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”. here’s my “general case” posted as #comment-219799
++++++++++
It’s actually a lot less ‘hokey’ than it sounds, that one might discover small worlds with their own original “laws of nature”. It not hokey because it’s also not in the least bit uncommon. It might even be said to be the most commonly unrecognized thing in the world.
“universal laws” may often be “local laws”, of the system from which an observer is part of
Unique explanatory models would ALWAYS be are needed where natural systems emerge with their own original interior sets of relationships. That’s the real problem of emergence, and local originality which we observe in all sorts of both expected and unexpected places. What such “local laws of nature” might include or discard relative to what conventional theory says is instructive, and a bit disturbing.
It appears much of what people have come to think of as “universal laws” are not at all, but actually “local laws” of the system which an observer is part of. So it seems it’s our own self-serving questions that lead us to seeing them as universal.
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.
pfh