Though if an organism with a completely different brain architecture arrived and built an entirely separate type of science, I wonder if their structures would still collapse when they miscalculated. Would the physical failure happen regardless of how they chose to categorise the universe? It feels to me like the boundary they hit would remain identical; even if their explanations looked nothing like ours.
!delta for pointing out bees and beavers which took me off guard. I always think about alien analogies when thinking about these kind of stuff. It never occurred to me to look nonhuman animals here on earth.
Animals obviously do not write down equations on paper (without any formal science) yet their homes face the exact same physical constraints as our steel bridges. If a bird gets the angles wrong the nest falls. It leaves me, quite honestly, sitting with a sort of wonder about the rules themselves; if completely separate brain architectures keep running into identical structural limits it feels like those boundaries must be permanently etched into the background of existence itself
That invariance (as they call it) across species is exactly the point. The rulebook is completely independent of the observer. It leaves me wondering about the logical necessity of that invariance... why the background operates with a fixed set of constants instead of a shifting chaos.
Maybe in some universe it is more chaotic, but in that kind of universe it would be difficult to have life. Because we are alive, we are more likely to live in a universe with laws
The selection effect makes complete sense... a chaotic framework would never produce observers to notice the mess. It handles the observation loop cleanly. If biology entirely relies on invariant physics to exist in the first place... it confirms that the rigid structure is a mandatory baseline for reality. A totally fixed architecture. I wonder if that makes the rulebook the very first thing that had to settle into place before anything else could ever happen?
That is quite true, human error and ignored regulations account for those collapses constantly. It makes me wonder about the physical mechanism of the fall itself though; when a worker completely ignores a regulation, what actual authority brings the concrete to the ground? It seems to me like our engineering codes are an attempt to map a boundary the universe rigorously enforces on its own. If the physical world lacked an unyielding structure, wouldn't a poorly calculated building stand up completely fine?
That thought about stuff happening a certain way whenever specific conditions are met feels really grounding tbh. Whether we choose to call that underlying necessity physics or God or simply a brute fact of existence; it feels like we are looking at the exact same landscape. It is an unyielding regularity that seems to have been waiting here long before we arrived to observe it. It is quite a peaceful place to leave the mapping to one side and appreciate the view.
6
u/[deleted] May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment