Where are the Rules of the Universe Stored?

[sd01g]

Proposition 4. The quantum field cannot be the fundamental level of the universe. Random energy fluctuations of the quantum field cannot consistently, frequently and reliably produce organised and persistent behaviour. I.E. random behaviour cannot consistently produce numerous instances of stable, highly characteristic, particle behaviour. Apparently random fluctuations at the quantum level must therefore be a product of an underlying order.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the logic

Not much is really known about gravitons, but they are probably the underlying order which is postulated in your argument. Gravity exists before photons. It is the graviton field that attracts 'space dust' and compresses it to form stars. No gravity, no stars, no stars, very little if any photons. Once the stars burn out--no photons again--but gravity is still present, and forms black holes or starts the star formation all over again. An oversimplified account of star formation, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[mosassam]

My only reason for talking about laws in the first place was to try to establish an a priori argument that the ultimate condition of the universe has to be ordered and not random

However, you have stated previously that this order is encoded in space-time itself and this may not be the case.

It is much more likely that the laws we divine are the observable product of unobservable structure.

The word 'structure' implies a physical aspect, 'underlying order' seems better.

I may have misunderstood the current state of QM but my understanding was that some argue that the ultimate state of the Universe is randomness and that this therefore denies causality.

There are so many models of reality at the moment, all useful in their own ways, but I'm not sure if any are proposing 'total randomness', as this would certainly fly in the face of the observed order in the visible universe. Uncertainty and Indeterminancy do certainly play roles in most models and have been experimentally demonstrated to exist in the non-local effects produced by something like Bell's Theorem. Non-local effects certainly defy causality without denying it. Causality exists (as one of the Laws) but it has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that there appear to be aspects of reality that transcend causality.

It may be possible to support this contention by experiment. For example, it is theoretically possible to explain the apparently random behaviour of surface water in a river rapid by understanding the nature or the river bed beneath it. Similarly it might also be possible to infer the ultimate structure of the Universe by examining apparent Quantum randomness under different conditions.

Quantum randomness may be explained in two ways (that I am aware of, there may well be more)
1) The Laws which guide and permeate the known universe are non-local, they cannot be found in any specific part of space-time but all through it. As such, they transcend causality as do some of the observed effects they have on the visible (and quantum) universe.
2) Uncertainty, Indeterminancy or randomness may actually be an innate part of certain Laws - they may have a genuine existence within Quantum laws and, as such, display what we percieve to be randomness in our known universe. This does not mean that all is random or that all is ordered.
Either way, randomness has been detected in our universe, but so has order.
We may infer the existence of the Laws but we may never measure the Laws directly. Any experiment we could possibly perform would be the same as trying to describe a ship by examining the wake it leaves in the water. There may be things we can infer about the ship but this will always be a minute fraction of the knowledge we could gain by examining the ship directly.

Everything I've just said could well be a lie or a gigantic mistake.

 

[mosassam]

Not much is really known about gravitons, but they are probably the underlying order which is postulated in your argument

Gravitons, photons, gravity, stars etc. all seem to be part of the known universe. As such, it makes sense that they all may be subject to or products of the underlying order (or Laws:- the set of all scientific laws, known and unknown) that govern, guide and, to a certain extent, create the known universe.
But then again ...

 

[grahamc]

However, you have stated previously that this order is encoded in space-time itself and this may not be the case.

The word 'structure' implies a physical aspect, 'underlying order' seems better.

OK this is a crucial point. If we accept that the universe doesn't have a library where rules are looked up and if we also accept that there is, in any case, no means of communicating rules within the universe then our human perception of "rules" must be a symptom (for want of a better word) of structure. "Underlying order" sort of implies rules which are distinct from structure. I would argue that the rules we see are the product of structure. The universe behaves like it does because it has to - and it has to because that is how it is structured.

 

[mosassam]

If we accept that the universe doesn't have a library where rules are looked up

This would make sense.

and if we also accept that there is, in any case, no means of communicating rules within the universe

This I do not fully accept. It may be that the Laws/underlying order permeate every part of space-time, as such they do not need to communicate 'within' the universe.

I would argue that the rules we see are the product of structure.

I am positing that structure is a product of the Laws/underlying order.

 

[heusdens]

I keep them in a safe in my office.

SSSHHHHHHHHHH! Don't tell everybody!

 

[heusdens]

The question reminded me of bohms idea of 'implicate order'. This is from wikipedia:

Perhaps the infolded implicate order are what we detect as 'particles'?

 

[heusdens]

hey grahamc are you familiar with writings of gwf hegel? they might just be another possible explanation. though I myself don't buy it :)

Here is a complete Hegel library:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/index.htm

 

[heusdens]

in few words, he suggested that the true idea of universe is so complex that no finite human concept cannot explain it fully. which means that no physical theory will ever be sufficient to answer your question. that are bad news.

good news are that, per hegel, the whole world IS the idea mentioned above, so your question "where rules are stored" gets a nice answer (rules are, obviously, wired into this idea).

hegel's world is quite similar to virtual world in a matrix movie, but without any external "real" world - only matrix itself.

Just that Marx found that this whole idea (Absolute Idea) of Hegel has to be placed upside down. Marx and Engels were convinced that the world itself, as also consciousness, is dialectical in nature.

Physical theories are only approximate correct.

 

[heusdens]

Hegel's dialectic:

§ 958​

Now as regards the assertion that there is no contradiction, that it does not exist, this statement need not cause us any concern; an absolute determination of essence must be present in every experience, in everything actual, as in every notion. We made the same remark above in connection with the infinite, which is the contradiction as displayed in the sphere of being. But common experience itself enunciates it when it says that at least there is a host of contradictory things, contradictory arrangements, whose contradiction exists not merely in an external reflection but in themselves. Further, it is not to be taken merely as an abnormality which occurs only here and there, but is rather the negative as determined in the sphere of essence, the principle of all self-movement, which consists solely in an exhibition of it. External, sensuous movement itself is contradiction's immediate existence. Something moves, not because at one moment it is here and at another there, but because at one and the same moment it is here and not here, because in this 'here', it at once is and is not. The ancient dialecticians must be granted the contradictions that they pointed out in motion; but it does not follow that therefore there is no motion, but on the contrary, that motion is existent contradiction itself.

(...)​

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl431.htm

 

[whatta]

heusdens, you probably picked wrong place to begin with. imho, this is better quote:

Since knowing has for its goal knowledge of the true,.. it does not stop at the immediate and its determinations, but penetrates it on the supposition that at the back of this being there is something else, something other than being itself, that this background constitutes the truth of being. This knowledge... has a preliminary path to tread, that of going beyond being or rather of penetrating into it... When this movement is pictured as the path of knowing, then this beginning with being, and the development... reaching essence as a mediated result, appears to be an activity of knowing external to being, and irrelevant to being's own nature. But this path is the movement of being itself.

ps:

Just that Marx found that this whole idea (Absolute Idea) of Hegel has to be placed upside down.

Just that Marx never actually bothered to explain how exactly he's going to do that. If you know otherwise, leave a link on this thread.

 

[mosassam]

Perhaps the infolded implicate order are what we detect as 'particles'

?

"Particles" constitute Explicate Order. Explicate Order would appear to be all that can be observed in the observable universe (including particles). Bohm posits that Explicate Order as a manifestation of Implicate Order. Everything in the universe can be seen as a manifestation of Implicate Order.

 

[Singularity]

A fitting quote :
" How dare we speak of the laws of chance? Is not chance the antithesis of all law? "
Bertrand Russell

 

[ktoz]

Proposition 1. An elementary particle is incapable of possessing knowledge or information about the universe. An elementary particle by definition comprises no constituent parts. Therefore it cannot take on any character or characteristic other than its elementary form. Therefore it cannot contain or possesses information because it has no means for encoding, storing or operating on that information. It cannot modify its behaviour or even detect its presence within the universe.

I think proposition 1 is flawed because if, as you say, "[a particle] cannot take on any character or characteristic other than its elementary form." Then it would be impossible for them to move from their point of creation.

If there is no means to transfer "a characer" (energy) to a particle then there is no mechanism by which to produce an unbalanced force on that particle. Without an unbalanced force, there is no potential for motion. Energy would have no effect on them.

Proposition 4. The quantum field cannot be the fundamental level of the universe. Random energy fluctuations of the quantum field cannot consistently, frequently and reliably produce organised and persistent behaviour. I.E. random behaviour cannot consistently produce numerous instances of stable, highly characteristic, particle behaviour. Apparently random fluctuations at the quantum level must therefore be a product of an underlying order.

I think the main problem here is the base assumption that classes of particles are all the same. Particle classifications seek to discover how things are alike but in the process of defining their sameness, we lose sight of their differences.

For example: How exactly does an electron "absorb" a photon? If you explain this absorption as a superposition of the photon state and the electron state, the electron isn't the same at all. It's transformed from an electron into an electron/photon hybrid.

It's sort of like the difference between procedural and object oriented programming. Current physics models are all procedural in that there are particles (data) and there are forces (functions) which act upon them.

If particles are thought of in an object oriented way then they become patterns combining action and state. As a particle goes about its business, it may form many different hybrid particles but the particle pattern remains constant. An electron/photon superposition is an undifferentiated pool of energy but when a trigger threshold is reached for the electron and photon to part ways, the electron pattern "knows" how to extract just the right amount of energy from the pool to create an electron and how much to spit out in the form of a photon.

So in answer to the OP's original question, it may be that the rules of the universe are stored in "particle objects" and that the procedural model of particles and forces obscures what particles and forces are "under the hood."

 

[-I-]

The common -I-, evolved and unevolved is all the same.

 

[DaveC426913]

My question is this: how does this particle "know" that this is how it must behave and that it is behaving correctly? Either the rules of the universe are contained within the particle (unlikely) or they are imposed upon it by the fabric of the universe (more likely).

It seems to me that string theory posits that strings are the source of all the rules that run the universe. All properties of the universe are emergent from the properties of the strings and their tendency to combine and split.