The Russell Stannard Questions: Philosophy & Metaphysics

There are many Big Questions in science, many of which go back to the ancients, even back into prehistory in all probability. One of the best modern set I’ve found recently were sidebars in a book* by Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University, Russell Stannard. These are my answers, thoughts and commentary to those Big Questions. Many readers might have ‘fun’ trying to come to terms with these in their own way based on their own worldview.

My answers are based mainly with the thought of our being in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe that has been constructed by one or more Supreme Programmers. However, some of the answers apply regardless of what the nature of our ultimate reality is.

Q. Why is there something rather than nothing?

A. If there was nothing rather than something you wouldn’t be here to ask the question! So perhaps the fact that there is something is another case of fine-tuning! Something could be a natural condition that’s part and parcel of any conceivable universe or something could be simulated, the simulation of course arising because something existed on up the line that created the simulation. It could be a case of fine-tuning in that universes than consisted of nothing couldn’t give rise or evolve into a something that could ask the question; only a universe that consisted of a something could evolve something that wondered why there was something rather than nothing.

Q. Where do the laws of nature come from?

A. It’s hard in our ordered cosmos to imagine anything but regularity, so the better question might be where do the irregularities, the violations to those laws of nature come from. When they happen we call them miracles or anomalies or if you’re a professional skeptic, pseudoscience (except those “Twilight Zone” anomalies in quantum physics of course – that’s science). Of course anomalies might be a reflection of our not understanding the laws of nature well enough. Or, violations might be due to intelligence. Intelligence is unpredictable, and often has a quirky sense of humor. So intelligence might be behind those exceptions to the rule, so if you see or experience an exception, an anomaly, think intelligence, and if it can’t be human intelligence in the here-and-now, think Supreme Programmer.  

Q. How are we to understand the built-in creativity of the physical world?

A. Human beings are highly creative beings. We create 2-D and 3-D art and architecture; sports and games; music and storytelling; designing experiments; create new food recipes, create computer simulations, etc. We love to indulge in the ‘what if’ game. Apparently so does the Universe! From a primeval ‘fireball’ of elementary particle ‘soup’, the cosmos created forces and fields, atoms and molecules, and stuff and structures* like galaxies and stars and solar systems full of planets and associated debris, but from our biased point of view or perspective the Universe created life and us. If this creation in particular was inadvertent, it borders on a near miracle given all those pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that have to come together just so. If life was a deliberate creation then you are down to postulating either an infallible supernatural deity (or deities) or a probable flesh-and-blood and fallible Supreme Programmer. 

·        But not just galaxies but spiral galaxies and barred galaxies and elleptical galaxies and irregular galaxies; not just stars but dwarf stars and giant stars and neutron stars and quasars and Black Holes and binary star systems too as well as stars that burp and stars that explode; not just planets but gas giants and icy giants and rocky planets (and I’m sure there’s no planet ever envisioned by any science fiction writer that doesn’t have a real counterpart somewhere out in the cosmos).

Q. What significance, if any, ought we to attach to the self-ordering nature of matter?

A. The cosmos is a highly ordered place. The only real question is why it is so. There are roughly about 60 elementary particles (and antiparticles) grouped into three generations. There’s no theoretical reason why there couldn’t have been trillions of elementary particles grouped into hundreds of generations, or no generational structure at all. The fundamental particles can only combine in just so many ways – you can’t have an atom consisting of one neutron, 5 protons and ten electrons. Atoms can only combine in just so many ways. There are a lot more ways atoms can’t combine than ways they do. The same applies for molecules combining. The ancients noted this ordering by suggesting that everything has its natural place in the cosmic scheme of things. Solids (earth) seek ground level; liquids (water) go down too but rest on top of solids; gases (air) hover above solids and liquids and heat (fire) tries to rise through gases and occupy the top rung. The planets don’t orbit the Sun in a square orbit one year, then switch to a rectangular orbit the next year and switch again to a triangular orbit the year after that. The lunar cycle follows its steady rhythm; ditto night follows day that follows night that follows day, etc. Thunder follows lightning. Plants grow upwards while plant roots grow downwards. In other words, causality operates. If you have X, Y follows (but not A, B and/or C). So the fact we have ordering is significant. But, consider this. Software is the same. Your PC is predictable. If X, then Y (but not A, B and/or C).

Q. The problem of understanding things in themselves.

A. No matter what sort of thing you wish to describe, its properties, you eventually exhaust appropriate concepts and language to dig any deeper. You often hit an ultimate barrier when you come up against the ‘what’ and ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. We know there is gravity but ‘why’ gravity at all and ‘how’ does gravity actually work. We know an electron has a negative electric charge of one unit but ‘what’ exactly is electric charge and ‘why’ does the electron have the value of electric charge that it has. The problems disappear if one suggests well, this is the programming, the software code that gives us the illusion of all things gravitational and another software code that determines that there be an negative electric charge on an electron and what the value is, also properties that are totally an illusion, or virtual reality. Ultimately those ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions like why introduce gravity and why have an electric charge can best be answered by those who do the (supreme) programming.

Q. Is the task of science to describe the world-in-itself, whether or not it is being observed, or must it confine itself to speaking only of our observations of the world?

A. Ideally, science tries to account for those actual observations one makes of the world-in-itself. However, there are numerous bits and pieces in scientific texts that rely on speculation and theory and what ifs and extrapolations and mathematical equations. We can’t observe inside the core of the Sun or inside a Black Hole. Nobody has actually observed an electron or a quark. There are many theoretical things we haven’t observed yet like monopoles or gravity waves or supersymmetric particles or extraterrestrials, yet they too are considered a legit part of science.

Q. Does the world-in-itself exist between our discontinuous observations?

A. This is a case of does the Moon exist even if no one is looking at it. Presumably, the answer is yes, even if the observer is just phytoplankton that absorbs photons reflected off the lunar surface. Presumably water must be observing the Moon as it does its tidal thing, a thing it wouldn’t otherwise do if the Moon wasn’t there. So hairy issue number one is what exactly is an observer? An observer can be anything. An electron observes another electron when the two come in close proximity and repel each other. Hairy issue number two is how does the Moon know it is being observed? It can’t, therefore it cannot respond to a state of non-observation by vanishing. What about software? Do those video game characters exist when the game isn’t being played and sitting on your shelf? If we’re simulated beings in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe and the Supreme Programmer leaves the room and does not observe us, presumably we keep on keeping on. So the answer is that the world-in-itself exists whether real or simulated. If real, well the world-in-itself (i.e. – the Universe) got along very nicely before there were observers as we traditionally define them and we traditionally define them as living things that react (observe) to their surroundings. The simulation exists as long as the software exists whether it’s running or not. 

Q. Can one prove mathematically that science will be forever incomplete?

A. I don’t know about a mathematical proof, but science cannot ever be complete if for no other reason than there is always something over that next hill which we haven’t seen and explored yet. Further, there are just some restrictions on what we can know about, like the fact that there is probably more to the Universe than just the observable Universe, since what we observe or cannot yet observe is related to and by the speed of light. If light from Object X hasn’t had time to reach us yet, will science can’t yet deal with the nature of Object X. The same philosophy applies to say the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby, through no fault of our own, the very act of observing something changes the properties of that something. Other parts of the cosmos might forever be inaccessible to our sciences, like say exploring the insides of a Black Hole. One could explore the inside of a Black Hole but forever be forbidden from getting the nitty-gritty scientific details of what they found out to a wider peer-reviewed audience.

Q. What is the status of mathematics?

A. Mathematics has no status outside of the human mind. Mathematics is an invention of the human mind (since I know of no other life form that makes use of mathematics in any abstract sort of way) to assist humans in dealing with the many (also invented) complexities of human society (like trade, commerce and economics). Mathematics provides practical applications like navigation and provides ordering and predictability in the natural world that rule the human roost. Mathematics is a not-thing since it has no physical properties and cannot be detected via any of your sensory apparatus. Of course if we’re in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe then we totally exist as, and in, a mathematical construct.

*The following questions (Q) are taken verbatim from those poised by Russell Stannard in his 2010 book The End of Discovery [are we approaching the boundaries of the knowable?]; Oxford University Press, Oxford. I consider these typical of the sorts of modern Big Questions that are part and parcel of the philosophy of modern science, especially physical science.



The Russell Stannard Questions: Part One

There are many Big Questions in science, many of which go back to the ancients, even back into prehistory in all probability. One of the best modern set I’ve found recently were sidebars in a book by Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University, Russell Stannard. These are my answers, thoughts and commentary to those Big Questions. Many readers might have ‘fun’ trying to come to terms with these in their own way based on their own worldview.

The following questions in italics are taken verbatim from those poised by Russell Stannard in his 2010 book The End of Discovery [are we approaching the boundaries of the knowable?]; Oxford University Press, Oxford. I consider these typical of the sorts of modern Big Questions that are part and parcel of the philosophy of modern science, especially physical science.

My answers are based mainly with the thought of our being in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe that has been constructed by one or more Supreme Programmers. However, some of the answers apply regardless of what the nature of our ultimate reality is.

THE RUSSELL STANNARD QUESTIONS

Q. The problem of consciousness.

A. How can your basic building blocks that are electrons, neutrons and protons combine to form atoms; atoms that combine to form molecules; molecules that combine to form complex molecules - complex molecules like organic molecules, biochemical molecules and molecules part and parcel of neurochemistry; the ultimate result being that this chain from the simple to the complex crosses a threshold from the inanimate to the animate and from the animate to the animate entity that is self-aware. It is a profound mystery why one has a fairly unique structure comprised of the same fundamental bits and pieces that comprise all other structures but yet one that can contemplate itself. That structure is the brain and the mind that resides within that structure. The brain is the only structure in the cosmos that can examine itself and yet that structure is ultimately comprised of just electrons, neutrons and protons. However, is there really a problem if that structure can ultimate figure out how to create another structure that also has consciousness. In other words, intelligent and conscious biological software can deliberately give rise to an artificial intelligent and conscious string of software and in doing so thus create a Simulated [Virtual Reality] Universe that houses or contains an apparent (but artificially) intelligent and conscious biological entity or entities that wonders whether or not there was an artificially intelligent software program that gave rise to it. That sort of reminds me of the human who dreamed she was a butterfly who dreamed it was a human, or was that the butterfly who dreamed it was a human who dreamed she was a butterfly.

  

Q. The free will/determinism problem.

A. I tend to have a belief in absolute causality, much like both Newton and Einstein who believed in a regular clockwork universe. If X happens, Y follows. All the laws, principles and relationships of the natural universe were forged at the time of the Big Bang event and once that clock was set in motion, all else flowed from those first established laws, principles and relationships. So, in other words, determinism rules, okay? That equally holds true if we’re in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe, regardless if we are, like a character in a video game a ‘puppet-on-a-string’ or the avatar as a stand-in in a simulated world for someone in the really real world, or as the consequence of someone programing a set of laws, principles and relationships then hitting ‘run program’ and standing back to see what eventuates. We’d all like to think we have free will, but if we are programmed to believe that, what harm has been done if you really do believe that what you had for dinner was something you freely did choose to have.

Q. How close to the instant of the Big Bang are we likely to be able to probe?

A. We can currently probe or observe no farther back than 380,000 years post Big Bang because the cosmos was too opaque from the point of the Big Bang to roughly that point in time, 380,000 years into the post Big Bang era. However, gravity waves from the Big Bang event could take us to Ground Zero in theory. The problem is in the detection of gravity waves – in theory yes; in terms of actual observation (to date), no. Of course that hasn’t stopped theorists from going back to even less than nanoseconds post Big Bang by running the expanding universe film backwards to the greatest extreme possible, thus postulating and assuming a quantum sized object was at the heart of the Big Bang. Theorists have extrapolated back way beyond what is reasonable or even logical IMHO given so many unknowns. Theory should cease where currently observations cease – 380,000 post Big Bang.  

Q. Can we be sure that inflation took place?

A. No, because we weren’t there! Seriously, we have no direct observational evidence of inflation, only indirect evidence that a theory or theories of inflation can explain some observations (or lack of observations, like where are the monopoles). This reminds me of those epicycles once postulated to explain observations related to the motions of the planets in the night skies. Those epicycles eventually bit the dust; inflation might too. 

Q. If so, how are we to choose which type of inflation it was?

A. Pick a card, any card! Whatever theory of inflation best matches the observations and best conforms to what is known about the laws, relationships and principles of physics goes to the head of the class. 

Q. Was there a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang?

A. No, there was no singularity associated with the Big Bang event. A singularity in common usage by physicists implies a region of space that has zero volume and infinite density. Sometimes I think these eggheads need to observe the real world where volumes and densities are finite. In any event, the density at the point in existing space where the Big Bang happened had to be less than that of a Black Hole, otherwise there would be no ‘bang’. That in turn implies the Big Bang was a macro event, something that happened way outside the realm of quantum physics.   

Q. Does it make sense to enquire into the cause of the Big Bang?

A. Yes, absolutely! There had to have been a cause, physical or software, and it is quite legit to ask what that cause was and try to answer the question. Of course I never said that would be easy.

Q. Why is there something rather than nothing?

A. If there was nothing rather than something you wouldn’t be here to ask the question! So perhaps the fact that there is something is another case of fine-tuning! Something could be a natural condition that’s part and parcel of any conceivable universe or something could be simulated, the simulation of course arising because something existed on up the line that created the simulation. It could be a case of fine-tuning in that universes than consisted of nothing couldn’t give rise or evolve into a something that could ask the question; only a universe that consisted of a something could evolve something that wondered why there was something rather than nothing.

Q. Where do the laws of nature come from?

A. It’s hard in our ordered cosmos to imagine anything but regularity, so the better question might be where do the irregularities, the violations to those laws of nature come from. When they happen we call them miracles or anomalies or if you’re a professional skeptic, pseudoscience (except those “Twilight Zone” anomalies in quantum physics of course – that’s science). Of course anomalies might be a reflection of our not understanding the laws of nature well enough. Or, violations might be due to intelligence. Intelligence is unpredictable, and often has a quirky sense of humor. So intelligence might be behind those exceptions to the rule, so if you see or experience an exception, an anomaly, think intelligence, and if it can’t be human intelligence in the here-and-now, think Supreme Programmer.  

Q. Can one prove mathematically that science will be forever incomplete?

A. I don’t know about a mathematical proof, but science cannot ever be complete if for no other reason than there is always something over that next hill which we haven’t seen and explored yet. Further, there are just some restrictions on what we can know about, like the fact that there is probably more to the Universe than just the observable Universe, since what we observe or cannot yet observe is related to and by the speed of light. If light from Object X hasn’t had time to reach us yet, will science can’t yet deal with the nature of Object X. The same philosophy applies to say the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby, through no fault of our own, the very act of observing something changes the properties of that something. Other parts of the cosmos might forever be inaccessible to our sciences, like say exploring the insides of a Black Hole. One could explore the inside of a Black Hole but forever be forbidden from getting the nitty-gritty scientific details of what they found out to a wider peer-reviewed audience.

Q. What is the status of mathematics?

A. Mathematics has no status outside of the human mind. Mathematics is an invention of the human mind (since I know of no other life form that makes use of mathematics in any abstract sort of way) to assist humans in dealing with the many (also invented) complexities of human society (like trade, commerce and economics). Mathematics provides practical applications like navigation and provides ordering and predictability in the natural world that rule the human roost. Mathematics is a not-thing since it has no physical properties and cannot be detected via any of your sensory apparatus. Of course if we’re in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe then we totally exist as, and in, a mathematical construct.

To be continued.



String Theory: A Knotty Theory

String Theory suggests the substitution of tiny vibrating strings for little billiard ball particles, but requiring in the process an extra six spatial dimensions. It gets the thumb’s down until such time as proponents of String Theory get some experimental runs on the board, something not accomplished in over four decades.

String Theory is one of those proposed challenges to mainstream physics and replaces the standard model of particle physics by substituting tiny vibrating strings for all those little billiard ball particles, like electrons and quarks and neutrinos, etc. that we know so well. Differing string vibration rates determine whether some particle is an electron or an up-quark or a down-quark or a neutrino, etc. That in itself isn’t too bad an alteration. Where String Theory falls off the rails IMHO is that in order to work, the Universe has got to be comprised of not the standard three spatial dimensions and the one dimension in time we’re used to existing in, but a total of nine, even ten spatial dimensions (plus one of time). Sorry, it’s those extra spatial dimensions that tip the weirdness quotient off the scales.

Spatial dimensions are just a useful mathematical concept consisting of points, length, area and volume that has no actual structure or substance. There’s nothing magical about a right angle. Spatial dimensions are a not-thing, a human invention.  That there are up to ten spatial dimensions (not three) if Superstring Theory or M-Theory* is correct turns a useful concept into nonsense. In the words of the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that’s “not even wrong”** which was a phrase adopted by and which gave rise to the title of the anti-String Theory book by Peter Woit (2006).

String Theory wouldn’t be too bad were there the slightest tad of experimental evidence for string ‘particles’ and those additional spatial dimensions. There isn’t. String Theory just resides as a pure hypothetical, albeit elegant (and extremely difficult to understand), branch of mathematics (you could hardly call it real physics). That wouldn’t be all that unusual a situation if String Theory were something that was brand new. However, String Theory in its earliest form dates back to the late 1960’s with Gabriele Veneziano hence Leonard Susskind and others. So, alas, this theoretical can-of-worms is now four decades old without the worms even reaching first base, far less getting so much as even one run on the board. In fact, nobody has even ever seen one of the theoretical worms, which is obviously why they are still theoretical four decades on. Pioneering string theorists nearly qualify for a pension by now and should be looking forward towards downsizing to their retirement village, albeit not quite yet a nursing home!  

String Theory just is not going anywhere. It’s a dead end. As far as I’m concerned, String Theory is impossible physics (even if elegant mathematics) until such time as even the tiniest shred of experimental evidence is on the board. String, Superstring, or M-Theory (as substitutes for the standard model of particle physics) is pure bovine fertilizer on the grounds that after four decades it remains a purely abstract mathematical concept with no experimental verification.  I’m not holding my breath that experimental verification will come anytime soon, if ever.

In conclusion, never in the history of physics have so many spent so much time and energy for so little results. 

* M-Theory is a unified String Theory or Superstring Theory that incorporates differing versions of String Theory that has no substance or structure apart from pure abstract mathematics an thus gets the same thumb’s down as String Theory itself and for the same reason. Another negative is that it must postulate the existence of even a further extra spatial dimension, as if an extra six weren’t already too much of a good thing.

** If you’re ‘not even wrong’, well that’s just about the ultimate insult to a practicing scientist since it’s no crime to be wrong, and most scientists are wrong a lot of the time.



Mathematics Are You

You are part of life, the Universe and everything. You and that greater whole have to be grounded in some fundamental bedrock that connects everything into a logical and unified whole. Most would say that’s the role of the laws, relationships and principles of physics. But there’s a deeper level yet. Mathematics are the ultimate foundation that make physics a logical (if not quite yet unified) whole. So ultimately life, the Universe and everything is based on maths. Maths is ultimately your reality. It’s what makes you tick!

The Universe IS just mathematics according to physicist/cosmologist Professor Max Tegmark (Department of Physics, MIT). It’s called the “Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)” or the “Ultimate Ensemble”, one of those proposals for a ‘Theory of Everything’ (TOE), that ultimate theoretical equation so beloved by physicists that describes life, the Universe and everything. It will be so concise that it can be printed on just the front of a tee-shirt. Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is: our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically. That is, the universe IS mathematics in a well-defined sense. Mathematics has an external reality, and since everything is built from the ground (i.e. – mathematics) up, everything ultimately is mathematics and therefore can be expressed in that ultimate theoretical TOE tee-shirt equation.

Mathematics is the universal language. Whether you’re a Frenchman or a Chinaman; an Englishman or even ufonauts like those alien LGM (Little Grey Men); a Klingon or a Romulan; you understand the Pythagorean Theorem and the quadratic equation; topology and the calculus.

The most fundamental science is physics. That’s the bedrock on which chemistry is formatted. The earth and space sciences are in turn supported and explained by those two building blocks. All of those collectively form the foundations of the biological sciences, which in turn support anthropology, psychology and the other social and behavioural sciences. Even economics and the arts have ultimate foundations in mathematics.

But what supports physics? Mathematics, that’s what. Ultimately that’s where it all begins. The Universe (including life and everything) is mathematics. You exist inside of geometry. You are receiving information about life, the Universe and everything encoded in mathematics; it takes mathematics to reveal the information. You cannot come to terms with understanding space and time, matter and energy, and the four (or more) fundamental forces that govern the Universe, hence ultimately you and your surroundings, without resorting to maths.

Your day is constantly filled with how much, how many, and how fast - mathematical relationships. ‘Where’ is maths; ‘when’ is maths; ‘what’ is often pure maths. You may not be a physicist, but economics probably rules your roost. There’s gambling (even if just on the stock market or getting away with running a red light) involving probability theory. Every day in every way you add and subtract and multiply and divide numbers. You even do fractions! Your calculator may crunch the numbers, but you press the buttons.

Music and sounds in general play a massive role in our lives. Acoustics, harmonics, sound waves, and the like are all expressible in, and based around, mathematics. Ditto for navigation and GPS and related.

Now think of the mathematics supporting the physics (or its applied alter ego, engineering) behind your home, your transport, your entertainment, your comfort conveniences, and what goes into making you able to get through your day. What holds all your bits and pieces together and holds you to the ground yet doesn’t allow you to go through it can be expressed in equations? What mathematical physics fuels the sun that ultimately gives you your daily bread? What mathematical physics keeps your home planet a goldilocks planet, not too far away from, or too close to the sun with an atmosphere over your head? 24/7/52 you are governed by time and space; matter and energy, all of which have reality as mathematical constructs. And where would sports teams*, NASA and the military be without the basic mathematics behind the basic physics that guide and govern their activities?

There’s another kind of mathematical universe apart from the one promoted by Max Tegmark, though maybe they are actually one and the same. That’s my hypothesis. There’s another way of looking at this. There’s another possible, even probable, Mathematical Universe – the Simulated Universe. Could these two universes be one and the same?

Firstly, why is a Simulated Universe our probable Universe? Well, for the exact same reason that while you suspect there is just one real Universe, the one real Universe the really real you lives in, you would be aware that Planet Earth in that really real Universe has an intelligent human population that has evolved computer technologies and has created thousands upon thousands of virtually real simulations, both for the purposes of instruction (say astronaut flight training) as well as for entertainment (video games). The ratio of virtually real landscapes to really real landscapes is therefore multi-thousands to one.

Further, in most cases there are thousands upon thousands of copies of those simulations, a sort of Multiverse, where say a character in one video game has thousands of ‘clones’ because there are thousands of copies of that game. That character of course couldn’t meet any of his or her or its identical copies, which is probably a good thing. However, if you could ask that character whether they felt they were really real or simulated, they would of course answer really real not knowing or suspecting that a human being was their creator and the creator of their simulated landscape.

Go one level up from Planet Earth and humanity’s numerous simulation creations and extrapolate and the odds are high that someone or something out there, a Supreme Programmer, created a simulation that’s our Universe. There are numerous copies of this video game simulation called say “The Life and Times of Planet Earth” created by this unknown and probably unknowable Supreme Programmer, and thus there are really numerous copies of you, but fortunately only one copy per game! Your day-to-day reality is just a virtual reality because you don’t really exist in the way you think you do.

Another way of thinking about the numerous copies of the video game “The Life and Times of Planet Earth” is that this amounts to the concept of Parallel Universes. In another copy of “The Life and Times of Planet Earth” another copy of you has led a different life and lifestyle to the you that exists in your copy or version of “The Life and Times of Planet Earth”.

Now, the interesting bit, IMHO, is what if our Universe or Max Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe which is also our Universe was just a Simulated Universe; a virtual reality computer software generated Universe? Well, what is computer software? Computer software is just bits and bytes, ones and zeros, binary code, or in other words mathematics. You can construct life, the Universe and everything via mathematics by constructing or programming appropriate computer software. Ultimately a video game ‘Universe’ or landscape is just mathematics. An astronaut’s training simulator is just a mathematical construction. If you are a computer software generated, simulated being, inside a virtual reality, then you are a mathematical construction.

What’s the appeal of a Simulated Universe? It explains a lot that’s currently unexplainable.

Why are all electrons (or positrons or up and down quarks, etc.) identical? Because all electrons have the exact same binary code, that’s why. Forget vibrating strings as the reason. String theory isn’t even in the hunt. Any and every anomaly is explained as easily as “run program” as there is no such thing as the concept of impossibility in a simulation or a video game. Joshua can indeed make the Sun and the Moon stand still in the heavens! You can even have a virtual reality afterlife! In fact, for the physicist, a Simulated Universe scenario should be pleasing since in fact there are two separate sets of incompatible mathematical software running the Simulated Universe – gravity software and quantum physics software. I bring this up because physicists have been trying to marry those two branches of physics for decades now into a Theory of Everything, and haven’t scored a run yet.

In conclusion, our Universe is a Mathematical Universe; a Simulated Universe is a Mathematical Universe. Therefore, it’s possible or even probable as I noted above, that our Universe is a Simulated Universe and you therefore live in a virtual reality landscape that exists as a mathematical construct!

*There’s an entire book, for example, devoted to the physics of baseball, and no doubt many “How To Play…” books focus on the physics behind the scenes and the mathematics behind the physics. Baseball can be reduced to pure mathematics apart from the mathematical physics relating to bat and ball, which will come as little surprise to most baseball fans, players and managers. There’s percentages this; statistics that, all of which make baseball about the most mathematical oriented sports on the ground.

More on Symmetry, or Lack Thereof

Scientists in general and physicists in particular, love symmetry. In fact, humans in general love symmetry. There’s something far more pleasing to the eye if something is symmetrical rather than asymmetrical. Unfortunately for scientists at least, much of the cosmos, from our Universe down to humans, aren’t symmetrical.

Mathematics is the foundation of all of the sciences, and with some exceptions tends to reflect symmetrical operations and relationships. Easy examples are 1 + 2 = 3; 2 + 1 = 3; 3 = 2 + 1; 3 = 1 + 2. However, mathematics is still an intellectual and abstract field that exists within the realm of biological (perhaps artificial) intelligence. It’s not an obvious part of nature.

Physics & Chemistry: On the micro scale, there is indeed a great deal of symmetry. An electron is symmetrical with its antimatter counterpart, the positron. It’s like the yin and yang. The electric charge of a proton matches that of an electron. Many molecules are symmetrical, like methane, though the water molecule isn’t. Also, physics and chemistry tend to have reversible (symmetric) actions. You can combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water; you can turn water into hydrogen and oxygen. Energy can turn into matter; matter can turn into energy.

There are obvious cases at the macro level where there is symmetry – for every action there’s and equal and opposite reaction. But, as a general rule however, the transition from the micro to the macro tends to also be a transition away from symmetry to the asymmetrical.

Space: Space appears symmetrical. Up balances down; left balances right; back balances front; north vs. south; east vs. west.

Time: There is in physics this phenomena that time ‘moves’ or flows in one direction – from the past to the future, although that’s only apparent on the macro scale. Any one fundamental particle looks and acts the same whether filmed from past to future, or run in reverse, from the future to the past. However, when grouped together, it would be odd for thousands of particles to start from a position of uniform distribution then all move such as to clump together. That is to say, you won’t find a box full of air where all the air is clustered or huddled together in one of the eight corners. 

Energy: Energy is like time – left alone it flows overall in just one direction – from high concentration to low concentration. That is to say, your cup of tea, left standing, doesn’t further warm up left to natural processes or forces, but rather cools down.

Matter: Whether matter exists in a gaseous, liquid or solid state, you’ll never find absolute symmetry. One cubic centimetre of air wouldn’t be absolutely symmetrical with respect to the mixture. Even if it were just a cubic centimetre of say oxygen, the density of the molecules will vary from location to location. The same applies to say sea water, even pure distilled water. And as for solids, well we all know any diamond has some flaws or imperfections, even the best of them. Snowflakes on the surface look like perfect six-sided symmetry, but up-close-and-personal, there again will be slight flaws.

The Earth Sciences: Geology, Oceanography and Meteorology don’t tend to be associated very much with symmetry. Some rock crystals will be symmetric, but more likely as not with flaws that spoil the perfection as noted above. I suppose if you drop a rock into the ocean, the ripples will spread out in a symmetrical fashion, but quickly become distorted due to differing local factors operating at different points. I guess water evaporating is sort of symmetrical with rain falling, but that’s a bit of a stretch.

The Universe: Our Universe is asymmetric with respect to antimatter vs. matter. The Universe is 99 and 44/100’s % pure matter – probably more. This is strange since theory predicts that there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter at large. The Alpha and the Omega of the Universe isn’t symmetrical either. The Universe started with a Big Bang, yet will expand forever and end in a Heat Death. A Head Death is when the overall temperature of the entire cosmos is uniform. In contrast, our Universe would have exhibited far greater symmetry had the Alpha been the Big Bang, and the Omega the Big Crunch – a cyclic universe.

Most of the objects within the Universe aren’t symmetrical. You have the irregular galaxies, but even normal spiral or elliptical galaxies aren’t symmetrical down to the last nitty-gritty detail. Stars aren’t perfect little spheres, but seethe with solar activity which distorts perfect symmetry. On the other hand, a Black Hole should exhibit near perfect symmetry, except, like stars, they too can seethe with activity and give off energy in the form of Hawking radiation which won’t be uniform at the quantum level.

The Solar System: There’s certainly no symmetry with respect to the bodies that orbit Mr. Sun either with respect to spacing between the planets, or the size of the planets. And you get one-off bits like the asteroid belt (of rocky stuff), the Oort cloud (of cometary stuff), and the Kuiper Belt (more icy stuff in the main). Asteroids and all the smaller bodies tend not to have enough gravity to pull them into a uniform spherical shape and so have irregular shapes.

Planet Earth: Well for starters, there’s this tilt to the Earth’s axis. Then too the division between land masses and oceans isn’t symmetrical, and never really has been due to plate tectonics. The Earth isn’t even a perfect sphere due to its rotation.

Life: Terrestrial biology is composed of biochemicals, complex molecules usually composed of various arrangements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, which can have a right or left handedness to them. Our biology, or rather biochemistry, is in the main left-handed. 

Humans: Humans have no top-bottom symmetry; nor front-back symmetry; only left-right symmetry, and that is only superficial. The right and left sides of our outer shell aren’t quite identical, as in, for example, the way we part our hair. The left and right side of our faces are ever so slightly different as you can see if one matches two right sides together and two left sides together, then view both at the same time. They don’t look absolutely identical. Of course on the inner anatomical level you are well aware there’s no real left-right symmetry, since our heart leans to the left; our stomach and liver are on opposite sides, etc. And the left and right sides of our brains aren’t apparently the same with respect to the bits and pieces they hold sway over.

Human Technology: Relatively few manufactured goods are totally symmetrical. Certainly not our automobiles which have left-right symmetry, except for the steering wheel and location of the gas cap. Your house may look symmetrical from the outside, but the interior layout most certainly isn’t (although a typical dog house probably has near perfect left-right symmetry). A dice is apparently symmetrical left-right, front-back, and top-bottom, but the faces have different patterns. A bowling ball has those finger holes to offset otherwise perfect symmetry. However, even when things are totally symmetrical, say ball bearings (though on a micro scale there would be irregularities – peaks and troughs), that’s of little interest to the physicist or other scientists who look for symmetry in the natural world.

Further recommended reading:

Gleiser, Marcelo; Imperfect Creation: Cosmos, Life and Nature’s Hidden Code; Black, Inc.; Melbourne, Victoria; 2010: