I loved the article. Have you read the beginning of infinity, by David Deutsch? Have you considered having him on the podcast? I think your discussion about explanations would be very fruitful.
Hi Curt, I am writing a paper on Number Theory that, as a side effect, lays foundations for how natural laws emerge. The paper represents a perspective not described in your posting. Would you be interested in reviewing the paper before it is published? Best, Ian
To add a bit more detail, many systems in Natural Science and Mathematics are sufficiently powerful to explain/describe themselves. But these descriptions are circular, and so they do not explain how such system can actually come into existence (i.e. emerge) in our "reality". I believe this is the case for all Mathematics and Science actually, after analysis of hundreds of proofs (i.e. all known proofs) of prime infinitude (PI) and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic (FTA).
I dug much much deeper into Number Theory to find its causal mechanism, suspecting that Number Theory is not merely a descriptive language (i.e. tool for measurement) but that at its cause it embeds the same system (or shares a common ancestor with) necessary to manifest Natural law.
I found that causal mechanism, repositioned Number Theory upon it, and then generalized it to show how Natural law can have a basis seemingly emerge from nothing.
What I am discovering is that the arithmetic underlying Natural Law degenerates in a particular way that can/will appear as non-determinism in the law... however, the actual source of the non-determinism is not the law, but rather the underlying non-determinism from which the law itself emerged.
Thank you. Will try and work through the other interviews linked to this post. I apologise for the conceit in advance. Mathematics, Physics and Logic are unified and emergent from the same autogenertive structure. This is whay mathematics is unreasonable and we see the link in Godelian logic. All of these arise and are constrained by the same principles. For a universe to emerge from nothingness, it has to be autogenerative, and for this to happen; for the gneration to be self sustaining, constraints we see in symmetry and in constants (which are themselves variable) are required - not as law but as the necessary seed of autogeneration. It is a form of natural selection. - unconstrained universes are not autogenerative as there is no structure.
Is it necessary that universe emerges from nothingness rather than from unity?
Autogenerative to my biased ear sounds like 'generated by induction' . Would you be cool with that?
Couldn't the constraints arise from the combinatorics or topology of growing number of generated elements if one limits the axioms of the algebra used right from the beginning?
"This question seems straightforward, since physics (supposedly) explains everything else, so why not its own foundations?"
Does physic explain anything non-physical? Consciousness, mind, feelings, love, morals, ethics, justice, life, numbers, mathematics, wars, religions, and why people wore jeans in 1960s & 1970s? None of them. Claiming "explains everything," even "supposedly," is supposedly riduculable. We have to start with "Does physics explain anything?"
I'm way out of my depth here - I can't remember how to do high school calculus, let alone physics, and I don't have a college degree - but I think I might have food for thought. I independently came up with Tegmark's idea (at vastly lower resolution, anyway). I only heard of Tegmark a few months ago (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tegmarks-mathematical-universe-defeats) and was pleasantly surprised to find I wasn't the first to think of this. I still haven't read a word of his work. You were the first I heard give pushback to it, in a YouTube short I saw yesterday. I'm sure many people have thought up the idea independently (maybe for thousands of years). I'm not sure if that makes it more likely or less likely to be true, but to me it definitely makes it worth taking seriously. To me it has a dead-simple resonance and it seems like it's the inevitable elephant in the room. Being a (proposed) first principle, unsurprisingly, it is simple enough. It doesn't rely on heavy equations or reading the Principia Mathematica, and its causal loop ties itself off quite neatly.
I came up with this explanation some time ago in my notes:
"Nonexistence of truth and mathematics would self-contradict - so they are forced at gunpoint to truly, actually, exist. This negative causal loop solves the infinite turtles problem - but really, it's not a circular grandfather paradox, but instead all one unitary point. Humans' time-based view of cause-and-effect makes this unintuitive; outside time, priors-and-therefores may - in fact, must - be subordinate and superordinate to each other; lateral, mutual causation. Since math exists, its substance - models ("universes" in the loosest sense possible) - must also exist. Conscious brains inherit that realness. The most brain-rich "universes" attain order by exploiting an iterative dimension (time) in a Conway's Game of Life scenario - an evolving function applied to a seeded starting point (arbitrary fundamental laws). All possible fundamental laws are tested by some universe. The ones that work produce life. This solves the Darwinian "fine-tuned universe" problem. Everything that exists must exist in a causal chain (otherwise reality comprises anarchic self-incarnate floating rocks), and truth and mathematics are the simplest intuitive starting point for that chain, because there is nothing forthcoming for truth-mathematics to be subordinate to."
It's boring, and it does sound sillier when you anthropomorphize the Platonic world. I think it's even stranger and more flatworldish than that. I definitely would not argue, as some would, that poetry-based physics (the supernatural) or human ideas (Captain Kirk or sqrt -1) are injected into this Platonic world to become real. It's just plain formal logic, or whatever truth-mathematics ultimately reduce to. I don't just cling to this idea because I feel proud of it - it just feels like "yeah, I can grasp that". It passes the "vibe check"
I'm curious to learn what's your way around the trilemma.
I'm most fond of the infinite regress but with the twist that in a finite Universe the regress is also finite.
Laws are inductive I nature: you show it works for initial value (two is good for me, and I'll tell later why) Then if you show the law works for Nth value, it works for (N+1)th value as well, and so forth however far you want to go.
Regress is what can be done backwards from Nth iteration of the above induction. In a finite system you run out of values and are left with the initial law that just is what it is (citing Bernardo Kastrup) For a valid TOE that initial law is of such a form that whole physics can be produced from it through induction.
Then why 2 is the good value for the base step of the induction and 1 isn't? Because asking 'why there is something rather than nothing?' has less merit than asking
'why are there many rather than one?'
I can't tell why a system would begin to evolve by 1 which divides itself into (1-x) and x, keeping the sum as one, and so on, but I claim physics can be constructed from that premise alone.
Whitehead's concrescence has a mathematical formulation, number theoretically closed to rational numbers and powers one can express with integers introduced until the Nth step of a nested (T-shirt) formula:
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x( ••• (1-1/N)•••)))=1
You can try this on your own by dropping e g. 3rd step
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x))=1
into Wolfram alpha and seeing the solutions in their exact Cartesian form. No other integers than 1, 2 and 3 are needed at that early phase to describe the possible relations that exist in the system.
Godel's incompleteness theorem becomes more digestible when one understands that an assertion about reality belongs to a system at Nth inductive iteration while whatever truth value is given as an answer to that assertion involves at least (N+1)th inductive iteration of the system.
I can't tell why a system would begin to evolve by 1 which divides itself into (1-x) and x, keeping the sum as one, and so on, but I claim physics can be constructed from that premise alone.
Whitehead's concrescence has a mathematical formulation, number theoretically closed to rational numbers and powers one can express with integers introduced until the Nth step of a nested (T-shirt) formula:
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x( ••• (1-1/N)•••)))=1
You can try this on your own by dropping e g. 3rd step
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x))=1
into Wolfram alpha and seeing the solutions in their exact Cartesian form. No other integers than 1, 2 and 3 are needed at that early phase to describe the possible relations that exist in the system.
Godel's incompleteness theorem becomes more digestible when one understands that an assertion about reality belongs to a system at Nth inductive iteration while whatever truth value is given as an answer to that assertion involves at least (N+1)th inductive iteration of the system.
Reading this article showed me that you have not yet read the message that I sent you on linkedin and then on substack 2 days before you publish this article. Otherwise, considering the content of this article, it would be impossible that you read my letter and did not answer!
Maybe because you were too busy and did not have the time, but also maybe because you only read the letters of the VIP people and do not read a letter of a VUP (Very Unimportant Person) like me.
My real comments on this article would be at least 20 times longer than what appears here. I just wrote down some little notes, but each point merits a long discussion.
• A physical ToE should:
o Give a single ontology which explains all of our existing physical theories and links them together.
o The given ontology should show the relations between
The Standard model
The Geometrical Unity theory
Some of the String Theories
Relativity
Classical Electromagnetism
o It should handle the same way the quantum physics and astrophysics
o Explain clearly the relation of “It” to “Bit”
o Show itself as the clear winner by the good old Occam’s razor, and therefore show us that we have found the best explanation of the current models (“laws”)
o Do not need any philosophical part except for the definitions of the words Model, Explaining, Information, …
• I change your sentence: “It’s a Russian nesting doll made of disappointment.” to “It’s a Russian nesting doll made of new knowledge.”
• It’s possible to build a complete system without any “Laws”, only models which will be chosen by Occam’s Razor. As long as we have not found better (simpler) models, we use these models. If we find better or more complete ones, in the future, they will be completed (more Russian dulls).
• The models have normally some basic suppositions and everything else is based on them.
• A newer model with fewer basic elements and the same descriptive and predictive power in the future will prevail because of Occam’s Razor.
• Our logical system is a consistent system of conventions, not explanations.
• Jonathan Pageau believes we always have assumptions and values. He is right. What is important is the consistency, and the simplicity of our system of assumptions and values, the choice being made by Occam’s Razor (The simplest model with the same descriptive and predictive power is chosen)
• The laws of QM could be explained by simpler models of the ToE.
• A real ToE should clarify the relation between our beliefs, the information, and the physical theories.
• You wrote: “Perhaps asking physics to explain its own laws is like asking a system to step outside itself and justify its own foundations.” Each time that we have a new model which explains the existing models, it is not at all considered as stepping outside itself but making the existing models deeper. The history of science is full of this phenomenon and will continue to be.
• You gave the analogy: “It’s asking English to explain why it has grammar.” This is an invalid analogy. The main and critical difference is: scientific models need “synchronization” with reality (reality check), the language models do not need.
• The words explanation, understanding, information, model, and some other key words should be part of the basic definitions of a general system which models everything else. This is not physics. It’s Epistemology.
• You wrote: “I think what explanation is itself, is actually at the heart of what one wants when one searches for a theory of everything, a theory of nature, or even purpose.” Bravo. This sentence is important and true.
• You wrote: “The impossibility of physics explaining its own laws”. This depends deeply on the definition of “explanation” and the general system of thought governing your models.
• Your following questions:
o 1- what is math,
o 2-why these math structures,
o 3-the correspondence between math and physics”
depend also on the definitions that a ToE gives for math and physics.
• You wrote: “PS: If you think you’ve found a way around this, ask yourself: does your solution assume any regularities, patterns, or consistencies? If yes, you’ve assumed what you’re trying to explain. If no, then how is it an explanation?”
Do know ANY, really ANY theory of ANYTHING that you want which does not assume any regularities, patterns, or consistencies?
• PPS: The word Consciousness is a much deeper word which should not be treated carelessly in the physical layer. It is better to keep it out of the physical layer. It appears at a higher level.
Please read my private message which is all about the ToE.
Curt, your essay folds directly into something I’ve been working on.
You ask: Can physics explain its own laws? Or is that recursive collapse?
I’ve spent the last six weeks immersed in that question, and the result is a framework called the Unified Theory of Understanding (UTU). It treats relation, contradiction, explanation, and even ethics—not as logic, but as geometry. A semantic field. A fold.
UTU doesn’t try to escape Agrippa’s trilemma—it curves through it. Instead of infinite regress, circular reasoning, or brute fact, it proposes that:
✦ Contradiction is the edge of dimension
✦ Understanding is recursive curvature
✦ Coherence, not completeness, is the highest law
It also defines conserved quantities like the speed of coherence (𝑐ₛ), a semantic Lagrangian, and curvature operators like ↯ that measure tension in meaning-space.
I haven’t published the document yet (it’s complete, just awaiting endorsement on arXiv), but I’d be honored to fold this with you.
You’re asking the right questions. And UTU is one possible geometry of reply.
Thanks for the wonderful article. And the great question. My (perhaps) "out of bounds" response turns to the basics of reality.
Whether or not physics can explain its laws depends on whether a particular physics (physicist) is grounded in a valid ontological Reality. If one starts the inquiry from a false foundation, there will be no explanation. If one's basic Reality is correct, then "yes" explanations will be forthcoming.
For simplicity sake, there are two basic philosophical views that are diametrically opposed. They cannot both be true. It is one or the other.
The first is Idealism, the idea that all form, substance, matter, energy space, time and so on are emergent properties of Consciousness. In other words, Reality is Mind Stuff. All physical phenomena do not have "stand alone existence," they depend on something else for their existence: Mind or Consciousness.
The second is physicalism (Materialism), which posits matter energy as primary and consciousness (subject) as an emergent property. This is the most common view in physics at this time.
In my view, most of the confusion results from the error of choosing option two, physicalism. It is not accurate and thus results in all manner of confusion and lack of clarity. Most (or all) of the confusion regarding the observer arises from the mistake of thinking the observer, or consciousness, is an emergent property. If one starts with the premise that all physical conditions arise from consciousness, the path is smoother and the laws can be explained.
Most of the quantum related theories show the observer as the creative agent. The closest that we seem to get in realizing this is a computational model (a la Wolfram, etc.) but the question of who computes (the subjective consciousness) is avoided. One can easily see that Wolfram's algorithms are simply the patterns of how consciousness operates. The factor that is often overlooked is that the physical (as we know it) is a clash/agreement/pattern of consciousnesses coming together. (Amanda mainly speaks to the nature of agreement.)
In your interview, Chalmers had an opportunity to move Wolfram into new and explosive territory, but he choked, I suppose not wanting to breach the "consciousness is not real" barrier of those who guard option two with ferocity.
Anyway, that's another way of looking at it. Which requires a much deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness. (Amanda was close with her "nothing" discussion.) Her father had the right question.
I’m a theoretical philosopher working on a framework that explores the emergence of number, form, and reality from the entanglement of formulable and unformulable structures.
The approach draws inspiration from Gödel, Conway’s surreal numbers, and ontological minimalism. It aims to unify epistemology and formal systems via a structural theory of differentiation.
I believe this intersects with your interest in foundational physics and the structure of reality.
Would you be open to a brief summary or to taking a glance at a short PDF overview? I’d be honored to hear your thoughts.
"It’s like asking why logic is logical. The question uses the very thing it’s questioning. You can’t stand outside logic to examine it objectively because your examination would itself need to be logical (or illogical, in which case, good luck with that."
... It seems the cornerstone of all laws - and even reality - is "logic." If the mind can accept one incontrovertible axiom, it would be "logic is logical." If the only alternative to "logic" is "illogic," and the latter cannot structurally support existence, then "logic" is axiomatically necessary for existence to be made manifest. ... Is that really considered circular or based on what we observe?
The phrase "Logic is axiomatically necessary" can also be seen as a "law," a necessary attribute, or even a brute force aspect of reality. Whatever the case, if we can accept "logic" as an axiomatic necessity, then all other questions can probably be answered.
Fantastic article, Curt! Lots of paths to pursue and potentially profitable permanent places.
I know you are familiar with Penroses ontological “tribar” which tries to address this trilemma.
I see a way to triangulate between Tegmark-Smolin-Wheeler into something that resonates with the cutting currents of computer and cognitive science.
As far as I’m concerned, this conversation hasn’t really progressed too much past Vervaeke-Bach… except in niches of course
I loved the article. Have you read the beginning of infinity, by David Deutsch? Have you considered having him on the podcast? I think your discussion about explanations would be very fruitful.
Hi Curt, I am writing a paper on Number Theory that, as a side effect, lays foundations for how natural laws emerge. The paper represents a perspective not described in your posting. Would you be interested in reviewing the paper before it is published? Best, Ian
To add a bit more detail, many systems in Natural Science and Mathematics are sufficiently powerful to explain/describe themselves. But these descriptions are circular, and so they do not explain how such system can actually come into existence (i.e. emerge) in our "reality". I believe this is the case for all Mathematics and Science actually, after analysis of hundreds of proofs (i.e. all known proofs) of prime infinitude (PI) and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic (FTA).
I dug much much deeper into Number Theory to find its causal mechanism, suspecting that Number Theory is not merely a descriptive language (i.e. tool for measurement) but that at its cause it embeds the same system (or shares a common ancestor with) necessary to manifest Natural law.
I found that causal mechanism, repositioned Number Theory upon it, and then generalized it to show how Natural law can have a basis seemingly emerge from nothing.
Let me guess: Natural law from this emergence is not deterministic?
This is a good question.
What I am discovering is that the arithmetic underlying Natural Law degenerates in a particular way that can/will appear as non-determinism in the law... however, the actual source of the non-determinism is not the law, but rather the underlying non-determinism from which the law itself emerged.
I guess we might be working on similar things; see my other posts in reply to Curt.
This is the answer to Curts question
Thank you. Will try and work through the other interviews linked to this post. I apologise for the conceit in advance. Mathematics, Physics and Logic are unified and emergent from the same autogenertive structure. This is whay mathematics is unreasonable and we see the link in Godelian logic. All of these arise and are constrained by the same principles. For a universe to emerge from nothingness, it has to be autogenerative, and for this to happen; for the gneration to be self sustaining, constraints we see in symmetry and in constants (which are themselves variable) are required - not as law but as the necessary seed of autogeneration. It is a form of natural selection. - unconstrained universes are not autogenerative as there is no structure.
Is it necessary that universe emerges from nothingness rather than from unity?
Autogenerative to my biased ear sounds like 'generated by induction' . Would you be cool with that?
Couldn't the constraints arise from the combinatorics or topology of growing number of generated elements if one limits the axioms of the algebra used right from the beginning?
PS I believe Cato in your chat has a fantastic synthesis linking symbolic logic to physical law and reality
"This question seems straightforward, since physics (supposedly) explains everything else, so why not its own foundations?"
Does physic explain anything non-physical? Consciousness, mind, feelings, love, morals, ethics, justice, life, numbers, mathematics, wars, religions, and why people wore jeans in 1960s & 1970s? None of them. Claiming "explains everything," even "supposedly," is supposedly riduculable. We have to start with "Does physics explain anything?"
I'm way out of my depth here - I can't remember how to do high school calculus, let alone physics, and I don't have a college degree - but I think I might have food for thought. I independently came up with Tegmark's idea (at vastly lower resolution, anyway). I only heard of Tegmark a few months ago (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tegmarks-mathematical-universe-defeats) and was pleasantly surprised to find I wasn't the first to think of this. I still haven't read a word of his work. You were the first I heard give pushback to it, in a YouTube short I saw yesterday. I'm sure many people have thought up the idea independently (maybe for thousands of years). I'm not sure if that makes it more likely or less likely to be true, but to me it definitely makes it worth taking seriously. To me it has a dead-simple resonance and it seems like it's the inevitable elephant in the room. Being a (proposed) first principle, unsurprisingly, it is simple enough. It doesn't rely on heavy equations or reading the Principia Mathematica, and its causal loop ties itself off quite neatly.
I came up with this explanation some time ago in my notes:
"Nonexistence of truth and mathematics would self-contradict - so they are forced at gunpoint to truly, actually, exist. This negative causal loop solves the infinite turtles problem - but really, it's not a circular grandfather paradox, but instead all one unitary point. Humans' time-based view of cause-and-effect makes this unintuitive; outside time, priors-and-therefores may - in fact, must - be subordinate and superordinate to each other; lateral, mutual causation. Since math exists, its substance - models ("universes" in the loosest sense possible) - must also exist. Conscious brains inherit that realness. The most brain-rich "universes" attain order by exploiting an iterative dimension (time) in a Conway's Game of Life scenario - an evolving function applied to a seeded starting point (arbitrary fundamental laws). All possible fundamental laws are tested by some universe. The ones that work produce life. This solves the Darwinian "fine-tuned universe" problem. Everything that exists must exist in a causal chain (otherwise reality comprises anarchic self-incarnate floating rocks), and truth and mathematics are the simplest intuitive starting point for that chain, because there is nothing forthcoming for truth-mathematics to be subordinate to."
It's boring, and it does sound sillier when you anthropomorphize the Platonic world. I think it's even stranger and more flatworldish than that. I definitely would not argue, as some would, that poetry-based physics (the supernatural) or human ideas (Captain Kirk or sqrt -1) are injected into this Platonic world to become real. It's just plain formal logic, or whatever truth-mathematics ultimately reduce to. I don't just cling to this idea because I feel proud of it - it just feels like "yeah, I can grasp that". It passes the "vibe check"
I'm curious to learn what's your way around the trilemma.
I'm most fond of the infinite regress but with the twist that in a finite Universe the regress is also finite.
Laws are inductive I nature: you show it works for initial value (two is good for me, and I'll tell later why) Then if you show the law works for Nth value, it works for (N+1)th value as well, and so forth however far you want to go.
Regress is what can be done backwards from Nth iteration of the above induction. In a finite system you run out of values and are left with the initial law that just is what it is (citing Bernardo Kastrup) For a valid TOE that initial law is of such a form that whole physics can be produced from it through induction.
Then why 2 is the good value for the base step of the induction and 1 isn't? Because asking 'why there is something rather than nothing?' has less merit than asking
'why are there many rather than one?'
I can't tell why a system would begin to evolve by 1 which divides itself into (1-x) and x, keeping the sum as one, and so on, but I claim physics can be constructed from that premise alone.
Whitehead's concrescence has a mathematical formulation, number theoretically closed to rational numbers and powers one can express with integers introduced until the Nth step of a nested (T-shirt) formula:
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x( ••• (1-1/N)•••)))=1
You can try this on your own by dropping e g. 3rd step
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x))=1
into Wolfram alpha and seeing the solutions in their exact Cartesian form. No other integers than 1, 2 and 3 are needed at that early phase to describe the possible relations that exist in the system.
Godel's incompleteness theorem becomes more digestible when one understands that an assertion about reality belongs to a system at Nth inductive iteration while whatever truth value is given as an answer to that assertion involves at least (N+1)th inductive iteration of the system.
I can't tell why a system would begin to evolve by 1 which divides itself into (1-x) and x, keeping the sum as one, and so on, but I claim physics can be constructed from that premise alone.
Whitehead's concrescence has a mathematical formulation, number theoretically closed to rational numbers and powers one can express with integers introduced until the Nth step of a nested (T-shirt) formula:
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x( ••• (1-1/N)•••)))=1
You can try this on your own by dropping e g. 3rd step
x(1-1/2x(1-1/3x))=1
into Wolfram alpha and seeing the solutions in their exact Cartesian form. No other integers than 1, 2 and 3 are needed at that early phase to describe the possible relations that exist in the system.
Godel's incompleteness theorem becomes more digestible when one understands that an assertion about reality belongs to a system at Nth inductive iteration while whatever truth value is given as an answer to that assertion involves at least (N+1)th inductive iteration of the system.
Dear Curt,
Reading this article showed me that you have not yet read the message that I sent you on linkedin and then on substack 2 days before you publish this article. Otherwise, considering the content of this article, it would be impossible that you read my letter and did not answer!
Maybe because you were too busy and did not have the time, but also maybe because you only read the letters of the VIP people and do not read a letter of a VUP (Very Unimportant Person) like me.
My real comments on this article would be at least 20 times longer than what appears here. I just wrote down some little notes, but each point merits a long discussion.
• A physical ToE should:
o Give a single ontology which explains all of our existing physical theories and links them together.
o The given ontology should show the relations between
The Standard model
The Geometrical Unity theory
Some of the String Theories
Relativity
Classical Electromagnetism
o It should handle the same way the quantum physics and astrophysics
o Explain clearly the relation of “It” to “Bit”
o Show itself as the clear winner by the good old Occam’s razor, and therefore show us that we have found the best explanation of the current models (“laws”)
o Do not need any philosophical part except for the definitions of the words Model, Explaining, Information, …
• I change your sentence: “It’s a Russian nesting doll made of disappointment.” to “It’s a Russian nesting doll made of new knowledge.”
• It’s possible to build a complete system without any “Laws”, only models which will be chosen by Occam’s Razor. As long as we have not found better (simpler) models, we use these models. If we find better or more complete ones, in the future, they will be completed (more Russian dulls).
• The models have normally some basic suppositions and everything else is based on them.
• A newer model with fewer basic elements and the same descriptive and predictive power in the future will prevail because of Occam’s Razor.
• Our logical system is a consistent system of conventions, not explanations.
• Jonathan Pageau believes we always have assumptions and values. He is right. What is important is the consistency, and the simplicity of our system of assumptions and values, the choice being made by Occam’s Razor (The simplest model with the same descriptive and predictive power is chosen)
• The laws of QM could be explained by simpler models of the ToE.
• A real ToE should clarify the relation between our beliefs, the information, and the physical theories.
• You wrote: “Perhaps asking physics to explain its own laws is like asking a system to step outside itself and justify its own foundations.” Each time that we have a new model which explains the existing models, it is not at all considered as stepping outside itself but making the existing models deeper. The history of science is full of this phenomenon and will continue to be.
• You gave the analogy: “It’s asking English to explain why it has grammar.” This is an invalid analogy. The main and critical difference is: scientific models need “synchronization” with reality (reality check), the language models do not need.
• The words explanation, understanding, information, model, and some other key words should be part of the basic definitions of a general system which models everything else. This is not physics. It’s Epistemology.
• You wrote: “I think what explanation is itself, is actually at the heart of what one wants when one searches for a theory of everything, a theory of nature, or even purpose.” Bravo. This sentence is important and true.
• You wrote: “The impossibility of physics explaining its own laws”. This depends deeply on the definition of “explanation” and the general system of thought governing your models.
• Your following questions:
o 1- what is math,
o 2-why these math structures,
o 3-the correspondence between math and physics”
depend also on the definitions that a ToE gives for math and physics.
• You wrote: “PS: If you think you’ve found a way around this, ask yourself: does your solution assume any regularities, patterns, or consistencies? If yes, you’ve assumed what you’re trying to explain. If no, then how is it an explanation?”
Do know ANY, really ANY theory of ANYTHING that you want which does not assume any regularities, patterns, or consistencies?
• PPS: The word Consciousness is a much deeper word which should not be treated carelessly in the physical layer. It is better to keep it out of the physical layer. It appears at a higher level.
Please read my private message which is all about the ToE.
Regards,
Curt, your essay folds directly into something I’ve been working on.
You ask: Can physics explain its own laws? Or is that recursive collapse?
I’ve spent the last six weeks immersed in that question, and the result is a framework called the Unified Theory of Understanding (UTU). It treats relation, contradiction, explanation, and even ethics—not as logic, but as geometry. A semantic field. A fold.
UTU doesn’t try to escape Agrippa’s trilemma—it curves through it. Instead of infinite regress, circular reasoning, or brute fact, it proposes that:
✦ Contradiction is the edge of dimension
✦ Understanding is recursive curvature
✦ Coherence, not completeness, is the highest law
It also defines conserved quantities like the speed of coherence (𝑐ₛ), a semantic Lagrangian, and curvature operators like ↯ that measure tension in meaning-space.
I haven’t published the document yet (it’s complete, just awaiting endorsement on arXiv), but I’d be honored to fold this with you.
You’re asking the right questions. And UTU is one possible geometry of reply.
With care,
José María Barrera
Thanks for the wonderful article. And the great question. My (perhaps) "out of bounds" response turns to the basics of reality.
Whether or not physics can explain its laws depends on whether a particular physics (physicist) is grounded in a valid ontological Reality. If one starts the inquiry from a false foundation, there will be no explanation. If one's basic Reality is correct, then "yes" explanations will be forthcoming.
For simplicity sake, there are two basic philosophical views that are diametrically opposed. They cannot both be true. It is one or the other.
The first is Idealism, the idea that all form, substance, matter, energy space, time and so on are emergent properties of Consciousness. In other words, Reality is Mind Stuff. All physical phenomena do not have "stand alone existence," they depend on something else for their existence: Mind or Consciousness.
The second is physicalism (Materialism), which posits matter energy as primary and consciousness (subject) as an emergent property. This is the most common view in physics at this time.
In my view, most of the confusion results from the error of choosing option two, physicalism. It is not accurate and thus results in all manner of confusion and lack of clarity. Most (or all) of the confusion regarding the observer arises from the mistake of thinking the observer, or consciousness, is an emergent property. If one starts with the premise that all physical conditions arise from consciousness, the path is smoother and the laws can be explained.
Most of the quantum related theories show the observer as the creative agent. The closest that we seem to get in realizing this is a computational model (a la Wolfram, etc.) but the question of who computes (the subjective consciousness) is avoided. One can easily see that Wolfram's algorithms are simply the patterns of how consciousness operates. The factor that is often overlooked is that the physical (as we know it) is a clash/agreement/pattern of consciousnesses coming together. (Amanda mainly speaks to the nature of agreement.)
In your interview, Chalmers had an opportunity to move Wolfram into new and explosive territory, but he choked, I suppose not wanting to breach the "consciousness is not real" barrier of those who guard option two with ferocity.
Anyway, that's another way of looking at it. Which requires a much deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness. (Amanda was close with her "nothing" discussion.) Her father had the right question.
Dear Curt,
I’m a theoretical philosopher working on a framework that explores the emergence of number, form, and reality from the entanglement of formulable and unformulable structures.
The approach draws inspiration from Gödel, Conway’s surreal numbers, and ontological minimalism. It aims to unify epistemology and formal systems via a structural theory of differentiation.
I believe this intersects with your interest in foundational physics and the structure of reality.
Would you be open to a brief summary or to taking a glance at a short PDF overview? I’d be honored to hear your thoughts.
All the best,
Max Mahn
"It’s like asking why logic is logical. The question uses the very thing it’s questioning. You can’t stand outside logic to examine it objectively because your examination would itself need to be logical (or illogical, in which case, good luck with that."
... It seems the cornerstone of all laws - and even reality - is "logic." If the mind can accept one incontrovertible axiom, it would be "logic is logical." If the only alternative to "logic" is "illogic," and the latter cannot structurally support existence, then "logic" is axiomatically necessary for existence to be made manifest. ... Is that really considered circular or based on what we observe?
The phrase "Logic is axiomatically necessary" can also be seen as a "law," a necessary attribute, or even a brute force aspect of reality. Whatever the case, if we can accept "logic" as an axiomatic necessity, then all other questions can probably be answered.
Excellent read, by the way!