"Laws of the Universe" is ambiguous between regulative properties and statements about regulative properties. If laws are aspects, tendencies, or dispositional properties of the universe then they are just that, namely physical features. Self-reference and logical circularity can only arise in referential symbol systems that are used to describe or model the universe and its dispositional properties.

That's an interesting question - the best encapsulation of circularity I've ever seen by the way is cited by Colin Powell - When on a tour of rural areas in a combat zone, he comes across an isolated airstrip in the sticks, surrounded by a cluster of houses. Why is there an airstrip here, he asks. 'To defend the houses', replies the local commander (lc). Why are there houses here, Powell goes on. 'To defend the airstrip', answers the lc. 

This being said, even the very concept of circularity can be moot. René Descartes's famous line 'cogito, ergo sum' can legitimately be seen as circular, but nevertheless it works.

There are ways you could analyze this mathematically: one way would be to investigate  whether the wave function of the universe contains itself, which is another way of saying that it is convergent : i.e. Ψ (all) = Ψ (all, Ψ ) etc. ad infinitum. Another way would be to investigate if you can falsify Gödel's openness if you encompass the whole universe in it - and yes, there are ways where it can be made to work. If you delve a bit deeper, you will likely find that you cannot answer your question without drilling down into the nature of infinity and infinities, even in a finite universe.

As for the origin of physical laws, there are many ways this can be looked at - and they do not necessarily imply circularity. Physical laws could be the upshot of evolutionary pressures, or could be rooted far more fundamentally in nature itself (as e.g. Sternglass tried but failed to demonstrate) At this point the bottom line is, we don't know.

That's an interesting question - the best encapsulation of circularity I've ever seen by the way is cited by Colin Powell - When on a tour of rural areas in a combat zone, he comes across an isolated airstrip in the sticks, surrounded by a cluster of houses. Why is there an airstrip here, he asks. 'To defend the houses', replies the local commander (lc). Why are there houses here, Powell goes on. 'To defend the airstrip', answers the lc.

This being said, even the very concept of circularity can be moot. René Descartes's famous line 'cogito, ergo sum' can legitimately be seen as circular, but nevertheless it works.

There are ways you could analyze this mathematically: one way would be to investigate whether the wave function of the universe contains itself, which is another way of saying that it is convergent : i.e. Ψ (all) = Ψ (all, Ψ ) etc. ad infinitum. Another way would be to investigate if you can falsify Gödel's openness if you encompass the whole universe in it - and yes, there are ways where it can be made to work. If you delve a bit deeper, you will likely find that you cannot answer your question without drilling down into the nature of infinity and infinities, even in a finite universe.

As for the origin of physical laws, there are many ways this can be looked at - and they do not necessarily imply circularity. Physical laws could be the upshot of evolutionary pressures, or could be rooted far more fundamentally in nature itself (as e.g. Sternglass tried but failed to demonstrate) At this point the bottom line is, we don't know.

I think the best definition of the Universe would be that it is a collection of natural laws that form mechanisms of order. Going by this definition, I'd argue that the Universe will always seem circular to anyone or anything inside it, while it may escape such circularity for anyone or anything outside of it. Hence, the human answer to your question would most likely result in a 'No' while the divine answer would most likely result in a 'Yes'.

When Descarte stated "I think, therefore I exist" he took an extra invalid logical step. The statement should be "I think, therefore thought exists"

Everything else after that is just speculation and mental gymnastics. If you are using mathematics to form physical laws, then I think you cannot avoid some circularity, at least as long as the mathematics you are using rely on set theory. Does the set of all sets contain itself?

Something I said in the past, which probably Descarte did not, but may also be profound is:  "I think, therefore you might not be"

Sorry for adding this rubbish.

Lawrence, interesting answer, close to the so-called Münchhausen trilemma, (or equivalently Agrippa's trilemma )

It also hinges on whether you deem math and more specifically numbers as having an independent existence, or if you think that numbers are axiom-based (Peano's) which I submit is not the case (that's cutting a very long story short though.)

Bastijan I don't quite follow your reasoning - whether or not some Godhood exists, if It does then It is part and parcel of , and belongs to, the universe (maybe the German word for the universe, 'All' being more appropriate here, as it describes what it is : everything - or the Dutch one "Heelal" = whole all, rather than the more abstract English word)

There exists an alternative view: We shall never be able to know the kind of infinities that Uinverse (::set of Local Universes) obay. We are only investigate like ants what our senses (plus telescopes) can observe and build a 'structure' that we call it 'science'. The concept of a Physical Law is general: You can reach it by the Math-way (the possibilities of a realization for all Local Universes) or by the Physics-way (the exact reralization of our local universe-not the potential, but the existed reality).

Chris I think my reasoning comes down to the same question that Lawrence posed before: Does the set of all sets contain itself? I guess we have to clarify how we define the term 'Universe'. If you define it going by the German 'All' (meaning all and everything) then we will have to include all possible tangible as well as intangible things. However, does this 'All' also include the idea of itself, meaning the idea of an 'All' itself? If so, does it also include the idea of something going beyond the 'All'? If not, it obviously would not include every possible idea/intangible thing therefore it would not be truly all-encompassing. If it does, then it would define itself as incomplete, rendering the definition of 'All' meaningless. 

Self reference and circularity exist in our universe because we think of them, we write about them, and we are a part of the universe. So, self reference and circularity are also a property (attribute) of the universe - exactly as stars, radiation, planets, life, poetry. Natural Laws are also properties of the Universe. I guess that natural laws are only local properties of the universe, and that they look differently somewhere far away in the universe. Exactly like life and logical circularity. Ok, just some conclusions before get confused:

1. Natural Laws are properties of the universe, so they do not come from outside it.

2. They might have a local character. Every neihborhood in the universe has some properties like natural laws, but they might be different from place to place.

3. Special features of the universe, like life, encoded Information, reason, logical circularity, self-reference, are also local attributes of the universe. They are governed by natural laws.

4. In particular formulated mathematics and partial proofs of soundness for different natural laws are local features of the universe - and appeared sometimes on basis of rational life able to encode Information.

I don't see any contradiction here. We produced all those things in the universe, as part of the universe, and based on our experience with the local universe. Natural laws coming from outside the universe are a contradiction because the universe means """all""" and there is not outside of it. They are properties of something already existent.

By the universe we either mean everything we can describe and talk about using language of various kinds (A) or we mean something else that includes things we can't express with language(B).

If we accept the former case (A) of universe to be the universe - i.e. the totality of existence. Then we are making the big leap of "faith" and asserting that nothing can exist that can't be described. This is dangerous ground because there would have to be a mechanism to ensure our eventual omniscience and the universe's simplicity. Any circularity would be circularity in the universe. We would have to call in the priests to sort it out.

If we accept the latter case (B) then all frameworks of language and logic are just games we play within an larger universe. In this case it is perfectly reasonably to have circularities in the language/logic because they are weaknesses of the language not the universe. There will be other languages or maps to the terrain of the universe which don't have circularities at that point but none of them complete. Unfortunately we still need to get the priests (or maybe psychologists) in because we then have to live with an unknowable universe containing "mystery" and the like.

Take your pick but don't confuse the map with the terrain. (c.f. Alfred Korzybski)

Thank you Stefan.  Would you say that your response goes anyway toward attempting an answer?

Hi Stefan.

I think you just defined "The Hard Problem" of how something that is transcendent interacts with something that is immanent. i.e. How can I effect the world by making changes based on my knowledge of the laws of physics?

My personal thought is that it is all rubbish but then notion of "me" and "my thought" are  all separate some how (transcendent) from the mechanism that is pressing the keys on this keyboard. Perhaps it is my soul and the grace of God enabling it all ;)

Best,

Roger

Hi Stefan,

I think you would call me an instrumentalist (which I am happy about - you can call me what you like).

I am also rather bemused that I can use, in my everyday existence, things that don't exist in reality.

Both "frog", "bucket" and "in" are transcendent constructs just like gravity.

I can only show you a frog in a bucket if you know what a frog is (the whole science of biology works to define this), what a bucket is and what it means for one to be in the other. In reality there is no frog or bucket because these don't exist they are just instruments of mind.

Can you give me an example of something that does have reality?What fun!Roger

But however you categorise the philosophical standpoint of of any Human or Being, or even, piece of wood, does  that address my original question?

Probably all models will have self reference and be incomplete (c.f. Gödel). Whether the universe has self reference depends on how it relates to our models of it - hence the way the discussion went.

Thank you sincerely Stefan.  I'll try.

My purpose in asking this question is to suggest that our Universe is a closed system that cannot ingress information from elsewhere.  And so there are no effects that can be caused from outside.  This is a problem, for example, if we want an explanation for what caused the Universe to come into existence, or to start up.

So I am suggesting to physicists that the logic of self-reference must be part of physical theory. The kind of answer I would hope for is one which addresses physics from a practical viewpoint, in making progress toward advancing physical theory.

Regards and thanks.

It's truly a hard problem, we will need further research, evidence or a theory of everything (TOE), which will explain the micro & the macro, the atomic & the cosmic in one single framework (hopefully, if there is one), then we can answer the questions of transcendence & immanence, till then we can speculate & cogitate on the possibilities, cheers

Hegel concludes in his Logic something like this: “all nature is a huge syllogism”.

In my perspective it’s impossible to think the universe with the human being out of the system as Descartes did on his “Meditations”.

If there are laws in the nature (and there are), the existence of humans with knowledge skills, form part of the mereological system under the nature rules. And all of our thoughts, on an ontological, historical and practical sense, form part of the universe too. The existence of species alive, including humans, are ruled by laws, and their ethology too. In this sense we must remember and consider that “there are no contingence without program”. “There are no chaos without rules”.

But what is real?: “Manifesto is anything that gives us motives to speak”; reality is the set (or ensamble) of the manifesto.

One of the skills and function of the humans in the universe manifested is the ability to formalize those rules (of nature) observing nature on nature. Those laws, when they are not on their “formalized state”, acts like “ruling principles of the happening on the happening”; when they are on their “formalized state” –by example on equations or theories synthesized by humans–, by law of nature, brings to humans to the ability to take freedom regarding those happenings, etc. All is on the system. It’s easy to see that this universe is a self-knowing universe, irrespective of whether (human) beings model it or not.

On the other side, it’s necessary to have in mind that a logical system, never can include a new not declared variable on the system of axioms by itself (Frege).

To the question “Where do the Physical Laws come from?” I think it could be very useful for making some experiments (post Big Bang), to take one of those machines called “brain-machine interphase”. You can buy one (at good price) on the toys store (no joke); the artifact is named “the force trainer” from George Lucas. Using that machine based on electro-encephalography, the idea is to search and see by yourself from where arises the order (and the physical force) of the transferred physical movement to the ball on that machine. If you are attentive, you will have new data for thinking the insertion of the mind process in the physical mereological system. Don’t forget that if the mind exists in humans, mind exists in the universe (at least on the planet earth), id est, like oxygen, ammonia or helium or other components within nature.

About Gödel’s theorem it’s important to note that we assume its validity only if the Principia Mathematica system is self-consistent, like Gödel itself wrhite.

Some important discussions about the ontological status of physics laws in nature: the Hamiltonian of Shrödinger, and the Aurea Proportion that have influences (like a principle) both in human cognitivity and in forms of plants and animals. The electron’s charge is an important number to discuss. Mr. Faulkner your invitation to accept that Physical Laws are part of The Universe, as opposed to standing outside is very important.

Best regards,

Hugo C. Boero

I think that everything is just a logical consequence of our own existence. Even our existence is a logical consequence of our non-existence and hence we may never escape logical circularity for as long as we exist.

Wow. We are getting very far off subject. "our existence is a logical consequence of our non-existence" ??? Um, what can I say? If you were going for form is emptiness and emptiness is form then that's way off the mark, and even if it were on the mark it really is not germane to the question posed.

"Some important discussions about the ontological status of physics laws in nature: the Hamiltonian of Shrödinger, and the Aurea Proportion that have influences (like a principle) both in human cognitivity and in forms of plants and animals. The electron’s charge is an important number to discuss."

What does this mean? The ontological status of physics is influencing the epistemology? So the Hamiltonian and the Golden ratio are ontological yet they have an influence on human cognition? That is circular thinking par none. But wait! The electron's charge is an important number to discuss! Ok then let's discuss it. Is it ontological or empirical? From the utter nonsense I read they seem to be used identically. Steve, I'm sorry your very serious and interesting mathematical question seems to have a tendency to attract armchair philosophers who seem to think they have something to add to a mathematical, computational, and empirically based question by misinterpreting Hegel! I must at least thank you, Hugo, for one of the most amusing things I have read in a while. It's a keeper.

I salute Mr. Faulkner and you Lawrence:

First, I must declare that my English is not so good, my principal language is the Spanish, I do recognize to have committed then a mistake on my English expression. I hope be more clear now.

Second, we must take in account that the invitation to the discussion, is about of the status of Physical Laws in nature: if they are part of the Universe or not. Why must Mr Faulkner do this question? I understand then, that he can identify philosophic points of view that postulates that the Physical Laws stands outside the universe. 

On what sense we must take the discussion? I see three ways: 1) Discuss about those laws acting in nature. 2) Discuss about those laws reflected in our theories as formalized laws. 3) Discuss about those laws acting in nature, and, acting at the same time, on an empirical way, with our cognitivity and understanding (on the origin of theories and formalization of those laws). Then let’s do the question again for the three cases: Those laws, the Physical Laws, are part of the Universe or not?

In the first case, the discussion in fact is an ontological discussion (or at least a subject for an ontological discussion) about the status of existence of those laws in the universe. Here we are not speaking about the “sense of the existence” (of course), nor epistemology (by the moment), we are only speaking about the quality of being part (those laws) of the existent or not.

If you can accept that the manifesto universe is the existent object for sciences, or the fundamental point of departure for having somewhat for knowing at least in Physics, you must agree that if those laws are recognized or also tested on contact with the existent on the point of departure of what science can know as science, under an ontological understanding, they form part of the being of the universe, or part of that which science seeks to understand and know: the existing universe. Because those laws are only cognoscibles on it, by the other hand, we must begin to speak about epistemology, and after –like a consequence– of the quality of our theories in regard to the existent (etc.).

For my personal point of view (very conservative, yes, and materialist too, in sciences), empirical knowledge is referred to something that has a being, id est, that historically exists: an observable directly or by indicators. I propose that, as a definition for continuing the discussion without misunderstandings.

On the second case. Laws of nature reflected in our theories as a “formalized laws”, form part of the universe or not? The question is not epistemologic. It’s ontological too. And it reflects at the same time the ancient problem if culture and nature are separated thinks or not. In sociology –we must see– the systems of social knowledge (including science) form part of the existent. We can reconstruct and know them as “logical systems”, if you want. But we prefer to speak about “knowledge systems” in the first step. Human actions (aleatory variable) have an stochastic relationship with social knowledge (constant and deterministic variable by stationary periods of time). And, by example, following this, if we speak about “climate change” we can understand, that the relationship between the pair “knowledge-actions” could have environmental impacts.

If social knowledge (including science) doesn’t exists on nature where it exists then?

Now, the ontological status of scientific theories where laws of nature are formalized, viewed from sociology, corresponds to the status of “empirical knowledge”. In this case it’s necessary to consider that those theories results from epistemologic contrasting processes between theory and practice, and that the term “empirical” is only applicable if we have someone that have skills for knowing something existent. Sociology of knowledge and epistemology can’t be confused. Taking on account of this, we can go to the third case.

Third case. The laws acting in nature, and, acting at the same time, on an empirical way, or in contact with human cognitivity, form part of the universe on the process of knowing them too. But their influence in the formalization process is different here, because the result of a formalized state of them, is a result of the will of human being applied to achieve a model or a mental simile of their principles, in reference to them, using human language resources, and epistemology. That´s why we call "science" to this type of knowledge. There is an splicing between those knowledges and the laws designated by them under the mediation of those laws as existents. After that, if we have the correct theory we can interact again with those laws and produce also technologic results with different aims.

Third, respectfully, Lawrence. I accept that it's necessary to make distinctions with my examples of interesting and still under discussion laws of nature considered under the question: they form part of the Universe or not? I make note that those are simply interesting cases for the reflexion.

When I speak about the Aurea proportion or Golden ratio, it is very interesting to see how this rule (and constant number) appears manifested on many thinks on nature, but it appears as a rule acting on the human cognitivity (like an a priori) too, especially in arts expressions. I refer you for example that book: HEMENWAY, Priya; Divine proportion. Phi in Art, Nature and Science; Springwood; Switzerland; 2008. You can look more bibliography by yourself. The interest of that number phi and the associated equation as a possible law ruling thinks in the universe consists on the fact that it have influence on the whole system including humans.

It was not my intention to confuse concepts (my English, sorry): I'm not telling that the hamiltonian of Shrödinger (psi) influences on human cognition like the Aurea proportion do (I never told that). I go on other path. Take a look on the article of Lalöe “La mécanique quantique” on the book: DELIGEORGES, Stéphane; Le monde quantique; Éditions du Seuil; Paris; 1985. There Lalöe points on the fact that on the discussions of authorities “the state vector is truly a mathematical object whose interpretation has no equivalent, even approximately, in the rest of the physics” (Lalöe 1985: 136). That’s because: “From a purely wave view, the wave function is as real as an acoustic vibration, for example. At the other extreme, psi it could be considered as a description, not of the system itself, but only the data that we have about it." (...) “Psi is in an intermediate position between these two extremes, which is already a delicate notion” (Ibid.), he wrote. I think that discussion is still open and that Mr. Faulkner can take account of that for his analysis. A book where the Shrödringer’s equation is described at detail, and for better understanding that discussion is: CRUZ-GARRITZ, D., CHAMIZO J.A. and GARRITZ A.; Estructura atómica: un enfoque químico; Addison-Wesley Iberoamericana; Delaware; 1991.

I make note that on Deligeorges’ s book you can find many times, the words ”ontological” on regard the discussions happened between the founders of the quantum theory. This is discussing about the ontological basis of science; the positivist principle Esse est percipi, and the philosophical position of Einstein about it.

The electron’s charge is an important number to discuss. –“Ok then let's discuss it. Is it ontological or empirical?”

The charge number of electron it's an empirical discovery (measured). As measured, it can be used on theoretical works too. But it's a constant property in nature at the same time. It objectively exist independently of any observation or measurement.

You must tell if the numbers associated to precise measurements can reflect reality, or if they are arbitrary. If they are not arbitrary, disposed under the form of numerical signs or symbols used on the theoretical corpus, they can reflect reality for our minds too.

Ontology does not refer to "The averment of being" (which could lead to confusions with epistemology, and even logic); rather it refers to the "being qua being" and discusses and search the manifest and essential qualities of it as the existent. Following that, science begins to search laws of nature. That's why the science had searched the number/charge of the electron, with epistemological (scientific criticism) looking, to find it, but assimilating its existence as given beforehand. Point of departure to generate empirical theories that reflect those qualities to mind –by example of the electron as an accident of the existent–, and achieve also better possibilities for the theoretical work (gedankenconcretum).

Now, following again the invitation of Mr. Faulkner to think, the discussion must be about the ontological status of the (empirical) known number/charge of the electron understood as a law of nature: as a law recognized and formalized by science it form part of the universe or not?

I can say again that the laws acting in nature, and, acting at the same time, on an empirical way, or in contact with human cognitivity, form part of the universe on the process of knowing them too; when they are known, those laws (caeteris paribus) still acts as principles of the existent. The number/charge of the electron it's an example of that.

Four: Having wrote for my own part: “Hegel concludes in his Logic something like this: “all nature is a huge syllogism”.”

Hegel’s Logic as an ineluctable source that must be revised, when the question proposed by Mr Faulkner is “can the Universe scape self-reference or logical circularity?”

It’s a fact that Hegel, after exposing “The syllogism of necessity” take a beginning on Monadology of Leibnitz, for explaining the dialectic of the Idea and its moments (touring, the thee terms of the syllogism on a unique process) on its return and identity with itself: beginning on the universal, passing by particularities, and returning to the universal, and observing that logic from the Monad of monads, and from particular monads too.

You can have a copy of that thinking on, http://www.hegel.net/en/pdf/Hegel-Enc-1.pdf

From: Enciclopedia de las ciencias filosóficas, Segunda Parte: Filosofía de la naturaleza, Juan Pablos Editor; México; 1974. We have that :

“-251- La naturaleza es en sí un todo viviente y el movimiento a través de la serie de grados consiste, más precisamente, en el ponerse la idea como lo que ella es en sí, o lo que es lo mismo: la idea, de su inmediatividad y exterioridad, que es la muerte, vuelve a sí para ser primeramente lo vivo, y luego supera también esta determinación, en la cual es solamente vida y se produce en la existencia del espíritu, que es la verdad y el objeto final de la Naturaleza, y es la verdadera realidad de la idea” (Hegel 1974: 168).

A translation (with a little changes) of that quote can be retrieved on the web page:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature.htm#N195:

“-195- Nature is, in itself a living whole. The movement of its idea through its sequence of stages is more precisely this: the idea posits itself as that which it is in itself; or, what is the same thing, it goes into itself out of that immediacy and externality which is death in order to go into itself; yet further, it suspends this determinacy of the idea, in which it is only life, and becomes spirit, which is its truth”.

On the Spanish translation that I have, the sentence instead must ends like this:

“… ; and then it overcome this determinacy, in which it is only life and occurs in the existence of spirit, which is the truth and the final object of Nature, and is the true reality of the idea”.

Stefan,  I think your statement, which is not a question at all, is intimidating.

Dear Steve, 

Your formulation of the questions contains implicitly that there is an evidence for self reference in nature so that we should think how or whether it can be avoided. 

However you didn't gave any example supporting your implicit assumption.  

Well, it seems that the Universe should simply be a sort of (nontrivial) perpetuum mobile (i.e., with trivial solution being unstable).

The original question was: ""Irrespective of whether (human) beings model it, can the Universe escape self-reference or logical circularity?""

I repeat the question just to put an accent on the idea of modelization. In fact, if some beings, which are a part of the universe, model the universe (of course, using a part of it) - this situation cannot avoid self reference and logical circularities, if this modelization really has to be sound and correct. The modelization of the universe must contain modelizations of those beings making a modelization of (the modelization of) the universe, and this rank 2 modelization must contain (rank 2) modelizations of those beings modelling the (rank 2 modelization of) the universe, and so on. 

The problem of avoiding self references and circularities is to allow less exact modelizations, which still contain the phenomena we are interested about. Of course the model of the universe containing only one electron was to poor to be good, but it was a progress in order to understand thermodynamics. It is interesting if some modelization which does not contain the phenomenon usually called "life" is still good enough. This depends on the purpose (goal) of the modelization. The purpose has been defined as "to understand if physical laws are a part of the universe itself". What I cannot answer in this moment is how much the physical laws depend of the particularities (medium, anatomy, etc) of the beings that formulated them. I understood that we speak about laws that are "universal" - and characterize the universe as properties of the universe. The point is that what we know about these laws is very approximative, and very human. They are of course a part of the universe, and they are coming from inside (like us, too) but they are not the real laws. This fact makes this kind of research very difficult for us.

I think in the end, this question eventually gets to the question of realism. Does there exist a Universe (or reality whichever you prefer) which is independent of our observations of it? A very good question which has been around in one form or another for a very long time. I expect it will still be around for longer than I can imagine.

Thank you Mihai and Lawrence. You might might be interested to know that recently I considered translation of a wave packet.  In other words, a wave packet "seen" from the point of view of two arbitrarily displaced reference systems. And for this I realised these reference frames cannot represent the viewpoint of observers. This is because observation of a 'prepared' wavepacket would constitute a measurement. I think this is an interesting point because so much physics is based on transformations between observers.

Addenda:    Maybe I should have added the reference. 

Article Unitarity in the Canonical Commutation Relation does not der...

Dear Steve Faukner,

I am ready to express my opinion as applied to your question “Where do the Physical Laws come from?” I think and we take in our PFO-CFO Theory that the Conservation Laws are eternal in their action in eternal and endless Space, which is no more and no less than mass/energy of a low potential. I also think that the Universe is created (by Nature or G-d, as you like) within Space from this mass/energy, the mass/energy-to-matter transformation proceeds in stars and in their vicinities as is writen in detail at my RG pages and in answer to one of the questions at the RG site by the address https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einsteins_relativity_what_is_eternal_questionable_and_erroneous_in_the_starting_points_of_the_theory_and_in_the_subsequent_conclusions_from_it 

Fascinating question; I understand your concern. You've provided two options: (1) Laws of Nature are part of the Universe; (2) Laws of Nature are not part of the Universe. Assuming the latter, there's an open question as to provenance.

The first option is more defensible than the second, I think. But there's threat of equivocation at least on the term 'part of' in (1). To see what I have in mind, first assume 'part of' means what it typically means in speech, e.g. John's arm is part of John. That requires there be some entity, Laws of Nature, that exist the way, say, tables and electrons exist, which is part of the Universe. Besides simply sounding false, this makes it difficult to understand Laws of Nature as governing the Universe, since that implies they govern themselves. That's not the sort of 'governance' typically meant by those discovering Laws of Nature, as far as I understand. This also sounds similar to the logical circularity worry you have.

So, let's consider another option, where 'part of' means something akin to 'is a discoverable pattern', e.g. John's drinking water daily is a part of (in this sense) John's life. Don't let the example trip you up. It may be that each instance of John drinking water on a given day is part of (in the previous sense) John's life, but what I'm talking about here is the pattern of drinking, and that's not obviously a part of (in the sense used here) John's life. If this is our reading, then (1) means the Laws of Nature are discoverable patterns in the Universe. That doesn't entail they are literally part of it, nor does it entail they govern themselves. This is because strictly speaking, they aren't things in the Universe, any more than a pattern of John waving at his friends in public is a part of John's life, strictly speaking. That said, this solution has a bullet to bite. Laws of Nature understood in this way still don't govern in the commonsense use of the term 'govern.' So the plausibility of this answer may depend on how you feel about governance.

Thank you for your interest John. By govern, I mean control or dictate, in a reductionist sense. I understand the question I pose is actually an ancient one. And because self-reference tends to lead no where for most people, the question is mostly avoided by physicists. Indeed my view of physicists is that they don't question "where are the Laws of Physics?", because their general view is that they are in textbooks. But if you meet the question head on and aasume there is self-reference, you begin to find answers about quantum indeterminacy, for example.

Steve.

>Where do the Physical Laws come from?

I agree that this is a fundamental and useful question to ask. It is also of course quite a general one. Therefore I believe it is valuable to narrow the scope somewhat and ask a slightly weaker question instead, namely, "Where do Hamiltonians come from?" (Hamiltonians, of course, are used to derive equations for describing physical laws or equations of state for particular systems / constructions)

In terms of an answer to the latter question, Roy Frieden wrote a book on this a while back ("Physics from Fisher Information", 1998), positing that one can derive hamiltonians based on starting with a model of a system, computing a Fisher information for same, and then applying the Cramer-Rao inequality to derive dynamics, i.e. setting the first variation to zero, and then obtaining a PDE from the integrand.

I've written a number of papers over the years based on this general intuition. In particular, I believe that Frieden's ideas (which, in turn, build on ideas due to Wheeler (namely, "it from bit")) are a moderately good point of departure for investigation and meditation upon the epistemological questions you raise.

“Irrespective of whether (human) beings model it, can the Universe escape self-reference or logical circularity?”

- to answer on this question it is necessary before to understand – what is “Universe”?, which really consists of two, fundamentally different, systems “Matter” and “Consciousness”.

However both these utmost fundamental phenomena/notions are principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and science, where, correspondingly, two main doctrines a few thousands of years quite legitimately – in spite of are opposite - co-exist, basing on fundamentally [in framework of the mainstream] non-provable and non-disprovable initial dogmas

- “there exist nothing, besides eternal and eternally moving Matter, and Consciousness is highest degree of Matter’s development” – in Materialism,

- “there exist nothing, besides eternal and eternally developing Consciousness, and dull Matter is a lowest emanation of Consciousness”.

Both doctrines are quite “scientific” in the mainstream, in spite of both fundamentally cannot answer on, for example, at least two quite natural questions – from where and how these Matter and Consciousness appeared, and for what reason they are eternal?

Correspondingly the same is in the sciences, including in physics and, say, neuroscience.

The scientific definitions of Matter and Consciousness are possible, and are done, only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904,

- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set;

- which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively really, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists indeed eternally, principally having no Beginning and no End.

Matter, and any consciousness, are so absolutely fundamentally nothing else than some informational systems – elements of the Set, however, in spite of both are made from the one stuff “Information”, that are fundamentally different systems, since are based on principally different sets of basic laws/links/constants.

And, besides, this difference is also in that

- whereas Matter is the closed in the Set logical system, which is based on simple binary reversive logics, where the informational exchange between informational patterns/systems [particles, fields, stars, etc.] happens/proceeds as exchange by exclusively true information,

- any Consciousness is principally open in the Set system, which is able to elaborate in principle any information obtained from any element of the Set, including false and uncertain.

Thus any consciousness fundamentally, logically, cannot “emerge” from any material structure, but is able to design – and to make, if has for that some portion of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Energy” - any other informational system, either other consciousness or some “Matter”.

Correspondingly the unique – in contrast to any mainstream philosophical or official physics “hypotheses”, “theories”, etc. – hypothesis how this Matter appeared in the Set is the hypothesis in framework of the SS&VT informational physical model – Matter was created by a Consciousness, which at that, of course, established the basic set of its fundamental laws/links/constants;

-and so, including, there is no necessity to consider such problem as “can the Universe escape self-reference or logical circularity?”

More see the section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2,

- though, of course, to understand what is in this section is necessary to read and to understand what is written in whole paper.

Cheers

From that

“…I agree that a law which derives from the possibilities only, is not a law at all. It's a law without law ….”

- [and from other posts after the last SS post] it seems that it is necessary to repeat here a few points that are important in this case:

(i) – any/every really new information about the external to humans consciousness, including when she works in the highest mode of operation “mind mode”, i.e. at abstract thinking, the consciousness principally obtains only experimentally, and so every inference that the consciousness makes from such information principally is non-provable,

- i.e. every “law” that the consciousness derives from obtained information, say, observing repeating results of some interactions, including material objects interactions, always remains be some “possible law”. Though it is sufficient to obtain some results that differs from “discovered” law prediction to conclude that this possible law really is the impossible law.

(ii) – so all/every discovered laws/links/constants in Matter, and the theories that are based on these laws/links/constants, are principally only “possible theories”, whereas humans really can only believe that the theories are really adequate to the reality;

- and, at that, at development of the theories humans’ consciousness, since has limited abilities at the obtaining, and analysis of the obtained, experimental information, makes that always principally limitedly, and so some theories really are some illusions that are based on erroneous interpretation of experimental data . Classical example in this case – the relativity theories.

Including such approaches as

“…mathematical approach of the super string theory .. belief by the majority of theoretical physicists that space itself is curved … geometrical bottom-up approaches [that] are intended to “translate” spacetime into discrete space itself to get a realistic model of quantum gravity…. that the basic properties of the universe – the structure of space itself – are determined by mathematical relations. That’s not a new idea. The ancient Greek philosophers already proposed the concept and it was Max Tegmark who recently (2008) published a paper about the subject (“The mathematical universe”)…”, etc.

- are, again, noting else than some “possible laws”, which follow again only from the experimental fact that mathematics is extremely effective tool at describing of material objects and relations between the objects; what indeed was known yet to ancient Geeks, and what is added in numerous now “mathematical theories of universe” really don’t add something new to what Greeks knew.

Moreover, all these mathematical “bottom-up approaches” are simply fundamentally wrong, if are applied as some “primary principles”.

Again, mathematics and physics are principally different sciences – there don’t exist mathematical objects “particle”, “fundamental Nature force”, “energy”, “charge”, etc., etc., etc. Seems unique exclusion is the phenomenon/notion “space”, which is common in mathematics and physics [that is absolutely fundamental because “Space” is an element of the “Logos” set, see the paper linked below], but its applications in mathematics and physics are principally different again.

That above is enhanced by a next fundamental fact – both fundamental systems in this case – the consciousness, which studies, and Matter, which is studied in physics, are in the mainstream philosophy and science, including physics, principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational phenomena, and so, say, though all normal physicists understand that mathematics is only the tool, and that “particle”, “fundamental Nature force”, etc. above, aren’t mathematical objects, however they cannot answer on the question – so what, nonetheless, these physical objects are?, etc.

Again, from the above there exists only one exclusion – the law that absolutely fundamentally there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, whereas any information absolutely fundamentally cannot be non-existent,

- and this law, though follows, of course, from experiments, is rigorously proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, the link see the last SS post above.

From what follows, including, that Matter absolutely for sure is nothing else than some informational system, where particles, filed, etc., absolutely for sure are some informational patterns/systems as well.

However these informational patterns/systems aren’t some mathematical objects, and so, say, the fact that Matter’s space is 3D space by no means follows from mathematics, where infinite “number” of spaces is possible, but mathematics has principally no any hints that 3D space is a system “Matter”’s space, since, again, there is no mathematical object “Matter”.

And only since from experiments it is known that Matter’s space is 3D, that allowed to Carl Friedrich Freiherr von Weizsäcker to put forward outstanding, and indeed extremely fundamental, Ur-hypothesis, where he showed that for some system to be based on binary elements it is necessary and sufficient to exist in a 3D space, and so Matter utmost fundamentally is based on such elements. To underline the fundamentality of these elements he called the elements “Urs”, which are fundamental alternatives in old German mythology, which are in base of World, instead of to write “es von bit”.

Next development of the von Weizsäcker’s hypothesis resulted in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s the informational physical model, for first reading it is useful to read

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445 [details in the SS&VT papers that are referenced in this one],

- where more 30 indeed fundamental physical problems are either solved or clarified on the level, when these, earlier transcendent, physical problems have became to be rational physical problems; etc.

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers

"Laws of the Universe" is ambiguous between regulative properties and statements about regulative properties. If laws are aspects, tendencies, or dispositional properties of the universe then they are just that, namely physical features. Self-reference and logical circularity can only arise in referential symbol systems that are used to describe or model the universe and its dispositional properties.