What is a multiverse?

[wtf]

Then we are back to my original question. Are there meta laws that constrain the laws of each universe

Now without knowing what the laws of other universes are that cannot be determined. It might be they
are tweaked slightly compared to the laws of this one. Or instead that they are significantly altered. As
there is no way of knowing so at this point in time. And assuming other universes exist in the first place

Of course there's no way of definitively knowing these things. But people in this thread are blithely claiming that there are multiple universes, each with a set of mutually inconsistent laws. And I'm asking those posters to clarify their own thoughts, not to provide an ultimate answer.

If you think each universe has its own set of laws, what are the constraints on the variation in the set of laws? If you can "tweak" the law of gravity, how far can you tweak it? Is the tweakage itself constrained by some metalaw? If yes, then the metalaws become proper objects of scientific study.

But if not ... if G is one thing in this universe and something else in the next; then there is NO LAW AT ALL, only randomness. That is my point.

You claim the law of gravity can be tweaked? Ok, how much and according to what metalaw? Or is the law of gravity just a random number? I'm asking you to clarify your own thinking on this matter.

[Philosophy Explorer]

If different universes have different laws then in what way could they be called laws

Specific laws would only apply to one universe since no two would have identical ones

Then we're back to my original question. Are there meta-laws that constrain the laws of each universe? If not, then there are no laws, only randomness.

We have a curiosity here or what I like to call a head scratcher. I looked up meta-laws and read this on several websites. I'm linking Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalaw

Can you explain what SETI has to do with this discussion? What do you mean by meta-laws?

PhilX

[Lacewing]

If you think each universe has its own set of laws, what are the constraints on the variation in the set of laws? If you can "tweak" the law of gravity, how far can you tweak it? Is the tweakage itself constrained by some metalaw? If yes, then the metalaws become proper objects of scientific study.

But if not ... if G is one thing in this universe and something else in the next; then there is NO LAW AT ALL, only randomness. That is my point.

Can't there be localized laws? Such as, life under water is different than life out of water, even though both may be within the same realm of other laws?

…the law of gravity can be tweaked? Ok, how much and according to what metalaw? Or is the law of gravity just a random number?

Why would every universe need to maintain a certain and consistent level of gravity? Maybe gravity decreases or is ineffective when other factors are involved or introduced. Can't laws change based on the introduction of other factors?

I don't think there are as many rock-solid (or eternal) laws as we think there are. Neither is everything random. It's not one or the other. I'm guessing it's organic... moving, flexing, evolving, permeable, cooperating, etc. WE just need to THINK things are solid and stable so that we can establish reference points to build on and identify ourselves with. Yes?

[Obvious Leo]

I don't think there are as many rock-solid (or eternal) laws as we think there are. Neither is everything random. It's not one or the other. I'm guessing it's organic... moving, flexing, evolving, permeable, cooperating, etc. WE just need to THINK things are solid and stable so that we can establish reference points to build on and identify ourselves with. Yes?

YES.

In a self-causal universe the only law necessary is that all effects must be preceded by causes. This is the only meta-law which drives evolutionary theory and that our universe is an evolving entity is a simple statement of the bloody obvious with 13.8 billion years worth of empirical evidence to support it. Evolving systems evolve according to emergent and embedded hierarchies of causation which drive the entire system from a high entropy state towards a low entropy state, i.e. from the simple to the complex, and it is this emergence of self-organising complexity in the universe which physics models in terms of the "laws of physics". In fact in an ontological sense there are no such laws, so these so-called "laws" are merely epistemic constructions used to model a procedure of thought which must first be specified by the observer.

Charles Darwin is widely credited with first elaborating the theory of evolution but he was far too late. The pre-Socratic philosophers had all this figured out 2500 years ago, as did all the major philosophies of both the Hindus and Chinese.

"All things originate from one another and vanish into one another according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time".....Anaximander...."On Nature".

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't think there are as many rock-solid (or eternal) laws as we think there are. Neither is everything random. It's not one or the other. I'm guessing it's organic... moving, flexing, evolving, permeable, cooperating, etc. WE just need to THINK things are solid and stable so that we can establish reference points to build on and identify ourselves with. Yes?

YES.

In a self-causal universe the only law necessary is that all effects must be preceded by causes. This is the only meta-law which drives evolutionary theory and that our universe is an evolving entity is a simple statement of the bloody obvious with 13.8 billion years worth of empirical evidence to support it. Evolving systems evolve according to emergent and embedded hierarchies of causation which drive the entire system from a high entropy state towards a low entropy state, i.e. from the simple to the complex, and it is this emergence of self-organising complexity in the universe which physics models in terms of the "laws of physics"..

This is contrary to reason.
Net entropy is on the increase, as it must.

[Obvious Leo]

This is contrary to reason.
Net entropy is on the increase, as it must.

What you say accords with Newtonian physics but sadly not with the evidence. The universe has been steadily evolving from the simple to the complex ever since the big bang, a blindly obvious fact which the current models of physics totally ignores. What is true for sub-systems of the universe is clearly not true for the total package because not a single shred of evidence exists that our cosmos is destined for the heat death that current theory predicts. In fact the reverse is true. Non-linear dynamic systems continue to evolve increasingly more complex sub-systems within themselves until no more free energy remains to maintain this inexorable trend.

Therefore the interesting question in physics is not what the universe evolved from but rather what it is evolving INTO. The reason why this question is interesting is because it has no answer, even in principle. Evolution doesn't work that way, a point well made by two metaphysical giants of the 20th century.

"Que sera sera".....Doris Day

"Prediction is difficult, particularly of the future"....Yogi Berra

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is contrary to reason.
Net entropy is on the increase, as it must.

What you say accords with Newtonian physics but sadly not with the evidence. The universe has been steadily evolving from the simple to the complex ever since the big bang, a blindly obvious fact which the current models of physics totally ignores.

Is there something wrong with the idea of the heat death of the universe? Do you reject the laws of thermodynamics?

[Obvious Leo]

Is there something wrong with the idea of the heat death of the universe? Do you reject the laws of thermodynamics?

Yes there is something wrong with the idea of the heat death of the universe because all the evidence is showing the reverse to be the case. The second law of thermodynamics certainly applies to sub-systems of the universe but clearly not to the whole. See Onsager's model of reciprocal relations, sometimes known as the fourth law of thermodynamics. Onsager's work shows that the first law of thermodynamics ALWAYS trumps the second, a direct contradiction of the unwarranted extrapolation of a low-entropy singularity from GR and of the notion of the big bang as the "beginning" of time.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Is there something wrong with the idea of the heat death of the universe? Do you reject the laws of thermodynamics?

Yes there is something wrong with the idea of the heat death of the universe because all the evidence is showing the reverse to be the case. The second law of thermodynamics certainly applies to sub-systems of the universe but clearly not to the whole. See Onsager's model of reciprocal relations, sometimes known as the fourth law of thermodynamics. Onsager's work shows that the first law of thermodynamics ALWAYS trumps the second, a direct contradiction of the unwarranted extrapolation of a low-entropy singularity from GR and of the notion of the big bang as the "beginning" of time.

Curious - I did not take you for a creationist.
Odd that the principles of physics cannot apply evenly, and that us poor humans are faced with our energy problems, and all the while your god is continually - what?- re-cycling the heat? = making more energy ?

But seriously we are not in a position to even suggest what is happening to the whole of the universe, since we are limited by our limited view of it. We are forced to assert uniformitarianism. That's really all we have to interpret the universe.

[Obvious Leo]

We are forced to assert uniformitarianism.

Are we forced to assert it or do we merely do so for want of an alternative? I can take your mockery in good spirit, Hobbes, but this is a meaningful question in the philosophy of science. The first law of thermodynamics is often represented as a "law of physics" but in fact it is no such thing. That energy can neither be created nor destroyed is actually a metaphysical statement of first principle. As such it is not further reducible and thus it can neither be proven nor disproven. However if the universe is everything that exists then the first law is axiomatic, but the same need not be said for the second law because the second law is predicated on a universe with a beginning in a low entropy state. Although current big bang theory is not without its flaws there can be little doubt that the "hot" big bang is a high entropy state and not a low one and that for 13.8 billion years this entropic state has been decreasing and not increasing. The fact that you and I are here having this conversation is ample evidence for this.

There can be no question that the second law can be universally applied to all sub-systems of the universe, including you and me, but there is equally no question that in the case of the universe as a whole the first law must trump it. The free energy which is made available when a low-entropy system decays ultimately finds its way into a different sub-system which manifests itself in an even lower entropic state. This is a rather overly technical way to describe the mechanism of evolution but its universality is undeniable on the basis of the evidence. Evolutionary theory is also very solidly grounded from a theoretical point of view under the over-arching theoretical framework of non-liner dynamic systems theory, whereas Newtonian physics is exclusively reductionist. Once again it all boils down to the difference between the map and the territory it's mapping. Mistaking an epistemology for the ontology which underpins it is a grave metaphysical error and modern physics does precisely this when it attributes physical properties to a mathematical co-ordinate system. The hypothesised "heat death" of the cosmos is supported by this epistemology, although unsupported by the evidence, and this failure of the evidence to comply with theory is rather more commonplace in physics than many of the physicists care to acknowledge. Dark matter is another obvious example where "salvaging the theory" is seen as more important than considering a new one.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We are forced to assert uniformitarianism.

Are we forced to assert it or do we merely do so for want of an alternative? I can take your mockery in good spirit, Hobbes, but this is a meaningful question in the philosophy of science. The first law of thermodynamics is often represented as a "law of physics" but in fact it is no such thing. That energy can neither be created nor destroyed is actually a metaphysical statement of first principle. As such it is not further reducible and thus it can neither be proven nor disproven. However if the universe is everything that exists then the first law is axiomatic, but the same need not be said for the second law because the second law is predicated on a universe with a beginning in a low entropy state. Although current big bang theory is not without its flaws there can be little doubt that the "hot" big bang is a high entropy state and not a low one and that for 13.8 billion years this entropic state has been decreasing and not increasing. The fact that you and I are here having this conversation is ample evidence for this.

Like all things called 'laws' they are in fact inductive theories. Theories being taken for granted, until shown deficient. Thus far the axiom; "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is yet to be shown false, except that it has had to be modified;" energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but are interchangeable at the rate of E=mc2. So few scientific theories (all unprovable), have shown themselves to be as robust as this one. In fact most contemporary theories are now in the dust.
As for the BB - there is no precedent for this idea of an event and only the forensic remains of evidence taken to be evidence for its happening.

There can be no question that the second law can be universally applied to all sub-systems of the universe, including you and me, but there is equally no question that in the case of the universe as a whole the first law must trump it.

I don't like the introduction in your thinking of this idea of a sub-system. I thought you might have gleaned that from my bringing up the topic of uniformitarianism. Sundering the universe as a set up sub systems seems to me to be something of a fudge; like Aristotle's sub-lunary and superlunary physical properties. Without strict reasons to de-lineate the boundaries of these sub divisions, I see no reason to adopt such an idea.

The free energy which is made available when a low-entropy system decays ultimately finds its way into a different sub-system which manifests itself in an even lower entropic state. This is a rather overly technical way to describe the mechanism of evolution but its universality is undeniable on the basis of the evidence. Evolutionary theory is also very solidly grounded from a theoretical point of view under the over-arching theoretical framework of non-liner dynamic systems theory, whereas Newtonian physics is exclusively reductionist. Once again it all boils down to the difference between the map and the territory it's mapping. Mistaking an epistemology for the ontology which underpins it is a grave metaphysical error and modern physics does precisely this when it attributes physical properties to a mathematical co-ordinate system. The hypothesised "heat death" of the cosmos is supported by this epistemology, although unsupported by the evidence, and this failure of the evidence to comply with theory is rather more commonplace in physics than many of the physicists care to acknowledge. Dark matter is another obvious example where "salvaging the theory" is seen as more important than considering a new one.

[attofishpi]

...certain aspects of dimensions that make up our reality, the reality we can perceive...are perhaps different constructs within dimensions of a parallel universe. In that, the parallel universe is only parallel, or another universe because its 'coordinates' of dimensions are not perceivable to us here in this reality.

Interesting description! I'm guessing that a "universe" can be a wide range of systems, realms, frequencies -- which may not be comprised of planets and stars (as we identify our universe to be)... but rather is a system or dynamic(?) in itself... while possibly overlapping here or there with many other "universes".

The implications of such vastness overlapping, and being unrealized by us, is incredible to wonder about.

Finally a response where we can both look up and wonder instead of look down and wander! Now all you need to do is consider within that mix an entity, that IS all those dimensions that make up our reality. Hey, i've just introduced you to God as i know it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

[Lacewing]

I'm guessing that a "universe" can be a wide range of systems, realms, frequencies -- which may not be comprised of planets and stars (as we identify our universe to be)... but rather is a system or dynamic(?) in itself... while possibly overlapping here or there with many other "universes".

The implications of such vastness overlapping, and being unrealized by us, is incredible to wonder about.

Finally a response where we can both look up and wonder instead of look down and wander! Now all you need to do is consider within that mix an entity, that IS all those dimensions that make up our reality.

Why does there have to be an "entity"? Isn't such a notion simply a human construct... in order to try to identify with something? Can't a system contain many systems and be continually expanding and evolving without being "an entity"? Can't we accept that we are part of THAT... and THAT is NOT in our particular little singular image at all?

[Obvious Leo]

Hobbes. In my post on thermodynamics I was merely pointing out the self-evident fact that what is true for any given system within the universe is clearly not true for the universe as a whole. In the case of "everything that exists" the arrow of time traces an evolutionary course from the simple to the complex and the only law needed to explain this inexorable trajectory towards a lower entropy state is the meta-law of cause and effect. The cosmos is becoming more complex for the simple reason that it cannot do otherwise.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes. In my post on thermodynamics I was merely pointing out the self-evident fact that what is true for any given system within the universe is clearly not true for the universe as a whole. In the case of "everything that exists" the arrow of time traces an evolutionary course from the simple to the complex and the only law needed to explain this inexorable trajectory towards a lower entropy state is the meta-law of cause and effect. The cosmos is becoming more complex for the simple reason that it cannot do otherwise.

No. Taken as a whole the universe is not on an evolutionary trajectory of increasing complexity. Quite the contrary. You are stuck in some sort of anthropocentric bubble.