Responding to a somewhat ‘edgy’ physics blog post, How to build a Multiverse, about the “creation of adjacent spaces with their own laws of physics”. The “general case” posted as #comment-219799
++++++++++
It’s actually less ‘hokey’ than it sounds. Discovering small worlds with their own original “laws of nature” is not in the least bit uncommon. It might even be the most commonly unrecognized thing in the world.
Unique explanatory models are needed where natural systems emerge with their own original interior sets of relationships. What such “local laws of nature” might include or discard relative to what conventional theory says is universal is instructive, and a bit disturbing. It appears part of what people have come to think of as universal laws are not at all, but just what our own self-serving questions led us to, from what’s naturally observable from an outside perspective.
A large gap in our information, then, results from our assumed question, asking how to use the information visible to observers to explain and represent everything. It doesn’t. Observers look at all things from the outside, and so gather very very little information on the organization inside anything with internal organization…! That our information is naturally “full of holes” that way and leaves loads of issues open to question makes our assumption that information can explain everything inherently flawed. That assumption makes our questions naturally biased toward explaining what is not observable with what is observable, a form of magical thinking.
People have been so affected by it we mostly don’t even acknowledge the existence of the interior designs of local naturally occurring systems. Unique local modes of explanation are often needed, but our habit has been to substitute error factors in equations to represent interior behaviors as controlled by an outside environment.
Anyone can see there must be SOMETHING unique inside individually animated systems, for example, and that it’s quite inexplicable from an outside view. Most people have not hit upon what productive line of questioning would let them begin to explore it.
I speak as if it is possible to study them, suggesting the first odd step is to acknowledge the natural barrier to studying them. Just acknowledging that locally organized and animated systems seem to have inexplicable interior designs is the “big leap”. My hook after that is to identify emerging continuities in the data of change, and taking that as evidence of emerging local systems. Then start by admiring what is uncontrolled as the key to learning how to adapt and adopt it’s properties.
The main thing is just acknowledging the strong and clear evidence of just how much of what’s happening, and the real systems of nature, must be naturally hidden from view.