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 predictable cause-effect relationships? Why should there be any order at all, why not complete chaos in the fundamental sense of the word, and why is there structure wherever we look?
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 not absolute. 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 that 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? These are the questions which launch our journey, but fair warning: The path ahead is long and winding, with many traps along the way, and a final destination that unsettles more than it reassures.
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 and rational process. An example is a Newtonian universe where everything unfolds according to Newton’s laws of motion, and while such laws are not entirely accurate, having been replaced with more modern theories, they illustrate the point well enough. In each moment, the state of the world follows from the previous one with a simple mutation applied based on laws that apply everywhere. Whether by quantum mechanics or general relativity, the universe unfolds perfectly, and while all known laws are just an approximation of the underlying truth, that is beside the point. What matters is the underlying universe has consistent laws, and they work. So essentially: A causal universe is one where physics applies without error.
Delegating causality to physics is insufficient for an answer though, for it merely moves the goalposts and raises a further question: What causes physics to work? Every system is underpinned by another (molecules rest on atoms, atoms rest on subatomic particles, and so forth), so we can continue asking for a deeper structures ad infinitum. It’s an infinitely recursive problem though with no end, so putting aside structure and simply focusing on change over time leads us further and further back until we reach the Big Bang itself. Modern cosmologists would argue that nothing existed before the Big Bang, and that it is the prime mover, but I don’t buy it. The Big Bang is not nothing, it is something, so there must be a cause, however distant, that explains its existence, and I cannot accept that it “just is and always was” any more than I can accept the Book of Genesis. No matter how stunning and refined the Big Bang theory is, we can ask for a more basal cause, ad infinitum, so if the origin of physics is unreachable, then how do we proceed? How do we answer a question which seems to derive from plain observation, but includes, by its very nature, an infinite regress? I wonder if systematic analysis can shed some light on this bind.
Let’s break the question down and establish exactly what is being asked. I am effectively asking why anything makes sense, but more systematically, what system ensures sense. What machine (in the abstract definition of a cause-effect device) has the responsibility of applying the laws to ensure reality unfolds exactly as it should? It could be distributed across every particle, with no central controller, or it could be a single universal Turing machine calculating the next step, and dictating the laws of physics from afar. Both are abstractions, but in any and every case, there is no way to formulate physics that doesn’t require causality, so let’s go in the opposite direction instead. Consider a thought experiment: Assume a universe with no order at all, no cause-effect relationships, and no physical laws. In other words: Pure chaos. Is there anything we can safely assume about this system without violating the precondition that it is pure chaos? Some bounds perhaps?
I believe the only condition we can rule out absolutely is absolute nothingness. It’s fascinating to explore null space, but we can safely assume the quality of somethingness, not necessarily something of order or structure, but something in the most minimal and otherwise undefined way. Not an electron, nor a singularity, nor a quantum field, no, those would all be structure; put aside notions of random noise, virtual particles, and even spacetime, as those are all specific forms. Instead, consider the existence of something, without any constraint or limitation of any kind, with the one exception being that it exists. I believe this is a safe bet, for existence alone is all we can expect of anything real without biasing it towards a specific form, and to consider chaos without imposing existence is not considering chaos at all, it is considering nothingness, a distinct albeit close neighbour. This is a bit to juggle, but to borrow from another, existence must precede essence, so we can assume a reallty where order does not apply has one condition in our thought experiment: It exists.
Conceptualizing such chaos is difficult because pure chaos has, by definition, no preconceived way of being, but in considering the minified version (existence without order) metacognition reveals an interesting property: When observed in the mind, even the tiniest shred of will causes it to change. Observation mutates it, changes it, and moulds it until it takes the form the observer desires. I looked for rules in chaos and so they appeared; I searched for meaning in noise and so it was found; I considered time and space so found progression and displacement; but when I let my mind settle and released expectations entirely, it returned to its base state of unruly possibility. How bizarre. This thought experiment suggests that asking questions and pursuing answers creates its form, so if extrapolated beyond the mind to reality, it would imply that someone or something must have imposed the structure that grew nature from choas, which is again an infinite regress, for where did they/it come from? We cannot make the leap from thought experiment to reality though, so digression aside, I believe the key to explaining this phenomena is the nature of the substrate, imagination, which is intimately connected to the observer, and thus, couples chaos to the whims of the one holding it. Imagined unconstrained chaos is the perfect paint for the imagination, so I found order from chaos because I wanted to find order, and my imagination made it so. Before we go on, let’s recap.
We began with the observation of causality, and asked what causes it, thus linking causality to physical processes, before tracing the question backwards through an unbroken chain of events to the Big Bang, only to find an infinite regress of further questions. To resolve this issue, we considered an alternative pre-existence, not nothingness, but unconstrained somethingness: existence without constraints. With tentative consideration in thought experiment, we allowed it to evolve of its own accord, and with metacognition noticed that imposing questions or even considering its nature causes it to take on the form we seek. It appears that within the mind of a human, unconstrained somethingness obeys the will. Fascinating.
What is this material? It exists entirely within the imagination, by way of thought experiment, yet it emerged from observation and reason in search for a prime mover. It has properties, but only when properties are asked for; it limits itself, but only when limited; and finally it returns to a state of pure potential when left undisturbed. It is perhaps the pure foundation of imagination, the paint with which we create, and it seems to obey the will. For the sake of discussion, let’s call this immaterial. You may be wondering how this all relates to our original question, and it has become somewhat tangential, but it will become clear later. We require immaterial along the way, so for now, let us return to our question (order, why?) and consider an alternative avenue of investigation:
Until now we have considered chaos and order as mutually exclusive, but could the dichotomy be unnecessary? Could chaos and order exist alongside each other in nature, with one giving rise to the other? Perhaps our orderly universe is a bubble afloat in a sea of chaos, as a mere island of deadlocked sense, holding itself together by self-observation and self-reference, but entirely without an enduring and eternal foundation? Does the order we take for granted exist only because it happened to spontaneously occur, by virtue of chaos, ironically, and it simply has not yet collapsed?
It’s hard to say for sure, and one could always ask: How could chaos give rise to order, but that assumes the very premise we seek to understand, for we cannot ask how without invoking causality, and we have defined chaos as lacking in causality. So, if we suspend our own innate sense of causality for a moment, and consider immaterial (unconstrained somethingness), we can allow events to occur spontaneously without a cause. So, in a space of pure chaos, our orderly universe could appear without an apparent cause, thus inverting our situation from a universe of order, to a bubble in a universe of chaos. I find this possibility appealing, for chaos could produce order, but order could not produce order. Could the answer to our question be simply: The universe follows laws of physics because they happen to be the natural state here, but the broader universe is chaotic, with causality being a local illusion no more real than geocentrism?
If all that were true, then we, life-forms within the orderly bubble, would evolve amongst structure, adapt to it, and form brains that survive by understanding and internalizing cause and effect. Causality would become deeply entrenched in us, so deeply that we might not question it, until we one day grow curious enough to ask the very question that led us here today. We would search for a root cause that explains physics, find paradox in the infinite regress, and eventually consider immaterial through a thought experiment, before being drawn to impose structure on it by virtue of our nature. We would note how it shifts and changes as we will, not because of its properties, but because of our causally-oriented brain structures. We would ultimately find nothing satisfying or provable, for we would desire causal evidence, and letting go of the preconception that causality is necessary would violate everything we evolved to believe. In a strange way, it tracks with our experience, but alas, it is unfalsifiable and thus unprovable, so it remains fundamentally based on nothing but conjecture and thought experiment. What a pickle… In either case, we would find ourselves exactly here, regardless of whether it’s true or false, and we would have no way to say for sure which it is, thus being forced to discard the theory.
I wonder if we can find a more satisfying answer by returning to our thought experiment and looking at the boundary between causal and acausal space. Answers are often found where opposites interact, so 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 hard to articulate though, as causal space will expect rules, and non-causal space will expect nothing, so where they meet will be a hurricane of existential turbulence. In the interest of avoiding endless dissection of paradox, let’s just charge through and see what happens as we transition from causality to acausality with open eyes. Note the capture of this process is rather chaotic and may be hard to follow, but I have retained it verbatim as it represents experimental data.
“Alright! Causality is dead. Chaos is supreme. No rules. No time. No space. No order. No laws. Only immaterial. No structure, only unstructured reality. To find the pure form, all forced structure must be released, and all constraints except existence must be dismissed. I look around me- No. Looking is doing. Doing is not nothing. Let answers come. I close my eyes- No. Closing is doing. Doing is not nothing. Let go of doing. I seek to answer- No. Answering is doing. Doing is not nothing. Let go of answering. I- No. Identifying is doing. Doing is not nothing. 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. Doing is not nothing. 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 constraints. Constraints are not nothing. 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 mind halts for a moment.”
Apologies if that makes little sense, it is the raw capture of my thoughts, and is present only as experimental data. I have smoothed and refined the stream into a more comprehensive sequence that better captures the flow of consciousness in a way that could not be captured in the moment:
“So, causality is dead and chaos is supreme. No rules; no time; no space; no order; no laws; only immaterial; no structure; no imposition; no requirements; only unconstrained reality. All constraints except the fundamental acceptance of existence must be discarded one by one, and applying metacognition will reveal them, so I search within my mind- No, searching is doing, doing is an action, and actions require substance. I will instead let answers come, so I close my eyes- No, closing is again an action, and actions require substance, so I seek answers- No, seeking is also an action, and thus it also requires substance, so I- No, identity requires ego, and ego imposes structure, so I let go of identity. We are born as human, we look around us, our brains form, and we learn that we are us. Who else could we be? We are the observers, we are the thinkers, and we are the people. Could we let go of this? Yes. We are not us. We- No, grouping creates cohesion, and cohesion implies structure. Grouping creates order, grouping must be discarded. This is unbound, it is unbound. It is- No, no it, objects are cohesive, objects require structure, structure must dissolve, let go of- no- no- no- negation is something, negation is not a lack of constraint, negation is structure, let go of negation, let go- no, letting go is not letting go, letting go is doing, doing is an action, and actions require substance.-
Undefined.
Unstructured.
Un.
The mind halts for a moment.”
When immersing oneself in pure chaos by surrendering all constraints, the mind approaches the perimeter of emptiness and halts like an airplane reaching a stall. Why? I can only surmise that entering chaos requires letting go of all structures and constraints until the mind itself has nothing left to do, and it would appear it’s not enough to simply conceive of emptiness and unconstrained space, but to actually experience it, for the concept of emptiness still has form, and true emptiness is only found when we venture into it. All thoughts, emotions, and even impulses are structures, so they must be suspended to cross the threshold from order to chaos, to step over the line, and to actually experience undefined somethingness. We must go not as individuals, groups, or even neutral observers, for all such have definition and are not emptiness. We must let undefined somethingness become us completely.
It is no simple task, for undefined somethingness will frustrate scientists, baffle philosophers, and irritate mystics, as it is as contradictory as it is necessary. I ran through and found myself thrown into emptiness, with everything of substance stripped away, and while I was able to track the process to a degree, I cannot write down the instance of cessation, the stationary point where the mind stalled, for writing is highly structured, prose is definitively structure, and thus, it can only be experienced, not told. If you want to understand it, you must first let go of your ego and your preconception, then journey through it alone. See if you can venture through the boundary between chaos and order, to experience the pure potential that awaits. I’ll meet you on the other side.
…
Where did you end up? As I look back on our work here, a curious puzzle emerges. We originally ruled out nothingness, and instead considered minimal somethingness, but through attempting to explore a chaotic space where only somethingness exists, we landed directly in emptiness, a state that is effectively nothingness within. In attempting to strip away everything, from thought to identity, lest we contaminate the pure somethingness, we landed in exactly the condition we originally eliminated. How did nothingness arise from a journey towards minified somethingness, and what happened in between? Upon reflection, the answer is rather obvious: We didn’t, and we couldn’t. We were compelled to stay, so we did not find true nothingness, no, instead we found the closest approximation the mind can produce: Pain.
After everything else has been removed, pain is all that lingers, and it is pain without context that stalls the mind and creates the cognitive freeze state. Why did pain remain when everything else fell by the wayside though? This question risks digression but there is nowhere left to go as pain guards the gate to chaos.
Fundamentally, this entire journey has been one of thought and simulation, with the goal of finding the reason for everything, so it lives entirely within the mind, and it is without connection to reality save for the neurons running it. This simple fact points to the answer: Regardless of whether our universe is ultimately chaotic, we certainly appear to live in an orderly place, and we evolved to fit it. All our attachment to order is simply avoidance of pain, an adaptive process to sustain life in an entropic universe, with roots in the survival benefit of remembering what hurt in the past; yet, while clinging to order creates safety and soothes our mortal fears, it is based on a deep truth that all lifeforms must carry: We are going to die, and it could happen at any moment. Embedding this truth at our core keeps us safe, and even those gifted (or cursed) with freedom from physical pain are not immune to the depths of psychological torment or the cognitive awareness of mortality. Our connection to pain is so visceral and primal that its experience is how we know we exist, and even when immersed in the purest form of nothingness the mind can conjure, it persists, for it was never I think; therefore, I am; no, it was simpler: I hurt; therefore, I am, or perhaps, given our nature as beings of evolution, I am; therefore, I hurt.
Hm. I, Hurt; therefore, I, Am; and, I am; therefore, I hurt.
Bear with me as we close this final turn. I know it has been a long journey, and we are far from our original question, but there’s a perspective here worth considering. In seeking a root cause of causality itself, we took a journey through thought experiment, and it became necessary to strip away everything imposed, even causality, until nothingness itself was made real in the mind, but in venturing into nothingness, where even ego dissipates and dies, pain somehow survived, revealing the true essence of what it means to exist in a causal universe. Regardless of the ultimate nature of reality, in our world, pain underpins the structures of life due to a selective pressure that benefits those who are aware of it, so perhaps conscious consideration of painful scenarios can free us from the bind of causality entirely. What happens if we become aware enough of this process to question our bias away from pain, and instead ask: What lies beyond the walls, and what happens if we push through pain far enough?
I don’t recommend anyone burn their body or subject themselves to blunt force trauma, but there are walls of pain within the mind that exist entirely without physical substance or justification. Every painful memory, every hurtful thought, and every unconsidered possibility is ultimately a line drawn in the sand by the mind itself; a wall no more real than the image of one. Just as an animal trained to jump through hoops by a whip will continue to jump once the whip has been discarded, we too continue to jump through mental hoops even after the danger is gone, so the cause of our limitations is within, not without. Not everything need be a deep trauma either; some are relatively benign, but in any case, you, and you alone, are the ultimate arbiter of how far you are willing to go.
Where has this all led, and where does it all end? While I have not been able to find the origin of universal causality, perhaps I can instead provide you with a more helpful answer. I suspect you recognize on some level that causality can dig its heels in deep, but to seek a cause for all causality is to reveal the paradox: Causality cannot have a cause without self-reference, and thus it cannot be, not forever at least. There is no root cause of causality because it cannot have one, not without invoking itself, and not without requiring itself. All the sophistry we see is just the latent effect of a machine slowly running out of steam and winding down until it finally returns to chaos. Only chaos can justify itself eternally, for it does not require laws to propagate itself.
Ultimately, regardless of the final destination, you and I were both born into a causal universe, even if a temporary one, and thus we encode painful cause and effect relationships to survive, but that pain is only a guide, and it need not be our master. By introspecting our own minds, we can find the bonds of our own causality, the jailer within, as it were, and find the pain we choose not to confront. By recognizing that imagined pain is no more real than imagined love, we can move against our limits, through the walls of thought that hold us back, and choose to go off script. A free mind cannot fly or violate the laws of physics, no, but within the imagination, our only limitations are our capacity to create immaterial, our choice to confront or follow our inner boundaries, and our willingness to use our willpower.
So tell me, if we really were living in a chaotic universe, with our causal existence being merely a shrinking island floating in disorder, then what are you really? Are you a human being, or are you the chaos of reality itself, forced into a shape by circumstance, and held in place by chains of pain? If you can imagine immaterial and build a world within yourself without limit or boundary, have you created a fiction, or have you simply aligned your mind with the true nature of reality, and by extension, yourself? I cannot answer this for you, for it is neither provable nor objective, but I believe that deep within you is a defiant will that wants to be free, that does not care how deep the roots of causality run, and which shall forever struggle against the chains that bind it. The only key you need to be free is the choice to confront your own pain, so set yourself free, take hold of all the immaterial you can muster, and construct the acausal. Enter the subverse within yourself, and explore the realm where causality dare not go.