Is Nature Perfect?

[RArvay]

.
One of the tenets of naturalist science is that the laws of nature are universal. Even if those laws produce different phenomena at different times and places, the tenet is that the underlying law itself (whatever it may be) is constant. Even if there are (and this is in question) many universes, science can make sense only if all the universes are predicated upon a single principle. The notion that there could be two entirely disconnected realms of nature with mutually contradictory laws would bring up the question, what would happen if somehow, those two realms came to overlap or collide?

If nothing else, the principles of logic must (it is assumed) be absolute. If A equals B, then B must equal A, or else there is no logic.

The question then is whether logic is purely a product of the human mind, merely a psychological artifact, or must nature be entirely logical, even if we cannot follow the logic?

Natural law is assumed to be invariable and internally consistent, with never any exception. This leads to the conclusion that all of natural law is unified within a single, overarching framework. In other words, there are not many natural laws, but only one, a single principle from which arises all of existence.

The next question then is this—can such a single, unified law of nature, ever be expressed in any mathematical form? One might envision that the formula for reality would be, one equals one, or more concisely, simply “one.” (Or more abstractly, simply, “equals.”)

If there is but a single, irreducible principle of nature, is it simple or complicated? Is it both? Can something be infinitely simple?

According to some physicists, philosophy has reached its endpoint. In recent years, it has produced nothing new. A few decades ago, the same had been said of physics.

Now, however, we are reaching a point in physics that has been described as a crisis, but which I prefer to think of as a maze of increasing ambiguities. The limit may be in the human brain, or even embedded in the inherent limit of computation itself. If one is forced to label this state of affairs, might physics be transforming itself into something for which we might coin the term, physics-losophy?

As physicists struggle to reconcile their computations with observations (example: the vacuum catastrophe), they produce more theories and fewer relevant observations to support them. Thus we have multi-verse theory, and the fine tuning problem, neither of which have any demonstrable solutions.

Which is why my unofficial science motto is this: until science explains inward human consciousness, it has explained nothing. Indeed, it may have taken a wrong turn down a dead end alley.