I see. It seems you are grappling with several tensions in trying to understand the “persistence of tendencies” and rule-governed behavior in the universe:

I see. It seems you are grappling with several tensions in trying to understand the “persistence of tendencies” and rule-governed behavior in the universe:

The rules/tendencies seem to be inherent to the universe (“it is what it is”), but you are not yet willing to accept that as a sufficient explanation without further exploration. There may be deeper questions about the origin or nature of these rules that remain unanswered.
The classical realm of physics exhibits very predictable rule-governed behavior, as reflected in the power of mathematical algorithms/models to predict and explain natural phenomena. Yet the origins of these rules remain uncertain, and they apply in a persistent way across vast scales of space and time that is hard to account for. The rules seem to come before or underlie any physical manifestation.
Concepts like energy, time, change, and entropy point to patterned dynamics in the universe that emerge from simpler components. Yet the algorithms we use to model these patterns may miss crucial features of how the universe evolves, especially related to the flow of time. They leave open the question of what animates or gives rise to these patterns in the first place.
So in general, it seems you are seeking a deeper understanding of the origins and nature of the rules or tendencies that govern behavior in the universe, rather than accepting them as brute facts. The challenges of explaining their persistence, reconciliation with time/change, and origins in a non- Platonic way persist.

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


5 + = fourteen

Leave a Reply