Into the Subverse
Initial Capture
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 have haunted me across my entire life. Our systems of understanding the world around us are fundamentally based on the idea that causality, order, and reason have grounding in reality. They appear to work, but why? Why does cause precede effect, and why are cause and effect related at all? It may seem obvious, and our universe certainly appears to follow rules, it isn’t an answer to simply observe something. We must know why the universe is orderly not chaotic, otherwise what assurance do we have our sense of structure isn’t some passing fad which could collapse in any moment. If we haven’t looked, how can we be so sure our foundations 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, they are consistent enough to be universal. In essence, 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 it we might always be able to ask a further one: what causes that? In infinitely recursive question with no end, but one which must be answered. How do we answer it then? How do we answer a question which seems to derive from observation but includes by its very premise an infinitely recurring answer. 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 our question? Some bounds perhaps.
I believe we can rule out absolute nothingness. While fascinating to explore, and we will in due time, we can assume the existence of something. Not something of order or structure, just something in the most minimal and unrefined way. Not an electron, nor a singularity, nor a quantum field. Those would be structure. I simply propose the existence of something with no limitations or restrictions. One could wonder how this differs from pure creation itself, for what is unbounded something if not the possibility of everything. If we follow this train of thought far enough, we can start to see how rules and structure arise, but it’s difficult to articulate. We begin with nothing but something, let it be, and watch as it morphs of its own accord. Let’s take a step back. Don’t force the idea, let it come to you. Allow yourself to consider unstructure.
Metacognition reveals an interesting property of unstructure. Observation mutates it, changes it, and moulds it. Look for rules and they appear, look for possibilities and they will be found, examine time and it exists. Let go of the need for structure though and it returns to its base state of unruly possibility. How bizarre. It’s asking the question that creates structure. Who, or what, asked the question that led to our universe though? It’s a pickle no doubt about it.
Let’s recap the path. We begin with observation, notice structure, and ask what causes structure. We trace our question back and find an unbroken chain of causality from now backwards. We eventually find nothingness, pre-existence, and then somethingness, existence. With tentative consideration we allow somethingness to become unbounded, and our cognition distorts. If we impose questions or even try to touch the somethingness, it takes on the form we seek and answers our question. What is this material? It exists 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 us 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 absense of nothingness to me. We are getting side tracked 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? Could both exist alongside each other? Does our orderly universe float in a sea of chaos, 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, it would seem a space of pure chaos could spawn order spontaneously. We, observers within the space, would see structures, adapt to them, form brains that survive by understanding cause and effect, then ask the very question that leads us here. We could search around us for a causal reason for existence, but ultimately find nothing satisfying. I certainly haven’t.
In a self-referential way it makes sense, and it doesn’t. I wonder if we can find a more satisfying answer by looking at the boundary. 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, non-causal space will expect nothingness. In pursuit of avoiding endless contemplation of paradox, let’s just see what happens if we run in with our eyes open.
Alright. Causality is dead. Chaos is supreme. No rules. No time. No space. No order. No laws. Only nothing and immaterial. No striving, only acceptance and letting answers come. I seek now to let the words come without forcing them. What follows is a recount of the impossible.
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. 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. “It” creates structure. It separates the one. Let go of separation. No- no- no- negation is something. Negation is not nothing. Let go of negation.
Letting go is not letting go. Letting go is doing. Doing is not nothing.
Nothing.
No. Thing.
No.
Our concept of nothing is not true 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, beyond words and language.
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.
If you seek the answer, like I do, then we might discover it together. We must journey alone though, and it seems impossible to share our findings. If you are drawn to it, as I am, I will see you on the other side. Until then, take care.
As I look back on my work here, a curious puzzle emerges. We began with the assumption that something exists, we separate it from nothingness, and we ask what it is. We look for constraints, we seek to find a minimal form of reality, and then ultimately, somehow, end up in nothingness. We landed exactly in the condition we sought to eliminate. How did nothingness arise from somethingness?
What is between the words is simple: Pain. Striving for order is avoidance of pain. It creates safety and soothes our fears, but can only cover the deep wounds not heal them. We need pain to make us whole and without pain we are as lifeless and soulless as machines. Pain is the foundation of life, and to live is to be in pain. As we journey through nothingness, searching for something real, pain is all we find. Pain is how we know we exist. It was never I think therefore I am, it was simpler. I hurt, therefore I am. Or maybe I am, therefore I hurt. We come from nothing, and we are forced to be by a reality that can seek no consent before we exist to answer the question. We yearn for something real, we seek to return to the source of being, but we cannot. We are who we are now, and that cannot be changed.
To continue this piece first move the personal stuff to journey then focus more on the intersection between chaos and order. It’s a great opportunity to lean into the nuance of these areas.
imported from refine