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.
"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?"
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.
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.
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.
This is the answer to Curts question
"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?"
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.
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.
PS I believe Cato in your chat has a fantastic synthesis linking symbolic logic to physical law and reality
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!