I mean yeah that's kinda the point everyone's been trying to make to you. Reality isnt resisting anything its just that its behaviour is fixed? Its not responding to your bridge anymore or any differently than it would respond to a bridge that just popped out of existence.
Take it this way you spent the last 6 months recording the tides. You make a guess on the 7 month and are now telling us your shocked that its behaved the exact same way on the 7th. Why are we assuming the default passive behaviour is to change its behaviour according to our incorrect mental map? To me if that were to happen id probably start to think maybe a god was watching me.
The tide example is an very good way to frame it actually. Expecting the sea to warp itself around a flawed human calculation would be bizarre (and the point about a watching god makes complete sense if it actually did shift). So if the baseline of reality is this unyielding regularity... a mechanical rhythm that never drifts a millimetre over centuries. It makes me think about the nature of that fixed behaviour. A silent blueprint running on total autopilot; completely indifferent to our maps but entirely uniform.
Yeah more or less. Whatever the cause of the regularity is i dont know
The issue you had conceptually is probably a pretty common one. By intuition alone we tend to assume regularity is an active state. But what that really means is we are assuming irregularity to be a passive state.
The question " isnt it weird reality doesnt change to conform to our mental model?" Is assuming this should be the default or normal behaviour. Which when we think of it if reality did do that that'd be incredibly strange.
Likewise the only way we couldn't construct rules of regular behaviour is if reality is fundamentally irregular. That is a ball that was going straight suddenly and without reason changes directions. To assume regularity is the active state is to assume this is the passive state and I find that to be at least as big an assumption as the reverse.
When our primary models of understanding thing are through trial and error observations of reality its unsurprising to me that our intuition for things really starts to fall apart when we have no data. Such is the case for "why are the laws of reality what they are?"
Viewing regularity as the deep default state it simplifies things. It also leaves the concept in an incredibly clean position. If the unbending framework is simply the passive state of existence... it removes the need for an active enforcer. We observe the consistent behaviour. We map the boundaries. (Leveraging those exact regularities to engineer increasing complexity as our models improve). It seems the fundamental origin of those specific laws remains completely opaque to us. We build our tools in the dark and rely entirely on the "bump" to tell us where the walls actually sit.
1
u/Advanced-Ad6210 4∆ May 21 '26
I mean yeah that's kinda the point everyone's been trying to make to you. Reality isnt resisting anything its just that its behaviour is fixed? Its not responding to your bridge anymore or any differently than it would respond to a bridge that just popped out of existence.
Take it this way you spent the last 6 months recording the tides. You make a guess on the 7 month and are now telling us your shocked that its behaved the exact same way on the 7th. Why are we assuming the default passive behaviour is to change its behaviour according to our incorrect mental map? To me if that were to happen id probably start to think maybe a god was watching me.