Our Lawless Universe

Space is homogeneous: This assumption states that the equations of physics are independent of the frame of reference of the observer, they are time-space invariant. This assumption is necessarily true, a law that only holds locally is not a law but is at best a subset of a more complicated law or very likely a crude approximation of the true law. Behind the idea of a natural law is the assumption that natural phenomena can be reliably described and predicted by such laws. If on the most fundamental level there is no consistency, that is the laws of nature are variable or in flux and there is no larger pattern or law to this variation, then it is impossible to describe the universe using laws. However, that is inconsistent with experience and all logical thinking. It would take significant philosophical acrobatics if not be outright impossible to imagine a lawless universe that manages to resemble our own in our lifetimes. If a law is true, then it is necessarily applicable to the whole universe, not just our local space. However, it is very likely that a law is incomplete, or an approximation, that only agrees with observation so long as we only test within our neck of the woods. Trying to then apply this law to further reaches then breaks down, since we could not say that it is universally applicable, as we then have yet to discover the universally applicable law that applies beyond the local subset or "special case" law that we have found. Space is necessarily homogeneous, but it is entirely possible to derive physical laws that apply only to our local space. Further such subset laws may be able to account for the vast number of observable phenomena beyond our local space, but should breakdown at scales far beyond our local range. Newton's laws of motion represent a set of approximations that break down far outside of our local space, specifically at speeds approaching those of the speed of light. For a law to offer true insight and provide predictive power, it must extend beyond our local space. However, with new laws and knowledge we expand the horizon of our local space, so that we must probe further at the extremes to gain further insight.

As I understand it at least part of the justification for multiple universe theories comes with the ease with which they explain our particular observed universe. While a multitude of universes at first seems much more complex than simply one universe, it is clear that the set of all possible solutions to Einstein's field equations is a simpler expression than a given solution. Explaining the relative proportions of the fundamental interactions is not problematic when all possible or almost all possible combinations exist. While I cannot claim any expert knowledge on the subject, I can't help but feel that this reasoning is terribly wrong-headed. In effect, it neatly explains the initial conditions for our physical universe but positing that a multitude of initial conditions exist, ours is but one of many, so no surprise that the numbers are some arbitrary assignment. To me though it seems as if initial conditions are baked into physical laws. While this may be controversial for some, I do not feel there is anything "true" about fundamental laws of nature. These are ultimately human expressions that are wholly unrelated to the natural world and while they may reveal aspects of the physical world to us, giving us predictive power, they follow our own deductions and observations, the universe does not follow them. This is an important point I think: while we describe the laws in such a way such that we can model the observed universe as following them, in effect the laws follow the universe, the order is important I think. In constructing physical laws we also construct the initial conditions, and then adjust the conditions so that our equations have predictive power in our observed universe. The universe does not select the initial conditions, instead we do. When one frames a simple Newtonian problem of a baseball being pitched, one can determine how far the ball travels knowing its initial velocity, or, knowing where the ball landed, can determine its initial velocity. That we should need a further set of laws to explain why the ball had a particular initial velocity rather than another does not enter as a concern, it is only if we were to say that there is only one baseball throwing problem that we would try to devise a law giving the initial velocity. However, the additional information that there is only one baseball throwing problem can give us no insight as to why the baseball's initial velocity has assumed the value it has. Trying to deduce the initial conditions through physical laws seems about as fruitful an endeavour as trying to deduce the physical laws themselves from other physical laws. Why is gravity necessarily attractive? While we will no doubt one day fully understand the mechanism, explaining the "why" seems more elusive.

There are limitations to just what science can probe. This is because all of science is predicated on certain basic assumptions. Challenges to these assumptions are of a philosophical and not a scientific nature.  The notion of god can therefore be outside of the sphere of science, but only so long as the definition does not conform to the basic assumptions that form a basis for scientific thought.

Our view of the universe is informed by observation and the application of logical reasoning to those observations. It is the logical reasoning that gives us predictive power and therefore understanding of our universe. Mathematics is the language of logic and in exploring this frontier we gain new ways of thinking, new models through which to interpret our observations. As such, any real scientific insight starts as a mathematical insight, which is itself simply a logical insight. But what basis does logic have? It seems we need to plead irreducible complexity on this term.