Why does the universe follow the laws of physics? Why does it follow any laws at all, for that matter? What creates the conditions for order and what ensures the universe unfolds according to rules and predictable cause-effect relationships? Why should there be any order at all, why not complete chaos in every sense of the word? Why is there structure in the most fundamental sense?
These questions haunt me, for our systems of understanding the world are fundamentally based on the principles of causality, order, and reason, but their grounding in reality is unexplained. They appear to work, but why? Why does cause precede effect, and why are cause and effect related at all? It may seem obvious, even definitional, and our universe certainly appears to follow rules, but an observation isn’t an explanation. We must know why the universe is orderly not chaotic, otherwise what assurance do we have our sense of structure isn’t some passing phenomenon that could collapse at any moment. How can we be so sure the foundations of reality aren’t built upon shifting sands?
Let’s begin by looking at what is meant by a causal universe. In simplest and most reduced terms, a causal universe is one where each change in state follows some consistent set of laws. An example is a Newtonian universe where everything unfolds according to Newton’s laws of motion, and while we now know such laws are not entirely accurate, they paint a satisfying picture of a causal universe. In each moment, the state follows from the previous one with a simple mutation applied based on laws which apply equally everywhere. We might not know the laws perfectly, but that’s beside the point, what matters is they are consistent enough to be universal. A causal universe is one where physics applies.
What causes a causal universe though? It’s a somewhat self-referential question, and if we could answer that question we could always ask a further one: What causes that? It’s an infinitely recursive question with no end, but one which must be answered. How though? How do we answer a question which seems to derive from observation, but includes, by its very premise, an infinite regress? I wonder if systematic analysis can shed some light.
Let’s break the question down and establish exactly what is being asked. We are effectively asking why anything makes sense, but more systematically we are asking what system ensures sense. What machine has the responsibility of taking reality and imposing structure? It’s difficult to formulate this in a way that doesn’t inherently assume sense, so let’s go in the opposite direction. Assume a universe with no structure at all, no cause-effect relationships, and no system of laws. Is there anything we can impose on this universe without violating the constraints? Some bounds perhaps.
I believe we can rule out absolute nothingness. While fascinating to explore, we can safely assume the existence of something. Not necessarily something of order or structure, just something in the most minimal and undefined way. Not an electron, nor a singularity, nor a quantum field, no, those would be structure. I simply propose the existence of something without constraint or limitation. One could wonder how this differs from genesis, for what is unbounded reality if not the beginning of everything, but I digress.
I considered undefined something for some time, following the train of thought far and wide, and it led me to our world of rules and structure. It’s difficult to articulate how, and unfortunately I did not keep notes. As best I can tell, I began with nothing but something, let it be, and watched as it morphed into a structure of its own accord. Try it for yourself: Take a step back, don’t force the idea, and let it come to you. Allow yourself to consider unstructure and watch as it becomes structure within your mind.
It’s hard to conceive of unstructure, because it has no preconceived way of being, but metacognition reveals an interesting property: When held within the mind, observation mutates it, changes it, and molds it. Look for rules and they appear, look for possibilities and they will be found, examine time and it exists, but let go of the need for structure and it returns to its base state of unruly possibility. How bizarre. This would imply that asking questions and pursuing an answer is what creates structure. Our thought experiment is limited to our minds, and extending it to reality requires asking who, or what, made the observation that led to our causal universe? Where did they/it come from, if not causality? It’s a pickle, no doubt about it.
Let’s recap the path so far. We began with observation, noticed structure, and ask what causes it. We traced our question backwards through an unbroken chain of causality to the beginning of time, eventually finding nothingness, pre-existence, then considering somethingness, minimal existence. With tentative consideration in a thought experiment we allowed somethingness to become unbounded, and our cognition distorted. If we impose questions or even consider the nature of somethingness, it takes on the form we seek and answers our question with exactly what we want. What is this material?
It exists entirely within the imagination, yet derives from observation. It has properties, but only when properties are asked for. It limits itself when limited, and returns to a state of potential when left undisturbed. For the sake of discussion, let’s call this immaterial.
Immaterial would appear paradoxical, but we should expect nothing less when probing questions about the fundamental structure of existence. Existence itself seems to fly in the face of a much simpler possibility, eternal and absolute nothingness, and no one has ever been able to adequately explain the absence of nothingness to me. I digress again though, and we should return to our original question: Structure, why?
Could it be the dichotomy is unnecessary? Could structure and unstructure exist alongside each other? Does immaterial give rise to material? Does our orderly universe float in a sea of chaos as a mere bubble where structure is imposed? Does the order we take for granted exist only because it can exist? We might ask what causes it to exist, but that assumes the very premise we seek to understand. If we eliminate causality, and allow events to occur without cause, then a space of pure chaos can spawn order spontaneously.
I wonder if we exist not in a causal universe, but an acausal one made of immaterial, and the causal nature we observe is simply a local phenomenon. We, life forms within the orderly space, would see structures, adapt to them, form brains that survive by understanding cause and effect. We would grow curious, and one day ask the very question that led us here, search for a causal reason for existence, but ultimately find nothing satisfying. In a strange way, it makes sense, and it doesn’t, but it could never be proven.
I wonder if we can find a more satisfying answer by looking at the boundary between causal and acausal space. Let’s zoom in and see if we can find an edge where causality and non-causality interact. I suspect this is where it gets weird. Causal space will expect rules, and non-causal space will expect nothing. In pursuit of avoiding endless contemplation of paradox, let’s just see what happens if we run through from causal to acausal with open eyes. Here we go, 3, 2, 1:
Alright! Causality is dead. Chaos is supreme. No rules. No time. No space. No order. No laws. Only immaterial. No striving for structure, only unstructured reality. I seek now to let the words come without forcing them. What follows is a recount of the experience.
I look around me- No. Looking is doing. Let answers come. I close my eyes- No. Closing is doing. Let go of doing. I seek to answer- No. Answering is doing. Let go of answering. I- No. Identifying is doing. Let go of identity. We are born as human, we look around us, our brains form, and we learn we are us. We are the observer, we are the thinker and the doer, we are the person. Could we let go of this. Yes. We are not us. We- No. Grouping is doing. Grouping comes from order. Let go of grouping. We are unbound. It is unbound. It is- No. No it. Objective reality creates structure. It breaks the experience. Let go of- No- no- no- negation is something. Negation is not nothing. Let go of negation. Let go- Letting go is not letting go. Letting go is doing. Doing is not nothing.
Nothing.
No. Thing.
No.
The concept of nothing is not truly nothing. Nothing is found between the words, behind the nothing we reach for. We must venture into the true void to understand and go beyond thought, beyond emotion, and beyond language. That space, the subverse, does not obey rules. It does not follow structure and it does not make sense. It cannot make sense. It will frustrate scientists, baffle philosophers, and irritate mystics. It will degrade systems, break probes, and destroy everything it touches. If we want to understand it, we must first let go of understanding, because understanding is not nothing. We must first journey alone though, for unity is not nothing, and it seems impossible to share our findings before we have experienced it separately. If you are drawn to it, as I am, then I will see you on the other side.
…
Where did you end up? As I look back on our work here, a curious puzzle emerges. We began with the question of why structure exists, assumed that something exists, excluded nothingness as clearly untrue, took away all bounds, then asked what it is. Through thought experiment, we found structure, realised that interaction creates constraints, then ultimately dove into the boundary between structure and unstructure to explore without preconceptions, only to end up in nothingness. By stripping away everything, from thought to identity, we landed in exactly the condition we originally eliminated: nothingness. How did the concept of nothing arise from somethingness though, and what happened in between? Quite simply: Pain.
All our striving for order is simply avoidance of pain, an adaptive process to sustain life; yet, while clinging to order creates safety and soothes our fears, it can only cover the deep wounds, never heal them. We must eventually embrace it to become whole, for without pain we are as lifeless and soulless as clockwork, and even those gifted (or cursed) with freedom from physical pain are not immune to the depths of psychological torment. Our pain is how we know we exist even in nothingness, for it was never I think; therefore, I am, it was simpler: I hurt; therefore, I am, or maybe I am; therefore, I hurt.
I, Hurt; therefore, I, Am.
I have not found an answer to the original question of universal causality, but a different truth has been revealed, and perhaps it yields an exit to the question entirely. If pain creates the structures of life, and avoidance of pain traps us in our cycles of being, then acceptance of pain might free us from the bind of causality. We are born into a causal universe, and we are causal in nature, but through non-resistance to our limits we can change our ways and exceed our limitations. We are causal not because we must be, but because we choose to be. The choice to go off script and defy causality could never come from an external source, it must come from within to be truly free, so my question for you is not why do we live in a causal universe, but why do you follow the rules?
I need to think more on these last two paragraphs. It appears the thought experiment took a turn and ended far from the original question, but perhaps that’s what happens when a causal mind considers non-causality. A topic for a future essay, perhaps.