Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What caused the physical laws we have?

  1. Mar 24, 2009 #1
    Hi. I am new to this forum and was wondering if anyone can answer my question.

    What caused the physical laws we have?
    Have these laws always been in existance?
    Is it true we may never know what the universe was lke before the BB?
    Can a theory such as the multi-universe theory be proven?

    If these have been asked before please direct me to thier page.

    Thank you still.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 24, 2009 #2
    Re: Laws

    Wow. Those are grand and ambitious questions.

    - There are different theories on how physical laws came into being. None have been proven. As far as we know, these physical laws that govern us today are the same laws that have been in existence since the Big Bang.
    - It is true that we may never know what the universe was like before the Big Bang. Heck, we may never know who shot JFK, and that's a lot more local to us.
    - Can a multi-universe theory be proven? Depends on your definition of "multi-universe". If communication is forbidden between different universes, then no, you cannot prove it. If communication is okay between different universes, then yes, you can prove it, but some might say that it's all in the same universe anyway since you can have communication.
     
  4. Mar 25, 2009 #3

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    You could try some of the good books on the subject - Paul Davies' Goldilock Enigma is a decent recent on just these issues.
     
  5. Mar 25, 2009 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Re: Laws

    This is a reasonable question, but most fundamental physics research has not asked it. Instead the researchers have assumed the laws were there, and gone after them as a goal. As a rule they haven't asked are there really permanent laws, and if so why, and why are they these laws instead of others.

    Here is a video lecture by Lee Smolin that does explore questions like that. It asks about the origin of physical law and why are the laws (and constants of nature) what they are rather than something else etc etc.

    http://pirsa.org/08100049/
    On the reality of time and the evolution of laws

    He doesn't take the anthropic way out.
    None of his analysis is like "well the laws have to be favorable to conscious life otherwise we wouldn't be here asking". He doesn't traffic in man-centered or mind-centered stuff, he tries to explain why these physical laws, independently of accidental detail like earth life. It's a big challenge.

    Smolin is writing a book about this with co-author Roberto Unger. Some of what is in the book comes out (in preliminary form) in this video lecture.
    I don't know if they are going to finish the book. It is a hard project. It will take at least into 2010, I think.

    No Goldilocks business in the book, or in the lecture. No talk about "if this or that constant were only 5 percent bigger or smaller then stars wouldn't shine or carbon atoms would decay and we wouldn't be here." The reasoning is not predicated on life as we know it. More trying to understand the universe on its own terms, whatever that means.

    It may be the wrong approach! May not succeed. Anyway here is some more about it:
    http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Events/Evolving_Laws/Audio/ [Broken]
    These are 2005 audio files, not video.
    Here is the agenda of the workshop on Evolving Physical Law
    http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Events/Evolving_Laws/Agenda/ [Broken]

    This may sound strange to you. Unger got tenure in 1976 at Harvard Law at the age of 29, the youngest or one of the youngest ever to get tenure.
    He has won a lot of honors. In 2007 he was appointed to a ministerial position in the Brazil government and took over their Economic Policy thinktank. He seems to still be professor of law at Harvard. There is a world economic crisis. How can he also be writing a book with a physicist, Lee Smolin. He already has two demanding jobs: Brazil economic ministery, policy thinktank, Harvard teaching. Apparently a popular teacher:
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=274071

    Under the circumstances should we give up on the book and assume it is never coming out? The proposed title of the book is something like
    Can the Laws of Nature Evolve?
    Here's an earlier thread about it:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=262171
    What would Unger, a law professor, know about physical law? Human law and physical law are totally different, right?
    The mind reels. On the other hand both Smolin and Unger are original thinkers and both very smart. It could be an interesting book if it ever makes it to the press.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. Mar 26, 2009 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    Our best observations strongly suggest the laws of physics have remained virtually constant for as long as the universe itself has existed. The most telling measure is variance in relationships between physical laws, like alpha. If alpha has varied over the age of the universe, the change is too small to measure thus far. Alpha is a key member among a group of values referred to as dimensionless constants.
     
  7. Mar 27, 2009 #6

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    I like some of these ideas, the first link is a nice talk.

    I don't know alot about Roberto in person but from my perspective but I see no problem with the fact that he is a philosopher with sociological and economical systems (think game theory). On the contrary, if you question the notion of law from an abstracted information theoretic perspecive I think there is alot in common there. Evolving information and expectations if you see it as an abstraction is not specific to physics. In economic and sociological theory these are also common abstractions, and I see no reason why the conventional physicists are necessarily the ones that understand this abstraction best.

    After all it's a totally new suggestion of howto analyse physics and the nature of fundamental law that isn't part of physicists tradition.

    /Fredrik
     
  8. Mar 27, 2009 #7

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    An interesting point in this context, is that the very evaluation we have done, that suggest that the laws of physics has remained constant, has been made by scientists during say a very small part of late human history. And until we understand tha nature of law, how can we distinguish such a highly "local assessment" from the definition of law? Even though we observe light suppoedly from the early age of the universe, and conclude that it's consistent with constant laws, all that information processing has still been taking place in a very constrained part of the history of the universe.

    Clearly, if we would have discovered that that laws did change, I'm sure we would quickly find an explanation for it so as to see that the real laws WAS constant. But this would require our knowledge of law to change.

    If nothing else, our knowledge of law has for sure not remained constant. And if you combine that idea, into some supposed quantum gravity, then I think it is far from sure that these apparently reasonable assertions we have made will stand. This, due to the important of information in quantum theory. I think we must clothe physical law in terms of information, just like we do with states.

    There is an inconsistency of reasoning in a few ways to distinguish information about initial states, and law. This is somewhat in line with Smolins reasoing I think, and I fully agree. I think he is absolutely right. It makes sense to me.

    However Smolins the CNS, seems to be more consistent with thta hte physical law is constant throughout the universe, and mutate only when a black hole is formed. I think one can be more radical, and take Smolins logic further, which would suggest that variation of law is not constrained to black hole formation only.

    /Fredrik
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2009
  9. Mar 27, 2009 #8

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    I see what you mean, but I think that even in this view, from the point of view of philosophy of science, the relevant question even within the idea of there existing eternal laws, and the philosophy that science tells how nature works, not why it works that way - is how an observers information/knowledge of law evovles, as a result of it's interaction history.

    Because even if the laws of physical are fixed, the physical process whereby an observer informs himself about this remains to be questioned. Traditionally this has been the problem of the scientific method and belongs to philosophy of science.

    But I thinkn alot of this, suggest that this is more than just philosophy. In particular when you think about the lessons from quantum mechanics, where the apparently information is very fundamental, yet somewhat of a mystery. Why would information about law, in the generalized sense of a physical observer forming an "opinion" about the law, in the environment he exists, be an exception? I can't see a single good reason.

    /Fredrik
     
  10. Mar 27, 2009 #9

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    There is a lot of talk about "laws" - but what do people think they really are? Some rule laid down by a superior being that material objects must obey?

    Laws are emergent statistical regularities. What is so likely to happen locally in a given global context that it becomes inevitable (with asymptotic certainty).

    Then from this we can say that laws are downwards acting constraints. As said, it is the global context that determines what must (with the highest probabilty) occur at a locality.

    If we forgot the word laws and just talked about global constraints, the machinery of physics would sound a lot less mystical.

    And think about this. If we talked about global constraints, the interesting question becomes not can they change, but why they don't change?

    You would need a theory about the universe's persistence rather than its existence (which is where dissipative structure theory and other modern thermodynamics would come into play).
     
  11. Mar 27, 2009 #10

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    Let me see if you interpret you right:
    Given the limited accuracy of the communication here, what you say sounds reasonable.

    But to me the key is then the exact description of emergent statistics. If you apply this to a real observer, this process of emergent regularitues would then in principle yield a different "emergent pattent" depending on the choice of observer...
    ...which leads exactly to this question :) Agreed.

    And IMHO, the route to an answer to the remarkable stability and consistency of laws (or if you call them statistical patterns) given the potential arbitrariness of the observer choice, likes exactly in that an evolution in the set of observers balances this. The large inertia of law, lies in the evolution of observers, which preserves and produces consistent patterns, which all observers ultimately agree upon as lawlike patterns. (as a limiting case, which btw, is never reached)

    That's how I see it.

    /Fredrik
     
  12. Mar 27, 2009 #11

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    If you agree thus far in a general fashion, have you come across discussions of the model for emergent regularities?

    As I see it, there are two general bodies of statistical modelling here - gaussian and powerlaw. Gaussian models the "laws" of static worlds (closed system perspectives like an ideal gas) and powerlaws model dynamic worlds (open, far from equilibrium, systems such as criticality, edge of chaos, renormalised, scale-free, fractal, etc).

    So linear and non-linear phenomena. Inertial and accelerative frames.

    The observer aspect needs to be considered as well. Again a choice. You can reduce the notion of the observer to some localised viewer (point-like within the system - and then choice of location becomes a big, (often relativistic), issue. Or you can expand observerdom to the global bound. Which is the event horizon approach. And the constraints approach in thermo/hierarchy theory.

    So some choices that seem to split "law-making" into two broad classes of system-hood. Do you think static or dynamic, closed or open? Do you place your obsever at the local or the global scale?

    Once we get to this point, the maths can begin.
     
  13. Mar 29, 2009 #12

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    No, not yet any mathematical models that satisfy the requirements of my visions.

    However, the precursor of a mathematical model is somethings a line of reasoning, from which a preferred mathematical formalism loosely follows. There are components of this reasoning present in the reasoning of several people.

    1) Lee Smolin - Evolving law

    2) Carlo Rovelli - Relational QM, with the key idea that observer can only compare measurements by means of physical interactions. Unfortunately he doesn't really change QM, which is my dissapointment. But there are some brilliant sections in his RQM paper that stand out even if the finish isn't what I hoped.

    3) Ariel Caticha - Has the idea that the laws of physicse at some level conincide with the rules of inference as in reasoning based upon incomplete information, he is close to variou MaxEnt methods

    4) Olaf Dreyer - with this "internal relativity", an point of view which aims to restores the largely neglected point of view of a physical inside observer. As I undestand it, his ideas are very young and is very much in progress. Time will show what he comes up with.

    I have read some of what I've found from these people, and all of them has elements of reasoning that I think is extraordinary and keys. Yet, at the status of development they are, none of them has what seems to be a satisfactoty strategy. There are points in each of their reasoning which I do not share.

    And since the reasoning of each of these persons, naturally leads to different formalisms, clearly if I don't share the founding principles, their formalisms are of little _fundamental interest_.

    Now you may think that what these people are doing isn't what you all statistical modelling, but the general fashion in which I agree with you, is general. TO me key is the physical basis of the statistics, and in general, I do not accept the continuum probability theory as a basis. Instead, what I have in mind is mathematically a combinatorical starting point, where there are interactions between discrete structures, the continuum limit should be recovered as an effective description in hte large complexity limit, but the continuum does IMHO not have a place in starting assuptions. This is why, I have difficulty in adapting flatly all the standard statistics at this fundamental level.

    So as for the choice of formalism, I am still looking for it. But I have some reasonable strong guidelines as to what I'm looking for, and in which general direction to find it.

    Given the previous comment, I think I have a more open and radical view, I am not constrained to current staistical modelling. But for sure it can not be a closed system model. It would rather be an open, evolving model, and most probably this is also reflected in the mathematical model. So it's more likely to be of a evolving algorithm-type model than it is to be a conventional static diff.equation model with static parameters. I hope there would be a minimum of parameters, ideally none at the fundamental scale, but at the effective human scale I think there will be, but then these parameters would be understood as evolved, and there would be no initial value problem.

    Local of global with respect to what? Spacetime? That is one question I ask.

    But even not answering that, my picture of the observer is that the observer could be any subsystem of the universe. And from the point of view of the observer itself, it's of course a local one. But an observer can of course sitll be distributed and non-local relative to a second observer. This does not present a contradiction as I see it.

    I think of locality in terms of loose information geoemtric terms:

    Two observers are close, if they have the same information.

    Thus there is a direct tension is picturing two remote observers, having the same information. It doesn't make sense. Because it totally ignores the fact that spacetime is part of the information.

    Sometimes the separation of spacetime and internal info is possible, but in the general case I don't see why it is even necessary. The separation, is rather as I see it related to the simultaneous emergence of spacetime and matter. Here Olaf Dreyer has presented similar arguments. He seems to think that artifical and ambigous separation of spacetime and matter at the fundamenntal level rather than helping, is part of the problem. I agree there.

    Instead, the fundamental starting point is that there is no difference. Thus, the question is NOT how to patch matter models onto pure spacetime models. The question is how the separation of spacetime and matter degrees of freedom can be understood.

    I similarly have the idea that the observer environment and the observed itself, evolving simultaneously. It's essentially an analogous problem to me.

    /Fredrik
     
  14. Mar 29, 2009 #13

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    Sounds like you should really take a look at Peircean semiotics and his bootstrapping approach involving firstness, secondness and thirdness. This is a general logical model of a system that could then ground the discussion of a particular world system, like our universe.

    I probably should have talked about observers first, statistics second.

    As you say, what we would be seeking is some fundamental, background independent, process of interaction (some relational QM type deal). We would have the "atom" of the system. Then we would allow this atom of interaction to express itself in every way possible and note the statistics of how it all turns out. So from many individual "observational events" or localised interactions would emerge the continuous whole, the general statistical ambience that is the global whole.

    In modelling this way, we would be generalising our seed notion of the observer (or observational dyads - as it takes at least two to interact) to create a system-scale state of "observerdom".

    This is Peirce's triadic logic precisely. Firstness = some initial impulse (out of a vagueness). Secondness = the potential for dyadic interactions that arise from the possibility of things existing. Thirdness = the global statistical regularities that result from all dyads being freely expressed.

    This is the bottom-up causal view of the story. But there is also, in the emergence of a whole, the emergence of downwards acting constraints. So the whole is not merely a passive. It really is an "observerdom" in introducing a new top-down process of interaction.

    This is why Peircean logic is a complex, hierarchical and holistic model of causality. You have the "horizontal" interactions between entities of the same scale, and the "vertical" interaction that run across scale, between the local and the global scales.

    To sum up, many people are searching for observer-based or internalist logics with which to take the next step in cosmology/fundamental physics. But most are taking only simple, single scale, approaches. There exists some well-worked out hierarchical and holistic logics in systems science. With Peirce being the central cite.

    Then having defined the generating mechanism, an internalist boot-strapping logic, we can crank it up and consider the statistical regularities that result. The output is lawful, regular.

    To take a concrete example, we can think of the inverse square law for a force like EM or gravity.

    A photon is an exchange between two particles separated in spacetime. So a dyad. But when all possible dyads are considered, we have the image of a sphere surface (a light cone). This is a global statistical picture which then leads to the inverse square law.

    And is this law gaussian or powerlaw? Well it ain't gaussian.
     
  15. Mar 29, 2009 #14

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    You dont need Peircean semotics to reach a statistical conclusion. I do not understand your point. No need for this to achieve a simple and readily affirmable understanding of spacetime. No model of spacetime requires gaussinity to my knowledge, it is merely a useful test for isotropy. Isotropy has not been disproven to date.
     
  16. Mar 30, 2009 #15

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    I'm aware of Peirce as a philosopher, but I have never actually read a book or paper from him. It's true that what I described is a kind of bootstrap approach, but has Pierce actually taken this from philosophy to produce a mathematical model? The bootstrap I picture only makes sense in an evolving context.

    I think it's important not to be afraid of philosophical angles, but the goal is to produce a physics model, not a philosophical writing. Do you have any pointer on a paper where he actually infers a mathematical model from his reasoning that might actually work in physics? If so I'd be glad to read it. From my point of view, that is problem now.

    My reason for thinking that it's still worth to have these philosophical discussions is that some research strategies from my view, propagates as if they do not acknowledge the full nature of the problems.

    I am still somewhat suspicious if you are thinking of this "global whole" as a birds view, or gods view. To me one key construction principle, is to at all stages, respect the physical inside view. There is no physical observer, can realizes the birds view. And therefor the birds view has no place in the bootstrap.

    However, there are approximation to the birds view, when you consider multiple observers.

    Most of my objections to some of the papers I've read is that they seems to want to implement at some level, a birds view. This fundamentally goes against the principle of intrinsic logic.

    But from the little I know of Peirce, I would be surprised if he didn't think of this. He probably did. The question is if he made a mathematical model out of it. If you have an accesible pointer I woul appreciate it.

    Oh I see. I think what you or Peirce (I still note that I have not read his work) call the downwards acting constraints would be the same as what I call the constraints of the prior. The current prior, implies an _expected_ action that is valid in the abscence in the absence of new information (like QM evolution is valid in between measurements). But in my view, this downward acting constraint is still living in a frog view. I do not see it as a global constraint. Although certainly the frog would see it as a global constraint! Because it's all it can see. But the point is that different frogs may have different views, as seen from a third frog, therefor I think it's in appropriate to call it a global view.

    But I think that as the frogs interact, there will emerge a synchronization of their views, so a global view will be emergent out of this. I think this is what you mean as well. But this emergent global view, a limit, can not be used to influence the local action I think.

    This is why I think of this emergent constraint as a evolving, not a fixed global one. The bootstrap evolving both the frog and the global constraints by a kind of induction. The frog pulls himself up by holding onto this vague expectations, the the feedback evolves the expectation accordingly.

    Let me know if you have any Peirce pointers that may contain a mathematical construction of this. I wasn't aware of it, I thought of Peirce mostly as a philsopher.

    /Fredrik
     
  17. Mar 30, 2009 #16

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    Peirce did not predict any statistical story. As I said, two parts to this. Peirce is just a good cite for how to generalise the notion of observers.

    Then we have two statistical/thermodynamic pictures, the regular one of gaussian bell curves and the more recently recognised case of powerlaw outcomes.
     
  18. Mar 30, 2009 #17

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    Peirce was a logician primarily - which is prior to both philosophy and mathematics. A very enjoyable paper illustrating the mathematical depth of his thinking is this one by Kauffman which shows his handling of asymmetric dichotomisation...

    http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/rd/4549...:qSqqSqwww.math.uic.eduqSq~kauffmanqSqCHK.pdf

    As I say, the statistical story is subsequent to Peirce. It is what is under current discussion in the dissipative structure literature. And in hierarchy theory, particularly the work of Stan Salthe.

    http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/

    A little social history. Peirce was drummed out of Harvard (where his father was a founding maths professor) and wrote a huge amount that was not published in his lifetime. He was so out on his own that he frankly can sound mad on first meeting. But over the past 15 years, he has been rediscovered, his writings gradually published in semi-orderly fashion.

    There have now even been popular books like Menand's The Metaphysical Club which showed how he was part of the key trio of pragmatists philosophers, along with Dewey and James. And frankly, how Peirce was the central figure.

    Smolin gave him a name-check in Life of the Cosmos (from memory) but just as a cite for the notion laws can evolve, not because Smolin had got into him properly.

    Did Peirce turn his deep logical insights into concrete mathematical models of cosmology. No. He just laid some fruitful groundwork I am arguing. He created some valuable jargon, formalised some possible notation, sketched a plan.

    Late in the 20th century, along came chaos theory, non-linear systems, scalefree networks - a bunch of actual mathematical models of open system statistics. And also along came Prigogine, hierarchy theory, dissipative structure theory. Most recently, have come Tsallis and others trying to enlarge the modelling of entropy.

    Thermodynamics has long been treated as the dull country cousin of physics. Unlike QM or GR, we expect no surprises from it. Yet it does have this big surprise emerging. In my opinion anyway.

    So 1) Peirce is a useful cite for the triadic logic that underpins a systems science approach to reality. And 2) open systems thermodynamics is the fundamental thermodynamics for cosmological modelling as a consequence. Not closed system thermodynamics.


    If you follow the arguments of Peirce and Salthe (particularly in Salthe's notion of the cogent moment), you can see that the global bound is the largest scale. There is no need for anything standing outside as the largest scale is doing the work.

    As I say, the notion is equivalent to the event horizons now playing such a big part in thermo-inspired cosmology. Of course, physicists prefer to re-invent important notions rather than have to read about them elsewhere :smile:.

    One thing to note about global scale is that I am talking about spatiotemporal scale. So the downwards constraint acts not just from above, but from the past and the future.

    From the past is not so controversial. Causal lightcones model the way the past constrains and therefore predicts what can be happening at the located spatiotemporal instant. But QM then forces us to accept that the future acts backward to constrain as well. We must have something like Cramer's transactional interpretation being take as "true". The future is also (in a nonlocal way) a context to what is happening now.

    This is outrageous to ordinary philosophy/physics/logic. But is comfortably modelled in hierarchy theory.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
  19. Mar 30, 2009 #18

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    In the way I see this, I do not assume the form of some limit case distributions.

    I envision a combinatorial approach first, and there are no continous distributions. Continous distributions can emerge as a large number approximation though. And I don't see why a priori you see these two classes.

    I think that if you believe in a unique birds view, then the form of that emergent distribution or pattern, could be used as a kind of constraint - I see the power of that. But to me, that kind of reasoning is not consistent with the intrinsic ideal, and I think there is a risk that such a reasoning leads in the wrong direction, because I fail to see how unique birds view can be inferred from an frogs view, which are the only views at hand.

    This is why I see the inferred birds view, as the basis for the actions as seen from the inside, and the only way two observers can compare their inferred birds views, is to interact, and this interaction keeps evolving and converging the views.

    The idea is that the strategy of a player in a game, is a function of this players view of a kind of birds view, that allows how to also "guess" the actions of the other players. But this very strategy is in principle constantly subject to change and evolution.

    This is why the only constraining principle I have found, is that of the complexity bound.

    No matter how mad action principles you have, in a discrete observer, the number of possible distinguishable actions are combinatorically limited. So that's where I look for starting points, and try to establish principles and handles for more advanced development. Then I try to picture how that pictures scales with complexity. As complexity increases, more advanced interactions become visible (from the inside), and diversity is produced. And I think the creation of diversity takes place far earlier than when the continuum approximation makes sense. But since there might be hierarchial structures, it may well be that the continuum approximation is ok at one level, it might be totally inappropirate at another scale.

    /Fredrik
     
  20. Mar 30, 2009 #19

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Laws

    There must be some at least quasi stable states in the sub micro world, what is there to govern a state and keep it stable? some thing that can not change at least in any major way over the time we have been observing the U.
     
  21. Mar 30, 2009 #20

    Fra

    User Avatar

    Re: Laws

    Thanks for posting the reference! I took a quick look but I don't see how it helps specifially.

    Perhaps you are encouraging philosophical reflection and reflection upon history. I think that is good. I have not studied philosophy per see, but I've read some stuff on philosophy of science, and also some of the history of probability theory etc. It's interesting, and it's interesting to see indeed, how some profound questions has been raised very very long time ago.

    I agree it's important to ask the right questions, and in that sense some of these things can be useful.

    I'll check that later. Thanks.

    How can there be a fixed largest scale if it's not a closed system?

    Also, there is the question of representation of information. It seems you are considering the whole as one inside observer, which is sort of fine with me. But then, there is still the question of how this complex observer can convey his information to a part of himself?

    Are you suggesting something along the line that the information encoded in say an atom, is the same as the information encoded in the entire universe?

    To me the practical basic problem, is how can a given inside observer make predictions and learn about it's environment. In a nutshell it's reasoning based on incomplete information, and even incomplete reasoning based on incomplete information. In that question, part of the problem is how to optimally learn from your mistakes, and revise your predictive engine.

    /Fredrik
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: What caused the physical laws we have?
Loading...