Could the Laws of Physics Be Self-Defining?

[apeiron]

Sort of like how energy can neither be created nor destroyed?

No, I meant like DNA, membranes and other cellular structures that can continually repair themselves. The stuff that organises the degrading action.

 

[oldman]

Yes, the thread constantly confuses evolution and development.

Development is the running down of an entropy gradient. A nakedly self-organising action.

Evolution is about mechanism that can harness developmental potentials. You do not have just one entropy degrading or dissipative system but instead a variety of systems in competition. And the most effective or best adapted degrader wins.

And it does require a "machinery" - a negentropy. A structure that does not get degraded as it degrades.

I think that there is still a lot of confusion between evolution and development perhaps because folk have a tendency to talk in generalities, rather than specifics. In my experience an absence of examples and a plethora of profundities betrays confusion.

Let me ramble on about this a bit longer. I'm still confused.

There is a kind of change that incorporates one or more clever tricks, either happenstance or invented. An example is the chance interactions between crowded atoms that first created a molecule, perhaps template shaped, that made it easier for another like it to form. Such a replication trick has great "developmental potential", later realized by natural selection. Is this the kind of machinery that involves negentropy you were thinking of and that should be labeled as "evolution"? And should its later history be described as development? or further evolution?

It seems to me that self-replication is the one absolutely necessary feature of what we call biological evolution. But it doesn't tell a sufficiently complete story, say including how DNA may have emerged from a class of template-shaped molecules (was this just by "nakedly self-organising action"? or were mechanisms and negentropy also important here, so that we should talk of DNA evolving from simpler stuff?

Perhaps we just don't know how DNA came to be.

Then there are our own clever invented tricks. Like the (now ancient) trick of storing instructions for a computer as binary numbers together with similarly formatted data that is to be manipulated. Again, great emergent consequences! Here commercial competition mimics natural selection. Are we to call this the evolution of computers, or their development?

 

[apeiron]

An example is the chance interactions between crowded atoms that first created a molecule, perhaps template shaped, that made it easier for another like it to form. Such a replication trick has great "developmental potential", later realized by natural selection. Is this the kind of machinery that involves negentropy you were thinking of and that should be labeled as "evolution"? And should its later history be described as development? or further evolution?

In your example, molecules would indeed be locally negentropic. And were paid for by the entropy of latent heat that would have been released in the bond forming. But this is just development.

It seems to me that self-replication is the one absolutely necessary feature of what we call biological evolution. But it doesn't tell a sufficiently complete story, say including how DNA may have emerged from a class of template-shaped molecules (was this just by "nakedly self-organising action"? or were mechanisms and negentropy also important here, so that we should talk of DNA evolving from simpler stuff?

DNA would have developed then evolved. Nucleic acids can arise spontaneously. But the machinery of DNA - with all its repair mechanisms, its replication mechanisms, etc, is quite a package refined over time.

Then there are our own clever invented tricks. Like the (now ancient) trick of storing instructions for a computer as binary numbers together with similarly formatted data that is to be manipulated. Again, great emergent consequences! Here commercial competition mimics natural selection. Are we to call this the evolution of computers, or their development?

Computers are an example of pure mechanism. They have no development or SO inherently. And would you say they evolve or that their human designers are driven by competition?

 

[baywax]

No, I meant like DNA, membranes and other cellular structures that can continually repair themselves. The stuff that organises the degrading action.

I see. The repairs usually involve cell death and the growth (mitosis) of new tissues/structures. This is where mutations can take place (the crap shoot of mitosis) after repeated cell deaths and new growths. These mutations can result in new, beneficial selections or in malignant growths such as cancer and the death of the organism. So, in this case, it is the mechanism of decay/ that organizes the degraded (not living) organism back into the ecosystem.

 

[apeiron]

I see. The repairs usually involve cell death and the growth (mitosis) of new tissues/structures. This is where mutations can take place (the crap shoot of mitosis) after repeated cell deaths and new growths. These mutations can result in new, beneficial selections or in malignant growths such as cancer and the death of the organism. So, in this case, it is the mechanism of decay/ that organizes the degraded (not living) organism back into the ecosystem.

These are some curious statements.

Repairs maintain the structure. Keep the system on track. Cell division in the body is not about evolution except perhaps in specialised senses. Such as synaptic competition during brain development.

Cancer would be an example of "development" in the general entropic sense I was suggesting. Cancer is simply explosive unregulated cell growth. The mutations that cause cancer are about essential bits of the usual regulatory machinery "falling off". Remember the role normally played by fail-safe mechanisms - apoptosis.

 

[baywax]

These are some curious statements.

Repairs maintain the structure. Keep the system on track. Cell division in the body is not about evolution except perhaps in specialised senses. Such as synaptic competition during brain development.

Cancer would be an example of "development" in the general entropic sense I was suggesting. Cancer is simply explosive unregulated cell growth. The mutations that cause cancer are about essential bits of the usual regulatory machinery "falling off". Remember the role normally played by fail-safe mechanisms - apoptosis.

For sure apoptosis. Its the mutation that shuts down the P52 gene that can arise (1 in 7 chance) during mitosis. Your right though...I'm probably wrong to assume that beneficial mutations can arise out of mitosis and be carried into next generation. Although I hadn't heard about synaptic competition being something that can continue in a species. (edited)

 

[tauon]

tauon -- Thanks for hanging in with me on this!

Rather than think of the basic "components" as things with certain intrinsic properties, I tend to think of them as momentary events, that have no definable characteristics in themselves. I want to assume as little about them as I can. Maybe most of them just happen all by themselves, and don't even connect to any other events -- they're not even "interactions". But only those that do happen to be interactions, can participate in an interaction-web like the one we observe in our universe. Only those that happen to connect two other events -- events which also happen to connect two other events, and so on... can participate.

So far we don't even have a distinction between "things" and their "connections" -- just events that link other events to other events, moment-to-moment.

Of those random events that happen to participate in such a web, there might then be a subset -- a web with a more specific topology... which would provide a context of definition for a still more specifically-structured subset of random events.

and I thank you for having the patience to explain me your idea. :)
but moving on (now that I have at least a basic understanding of what you're saying), I think you mentioned in a previous post what a complicated self-defining system would look like or how could we describe it... that may be quite difficult as the matter is ubiquitously non-intuitive, and there's little chance of formalizing it without a para-consistent mathematical system... sadly none of today's mathematics can formulate such a background and structure, which I think is quite creative and original and definitely worth more attention.

 

[baywax]

and I thank you for having the patience to explain me your idea. :)
but moving on (now that I have at least a basic understanding of what you're saying), I think you mentioned in a previous post what a complicated self-defining system would look like or how could we describe it... that may be quite difficult as the matter is ubiquitously non-intuitive, and there's little chance of formalizing it without a para-consistent mathematical system... sadly none of today's mathematics can formulate such a background and structure, which I think is quite creative and original and definitely worth more attention.

This may be something.

You can't have zero without a comparative like 1 or -1. From here you can begin to see the web of relation and support in most things.

Doris Day had it when she sang... "You can't have one without the other".

 

[ConradDJ]

I think you mentioned in a previous post what a complicated self-defining system would look like or how could we describe it... that may be quite difficult as the matter is ubiquitously non-intuitive, and there's little chance of formalizing it without a para-consistent mathematical system...

Thanks, tauon. This is from the OP --

The question is – could there happen to exist, within this original chaos, some sort of system that defined its own rules? Suppose for example there happened to be a web of the kind of events we call “interactions”... The “rule” defined by this system would just be that every event in the web has to link two other events within the system.

So now we have a subset of events that is not entirely unstructured... The question then becomes – could there happen to exist with this some web that defines a further level of structure for itself, building on the original rule?... within which there might happen to exist webs with a further level of definition – and so on.

So if our universe were a very complicated self-defining system, presumably it would consist of distinct levels of structure -- each level requiring a more complex context of definition than the previous levels.

To me one of the most striking things about physics is that the basic structures are in fact all so different in how they're defined.

Gravitation, for example, is in a way extremely simple and general, affecting all matter and even energy in the same way. But to define it at all, you need to refer to distances in space and time, because the spacetime metric is what's essential to this structure.

On the other hand, the basic structure of the electromagnetic field is simpler, in that it doesn't define a metric or require one for its own definition. So it seems as though the relationship between electrostatic and magnetic forces reflects a more primitive level of "geometry" -- a structure relating different directions in 3-dimensional space -- that might have defined itself prior to the emergence of the gravitational metric.

And there are other kinds of structure in QM that don't refer to spacetime geometry at all -- I'm thinking of quantum "phase" relationships, defined as relations between angles in an abstract space.

If we could somehow order all the different kinds of regularities we see in physical interaction, into a hierarchy, where each level depended for its definition only on the regularities established at lower levels... that would validate this approach.

I think of this as a kind of "archaelogy" of physics, trying to identify various aspects of the structure of physics we observe as representing more primitive "fossil" layers of self-definition.

Whether some new mathematics would be needed for this, I have no idea. My guess would be -- if this approach ever actually works -- that once we see the structural hierarchy put in the right order, it will seem pretty obvious. Right now it's not at all obvious -- as you put it nicely, "the matter is ubiquitously non-intuitive".

 

[baywax]

Thanks, tauon. This is from the OP --



So if our universe were a very complicated self-defining system, presumably it would consist of distinct levels of structure -- each level requiring a more complex context of definition than the previous levels.

To me one of the most striking things about physics is that the basic structures are in fact all so different in how they're defined.

Gravitation, for example, is in a way extremely simple and general, affecting all matter and even energy in the same way. But to define it at all, you need to refer to distances in space and time, because the spacetime metric is what's essential to this structure.

On the other hand, the basic structure of the electromagnetic field is simpler, in that it doesn't define a metric or require one for its own definition. So it seems as though the relationship between electrostatic and magnetic forces reflects a more primitive level of "geometry" -- a structure relating different directions in 3-dimensional space -- that might have defined itself prior to the emergence of the gravitational metric.

And there are other kinds of structure in QM that don't refer to spacetime geometry at all -- I'm thinking of quantum "phase" relationships, defined as relations between angles in an abstract space.

If we could somehow order all the different kinds of regularities we see in physical interaction, into a hierarchy, where each level depended for its definition only on the regularities established at lower levels... that would validate this approach.

I think of this as a kind of "archaelogy" of physics, trying to identify various aspects of the structure of physics we observe as representing more primitive "fossil" layers of self-definition.

Whether some new mathematics would be needed for this, I have no idea. My guess would be -- if this approach ever actually works -- that once we see the structural hierarchy put in the right order, it will seem pretty obvious. Right now it's not at all obvious -- as you put it nicely, "the matter is ubiquitously non-intuitive".

Excellent ideas here ConradDJ.

I spent 12 years as an archaeologist and through most of those years I thought there was a hierarchy to the evolution of cultures and of species etc... however, it has become increasingly clear that there are leaps and bounds in culture and invention then, in accordance with environmental or political rule... the advances can be and are lost to the elements until "discovered" again.

Whether this sort of convoluted evolution applies to the development of the physical laws or natural laws of the universe or not is questionable but, I imagine there were fits and starts to the development of gravity, electro-magnatism, static charge and the e-vent of energy itself.

How would one go about excavating and organizing any of the evidence of these developments?

 

[ConradDJ]

Baywax, thanks for encouragement...!

I spent 12 years as an archaeologist and through most of those years I thought there was a hierarchy to the evolution of cultures and of species etc...

Well though, there is hierarchy in these evolutionary histories, if only in a very limited sense... in that complex structures do require simpler ones as precursors. Otherwise you're certainly right -- evolution has no predestined path "forward", it's just -- whatever happens to happen.

How would one go about excavating and organizing any of the evidence of these developments?

Good question. But I'm thinking that the evolutionary picture in physics may be a lot simpler than in biology or human culture, so if there are distinct structural layers, they should be fairly evident. My basic assumption is that the measurement of distances in space and time is a "late" development that requires complex structure for its definition -- so I'm looking for aspects of physical law that don't seem to depend on this.

Electromagnetism is the outstanding example -- it seems very basic, in that essentially all communication and all physical structure (at least from the atomic level) depends on it. It has several distinct, interdependent aspects, with e-static and magnetic fields, connected with charge-conservation and spin-angular momentum.

All this structure has to do with changes in direction in 3-space. And there's an intriguing kind of "self-measurement" going on here -- this business of a moving charge generating an orthogonal magnetic field, which in turn affects the motion of a charge, for example. So I'm trying to see what aspects of this structure might be definable without the measurement of distances or velocities... just focusing on how a network of directed vectors might define itself, "selecting itself" out of an underlying network of interaction-events that had no predefined spacetime structure.

My guess is that if we could get one or two relatively simple structural layers to come into focus, the "methodology" for untangling the deep complexity of particle physics might also begin to be clear. And if it were possible to sort this out into a series of stages, where we could see how each stage might define itself on the basis of the prior ones, that in itself would be compelling evidence for an evolutionary approach.

-- Conrad

 

[baywax]

Baywax, thanks for encouragement...!



Well though, there is hierarchy in these evolutionary histories, if only in a very limited sense... in that complex structures do require simpler ones as precursors. Otherwise you're certainly right -- evolution has no predestined path "forward", it's just -- whatever happens to happen.



Good question. But I'm thinking that the evolutionary picture in physics may be a lot simpler than in biology or human culture, so if there are distinct structural layers, they should be fairly evident. My basic assumption is that the measurement of distances in space and time is a "late" development that requires complex structure for its definition -- so I'm looking for aspects of physical law that don't seem to depend on this.

Electromagnetism is the outstanding example -- it seems very basic, in that essentially all communication and all physical structure (at least from the atomic level) depends on it. It has several distinct, interdependent aspects, with e-static and magnetic fields, connected with charge-conservation and spin-angular momentum.

All this structure has to do with changes in direction in 3-space. And there's an intriguing kind of "self-measurement" going on here -- this business of a moving charge generating an orthogonal magnetic field, which in turn affects the motion of a charge, for example. So I'm trying to see what aspects of this structure might be definable without the measurement of distances or velocities... just focusing on how a network of directed vectors might define itself, "selecting itself" out of an underlying network of interaction-events that had no predefined spacetime structure.

My guess is that if we could get one or two relatively simple structural layers to come into focus, the "methodology" for untangling the deep complexity of particle physics might also begin to be clear. And if it were possible to sort this out into a series of stages, where we could see how each stage might define itself on the basis of the prior ones, that in itself would be compelling evidence for an evolutionary approach.

-- Conrad

That's a great approach!

I just want to add that you can see the lack of resistance offered by distance, velocity, and all things that have to do with space when you see lightning taking place on Earth from space.

Of course we are amazed that there are simultaneous discharges of lightning over huge distances... sometimes half or three quarters of the way around the globe... but, these could almost be compared... (without using metaphor!) to quantum simultaneous location. (if that's the correct term)

 

[Naty1]

I think Aperion posted:

The question was about how a universe (or even multiverse) might emerge through some sort of self-organisation out of pure possibility, a chaos of geometry of some kind, a quantum foaminess of some infinite description.

I personally liked the post "Order is a particular form of Chaos."

James Hartle discussed some of these features in his talk in Cambridge, England commemorating Stephen's Hawking 60th birthday. The following is from his talk "Theories of everything and Hawking wave function of the universe" published in THE FUTURE OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY,2003.

My colleague Murray Gel-Mann used to ask me "If you know the wavefunction of the universe, why aren't you rich?". A quantum mechanical theory of the Hamiltonian and the initial state does predict probabilities for everything that might happen in the universe. However only a few things are predicted with near certainty. The vast majority of alternatives are predicted with approximately 505-50% probabilities giving no useful information. That's the sense in which a 'theory of everything' is not a theory of everything...It is only because so little of the complexity of the present universe is predicted byt the fundamental universal laws that we can discover them...the regularities of of interest in (many) subjects are not predicted by the universal laws with near certainty even in principle. They are frozen quantum accidents that produce emergent regularities.

"Frozen accidents" is terminology attributed to Murray Gel-Mann.

And Roger Penrose also had some interesting comments in his talk, "The problem of spacetime singularities:implications for quantum gravity"

There is a very different structure...at the Big Bang from the kind of structure we find in a black hole's singularity. (The Weyl curvature at later times diverge to infinity; at the Big Bang the Weyl curvature is essentially zero.) This initial constraint is actually enormous. Calculations show that the chance of it having arisen purely by chance is less than about 1 in 10¹⁰¹²³+ . If one takes the the view that the sought for "quantum gravity theory" is just the imposition of standard quantum field theory on standard relativity, each being time-symmetric, one finds it very hard to see how to get this extraordinary time -asymmetry. Yet this time-asymmetry is an actual feature of our universe. How do we find the appropriate asymmetric theory?

+ The power published and shown above may have a typographical error...

 

[baywax]

ConradDJ there's another way to objectify and solidify whether or not there is an evolution of the laws of nature taking place and that would be by measuring changes within the laws themselves between say 1900 and 2000. If there is an evolution taking place and the changes that would come with it, the law of gravity, conservation laws etc... would show change over that 100 years. Mind you, the evolution of a natural law is probably measured in millions if not billions of years so the increments of change will be miniscule and would require pain staking observation and research. I only mention this idea because someone once said that all the theorems they learned in science, 30 years ago, have been proven to be wrong today. I wondered if this was not an indication that the natural laws had been evolving over that period of time rather than humans just getting it wrong all the time.

 

[ConradDJ]

ConradDJ there's another way to objectify and solidify whether or not there is an evolution of the laws of nature taking place and that would be by measuring changes within the laws themselves between say 1900 and 2000.

Hi baywax... I just want to point out that the evolution of laws of physics doesn't necessarily mean that they have changed over time, in the sense you mean. I just posted a long note about this in another thread, you may be interested --

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2368754#post2368754"

Thanks -- Conrad