Groundless Emergent Multiverse
On why and how anything exists
This post is also available as pdf.
Overview
There is nothing one can say about reality other than one's perspective on it.
Ultimate reality neither is nor is not, but the consensus of all possible perspectives.
That's the most concise and precise two-sentence summary I can think of. Of what? Of an attempt at explaining the ineffable. Since, by the nature of the matter, it is impossible to express it in words, take everything I write here as a finger pointing to something, a map, a set of tools. At some point, you will have to see it for yourself. Don't take it lightly. Understanding it is a journey and transformation. I don't say this to make it sound important but as a sincere warning—it takes a lot of work to understand, there are pitfalls along the way, and even more work after you get it.
In practical terms, this is a framework, or way of thinking, for answering the "ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything". At least, the metaphysical part. It is a bridge between different sciences, philosophy, and spiritual awakening. I expect that it can guide and inspire further research.
Let's unpack that summary a bit.
We cannot say anything about reality without a perspective, a frame of reference, an observation, a subjective experience. All we can talk about is our perspective, our experience. There is nothing we could know about ultimate reality but our subjective observation. We have to conclude that ultimate reality in itself is devoid of any properties. Reality, rather, is the superposition of all possible perspectives. Without properties, it is indeterminate, neither truly existing nor not existing. Empty of inherent existence, it is completely transparent. Each possible perspective on reality is a view of all other perspectives. They are interdependent, with no substance, no ground to be found anywhere.
Every perspective is defined through its relations to all other perspectives. Through relations, there is structure. This structure gives rise to (the local impression of) time, causality, space, locally broken symmetries, and all the rest. Following this structure from most symmetric to less symmetric, one finds that structures branch, merge, or reach dead ends. This diversification and selection provide a universal evolution that selects for stable structures. Life, intelligence, self-awareness, and consensus arise through selection for stability. The universe we observe is a region within the structure of reality that allows for this level of complex stability to emerge. With nothing that reality consists of, neither real nor not real, with the biggest and smallest being the same, there is no fundamental layer to reality. It is truly a groundless emergent multiverse.
How to Read
I have no credentials, am not a physicist, mathematician, or philosopher, and am not trying to be one. I don't have all the answers, but I am certain that this is the right direction to look for them.
To fully understand, you will have to let go of all your beliefs and assumptions because the entire point is that there is no single view that describes the truth of how the world really is. Letting go of your beliefs can be hard. Meditation and meta-rationality help. It may take years to break through. Rebuilding what you have let go will also take a lot of work. There are many layers to understanding this and many ways to misunderstand. It may require multiple readings. Language constrains me to a linear presentation, but some parts may only make sense in the light of what comes later.
Don't think you understand until it is blatantly obvious, unavoidable and self-evident to the point where you can't un-get it, even if you tried.
I don't present a worldview, but a way to let go of any worldview so that you can utilize your ways of looking instead of being dominated by them. The core of what I am pointing to cannot be proven from within any formal system. All arguments are meant to deconstruct any unquestioned assumptions you may carry. When you firmly believe something is true, there is no harm in letting that belief go. If it is true, you will just rediscover it again and again.
Don't take this as an argument for or against any religion or belief system. If you understand or even use it that way, you will be totally missing the point.
There is a danger of abandoning one way of explaining the world to fully grab onto another. Even worse when that new way is built on an incomplete understanding. Misunderstood concepts easily become beliefs. Extrapolating from these beliefs then gives wildly wrong results. Please don't extrapolate before full understanding. Also, please don't explain your interpretation or summary to others as long as it is incomplete—for this is how false understanding proliferates and turns wisdom into mush.
Introduction
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
— Philip K. Dick, How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later
It's easy to fool oneself and mistake for reality what, actually, is still a belief. When you develop the rare skill to stop believing in anything, you will find that no experience of reality remains. Beliefs are the means by which we experience reality.
We can extend this process to logic, mathematics, and physics, questioning what we believe to be real, unchanging, and true. When we see that something is entirely dependent on our assumptions, it becomes transparent. When we let go of those assumptions, it disappears. In the first part, we will do just that and discover that there is no reality independent of assumptions. Every experience, observation, or the result of every measurement is entirely dependent on its perspective.
The great breakthroughs of Albert Einstein came by letting go of assumptions. While Newton thought that space and time were absolute, like a stage on which the world happens, Einstein turned that idea on its head. Since then, we know that spacetime and the frame of reference of the observer are intimately linked. Quantum mechanics struggles with the measurement problem—the question of what constitutes an observation—and related problems like the question of locality. Here, the many-worlds interpretation again turns our expectation of reality upside down, implying that observations are entirely dependent on perspective. There is no observer or frame of reference that is preferred over any other.
Absolute reality is completely described as the superposition of all possible perspectives. Surprisingly, this ultimate Copernican shift in itself allows for a metaphysical framework to make sense of many puzzling questions in physics and philosophy. For this, we have to take a look at two topics almost absent from natural science: metaphysics and subjective experience. While these topics are often avoided for understandable reasons (it's hard), without integrating these two, our ability to grasp ultimate reality will remain limited.
Importantly, this will answer the fundamental questions of metaphysics: Why is there something rather than nothing? What is reality fundamentally made of?
And the second question, equally important, unavoidable through quantum physics: Why does the world look different depending on when and how I look at it?
Related to the "hard problem": How can I have coherent experiences that are different from someone else's? Why am I me and not you?
Also: What is an observer? What is existence? Do we live in a simulation? What are numbers? Does infinity exist? Am I a Boltzmann brain? Is reality fundamentally discrete or a continuum? What is THIS? And why, just WHY? But also; how?
The answer is surprisingly simple and requires no hidden magic. It might seem vague and opaque at first and will require quite a lot of explanation to make sense. The two main questions about the absolute and subjective are actually the same question, since you are not separate from reality—you are your most immediate experience of it. Understanding reality includes understanding yourself. For some people, an incomplete understanding can cause an existential crisis. Full understanding will be a relief, but it might take some time and effort to get there.
That said, I am certain that the benefits outweigh the risk of getting stuck—on average, not individually.
Keep in mind that however you see the world, you and the world didn't change, only your view of it. If you, so far, have been able to navigate your life blindfolded, you will also be able to do it seeing.
It's okay if you don't understand what I'm writing about. This text is aimed at the very small group of people who are almost there. I hope that it will help enough people to make the shift so that we can work collectively at filling in the details and making it more accessible.
Deconstructing
Why Does Anything Exist?
The accepted scientific world view posits that our world is purely physical. Some physicists propose that physics consists entirely of mathematical structures. Set theory can explain all mathematical structures and can itself be constructed from the empty set—a collection without content. If we accept this, then it isn't too far of a leap to conceive of everything that exists as variations of a reality that can only be left undefined. This does not mean that "nothing exists," but that no thing exists independently. Every thing exists dependent on others. To be a thing is the combination of relations (relations also being things).
It is hard to find an answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" because it contains a false assumption—that something and nothing are different. The whole problem evaporates when one realizes that nothing and everything are the same. Existence is no different from non-existence. Nothingness is not the absence of things; it's the absence of differentiation, the superposition of all things.
Without differentiation, everything is equivalent to everything else; there is only symmetry. To pick out any part of a symmetry is to constrain the perspective and introduce asymmetry. Those perspectives, or frames of reference, are what we call phenomena, observations, universes, moments. Structure emerges through how perspectives are related to each other. Every perspective builds on others and introduces additional constraints. Everything that can be solely defined through constraints is possible. Everything that is possible does exist.
In a way, one can conceive of ultimate reality as a fractal object containing all possible constraints on pure symmetry. Any moment of experience is one perspective onto that object. Differentiation is only present as such a view of each individual thing. Each thing includes and sees its own definition but not those of other things. In between the subjective and the absolute, objective reality exists as the consensus (shared definition) of multiple subjective experiences (individuated frames).
With this, there is no fundamental layer of reality. When considering all possible observations of reality, there is no content left other than observations. Observations, in turn, only describe their relationship to all other observations. Everything is empty of inherent existence and full of dependent existence. Without a fundamental layer, the reductionist approach breaks down. No layer of reality is more real than any other. There is no ontological hierarchy, no up or down.
Sooner or later we come to realize that perhaps the most fundamental, and most fundamentally important, fact about any experience is that it depends on the way of looking. That is to say, it is empty. Other than what we can perceive through different ways of looking, there is no ‘objective reality’ existing independently; and there is no way of looking that reveals some ‘objective reality’.
— Rob Burbea, Seeing That Frees: Meditations on Emptiness and Dependent Arising
In a way, this isn't new. Similar ideas can be found as Dao in Taoism, in the Buddhist concepts of Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising) and Śūnyatā (emptiness)—especially since Nāgārjuna and in the later Huáyán school. Mystics of probably all traditions talk about realizations like this on several levels of depth. Also, further developments like Nishida Kitarō's basho or Rob Burbea's ways of looking, as quoted above, recontextualize it by bringing together eastern with western philosophy and modern scientific insights.
Several modern theories uncover aspects of it. For example, Ontic Structural Realism, the Zero Ontology of David Pearce, and the related zero-energy universe hypothesis, what James Cooke calls "non-dual naturalism," the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, relational quantum mechanics, QBism, Wheeler's participatory universe, Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.
It seems to me that we live in a time where more and more people converge on a very similar insight from different directions. There are too many to list, read, or even know about. The main difference between them is the set of assumptions they have not yet let go of. Hopefully, this can be the common thread to show that they use different languages to talk about the same phenomena.
Despite all these vaguely similar theories, the idea hasn't found its way into mainstream discussion yet. For one, it's hard to shift thinking into this new understanding. It isn't simply a fact that one could learn in school, but a way of thinking that has to be learned and practiced. Also, these ideas are often separated from practical and measurable aspects of the world by a great chasm. Especially the how is missing. By showing the connections between them, it will be possible to draw on previous work and provide a much more comprehensive and robust explanation. Ideally, the resulting story will span from the absolute, over the objective, to the subjective, connecting philosophy, science and spirituality, leaving no gaps along the way. By now I can only provide the framework for this project.
I will avoid using specific terminology from these traditions and thinkers. Within and between those, there is already sufficient disagreement on what those terms actually mean. I can't claim to know what others are talking about. I can only draw the obvious parallels back to what I mean. Be aware that I will use several standard English terms with a very specific, but broad, meaning that may only become clear once you understand what I'm talking about.
Also, mind the gap between "every thing"/"no thing" as a quantifier of individual entities and "everything"/"nothing" as a collection or abstract concept.
Another way to express the physics side of this text is this quote:
Everything we know about fundamental physics may be summarized by the statement: "Nature doesn't care about coordinate systems."
Indeed, rather remarkably, all of our most foundational theories of physics appear to have (essentially) no content *apart* from this statement.
What is Fundamental?
Every theory is based on assumptions (or, synonymously, axioms). These are statements that cannot be proven from within the theory but are accepted or assumed to be true.
If we question these assumptions and require that they be justified and explained, then we—simply by the act of questioning—cannot be left with any unexplained assumptions. What remains cannot be questioned further, nor can it be justified or explained further. Not even a tautology. Such a theory would be groundless, though it's questionable whether the term "theory" should still apply.
As soon as we can explain some phenomena in terms of other phenomena, then a hierarchy is implied, denoting some objects as more fundamental (and therefore more "real") than those they constitute. Your body is made of organs, which are made of cells, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and the elementary particles of the standard model, which are actually just fields—and that's how far we've gotten so far. Fields are mathematical descriptions. The discussion then is: does the math just describe something more fundamental, or are they math?
Let's start with the realization that, apparently, every thing can be explained—usually in terms of smaller things. At least that's the experience scientific investigation made so far. Whenever a fundamental, indivisible substance or mechanism was proposed, we later found an explanation and smaller parts. Should we update this all the way, and if so, what would that look like? There are a few possible answers:
Dogmatic - There is a fundamental building block or substance. We just haven't found it yet.
Regressive - It's turtles all the way down. There is no end to deconstructing.
Circular - At some point, we end up where we began.
These are known as the Münchhausen trilemma because, according to common logic, we can't pull ourselves out of the mud by our own hair, like Baron Münchhausen did. We have to stand on some ground. However, this is like saying the earth under your feet has to be placed on some immovable bedrock layer, because everything else would be absurd. We know that reality is absurd under this logic, as the Earth floats in space, supporting its structure by counteracting forces balancing each other out. Therefore, let's add a fourth option:
Groundless - Everything exists because symmetric counterparts cancel out the need to justify its existence. All phenomena are dependently arising.
Infinite regress and circularity are usually dismissed as absurd, which leaves dogmatism and groundlessness. Before we take a look at the groundless, let's see why the dogmatic argument doesn't make sense either.
The history of Western philosophy is to a large extent an attempt to provide an answer to the question as to what is fundamental. It is a search for the point of departure from which everything else follows: matter, God, the spirit, the atoms and the void, Platonic Forms, a priori forms of intuition, the subject, Absolute Spirit, elementary moments of consciousness, phenomena, energy, experience, sensations, language, verifiable propositions, scientific data, falsifiable theories, the existence of the being for whom being matters, hermeneutic circles, structures . . . A long list of candidates, not one of which ever managed to achieve a universal acceptance as ultimate foundation.
— Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland
The idea of a fundamental layer of reality is an assumption that has to be filled with an answer to what that layer should be. Yet by the vary nature of assuming something as fundamental, one doesn't and can't explain it. The process might often be the reverse: we can't explain X, so it must be fundamental. Many great minds fall in love with the things they can't explain. They awe in the mystery, and instead of deconstructing it, they build upon that one idea, obscuring it even further.
To tackle the question of fundamental building blocks, one has to be able to let go of every idea and worldview. For everything that is called "fundamental," we can ask: What is it made of? Why does it have the properties it has? Why is it this particular thing and not something else? Is it possible to define it? If so, can you deconstruct the definition? Is it possible to define other fundamental objects?
If the thing in question is truly fundamental, then it must be possible to answer these questions from within itself, with no outside reference. Yet, all these questions could be rephrased as "Why is this theory true and not another theory?" It cannot be answered from within that theory, because the theory cannot make statements outside its own assumptions. Even if a theory were consistent and complete, with a limited view, we could not know if another theory exists that is also consistent and complete, nor could we decide between them. That's assuming an ideal case, but Gödel proved that every system has to be inconsistent or incomplete. So we don't even get that. Within the hypothesis of "there has to be something fundamental," we can never find a satisfying answer.
It takes some courage to abandon all assumptions and beliefs. But when we do so, what remains is sufficient as a starting point.
Foundations of Mathematics
All mathematical structures can be described as sets. Set theory is, therefore, one way to talk about the *foundations of mathematics*. However, this statement is slightly circular since, with the advent of set theory, edge cases have been discovered that certain variants of set theory cannot address. According to standard (ZF) set theory, recursive sets don't exist. The need for this restriction arose due to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Russell's paradox, which will be discussed in the following sections.
So, what are sets?
A set is formed by the grouping together of single objects into a whole. A set is a plurality thought of as a unit.
— Felix Hausdorff
This description is especially useful here because it does not affirm sets as things on their own. It's by merely thinking of a plurality as a unit that it is a set. To be precise, thinking is not required—just by the potential of drawing a boundary and grouping together, there is a set. For example, the integers from 0 to 5 form a set {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, and so do all mythical creatures.
To formalize set theory and avoid paradoxes, axioms have been formulated. The most widely accepted axiomatic system is the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF, with 8 axioms, or ZFC with the addition of the axiom of choice). The selection of these axioms allows for the construction of all permitted sets, starting only with the empty set. These axioms still present assumptions, chosen for functionality. This can be seen in the debate over whether to include the axiom of choice. Other axioms are also challenged, particularly the axiom of foundation, which excludes sets that contain themselves as members (or any kind of infinite regress). By this axiom, x = {x} is not a valid set. This restriction allows axiomatic set theory to avoid paradoxes but comes at the cost of limiting what it can talk about.
Set theory allows us to start from an empty set {}—a group without objects—and define all mathematical objects. Yet, there is no single way to do it. The natural numbers can be expressed as:
{} = Ø
{{}} = {Ø} = 1
{{}{{}}} = {Ø, 1} = 2
{{}{{}}{{}{{}}}} = {Ø, 1, 2} = 3
or:
{} = Ø
{{}} = {Ø} = 1
{{{}}} = {1} = 2
{{{{}}}} = {2} = 3
or several other ways. What gives identity to the natural numbers is not the sets that define them but their relationships. Sets can be constructed in a way that exhibits those relationships. This implies that the sets themselves are a language needed to talk about the structure; they are not the structure itself. Consequently, other ways exist to discuss the foundations of mathematics that are not based on sets. Most prominently, category theory describes all structures in their relations to other structures.
The core insight here is that every mathematical structure can be constructed from simpler structures and that ultimately, there is no smallest or initial element (urelement), no substance needed. What is left unexplained is the set of axioms.
Gödel's Incompleteness
The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent).
This is a negative result in the sense that it shows us what cannot exist. Related theorems have been proven in other areas, such as computational complexity. It represents a hard limit on reality and on what we can know. It says that reality cannot be a formal system that is both complete and consistent. Of these three requirements, at least one does not hold.
Truth in a mathematical system is what can be derived from that system. Gödel shows that there are statements that are true for that system but cannot be derived from it. This, however, does not mean that they are universally true, but rather that no formal system can prove all true statements because it assumes statements to be true which it cannot prove. Since no formal system can give us the perfect answer for what is true, truth is always dependent on the system used. What is true or not depends on the assumptions that have been made. No single axiomatic system can describe reality perfectly.
So what if we simply accept this and realize that truth and reality are entirely dependent on our assumptions? The way we see reality is shaped by the glasses we put on. Without a formal system and no axioms (no glasses), reality may be consistent and complete, but we cannot make any statements about it—maybe not even that it is consistent and complete. Reality without constraints has no properties.
Any formal system, and therefore any theory, contains assumptions that lack justification outside that theory. What is "true" in one theory may be "false" in another. The concept of true or false itself is therefore dependent on assumptions. Without assumptions, even the distinction between true and false falls away.
All models are wrong. Some are useful.
— George Box
With Gödel's proof, we must accept that no theory can describe ultimate reality. We, however, consider theories that describe our world better as more true. Math can be so abstract that it has no representation in our physical world. So much so that some physicists deny the existence of mathematical concepts that can't exist in our physical universe, like infinities. Related is the idea that computation is fundamental to reality, and not math. If we accept, however, that the purpose of math is not to describe only our universe but every possible one, then the perspective changes. Infinities may not exist inside our local universe, but they exist outside it.
Conversely, this has a secondary effect. We can no longer discriminate between different theories of math by how well they describe our universe. Instead, there are different models that describe different universes; none of them is fundamentally more true than the others. The model of math one uses then just depends on the particular problem one is working on.
Set-Theoretic Multiverse
Gödel's incompleteness proofs show that every (non-trivial) formal system has true statements that cannot be proven from within that system. Related to this is the discovery that there are statements that cannot be decided to be true or false from within a system. A prime example of this is the continuum hypothesis (CH). George Cantor observed that he could not put the infinite set of natural numbers in a one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of real numbers. This showed that there are at least two sizes (cardinalities) of infinity. The continuum hypothesis asks whether there is a cardinality of infinity in between those of the natural and real numbers.
It turns out that this question cannot be decided in ZF. Assuming it to be true gives one branch of math; assuming it to be false gives another, incompatible branch of math. Following this result, many similar statements have been found that simply are undecidable.
The CH and others could be added as new axioms to ZF, but deciding this would always carry some sense of arbitrariness. On the other hand, the already accepted axioms can also be called into question. Any axiom that is introduced both constrains the possible math that can be explored and provides a foundation upon which math can build.
Joel David Hamkins takes the position that we should simply accept and explore this set-theoretic multiverse. While he does not relate it to the physical multiverse, I think there is the same principle at work.
Russell's Paradox
According to the unrestricted comprehension principle, for any sufficiently well-defined property, there is the set of all and only the objects that have that property. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The resulting contradiction is Russell's paradox.
The "unrestricted comprehension principle" is what I previously described as: "Just by the potentiality to draw a boundary and group things together, a set exists." This is what was later called "naive" set theory, to distinguish it from axiomatic set theory. What Russell pointed out is that if this principle holds true, then one could create a set of all sets that do not contain themselves—but this leads to the above paradox.
In ZF set theory, this paradox is avoided by only permitting sets that are not members of themselves (the axiom of foundation).
Let's consider a thought experiment from the opposite perspective. Suppose we only permit sets that do contain themselves. In this system, x = {x, y} is permitted, while x = {y} is not. By this logic, the "set of all sets that are not members of themselves" has no elements—i.e., it is the empty set.
We can also adopt a meta-perspective that includes both approaches. From this view, the Russell set is both empty and contains every other set. An apparent paradox, but we can make sense of it if we reconsider what the empty set actually is.
We said that sets can be thought of as collections of objects. Then, what is a collection without objects?
{}
Let’s have a closer look:
{ }
A boundary drawn around nothing. At the very beginning, we haven't constructed any other sets yet. So there is really nothing inside or outside the empty set.
Let's be clear about this: absolutely nothing means no space, no universe, no math, no observer, no set—there is nothing that this boundary could separate. The boundary itself is not a thing; it's not even the assertion that nothing exists. It’s a separation with nothing to separate. "Inside" and "outside" the set are both nothing. There is no difference between inside and outside. What the set indicates is: There is nothing, and within that nothing, there is still nothing. The empty set is within nothing and contains nothing. This means the empty set is recursive.
With no axioms in place that prevent an empty, recursive set from existing, the set is already present without a cause. It creates itself out of unconstrained potentiality.
When the empty set is recursive, then we can iterate over it, inserting the empty set into every instance of the empty set.
{}
{{}}
{{}{{}}}
{{}{{}}{{}{{}}}}
These iterations are the same as the definition of the natural numbers from above. Each of those sets contains the empty set and is itself an instance of the empty set.
We don't need to stop there; we can see every set as a particular, constrained perspective of the empty set. Conversely, every set we can describe does contain the empty set. Because this goes two ways, every set described this way does contain itself. The empty set contains all sets and is empty nonetheless. In this view, the set containing all sets, the Russell Set, and the empty set are all the same (V = R = {}). It's a single fractal containing all mathematical structures. Russell's paradox is no longer paradoxical. We achieved this by redefining differences between sets as differences in perspective. The multitude of all sets has become one emptiness with multiple ways to view this emptiness. Note that along the way, we already made at least one subtle assumption: that there is a binary contrast between existence and non-existence. Even this one will be dropped later.
Russell's paradox is paradoxical because it makes conflicting assumptions. The standard solution is to only consider those cases that are not paradoxical—that is, to limit the view (via the axiom of foundation). Another way out is to find, recognize, and drop the hidden assumption. All paradoxes point to a conflict in assumptions and can always be resolved by letting go of those assumptions.
Superposition of views
Russell's paradox was resolved in the previous thought experiment because we took a superposition of all possible sets. We can drop into any particular set with our perspective but are not confined to it. This process can be described for two options as one original state 0 which contains, but is undecided about, L and R, where either excludes the other. When we constrain our view to (take the perspective of) L being true, then R is false, and vice versa. This gives us four possible ways of viewing the situation:
- L is true
- R is true
- L & R: both are true
- 0: neither is true
This fourfold view is called catuṣkoṭi or tetralemma. It is affirmation, negation, both, or neither. This contrasts with mainstream Western philosophy, where the law of excluded middle (either true or false, with nothing in between) is foundational to logic. However, this law of excluded middle is also just an assumption that has to be justified. To think of a justification, you have to think outside of it, taking all possible options into account.
Nāgārjuna, a circa 200 CE Buddhist philosopher, adds a fifth option, which is a viewless view, or openness to views—the middle way. It does not cling to any of the options as the only right one but sees all truth claims as insubstantial. The point of this kind of logic is explicitly not to establish a fixed dogma of how things really are. Nāgārjuna, like Gödel, uses logic to expose the limits and vacuity of logic.
Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Chapter 1, verse 1, translation by Jay L. Garfield
As established above, any mathematical object can be described as nested sets, ultimately made up of, and presenting a perspective on, the empty set. That is, we could say that any object is empty. The information to describe or locate that object or perspective, however, is equivalent to that object and not reducible. That is, it exist entirely on it's own. A third view is, that the object in isolation could not described to have any properties, it is only in relation to other objects that it can be said to exhibit properties—its existence is entirely other-dependent. Assuming any of these views as the ultimate truth would exclude the others, but we have no objective way of deciding between them. The best we can do is to not decide, but to use them only provisionally. Even the realization that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, is only a provisional truth.
“Empty” should not be asserted.
“Nonempty” should not be asserted.
Neither both nor neither should be asserted.
They are only used nominally.
Chapter 22, verse 11
Many Worlds
It doesn't stop there. In quantum logic, all combinations of amplitudes for L and R are possible. There are not only four but an infinite number of possible values. Yet, when the state is measured, only one of the options is realized. The probability of measuring either outcome is given by the square of the amplitudes (the Born rule). This leads to the question: What is an "observation" in quantum mechanics?
The double-slit experiment introduced a problem into physics that sparked many interpretations but no consensus. Before measurement, the particle behaves like a wave of probability, interacting with itself. After measurement, it seems as if a particle was observed at a single location, determined by the previous probability. So, what is a "measurement"? Does observation influence reality? Where and when does "observing" happen, and who or what is observing? The question becomes even more pressing when we add the problem of non-locality through entanglement into the picture. Luckily, the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) allows us to make sense of this without the need to invoke a new fundamentally unexplained process or entity.
When Hugh Everett first proposed the solution, he called it "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" or later "The Theory of The Universal Wave Function". The term "Many Worlds" came with a later reinterpretation and, while catchy, sometimes leads to confusion. There is no need to assume that new worlds pop into existence each time we measure. On the contrary, Everett's interpretation is very conservative, as it does not propose any entities apart from the wave function it tries to explain. The wave function does not change with measurement, but our view of it.
All possible outcomes are already present in the wave function before measurement. It's a superposition of possible worlds. To measure means to interact with the wave function. This interaction constrains what worlds are accessible from the observers perspective. It introduces more certainty about any particular perspective, but without anything to choose the outcome, any possible perspective is realized. While several other interpretations of QM require hidden information or randomness to be fundamental, in MW randomness is a perceptual artifact. The chain of events only appears random from the point of view of an observer.
In other words, every world is one possible view on the wave function. Like the empty recursive set, the universal wave function already contains all possible perspectives. To take one perspective is to constrain the view.
The Fiction of Everyday Experience
When you take any object, say your hand, you can look at it from different angles. There is no preferred angle that is more true to representing the hand than the others. Because of your experience, you have a mental model of what your hand looks like. But if you are truly honest with yourself, then looking at the hand from one side, the other side is a fiction, no matter how you turn it. To fully see your hand as it truly is, you would have to see it from all possible perspectives at once.
There is also no uniquely true shape of the hand. If you make a fist, point at something, or relax it, those shapes always depend on conditions. Then there is the question of where the hand ends and the arm begins. Some languages have a single word for both but may see fingers as separate.
The way your senses work also determines how you experience your hand. You don't see it in infrared or ultraviolet. If you lack one type of color receptor in your eyes, your experience will also differ from that of most other people. Crucially, you can't directly compare your experience to any other side by side, because you only ever have access to your own experience right at this moment.
At what exact moment in time did it start being a hand, and when exactly will it stop being one? You may want to explain it as cells and bones growing over time. Or you may look deeper and talk about molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and quantum fields. At this point, any spatial boundary disappears because fields extend all throughout spacetime.
Some may say that therefore individual things don't exist and that the universe is one whole without boundaries. Yet this too is a fiction and draws a boundary between this view and others.
If the concept of your hand is a fiction, then what is there really? If you define it in relation to any other thing, like your body, then we can use the same questions to deconstruct the idea of your body, self and anything else. Even to think of it as an illusion implies that somewhere there may be a true reality that ought not to be illusory. When no reality can be found but our conception of it, then our idea of reality is the only thing that could be called "real".
Your view of reality is both a fabrication and part of reality. It is neither absolutely true nor entirely arbitrary.
Reconstructing
Blank Slate
The previous section leads us to the realization that every way to conceptualize the world is conditioned on assumptions. Every way to make statements about reality necessarily involves assumptions that cannot be justified from those statements. Every way to measure the world constrains our view of it. This is not to be taken as a concept to accept, but a method to take a meta-perspective on every worldview. It does not tell us how reality is but shows that every way to conceptualize, experience, or measure reality can never capture the whole of it. There is no pristine perspective that reveals how "reality really is". No fundamental ground of existence. Ultimately, even realizing that: Reality neither is nor is not, but entirely dependent on observation. Our experience of reality is *entirely* determined by our view of it.
It's wild (I'm sometimes surprised myself), but it turns out that this realization can explain and provide a way of understanding some of our physical theories and mysteries in a rigorous way.
The following is one conceptual way to connect this realization with theoretical physics and other sciences. It is not meant to be understood as a theory of physics. If anything, it may help guide scientists in the right direction.
Pure Symmetry
No single conceptual system can consistently explain why anything exists. Even nothingness is an incoherent concept, since "nothing" would have to be defined as the absence of something, but this would give properties to "nothing"—turning it into something. Therefore, something, some universe, has to exist. But of all the possible universes that could exist, there seems to be no way to prefer one over the other. To decide between them, we would have to find rules outside all possible universes that constrain which universe is actually realized. Yet, there is also no way to choose the meta-rules. There is no reason to prefer any possible universe over another. Therefore, we have to assume that all universes exist or do not exist equally. Yet, some universes share properties and definitions; their relation results in a higher-level structure. The superposition of all universes is undecided but has an internal structure. This is our starting point. By not knowing, we can extrapolate.
By symmetry we mean the existence of different viewpoints from which the system appears the same. It is only slightly overstating the case to say that physics is the study of symmetry.
— Philip Warren Anderson, More Is Different
In the groundless: undecided, unknown, undefined, unmanifest, undifferentiated, there are no individuated things, but pure equivalence. Undecided between existence and non-existence, ultimate reality neither is nor is not any particular way.
Under the mathematical notion of symmetry or invariance, liquid water is more symmetric than a snowflake. Something is invariant when it stays the same under transformation. You can mirror and rotate a snowflake, and it will look the same, but you can mirror or rotate water in many more ways, plus translate in any direction. Pure symmetry is pure homogeneity, zero information. It is invariant under every transformation. It always stays the same. As long as we respect symmetry, we can add everything we want to it, and it won't be changed. Symmetry is nothing more than the requirement that there is no change by outside cause. It's the empty of substance, not a thing in itself.
Without differentiation, everything being equivalent, there is pure symmetry. Also, not negating any thing, it carries the potential for all things. Pure symmetry includes everything and its counterpart. The reverse view is also possible. Starting with everything, we see that every thing has symmetries or is symmetric with other things. The superposition of all things, then, is pure symmetry. In a way, there is only one symmetry, which is the equivalence of all things. When we observe something, it is only because we have a limited view and ignore some of its parts. Every experience, observation, perspective, or phenomenon is a limited view of symmetry. What makes something exist is its limited view; it is completely defined by its asymmetries, by what it ignores, by its relations to everything else.
One could say that no thing is fundamental to reality or that every thing is fundamental to itself. Both views would be equally valid but incomplete when taken alone.
Some analogies may help to illustrate this view:
A butterfly has mirror symmetry. When we constrain our view to one side, the symmetry disappears.
A flat plane has many symmetries. When we pick out a region (e.g., a square), that region has fewer symmetries (know as the dihedral group D4), but all of those are contained in the flat plane. All imaginable flat regions exist in that plane.
An infinite space filled with a superposition of all possible waves will be uniform. When we look at a finite region in that space, only wavelengths that are an integer fraction are stable within that region (the particle-in-a-box model).
Out of linguistics comes a versatile concept called optimality theory. OT explains how, out of all the possible utterances, we are able to efficiently pick out the one that's consistent with the language. A generator function provides all possible options. Constraints, in a linear order, filter options until only one realized result remains.
When we measure one particle of an entangled pair, we then know, in order to preserve symmetry, the corresponding property of the other particle.
Every way to conceptualize still includes thinking and, therefore, assumptions. An observer, any thought, or perception implies asymmetries; as long as they exist, there cannot be pure symmetry. If we let go of all assumptions, then there is no more thinking and no more experience. It is, therefore, impossible to observe, conceptualize, or experience pure symmetry, but it is possible—through meditation—to temporarily turn off the observer and stop experience and on the way get as close as possible. In this way, one can intuit how all experience is dependent on assumptions.
Symmetry and superposition are related. To not observe parts is a superposition of perspectives and appears more symmetric. To observe a limited part is to take a measurement and locate one's perspective within the superposition of worlds.
Light is the left hand of darkness
and darkness the right hand of light.
— Ursula K. Le Guin, *The Left Hand of Darkness*
Perspectives and Individuation
We've deconstructed all assumptions and found that which is unknowable, containing everything. But how does it include individuated phenomena? What is the structure of reality?
In the absence of all differentiation, there is complete uncertainty. When taking a perspective or frame of reference that ignores some symmetry, the resulting view is less symmetric but contains more information. Information and certainty are complementary. In this way, a frame of reference is completely defined by its asymmetries or, equivalently, by its remaining symmetries. This notion of "frames" can be thought of as equivalent to a fuzzy version of the recursive, perspectival sets discussed earlier. There is no one to take a perspective or construct a frame, just like there is no one needed to define a set. They exist just by being possible.
Any frame is a superposition of all more constrained versions of itself. Pure symmetry, or ultimate reality, is the superposition of all possible frames of reference.
There are several examples for this idea of "frames", which I use almost synonymously, depending on what aspect is highlighted: frames of reference, observations, perspectives, phenomena, things (as in "everything"), universes, worlds (as in "many worlds"), moments, experiences. One may even talk about "beings".
For any frame, one can define a related frame that adds or removes an asymmetry. In this way, all frames are related to each other, which in turn implies that frames can also be defined by their relations alone. The resulting structure of relations can be imagined as a network or fractal containing all possible mathematical objects, similar to category theory.
Every frame is empty of any inherent substance. Remember, it is simply a limited perspective on symmetry, which is devoid of any properties. Insofar, every frame contains pure symmetry, which in turn contains all other frames. Everything is mutually dependent on every other thing. Each frame contains, and therefore knows about, the constraints that make it up. It contains every less constrained frame all the way to pure symmetry, which again contains everything. Like the jewels in Indra's net, every thing reflects everything else.
O Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness;
Emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness;
That which is emptiness, form.
The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
O Shariputra, all [phenomena] are marked with emptiness;
They do not appear or disappear,
Are not tainted nor pure,
Do not increase or decrease.
— Excerpt from the Heart Sutra, translated by Roshi Philip Whalen
I use the concept of frames because it conveys the neutral image of ways the world can be viewed without invoking some outside entity that has to take the view. Since this in itself is only a conceptual tool, there are other ways of conceptualizing the same idea. It can be useful to switch between these depending on context. Three seemingly different interpretations of quantum mechanics can be thought of as different ways of looking at the same structure:
Many Worlds: Absolute view. The probability of any observation is given by the wave function. Every world is defined by the state of its wave function.
Relational QM: Relative view. Any phenomenon is only actualized in the relation between the observer and the observed.
QBism: Subjective view. Any observed world is a set of beliefs that have to be consistent.
In the same manner, one could replace the language of frames with an axiom-free version of set theory or an equivalently groundless category theory.
Extrapolating
Conservation of Quantities
From the above logic follows, that no thing can ever come into or go out of existence without respecting symmetry. For a closed system, this means that every quantity must remain constant. The conservation laws we observe in nature are naturally explained by assuming symmetry. Emmy Noether demonstrated how continuous symmetry corresponds to conservation laws in physics. For something to be accelerated in one direction, there must be an equal change in momentum in the opposite direction. For a thing to spin in one way, there must be an equal rotational momentum in the opposite direction somewhere else. To observe a thing moving, spinning, or having any property at all is the result of a limited frame that excludes the counterparts of those asymmetries.
Furthermore, none of the observed quantities has any inherent existence other than the asymmetries given by the constrained frame. Every quantity expresses a relation and is never absolute.
Asymmetries form relations. An electron and a positron in the same place would annihilate, but placed apart, they attract each other. Because they tend back toward a more symmetric configuration, they have potential energy. The energy of a system is a measure of its internal asymmetry. The total energy of the multiverse is zero.
The Arrow of Time
The way it is presented above, it might seem that pure symmetry is more fundamental. This is only one way of looking at it. On the other hand, it is possible to see every frame as fundamental to itself. They, in turn, are related to each other. Pure symmetry, then, is only special as a fixed point in the structure of relations between frames. This directionality, pointing to more symmetry, less information, less entropy, is what we experience as the arrow of time.
So we talk about past, present, future. The notion of the present actually depends on our notion of past, and it depends on our notion of future. These three, they're like left, right, and center. They're a unit. They're mutually dependent. Present has no meaning without relationship to past and to future. Future has no meaning without relationship to present and to past, etc. So we can have this sense sometimes, or we can hear in teachings, or we can come to believe, "The past and the future are illusions. They don't really exist. You can't find them." But the present is dependent on past and future. So to make too much out of the present and say that's the reality, that's the holy reality ... If the present depends on the past and the future and we're saying they're illusions, then it means the present depends on illusion. And what depends on illusion can only be an illusion. Which makes the present an illusion as well.
—Rob Burbea, talk on Time and the Emptiness of Time
From the statement that all quantities must be preserved and cancel out, there are some notable exceptions. Most of all, entropy always increases with time. Entropy is not a quantity that arises from the breaking of symmetry, but a measure of how many ways symmetry is broken. Or, conversely, taking any perspective or frame, it is a measure of how it could be otherwise.
For any frame with a finite number of asymmetries, it is straightforward to deconstruct those and arrive at the undefined. On the other hand, any frame can be further constrained in an infinite number of ways. Visualizing it as a tree of possibilities, it becomes apparent that for every branching, a path can be traced to the root, but no single preferred path forward exists. From each point, it seems like a coherent, linear past exists, yet the future is unknown. "Time," in this image, is not flowing, but a perceptual feature that arises by the way all possible perspectives are related to each other. It has an arrow pointing from the past to now but is not flowing.
As an analogy, take the construction of surreal numbers. Every number includes in its definition all the numbers needed to define it. Put into relation to other numbers, it gives rise to an infinitely branching tree of possibilities.
The concept of "time" is a confused one since it combines several related phenomena: the arrow of time, causation, entropy, spacetime, and perceptual time. We get the first three from the above network. The time in spacetime might be just the impression of causal time overlaid on 4D space. Perceptual time is more complicated and not relevant to this discussion.
Note that the image of a tree is just one very limited way of conceptualizing this structure. It can also be the network of all (fuzzy, perspectival) sets, a hyperbolic and infinite-dimensional space, a directed, acyclic graph, the structured space of all computations, etc.
This explanation of time is connected to most paradoxes. As we have seen earlier, a paradox can be resolved by taking a perspective that does not decide wether a proposition is true or false. Any fixed view on the proposition is a more constrained frame and therefore a step in time. Classical logic and math can be caught up in paradox because they assume absolute simultaneity.
Uncertainty and Probability
The breaking of symmetry is a discrete event—or so it seems at first glance. Imagine an idealized ball on the top of an idealized hill. When it tilts to any side, it is already, irredeemably, on its way down that route. Any divergence from symmetry, no matter how small, would break that symmetry. What does that say about frames and time? Are they also discrete, or do they form a continuum?
There is another way to look at it when we let uncertainty back into the picture. The ball on the hill is, through inherent uncertainty, in a superposition of going down any path. To pick out a particular direction as a view amounts to continuously increasing the amplitude or probability of that view. It may seem like we only moved the problem, and now we need to ask if the asymmetry in the probability distributions arises discretely or not. But this makes the error of assuming time outside of time. It is resolved when we realize that symmetry already contains all asymmetries. One might visualize it as a landscape of all possible probability distributions continuously transforming into each other. Discrete and continuous views are complementary. They form a duality where neither is more true, and which is more useful depends on the context.
Above, we observed that because of symmetry, any quantity in a closed system must be conserved.
What is not conserved is every quantity that changes when we redefine the boundaries of the observed system. Through our perception of time, we order perspectives that take a more constrained view, from past to future. In the view of flowing time, each new perspective is more constrained. It excludes more symmetry and includes more information. The number of states the universe could have to explain our observation increases. Therefore, entropy increases with time.
Probability and information, in this way, are directly linked. Since time arises out of uncertainty, every moment in time has some inherent uncertainty in it. The end of uncertainty would also be the end of time. This would mean 100% certainty of something and therefore infinite information. Out of our understanding of the physical universe, we predict that infinite information would form a singularity in which spacetime ends.
Time, in this way, is a result of the uncertainty in the frame of reference. That means, because we experience time, we can conclude that our observed universe is not a singular, infinitely precise mathematical object.
With relations between frames and directionality, we get a natural notion of causality. From the perspective of every frame, the preceding, less constrained frame, caused it. Since this is embedded within a larger network, causality is local and can travel only locally. For each distance a causal event travels, an equal amount of time has to pass. This is the maximum speed by which any two frames can influence each other—the speed of causality and light. This, in turn, means that out of time, we get the prerequisite for space.
The standard model of particle physics has proven to be a robust model of our world. For the most part, it is a descriptive theory. It does not explain what fields *are* or where they come from. Various interpretations exist, and some, like string theory, attempt to explain them in terms of more fundamental elements. The standard model describes fields as a broken version of the gauge symmetries SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1).
With the idea of frames established, we can accept that the symmetries that describe particles are all there is to them. What we call a field is the symmetry underlying a particle. The wave function describes the certainty of the symmetry being broken in a location. Particles are excitations in symmetry. The probability of observing a particle is a measure of its degree of existence from the point of view of the observer. The world we observe is really fluctuating somewhere between existence and non-existence. We can not be sure about what exists, but we can be sure about our degree of uncertainty.
While I lack the expertise to delve deeply into it, it seems that the symmetries we observe in particle physics can mostly be derived from basic requirements of invariance.
Frames Within Frames and Self-Similarity
The following might sound like I am confusing objective science with subjective experience. I am aware that one is not sufficient to extrapolate about the other. The point I'm trying to make is that it is not possible to separate the two. Your subjective experience is a frame of reference and your only access to reality. Inspecting one's phenomenology with this in mind allows us to reason about how frames are structured.
As discussed earlier, everything that exists is a frame, and each frame is a fuzzy collection of asymmetries. You know—more than anything else—that your experiences in this moment exist. Therefore, it is a frame and can be described as a fuzzy collection of asymmetries. It is a particular mathematical structure and exists in relation to other structures. Note that the reverse is not given—not every frame is an experience.
Your experience of the start of this sentence is closely related (causally and by similarity) to your experience of reading its end. In any moment, you can only access memories of a previous moment, i.e., a residual of the causal influence. Other people can reproduce the same observation. You reading this text means we share information and therefore have connections to similar frames. Because we share similar experiences from the past (same physics, planet, language), we are able to communicate with each other. These assumptions allow you to form predictions about how I see the world. However, the only information I communicate to you right now are these words. In order to fully know my experience in this moment, you would have to be me in this moment. But almost all details of the actual experience are lost.
If your body and brain are made up of smaller parts, then how do they come together to form a mind with a unified subjective experience? How can anything be a "thing" if it is compounded and ultimately without substance? Frames are not objects in themselves, but perspectives on structure. Frames do contain a view on other frames. This is apparent in the collection of real numbers. The set of real numbers is a frame, but so is every number contained within it. The set of all positive integers contains an infinite number of frames and is itself contained in the frame of real numbers.
Every concept is a frame. Every concept may be included in my experiences, but usually does not capture the entirety of it. With practice it is possible to modulate how much attention one gives to the concept—not thinking about it at all, or with a very unified mind. That is, moving further or closer towards that frame, increasing the confidence. With steady attention and letting go of distractions, one can go to the extreme and unify ones mind around a concept to such a degree that no other thoughts arise and most sense experiences fade out. But it does not take a lot of concentration to see this. With every moment, sensations and thoughts fade in and out of the mind, it just takes some sensual clarity to notice. A unified mind will be better able to model a particular mathematical object than a distracted one. Thinking about a mathematical object, you not only invoke a label but model it in your mind.
One can implement a triangle in the physical world using sticks. Whatever happens inside the brain and body can, in the same way, implement a particular frame. For example, the thought of a triangle. The collection of thoughts and sensations in turn also forms a frame—an experience. This means that the mind is also part of a larger frame of the physical world around it. Matter in the configuration of a triangle is a triangle insofar as it functions as one. The thought of a triangle is a triangle insofar as it functions as one. Combined frames form a new frame *to the degree* that they function like that new frame. This is an ontological claim, not just practical.
In order to model our environment, we give up part of our individuation, that is, reducing the certainty of one particular frame. As above, unifying the mind around a concept increases the certainty of that concept and the absence of other concepts. Less certainty about any particular structure allows for more structures to be represented. All certainty reduced to zero is pure symmetry and therefore includes every possible structure equally.
This is similar to how, in a Bose-Einstein Condensate, atoms lose their individual positions and connect into one greater whole. Note that this is scale-dependent. If you pick out any subset of your experience, this again is a frame, more certain, less connected. When frames are connected (include each other with a certain probability) in a coherent way, then the overall frame they form represents their consensus.
When you look for your face right now, you won't be able to see it. Try to point at it, and you will see that there is nothing you are pointing at. Richard Lang says "This is the only place in the world where I can point at nothing." But to think that you have no face seems absurd. Objectively, you have a face.
Then, what is this objective reality that conflicts so strikingly with your unfiltered experience? Who or what determines what is objectively real when you don't even trust your most direct sensory data? Another person would tell you that you have a face, but for them, the situation is the same—they don't see their own face. The introduction of a third or fourth person won't help but only push the problem further. It's impossible to find a neutral observer for whom reality presents itself as it objectively is. Then how and why do we talk about an objective reality, independent of our subjective experience? The answer is that there is no single objective reality. The objective reality is the consensus of several subjective realities, of frames connected in a coherent way.
If we relate frames, or perspectives, with subjective experience, does a stone or the number 5 have "experience" too? This is where the language breaks down, and we have to be careful not to equate experience (as I use it here), having a world model, self-awareness, and whatever "consciousness" means to you. Human experience is highly complex, coherent, and functional. An integer has little information, and a stone is hardly a coherent whole. An integer number has infinite precision. This precision comes at the cost of not being able to include anything else. A stone does not model the environment to react to forces and maintain its configuration. In both cases, the ability to model the outside environment is practically absent. One is too orderly, the other is too noisy. The human mind acquires a different quality through recursive adaptation. The difference from a mind is only one of degree, not inherent. To model the world and a self-image in the world is a particular function that our mind fulfills in order to be stable in an environment that requires that. Numbers and inanimate matter are just far less adapted for that function.
There is a lot more going on regarding how structure is employed and implemented to produce a subjective experience. The work of Karl Friston, the Qualia Research Institute and others becomes relevant here. I'm not trying to give an answer and don't need to, as the question of consciousness is independent of the claim that structure in itself, however implemented, constitutes a frame of reference.
Stability, Evolution, and Emergence
The above argument does not explain why we live in 3+1 dimensions, why we only observe the quantum fields we have found so far, or all of the other fine-tuning required that allows for entities to exist that can ask these questions. We find ourselves in a small subsection of all possible worlds. We could handwave with the anthropic principle, but that begs the question of how it is possible to go from the general to this specific world. This means, for each apparent fine-tuned parameter, we need a generator that allows for a spectrum which includes the desired value. Yet this is not enough. A continuous range of values would not explain why we perceive exactly three spatial dimensions. In mapping out generators, we have to look for two features: the range from most to least symmetric, with the most symmetric being the most general and therefore likely (e.g., spacetime being flat) and islands of stability. Stability in this context means invariant under added constraints (i.e. time).
This definition of stability is very similar to the definition of energy as invariance under time translation. This matches our intuition. A cup on a table is stable and has potential energy. When it tips over the edge, it looses it's potential energy until it reaches a new stable state. But it is important to note that two different meanings of "time" are used here. Stability is broader in that it is not only a stable state, but adaptively stable and resisting outside influence. Adaptive stability is always contextual within a given environment (set of constraints).
Frames are a way to talk about mathematical structures. This means that frames can include all kinds of structures and therefore all kinds of properties we may need to account for. Frames that are a more constrained version of another frame inherit properties of the parent. It may happen that some constraints are not possible, and other combinations of constraints turn out to lead to the same frame. This scheme is a very simplistic version of diversification and selection. It allows for a kind of universal evolution (literally universal).
As an analogy, think of the real number line—first as a continuous line without numbers and without origin. Some ways to pick out numbers from that line are special in that they are invariant under operations. Recursively add 0 to itself, and you still have 0. Recursively multiply 1 by itself, and you still have 1. Similarly, pi and the Euler number are defined by invariance and symmetry. The number 0 has more symmetries than the number 42 and, therefore, is more general. We can only deal with numbers that are stable in some way. The vast majority of all numbers cannot be defined in finite terms. They are unstable and, therefore, not actualized in our world.
The Standard Model allows, in a similar way, for many kinds of particles to exist. Yet only a small set turns out to be stable and make up our everyday matter and forces. These, in turn, allow for a theoretically large number of different elements to exist. Most of these elements would be so massive that they never got created in the first place, and others are so unstable that they decay quickly. Only a small set of stable ones generate the complexity of organic chemistry, which in turn allows for DNA and life.
The question then is, when all symmetries are possible, why do we only observe the broken symmetry of SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)? What makes this one special? Is it related to the dimensionality of space? I have no answer to this question, but the understanding of universal evolution may be a tool to help finding it.
A different view on physics is required here. Physics not as laws of nature but as the results of universal evolution. There are no laws written down anywhere for nature to follow. Nature has no laws. It exists on its own accord, interacting with itself. Out of these interactions arise patterns, some more stable than others. Stable patterns can be described by emergent laws because they present a consensus of the smaller patterns that make them up. Stable patterns proliferate. Some patterns gain a higher level of stability by dynamically reacting to outside forces. Some manage to reproduce. Life is a higher level of the same process—dynamically preserved patterns as Dave Ackley defines it. But the process of evolution is not limited to life. It functions before life and continues to function beyond life, in intelligence and higher levels of cooperation. Notably, competition between patterns results from a narrow boundary of self-identification. This limits the scale on which patterns can be stable. As an urgent example, if we humans don't start to cooperate on a larger scale, we won't be able to reverse climate change, thereby risking the destruction of civilization instead of seeding the universe with life.
Consequently, this means that for us to inhabit and observe a particular physics, the emergent laws must be very general (close to pure symmetry), particularly stable, a necessary ingredient for intelligent life, or any combination of these. While everything that is possible also exists, not everything is possible and not all possibilities are equally likely. One growing branch of physics and math might be the task of mapping out the landscape of all possible worlds (like the string theory landscape). Algorithmic information theory and impossibility results can be important tools for this task.
Life happens at the edge of chaos—the fine line between pure order and pure randomness. Because it is constituted of interacting parts that find consensus, life can seek out and remain at this middle ground. The edge of chaos is a dynamic resting place from which many paths are available. Not being caught up in any particular path allows life to react quickly and in various ways to disturbances. Being on the edge of a phase shift allows for fast reaction. Because our universe is able to support life, it too is close to the edge of chaos—complex enough for life to emerge, but still orderly enough for patterns to be stable and reproduce.
To illustrate how some generator mechanism could produce a law of nature, take the following example—which, at this point, is purely speculative and only meant as an example.
We observed that all quantities have to be conserved unless we redraw the boundaries of the observed system. Conversely, any quantity that violates conservation must be based on a change in frame of reference. It might be that the expansion of space with time (dark energy) could be explained the same way by the local evolution of the network of frames. How many ways a frame can be constrained further, may be inherited by its offspring with variation. The expansion rate of the network would be a local, evolving variable. If it were to low, then the region would not proliferate, if it were to high, then the region would not be able to harbor life. In consequence, it would be most likely to observe an expansion rate that is about as high as it can be while still allowing for intelligent observers.
Summary
When we come into this world, we try to make sense of the things within our experience. Focused on this task, we forget to make sense of what experience itself is. When you seek out the edge of your visual field and the limits of your other senses, the things you don't know and can't imagine—then everything contained between those edges is you. As we look deeper into reality, we realize more and more that our frame of reference is one of many, that we are not the center of the universe, and that we are not separate from what we observe. We are what we observe. There is nothing outside experience that would "have" that experience. There is no preferred frame of reference and no unique, true way to model reality. It is entirely dependent on perspectives and cannot be thought about without taking a limited view. The universe is indeterminate regarding its own existence. It neither is nor is not—and therefore is in constant flux. The way our universe presents itself as one with time is because it is indeterminate regarding existence.
Like a polished gem, transparent and with many facets, you can see the whole from every perspective. Yet, any particular view is only one of many.
When I say that everything is an aspect of something undefinable, I don't deny that anything exists. Instead, I'm pointing to a false duality of existence and non-existence. I'm not talking about some form of nihilism, solipsism, or anything that denies a real world existing "out there". It also is not realism, idealism, physicalism, functionalism, panpsychism, not even hiveism. It is that which avoids any fixed views—the middle way.
There is nothing to believe here. Quite the opposite, part of understanding is to hold your beliefs lightly, to not objectify them as real or not. It's a guide pointing to a different kind of understanding. Don't accept it unless you've understood it. Again, this understanding is easy to get wrong. Don't just run with it, but wield it responsibly and with respect.
There are still many open questions, but there are also many people already working on those. I wish that in the future, we will be able to bring all of those threads together and weave a beautiful picture.
Ways of Looking
What I write here is my attempt to find a functional conceptual framework to think about reality. At the same time, I also reached the conclusion that any such attempt will be limited and entirely dependent on the conditions that led me to this view. Convergent evolution led to the independent development of eyes in several different animals. In the same way, my way of seeing the world is a tool to interact with the world, approximating a particular function. Just as the function of an eye cannot exist independent of its implementation and environment, one cannot understand reality without a subjective world model and location within the world. This includes the particular configuration my brain is in, my body and genes, the environment I live in, and the physics that allow for this environment.
This means that you should not just copy my way of thinking but find an implementation that works for you. You already have a worldview, a metaphysics, an ontology—it's not possible to not have one. When you realize that there is no reality independent of your way of looking, that every experience is an experience of your world model, then you are free to work on its design. What that may look like also depends on your conditions and goals. Foremost, it should allow you to make accurate predictions. It is also possible to have it not produce suffering. Further, you might want meaning, beauty, love, connection, knowledge, soulfulness, depth. It is important to hold your world model lightly. It's a tool—don't let it constrain you. Don't believe in it and don't push your beliefs onto others. Always keep in mind that it is neither real nor not real, always conditional, never absolute.
It's easy to mistake one's current level of understanding as the final one, but there is no end to this. At some point you will realize that this text communicates no information. I can only exemplify the methods used here: noticing and deconstructing all hidden assumptions, taking multiple perspectives, include and transcend them in a meta-perspective, investigating your phenomenology thoroughly, practicing consensus internally and externally. Ignore any world view I might have instilled in you, then go and find out for yourself. Don't get stuck.
Despite all that digital ink spilled, the core skill to learn is to rest in not knowing. Ultimate reality is unknowable; subjective reality is knowing itself.
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder ‘why, why, why?’
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself that he understand.
— From *Cat's Cradle* by Kurt Vonnegut
In the beginning, where all is one, there is pure order. At the end, where all is different, pure chaos. When one sees that chaos and order are the same, there is no more need to prefer one over the other. For it is in the middle, at the edge of chaos, in the interaction of the one and the same, where life happens.
I can tell you about this meta-understanding of truth and give guidance to reach the same conclusion. You can replicate it and do the same when asked, which makes it stable. This applies to many views on truths, which may be in conflict. Different conceptions can compete in the population like organisms. This understanding, however, is special in that it does not need to compete. It already is the most general truth, independent of any constraint. No fabricated thing is more stable than instability.
If none of this makes sense to you and it sounds paradoxical, then let the paradox take you; wrangle with it until the knot unties itself.
A paradox is a conflict in assumptions, strive to resolve all conflicts.
All competition is caused by insisting on separation. When you understand that every separation is fabricated, then they lose their strength. When a thing is seen as empty of inherent existence, it becomes transparent. When there is no thing left to block the view, everything is seen to be full of everything else. To realize that every truth is a way of looking means there is no need to impose your truth onto someone else. Every attempt to do so would cause suffering. To help all ways of looking to interact through not-forcing is to act by consensus. This is what all my future writing will be about.
There is space here, and space for reverence and devotion. When we see the void—the open and groundless nature of all things, the inseparability of appearances and emptiness—we recognize just how profound is our participation in this magic of appearances. Then, whether fabrication, which is empty, is consciously intended in a certain direction or not, the heart bows to the fathomless wonder and beauty of it all. It can be touched by an inexhaustible amazement, touched again and again by blessedness and relief. In knowing fully the thorough voidness of this and that, of then and now, of there and here, this heart opens in joy, in awe, and release. Free itself, it knows the essential freedom in everything.
— Rob Burbea, Seeing That Frees: Meditations on Emptiness and Dependent Arising