships of causal networks down to abstract mathematical ratios. Hence, Mathematics is essentially the Logic of Nature. And "Reasoning" is the ability to infer personal meaning from those impersonal numerical values.

Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. They only mimic those general regulations for specific goals, by inventing artificial mechanisms that "reflect" those of Nature. For pragmatic purposes of Science, we can simply take that universal Logic for granted. But for the curious motives of Philosophy, we can try to trace its real-world effects back to the Source : the "LOGOS", as Plato called it.

we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality

I find Hoffman's notion that we don't see Reality-as-ding-an-sich plausible. However, I was referring to the useful, yet imperfect, mental ability to perceive the mathematical logic in Nature. That talent for seeing invisible (implicit) links gives us a fitness advantage over animals (by making the logic explicit). Reason & Logic may be our substitute for fangs & fleetness.

Even so, homo sapiens in-general are still not very a good at Math, especially Statistical relationships. Yet, we are good enough to create machines that are much faster & more accurate (to serve as our fangs & fleetness), but still depend on emotional humans to interpret the value & meaning of those abstract relationships. :joke:

PS__Reasoning sees & interprets geometric physical relationships by reference to some relative-but-reliable perspective -- usually the Self, or other authority. As a whole, and in general, the mathematical structure of the world is sometimes called "Sacred Geometry", because it seems to be designed by an omniscient Mathematician. But humans only see it "through a glass darkly".

Sacred Geometry :
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C2FYSLC/re ... TF8&btkr=1

Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!). — Agent Smith

Biblical morality assumes that the world was created perfect, with ideal laws, but was corrupted by a couple of freed nature-slaves, who learned how to distinguish between Good & Evil. I take a different perspective though. According to Big Bang theory, our universe began from a formless spec of nothing (Chaos??), and has evolved -- apparently in accordance with innate rules -- into a vast complex Cosmos. Unfortunately for inquisitive creatures, the BBT gives us no insight into where those organizing rules (laws of physics) originated.

The usual (non-biblical) assumption is that self-organization is just an inherent creative property of Nature. But scientists have also concluded that dis-organizing Entropy is dismantling organisms almost as fast as they emerge from the contingencies of competitive Evolution. Yet, the very existence of a pocket of organic order in one corner of a minor galaxy, indicates that destructive Entropy is counter-balanced by some constructive "force" or "law".

I call that positive power EnFormAction (the ability to give form to the formless). Both "Form" and "Information" convey "intelligible" meaning to perceptive minds. Part of that meaning is what we could call objective Geometric Organization (shape) and part is the subjective Relevance of that object to rational observers. Formal application of that self-relevance is what we call "Morality" : how the social & natural environment impacts the well-being of sentient creatures.

So, Science & Religion interpret the origin & meaning of natural laws from different perspectives. Genesis implies that the laws were supposed to favor sentient creatures, especially rational beings. But, Science observes that Nature seems to be impartial or uncaring. Even the biblical Ecclesiastes sheds shade on the idea of favorable divine justice : "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

My conclusion then, is that Nature is indeed indiscriminate, in the sense that its effects on both sentient & insentient creatures are fair, and delicately balanced on a knife-edge of homeostasis between Good & Evil. So, if humans have an unfair advantage in evolutionary competition, it's in their moral sense : the ability to discern potential Good from Evil (i.e. to predict the future course of Nature & Culture, and its impact on the discerner). Yet, all predictions -- especially about the future -- are constrained by the limits on our information & understanding about both now and then. Which is why human societies have developed human-oriented moral rules, to supplement the impartial physical laws of Nature. To tip the balance in favor of moral agents.

Cosmos : implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity. ___Wiki

Form : A form, according to Plato, is an abstract intelligible pattern that has various concrete sensible objects as specific instantiations. ___Quora

Chance : Fate ; probability ; happenstance ; un-intentional

The balance of Nature : The controversial Gaia hypothesis was developed in the 1970s by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis; it asserts that living beings interact with Earth to form a complex system which self-regulates to maintain the balance of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature

Homeostasis : tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...
Your whole description is quite interesting. — Alkis Piskas

My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is an attempt to answer that pertinent question. It traces the lawful order of the physical world back to the Big Bang, and beyond . . . Since Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 : EnFormAction [my term], I have concluded that some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos*2 : creative Causation within formless Chance. And the "where" is out there beyond the bounds of our finite Cosmos.

Since the ab origine causal input that created our complex universe, from a formless spec of nothingness (Singularity), is necessarily external to the knowable world --- imagine a pool shooter who stands apart from the pool table, but causes intentional effects on the table --- the only way to know the absent First Cause is to look at its real-world Effects. We can 'know' the long-gone artist by looking at his art-work. So if, as Information theorists have come to believe, everything in the world is some form of Generic Information (e.g. Energy), we can describe the Cosmic Cause as "Enformer" (form-giver), and as "extrinsic" (beyond the limits of space-time).

Understandably, most people are not content just to infer the "where" of the Source : the fount of Form. Instead, they want to know "who" created this organized world, along with its self-defining "laws". Yet, without a direct revelation from the Creator, we can only infer some logically necessary characteristics, and only guess at specifics. Which is why history is full of wild guesses about Gods, Prime Movers, First Causes, LOGOS, Creators, and now Enformers. But, your guess, about the time-before-time, is as authoritative as mine.

So, where-and-from-whom do you think the logical rules for Cosmic Self-Organization originated? Was it Random Chance or Happen-stance or Magic? If you are uncomfortable with ascribing personality to an unknowable absentee otherworldly 'Father' of Form, then we can use improper-names & impersonal-metaphors, such as "Enformer" or "Programmer" to describe the logical function of Law-Maker.

*1. Matter-Energy and Information :
In the realm of physics, everything is matter-energy, a single element that takes two basic forms
as explained in special relativity. . . . . Can information be reduced to matter-energy, and return us to only that single element?
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/cont ... mation.pdf

*2. Nietzsche's Butterfly: An Introduction to Chaos Theory :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/st ... uction_to/

The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course. — Alkis Piskas

Attributing a hypothetical Mind to the Big Bang, is a logical extrapolation from the cutting-edge of Information Theory. Claude Shannon removed Mind & Meaning (semantics) from General Information, in order to make it abstract & mechanical (syntax)). But, since then, physicists have discovered that Information is the essence Energy & Matter, as noted in the PDF. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1.

Like most features of Quantum Theory, understanding the relationship between Energy, Matter & Mind can be complex & technical & counter-intuitive. Unless you are willing to get your hands dirty with "Quantum Weirdness", you'll just have to accept that some physicists have come to believe that Information (logical order ; meaning) is at the root of everything, both material and mental. Just as astronomers traced the light (energy) from stars back to a sudden emergence of something from nothing (who-knows-what), that Point of Beginning was also the origin of everything in the world today --- including Mind & Matter.*2

Likewise, the Enformationism Thesis*3 traces the evolution of Generic Information (in all its forms) back to the Big Bang. So, like Plato, I infer that the source of all rational order in the world (including Meaning) was what you could call "a mental force", which he labeled LOGOS (word, thought, principle, or speech). And all of those features of reality are associated, not with Matter, but with Mind. So, I infer that some kind of Mind "spoke" the world into existence. However, since I am skeptical of most pre-scientific speculation on the genesis of the world, I try to avoid the baggage-laden terms associated with Theism.

In view of the essential role of Information (the power to enform) in the world, I use such non-traditional terms as "Enformer" and "Programmer" to describe the abstract principle that Plato gave the mundane moniker "LOGOS". Generic Information*4 is not yet a settled scientific theory, but the causal role of Information is accepted by many Physicists & Philosophers. Most of them are also hesitant to use the "G" word, but a "rose by any other name" would smell like Deus.

So, you are correct that a world-creating Mind is necessarily prior to the Big Bang (space-time). Which means that we have no way of knowing the source of our enformed world. But, just as Cosmologists speculate (without evidence) on alien Multiverses & Many Worlds, Philosophers are free to ask questions about the Time-before-Time. Like most philosophical conjectures though, there is no final answer to such ultimate mysteries about "God, the Universe, and Everything". (Douglas Adams).


*1. Causal Information :
"information causality might be one of the foundational properties of nature"
Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird
Note -- This is a book about why Quantum Theory is non-classical. He says "it's a theory about information"

*2. Big History – The Unfolding of “Information :
The Big Bang – and then there was “1”
https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/arti ... /2254/2099

*3. Enformationism :
A worldview grounded on the axiom that Information (the power to enform, to create), rather than matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. As a paradigm, it is intended to be a successor to 17th century Materialism, and to ancient Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*4. Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

51SZYBnGpaL.jpg

I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". — Alkis Piskas

Yes. From my Enformationism perspective, I interpret Plato's "Chaos" and "Form" as a wellspring of Potential from which Actual things emerge. The hypothetical Vacuum Energy is one example of Actual from Potential. The empty vacuum of space is said to possess Zero Point Energy. Its normal state is neutral, because the positive & negative energies cancel out. Yet physicists imagine the Energy Field as a simmering sauce bubbling with peaks & valleys of energy (quantum foam), where the "negative" values are Potential (unmeasurable), and the "positive" values are Actual (measurable). Likewise, I picture Chaos as a bubbling cauldron of EnFormAction (the power to enform; to cause change). In its neutral state, Chaos is random & disorderly. But in its positive state, it is organized (ordered into knowable forms). That's how I equate "order with information". See my philosophical (thesis) definition of "information" below.

Chaos :
By “chaos” Plato does not mean the complete absence of order, but a kind of order, perhaps even a mechanical order, opposed to Reason.
https://iep.utm.edu/platoorg/

Order within Chaos :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/st ... uction_to/

Information is :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
BothAnd Blog

QUANTUM FOAM of bubbling energy
C0494944-Quantum_foam,_conceptual_illustration.jpg

Now, I wonder what kind of "information" the author of this book and the anonymous(!) author of the PDF are talking about ... Because the following question came to my mind when I read this quote was "How can an information feel?". So because this is totally absurd, I had to interpret it as follows: "the way a person feels when his mind processes an information". Then a second question was: "What kind of information is he talking about?" — Alkis Piskas

Apparently, you missed their point. Like Energy, abstract Information does not have "feelings", but it can cause a sentient being to "feel", to experience a sensation. Viewed that way, the author's assertions are not "absurd", but insightful. When energy (e.g light) is organized into meaningful patterns (color; heat; Morse-code; contrast) the human brain interprets that "code" into sensations that we call "feelings" (redness; warmth). Meaningful Patterns are Information. Such encoded (organized) patterns enform (give meaning to) the mind of a rational being.

As to "what kind of information" : Shannon defined it in terms of Syntax (abstract organization), but Tegmark was referring to Semantics (personal meaning). If you don't speak the language, its Syntax may seem "absurd". But if you know the vocabulary, its Semantics will seem sensible.

In the present case, I can only use a standard/common/baswic definition of "information": "Facts provided or learned about something or someone." ( — Alkis Piskas

My Enformationism thesis expands the meaning of "information" beyond the "standard" bare facts, or the "technical" application of Shannon. For example, the pre-shannon definition of "information" focused on its meaning to a human mind (knowledge). But Shannon abstracted away the Semantic human aspect, in order to convert "information" into empty vessels (1 or 0) that can mean anything to anyone. So, computers "encode", but humans "inform".


To Inform : inform implies the imparting of knowledge

Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion — Alkis Piskas

I wouldn't worry about that assertion in the context of physical laws. The "Argument From Illusion" is a philosophical quibble, that physicists are not concerned with. It's related to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", which we know only as mental concepts : illusions.

The “Argument from Illusion” and the Cartesian Philosophy of Ideas :
https://www.cairn-i