These are the ideas I am struggling with so I don't have clear answers, but here is how my thinking goes. Imagine you were able to run some simulation of a small world on a very powerful computer, so that within that simulation there is an intelligent entity that can examine its world. The entity could observe the artificial laws of physics that you were simulating, but it could never see what programming language you used or the hardware details of the computer you were using. I think this last layer must be similar in a way. We can't see the details of the ensemble of mathematical possibilities from which the bottom layer is emergent. We don't get to see the mathematical symbols or the choice of axioms.

There are also examples of this from physics. Near a critical point in some system of statistical physics you can get scaling behavior. If you take the limit at the critical point and rescale than the details of the statistical physics system shrinks to zero and vanish. A quick google search brings up this talk on the subject.

Both these examples are based around types of universality. In the first case it is the universality of computer languages that gives a definition of computability that is language independent. In the second case it is universality in critical systems. I think that something like this is happening at the bottom layer of physics. It's a form of emergence but it is different from the approximate forms that we can unpack.

I think symmetry emerges at that bottom level and is then spontaneously broken or partly hidden as space and time emerge higher up.

I do agree that there is a danger of being misled by the way our thinking is structured. I am quick to criticize when I see people thinking in terms of temporal causality. The same may apply to reductionism in the form that I am using. The "how" may be more important than the "why." However, there is also a danger of throwing out too much so that we find ourselves lost and unable to do anything. Perhaps it is necessary to keep some philosophical principles as scaffolding to build on. They can be removed later.

There is this paper

Strings from Quivers, Membranes from Moose

Sunil Mukhi, Mukund Rangamani, Erik Verlinde

A moose sounds very similar to a necklace. Both are in effect chains of Lie algebras.

Cheers LC

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. I think David Deutsch mentions such worries somewhere. On the other hand, I once had the idea that this means we're already at the end of our search for a fundamental theory, and it's electromagnetism (or any other theory capable of describing universal computers): because whatever the fundamental theory happens to be, if it is computational, you can write a program simulating it and run it on a computer. This computer can then be described via Maxwell's equations, thus showing that we need nothing else to describe the world. (I sometimes wonder if the dualities between various theories could not fruitfully be understood as a kind of reduction, in the sense the term is used in computer science, but that's another discussion.)

Of course, this really just means offloading all the work to the initial conditions---essentially, the configuration of electromagnetic fields describing the way the computer is programmed. But this highlights another facet of the 'Why this?'-problem: it seems that any fundamental theory, in order to describe a given universe, is going to need some initial conditions. But well, why those? Is there really a set of initial conditions such that they are self-justifying?

And then there's the question of why the simulation starts at some pretty deep down level. Why simulate nature at (say) the Planck scale? In principle, it should be possible to simulate higher-level physics just as well---the way Newtonian physics is simulated in modern computer games, for instance. I mean, one could probably mount a simplicity argument here, but again, if there still is some finite complexity, one could always go more simple, and if there isn't, well, it seems difficult to even think about what the 'program' would be like---in a sense, it would be (again) no program at all...

Hi Philip,

It was a real pleasure to read your contribution to this contest.

The first half is like I could have written it myself, but each of us have a different way of explaining our perceptions.

The second half of your essay is a witness of your dedication to mathematics, but your end conclusion NOTHING IS EVERYTHING is the same as mine, only I add "INITIATIVE" as a property of Consciousness.

I hope you will also have some time to read and rate my essay : "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops.

Thank you for making me think again.

best regards

Wilhelmus

    Dear Philip Gibbs,

    You wrote: ""Fundamental" is an adjective to describe a level of reality that is not derived from anything else." My research has concluded that reality does not have any levels. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    Dear Philip Gibbs,

    You wrote: ""Fundamental" is an adjective to describe a level of reality that is not derived from anything else." My research has concluded that reality does not have any finite levels. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Hello Philip...

      With regard to "guessing correctly the answer to questions like 'what is "fundamental?'", the "stories" are ancient... REF: TOPIC Indra's Net - Holomorphic Fundamentalness by Cristinel Stoica ... and although such "stories" are prolific, multi-epoch, and multi-cultural, requirement for a logic reduction is a common element.

      However, cognitive abilities to resolve a math model of a logic reduction of "fundamental" are apparently emergent...REF: TOPIC: How to Empirically Confirm a Rational Theory of Fundamentals by Jack H. James ... and application of Math semantics to an invalid logic reduction of "fundamental" have often muddied the cognitive waters.

      The Spatial quantization is fundamental to all derived Spatial relationships/logic.

      In that evolution is driven by the "What is fundamental? quest, then technology is also, and development of digital tools has been reciprocated with a cognitive enhancement, in the form of a more precise Mathematical model of Indra's net "cast in all directions"... i.e. resolve of an Origin Spherical Singularity Geometry, which supports infinite minimum unified volume unit shell closure expansion as a valid CAD environment/field quantization... has now been added to the "stories", and a pulsed Emission of minimum quanta of Energy (QE), is being digitally simulated/animated within the virtual environment.

      REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

      It is not a theory, it is a digital CAD/SIM virtual reality constructed on a logic reduction... i.e. an Origin Emission equal in all Spatial directions from a single point.

      Better than a guess?

      Thanks Philip, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

      Will return to rate after I read as many essays as I have time.

      S. Lingo

      UQS Author/Logician

      www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

        Thanks, I will read your essay. I have a lot to go through and want to give each one a good read but will get to it.

        Joe, thanks for your comment. These competitions would not be same without you.

        I am glad to here we have some conclusions in common. I will put your essay on my list to read.

        The "moose" seems to go back to Herman Georgi in 1986 as a tool for model building. I don't think its the same as necklace Lie algebras but can't rule out a connection.

        Dear Phyllip, you wrote:

        "聽Is fundamentality then a relative concept with no absolute bottom, or is there a fundament of physical law which is not derived from anything deeper?

        The universe exists, so there must be answers. Why would those answers be incomprehensible to us?

        "

        I think:

        Micro Black hole Pairing and Splitting should be explained first before we gain the next reality level.

        See:

        https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.nl/2018/01/black-hole-pairing-and-splitting-should.html

          sorry Philip,

          better look at: https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.nl/

          Dear Dr. Gibbs,

          I enjoyed reading your well-written essay on the nature and speculative future of physics.

          However, in my own essay "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I argue that the universe is telling a quite different story. Unity and simplicity are most fundamental, although the unity of physics was broken in the early decades of the 20th century. I review the historical basis for this rupture, and go on to present the outlines of a neoclassical synthesis that should restore this unity.

          Briefly, quantization of spin in real waves such as the electron (there are no point particles) provides the scale of discreteness in what is otherwise a universe of classical continuous fields. There is no need for Hilbert space, indeterminacy, or entanglement. The same waves provide a real embodiment of time, space, and relativity; there is no need for an abstract spacetime.

          In other words, quantum mechanics is not a theory of nature; it is a mechanism for turning continuous fields into soliton-like wavepackets with particle-like behavior. This requires a nonlinear component in the field equations that is hidden whenever spin is quantized. I do not know the mathematical form of this nonlinear component, but I describe some of its properties in the essay. For the electron field, this component generates the exclusion principle directly, without the need for Pauli's entangled mathematical construction. Planck's constant is the only true universal constant, and defines the granularity of the universe.

          Furthermore, the advent of quantum computing takes this beyond obscure philosophy into the technological realm. Without entanglement, quantum computing will not work. There are billions of dollars being invested in this, and I expect an answer within 5 years. But when I have tried to discuss this with active participants in the field, they react as if I am killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. No one wants to hear such a negative story, including funding agents. My prediction is that the failure of quantum computing will lead to a reassessment of the entire foundations of quantum mechanics.

          Best Wishes,

          Alan Kadin

            thank you Leo, that is very interesting. I will read your essay.

            I think it's always important to look at the opposing views too. Sometimes they turn out to be more compatible than you might expect.

            It is an interesting essay.

            If the foundation of the physics could be based on the path integral formulation, and because it is applicable to the some field of statistical mechanics, then I think that it could be write in each field of physics: for example in classical mechanics, if the possible transition is unique, using a Dirac delta function instead of probability amplitude, then the trajectory in the phase space could be unique (unification of the description).

            Furthermore, there is a blog entry of John Baez on quantropy

            https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/quantropy-part-4/

            that I consider interesting, because of the analogy between path integral and partition function.

            Regards

            Domenico

              The two ideas though seem to be similar to quivers of vectors corresponding to Lie algebras. Where can I find a source on the mathematics of necklaces, which seem to have structure similar to quotient groups and spaces?

              LC

              Thanks Philip,

              Without the stories, there is no universe? I like the poem and the thoughts. I will have to get back to it. You provide a lot to think about as well. Mine has not yet reached an appearance. I do mention that the storyteller (the sentient creature) must be there to reveal the fundamental, kind of an existential philosophy, just like your stories suggest. You must be an advocate of supersymmetry: a symmetry between fermions and bosons. Do you believe it provides a dark matter candidate. Plan to reread your interesting essay as I progress. YOurs is my first read.

              Jim Hoover