Are the Laws of the Universe truly “Fixed?”
Are the Laws of the Universe Truly Absolute?
Humans have an obsession with rules. Our brains crave order, structure, and predictability because it helps us navigate a chaotic world. But just because we observe certain patterns doesn’t mean they are universal or absolute. Just because something happens 999 times out of 1000 doesn’t mean it will happen the 1000th time. And yet, we instinctively assume it will.
One of the biggest assumptions in modern science is that the laws of physics are absolute, universal, and unchanging. But what if this assumption is just a human projection based on our limited observation of a tiny slice of reality?
This is where Charles Sanders Peirce comes in — a 19th-century philosopher and scientist who challenged the rigid notion that physical laws must be completely fixed. He believed that what we call “laws” might actually be tendencies, habits of nature rather than inviolable rules.
Peirce’s Grain Sampling Argument: The Illusion of Universal Consistency
One of Peirce’s most famous thought experiments is his grain sampling argument, which goes like this:
Peirce’s Example of Grain Sampling
Peirce describes a scenario in which samples of grain are taken from various parts of a ship’s cargo hold. The findings from these samples are then used to infer the quality of the entire cargo. If four-fifths of the sampled grains are of quality A, one might infer, based on this sample, that approximately the same proportion applies to the entire cargo.
He emphasizes that this inference is experiential and provisional, meaning it is based on observed evidence and is open to revision as more data becomes available. The inference does not claim to reveal an absolute truth about the grain but provides a practical estimate based on available evidence.
General Concept: Not All Grain is of the Same Quality
Just because most grain is of the same quality doesn’t mean all grain is of the same quality — there could still be rotten grains around or maybe even stones!
While a sample can provide valuable insights into the general characteristics of a population, it does not account for every individual element within that population. There can be variability that the sample might not capture, especially if there are outliers or uneven distribution.
Peirce himself applied this logic to challenge so called fixed laws of the universe
What we call “laws of nature” are based on observations within our tiny portion of reality.
Just because we see consistency in our observable universe, that doesn’t mean these laws are fixed across all of reality.
If the physical laws are simply patterns, we’ve observed in our “sample size,” there could be parts of reality where they are different — or where they evolve over time.
Peirce wasn’t rejecting science. He was challenging blind certainty. He argued:
“Uniformities are precisely what require to be accounted for.”
Instead of assuming the laws of nature are eternal and self-evident, we should be asking:
Why do they exist at all? Where do they come from? Could they be evolving?
“There is no reason to suppose the laws of nature have always been the same as they are now.”
Just because something appears consistent now does not mean it has always been this way or that it must remain so forever.
“The fundamental hypothesis of the necessity of the laws of physics is an extreme assumption, and one for which there is no absolute proof.”
This is a direct call-out to those who dogmatically assume that our experience of physics is the only description of ALL OF REALITY.
Peirce Was Ahead of His Time
In the 20th century, science actually proved Peirce’s argument correct — at least in part.
For centuries, classical physics was built on the assumption that:
Everything follows strict cause-and-effect.
The universe is a perfectly predictable machine.
Then quantum mechanics shattered this view:
On SUB-ATOMIC LEVELS, Particles don’t follow fixed paths — they exist in probabilistic states.
Observation itself affects reality.
The fundamental behavior of matter includes randomness at a core level.
Even today, we don’t fully understand why quantum mechanics works the way it does. But what it proves is this:
The “laws” of physics are not as rigid as we once assumed and may definitely not describe ALL OF REALITY.
But why do we have so much trouble accepting this possibility?
Imagine a child, born and raised in a small, isolated village deep within a remote valley. This valley, enclosed by towering mountains, is his entire world. From the moment he opens his eyes, he sees only people who look like him — same skin tone, same facial features, same hair texture. Every elder, every friend, every passerby shares the same racial characteristics. To him, this is not just his reality; it is reality itself.
He grows up believing, without even thinking about it, that this is how all humans must look. His world is small, but to him, it feels complete. Why would he ever suspect otherwise? It is not that he has actively chosen to believe that only his race exists — it is simply that he has never seen any evidence to the contrary.
Then, one day, something shatters his worldview.
One afternoon, while wandering beyond the outskirts of his village, he stumbles upon a traveler — someone unlike anyone he has ever seen before. This person’s skin is a different shade, their hair curls in an unfamiliar way, their features are arranged in a way that his young mind has never encountered.
His first instinct is NOT, “Ah, here is another human being, just like me but with different traits.”
Instead, his breath catches in his throat and his heartbeat races.
His mind, unable to process the existence of someone so different, jumps to the only possible explanation that fits within his limited understanding of the world:
“It’s a ghost!”
He turns and runs, trembling, back to his village, screaming about the specter he has seen. To him, the idea that nature could produce a person so different is as absurd as a tree growing upside down or the sun rising from the west. It simply does not compute.
Join The Writer’s Circle event
His fear was not caused by the stranger’s appearance, but by the collapse of his preconceived notions. His reality was built on an incomplete dataset — a set of observations gathered from his tiny valley. And because he had only ever seen a narrow sliver of what nature had to offer, he mistook his limited perception for absolute truth.
We Are That Child When We Assume We Fully Understand Nature
Now, take that child’s experience and magnify it. Stretch it across the entire history of human understanding. That child is all of us when we assume that everything, we have observed about the universe must be the entirety of what is possible.
For most of history, humans believed that the Earth was flat — not because they were stupid, but because their day-to-day experience showed them a world that appeared flat.
They believed the sun moved around the Earth, because every morning, they saw it rise in the east and set in the west.
They were certain that nothing smaller than a grain of sand existed, until the invention of microscopes revealed an unseen world teeming with life.
And yet, every time we discover something new that challenges our previous assumptions, there is resistance. We assume the universe must operate within the parameters we have observed so far.
We assume physical laws are unbreakable and universal because they work consistently in our current frame of observation.
We assume that every corner of the universe must adhere to the same constants because, in our experience, they always have.
We assume that the fabric of reality must always behave in ways we can measure, describe, and predict.
But what if this assumption is nothing more than the child’s mistake on a cosmic scale?
We observe patterns in nature, construct theories based on them, and assume those theories must hold everywhere. But our understanding is always limited by where we are looking and what tools we have to observe with.
But what happens if, one day, we encounter something that doesn’t fit?
Will we call it an impossibility? A ghost? A glitch in the matrix?
Or will we do what the child could not — accept that our view of reality has always been incomplete?
Let’s explore one of these ANOMALIES: Quantum Entanglement
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two sub-atomic particles remain instantaneously “connected” despite being separated by vast distances, seems bizarre within classical physics because it defies the constraints of spacetime and locality.
This connection can HAPPEN Instantaneously EVEN if the distance with which the object in physical space is millions of light years.
In other words, the speed of light limit which would normally make such reactions far slower, makes absolutely no difference to the communication between these particles.
Einstein called Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance
But consider an ultimate reality that isn’t bound by spacetime.
it’s a state where space, time, and distance don’t inherently exist. Entanglement, then, doesn’t need to adhere to our universe’s concept of distance. Particles can be connected in ways that transcend spacetime because this ultimate reality doesn’t need to conform to it, even if WE think we understand everything about the universe.
In such a situation, what looks like spooky action at a distance is not so spooky anymore if you consider that space itself maybe an emergent, illusory property, not a fundamental nature of the underlying reality. In a “spaceless” underlying reality, what looks like quantum entanglement is actually inevitable.
The rules we experience — like the existence of this thing called “SPACE” may only be a construct within our universe. These phenomena and Physical laws may simply be the emergent patterns that evolved in this specific universe (on a macroscopic scale)
But subatomic interactions can (and do) diverge from these rules, indicating that reality doesn’t have a fixed, universal set of laws across all scales. So, quantum entanglement existing within our own universe alongside classical causality suggests that divergent rules can coexist, even within a single universe.
But how did this happen?
One possibility is that at some point in our universe’s evolution, the laws governing subatomic and larger-scale interactions could have diverged.
This is akin to how a single common ancestor split into varied species, each adapting to different conditions or needs.
Just as life branched into different species from a common ancestor, the fundamental properties of our universe could have probabilistically evolved to follow distinct patterns at different scales. For example:
Just as humans and chimps share some common characteristics but follow different evolutionary paths, quantum and classical laws can coexist without contradicting each other, each tailored to its specific domain.
Following this analogy, laws could “evolve” in response to different scales or conditions, allowing each to develop unique characteristics while coexisting within the same overall framework.
So, laws in our universe — whether classical mechanics for larger objects or quantum mechanics for particles — aren’t sacred or immutable. They are simply configurations that emerged under particular conditions:
Furthermore, there could be additional branches for phenomena we don’t yet fully understand, like dark matter, dark energy, or other “undiscovered” realms.
So, there’s no reason to assume that quantum and classical laws are the only possibilities.
There may be “undiscovered” laws might operate under conditions vastly different from those we know, in fact there most definitely are, but we are currently ignorant of them just like that child that thought his race represents all of humanity.
The idea behind this chapter was to keep ourself open to the idea that laws, may not have APPEARED out of nowhere, but perhaps EVOLVED as a result of certain conditions.
There is NO reason to assume why the Laws of Universe appeared out of nowhere.
To assume they appeared out of nowhere is like assuming we humans appeared out of nowhere, MAGICALLY.
But we didn’t.
We Evolved.
Our Cosmos cannot logically be any different.
I hope I have encouraged you at least think in an open-minded manner and not be caught up in the same dogma in the name of tradition that keeps thinking stagnant for generations!
Now the conclusion of this chapter, OPENS US to yet another deeper question.
Perhaps, we and even the entire cosmos evolved out of Branching. But why did the branching begin at ALL? Most Importantly, what is the source of this branching at the ULTIMATE LEVEL?
Hold on to your seats, we are about to find out!
From my book Nothing/Everything: The Mindbending Philosophical Theory of Everything. Read and download the complete book for free at https://archive.org/details/nothing-everything-the-mindbending-philosophical-theory-of-everything
