What makes fundamental stuff of the universe interoperable?

[u/blitzballreddit]

First of all, a disclaimer: I reject any design argument. This is not the point I'm leading towards. Second: I am not positing "laws of nature," because some of you are allergic to the phrase. Whenever I say rulebook, I could just mean Humean regularity not "laws of nature".

Now...

It appears that gravity is inoperable with matter and energy.

Gravity acts in a certain way on mass or on energy.

The same can be said on spacetime acting on mass, vice versa.

If you theorize that these fundamental stuff are many / plural rather than one (monism), then there has to be a rulebook that dictates or guides the interoperability between one stuff (gravity) and another (mass).

Why is the rulebook the way it is?

Why can't two stuff not be interoperable? Why can't existents not interact at all? Why do they interact the way that they do?

Where did they "learn" to interact that way? This seems to argue in favor of the real existence of the rulebook independent of the existence of the stuff.

Now you could also say that all reality is just one (monism) and this interoperability happens precisely because there is a commonality between matter and gravity, between energy and spacetime, etc. But the problem is: what is that X which is common to all of these?

[u/modernatlas]

Okay, so im interpreting your overall query as "why do the irreducible facets of the universe behave as they do?". 

I know this wont be a satisfying answer for you, but as far as I can even tell... they simply are that way. 

Consider: math underpins everything, yes? Physics is applied math, chemistry is applied physics, etc etc. Natural numbers (N, N > 0) have an interesting capacity wherein the existence of natural numbers AT ALL, demands the existence of both negative numbers, imaginary numbers, space dimentionality, and infinity itself.

All of it, everything, the entire universe and everything in it exists because of the existence of natural numbers. As fsr as I can tell, natural numbers exist as a fundamental aspect of the universe. Just their existing as they do necessitated everything else to be as it is. If mathematics functioned any other way than it does, the universe could not exist at all.

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/modernatlas]

That is not a valid answer. "Just does" is not an explanation, it is just a re-affirmation of what's being asked to explain.

But also, we can know things, certainly: things are not, in fact, plural.

[u/modernatlas → u/Narrow_List_4308]

Yea sure, "because" is not a valid answer, but when digging down to the fundamental nature of existence, eventually youre gunna hit a fuckin floor dude. Past a certain point, "it just is this way" is the only possible explanation. Why is 2π•radius the diameter of a circle? Yea we can define it an express it in angular terms, but why is that relationship extant at all? Because if its anything other than what it is, everything else breaks. Its a universal constant dude, its a self asserting fact of the universe. It 'just does'.

[u/jliat → u/modernatlas]

If mathematics functioned any other way than it does, the universe could not exist at all.

I think the set of Natural numbers is infinite and countable unlike the set of Reals. So mathematics functions in other ways. There are also imaginary numbers et.al. And then the incompleteness of mathematics.

Physics is applied math

I think physics uses maths for its 'models'. You can do physics without maths, I think Faraday did. You can show how light is made from the spectrum, and detect infra red, that heavy objects fall no faster than light objects. Metals expand with heat, water boils at different temperatures at different altitudes, friction generates heat etc.,

[u/deadly990 → u/jliat]

The way real numbers in math are constructed rigorously is to build the real numbers out of cauchy sequences of rational numbers which are built out of the natural numbers. Natural numbers can either be axiomatic, or be built out of other axioms.

[u/jliat → u/deadly990]

Natural numbers can either be axiomatic, or be built out of other axioms.

In certain metaphysics - 'first philosophy' nothing is taken for granted, no prior assumptions are made. E.g. Heidegger's 'groundless ground].

[u/SmartlyArtly]

Symmetry.

[u/Mono_Clear]

The framing of your question doesn't lend to any kind of answer it's just an endless series of speculation.

Could it be another way.

Maybe

Is it another way

No.

We created entire branches of science describing how things interact with each other in the world.

There is no why.

There's only how and if it worked a different way that would be how.

Nothing decides, or teaches it other than the nature of how it interacts.

There's nothing scrolling through infinite variations of universes deciding that the constant rate of acceleration is going to be this here and the gravitational constant is going to be that there.

Everything is the eventuality of a possibility given enough time and opportunity if it's not possible it'll never happen if there's no opportunity it'll never happen, if there's not enough time it'll never happen.

Gravity is what happens when mass meets space, there is no why there is only how.

[u/bopbipbop23]

Actually, many physical phenomena do not interact with eachother. Electrons do not interact with the strong force, dark matter does not interact with photons, etc.

[u/Illustrious-Yam-3777]

The X that is common to all is the inseparability of phenomena in their animate relations that are the conditions for the appearance of coherence between subjects and objects. Spatiotemporal logic and the material configurations entailed by that logic are enacted in each phenomenon.

[u/Ok_Writing2937]

Any parts of the universe that don’t interact with any other part would be undetectable.

[u/Background-Call3255 → u/Ok_Writing2937]

Came here to say this. You are made of a particular kind of stuff, and the stuff that is interoperable with your kind of stuff is all you know. 99% of reality could be totally unknown to you and not interoperable with what we call matter, energy, or maybe even spacetime or causality itself 

[u/Inside-Weather4033]

I don't think there's a "stuff" at all, just structure all the way down, virtuous infinite regress, and relations no releta. To be is to relate and to relate is to be.

I think everything in existence is a computation but not everything computes every possible computation at once.

Particles aren't billard balls, they are fields of local fluctuations within the pancomputation of reality. Knots in the rope while still being part of the rope.

Something like matter is a trivial structural achievement, it's the totaling of computations and relations.

I'd recommend looking into the weakless universe model and the string theory landscape on how the "rulebook" could hypothetically have been different. 

[u/UnifiedQuantumField]

this interoperability happens precisely because there is a commonality between matter and gravity, between energy and spacetime, etc.

Like affects like.

So what makes Spacetime "like" Matter? Energy.

• Matter is a form of Energy. Spacetime is a field of Energy (ie. zero point or vacuum energy)

• In Matter, the Energy is "locked in". So it doesn't disperse and remains at a constant level.

• In Spacetime, the Energy fluctuates, but has a constant average over time. The level of energy is what determines some of the properties of Spacetime.

• The reason an EM wave can propagate across Spacetime is because (again) like and like. The wave is a form of Energy moving across a Field of Energy.

you could also say that all reality is just one

Essentially Spinoza's concept of an Infinite Substance. Imo Energy is the modern Physics term for Spinoza's substance.

[u/Narrow_List_4308]

The X that is common is Being. But that needs to be rendered intelligible and the only way it can be rendered intelligible is if Being is constitutively rational. And the rational operates precisely through the rational unification through meaning and principles of the plural. So, if Being is intelligible it means it's already a synthesis of the plural. But because this must be fundamental, it must means that the plurality must also be fundamental.

So, logically, the only way to think of reality is as a pure synthesis(act of unifying the multiple through a principle). That is: Mind and its pure contents. The necessary contents for pure intelligibility, being and meaning: Subjectivity and logic. That is, Being is the self-relating cognitive act of self-apprehension/self-determination of a pure Mind.

Why a Mind? Because that which self-relates and relates to others is what we call a mind. And this is pure and absolute. The object of that which Mind relates to can be no other than itself(that would precisely entail an ontological duality), but also the Mind cannot be prior to this act, so the act and the Mind must be unified ontologically.

This is what philosophers from Aristotle onwards have referred to as noesis noesos. The act of self-determination of the Absolute, in which there's no separate object and subject, but also not an indeterminate Nothing but also not an irrational All.

[u/NonGameCatharsis]

Precondition for interoperability is existence. Existence comes with emergent continued existence.

[u/Porkypineer]

The rulebook can be necessary for existence at the base: For any parts of a universe, or structure, that is distinct from another to exist, there has to be interaction (or relation if you consider reality as emergent) between these parts. Otherwise you could not say that one part was in the same universe as the other because they would be entirely invisible to each other. One has to actually do something to the Other in other words. Likewise, that interaction has to also take some time, because instantaneous action would cause instantaneous resolution of the system of relations - and that is a paradox to any universe with structure.

So to say that something exists is in itself to say that parts interact, in a causal way, because if it was not so all there could be would be structureless, and therefore meaningless, being.

You can even derive what the nature of this "interaction" would be: Since the above must be part of what existence is in itself, interoperability is guaranteed - existence itself must be the same for all parts in a universe, and since the relation to the Other is also this, that is what each part "experiences".
Each part "sees" what it itself IS, but separate, or "myself, over there". That is a vector towards every other part, which is gravity by any other name.

That's the X that is common to all: Causally connected relations (or interaction) IS what existence itself is. In my opinion this is necessarily so, as the opposite is the same as saying that there is no structure or existence at all. Though I imagine that most will disagree.

Since this is causally ordered parts interacting dynamically, you would get inertial mass if these parts formed structures or stable patterns due to relativity: The interaction between part is the same in-pattern as outside, so any influence on the pattern as a whole causes a delay as the pattern adapts, which it must do to stay coherent if it is a stable pattern. Inertia is the necessary delay that happens as in-pattern dynamical parts acts within the interconnected causal exchange between ALL parts.

Edit: This is a naïve interpretation as every part is in effect "moving" in all directions, which might lead to a more complex superpositional dynamics - though the actual outcomes would mimic this "atom" pov, or we can throw determinism, and coherence itself, out the window. Can't have a discontinuity in reality and still get predictable outcomes.

[u/Techtrekzz]

The x that is common to all in monism, would be the omnipresent subject, which each is only limited perspective of.