In just a few short steps, we will prove that movement requires a partner, that the universe doesn’t roll dice, and that the sheer existence of structure shatters the illusion of a closed system. By the end of this journey, we will have proven that the physical universe is not all there is. There is an “Outside.” And once you see the footprints it left behind, you can never unsee them.
I think therefore I am
In the 1630s, René Descartes tried to find a basic truth. He realized his senses lied to him—sticks look bent in water, and mirages look like lakes etc. So, he discarded them. But he didn’t stop there. He hypothesized an “Evil Demon,” a cosmic trickster with the power to feed him a complete, flawless hallucination of a universe. Today we would call this simulation theory.
If this demon is trying to trick him, Descartes realized, there’s a catch. You can’t trick something that isn’t there. The very act of being deceived, of doubting, or of thinking, requires a thinker.
Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. Je pense donc j´existe.
Descartes concluded that he existed as a thinking thing. Let’s zoom out. The specific nature of the “I” doesn’t actually matter for our purposes. Whether you are a biological human, a brain in a vat, a line of code in a simulation, or a hallucination in the mind of a cosmic demon, the mechanics are the same. Because I am thinking, I am 100% sure that I exist. I exist in some form. Descartes also contemplated another expression: Je pense donc j´existe. I think, so something must exist (which I can then call “me”)
There is change, so something else exists
Descartes established that something exists. But his demon might try to convince us that this “something” is just one thing, that’s all. A single, solitary dot in the void.
Let’s test that. Imagine a universe containing exactly one object. No background, no grid, no other matter. Just a single, lonely dot.
Now, I will ask you an example physics question: How fast is that dot moving?
.
Off-course, it’s a trick question: It isn’t moving. How could it be? Movement requires a reference point. Without a second thing to measure against, the concepts of speed, direction, and even location completely evaporate. The dot isn’t “stationary” either, because “stationary” also requires a background to be stationary against. In a universe of one, movement is a meaningless concept.
But look around. Things are moving. Coffee is cooling. Planets are orbiting. Your eyes are tracking these words. I experience change. Because I observe movement, I know for a fact (again with 100% certainty) that the “universe of one” hypothesis is false. Movement is inherently relational. So, something else must exist too.
Does God play dice?
I have observed that there is movement. So there is change. Now, I would like to make an assumption. I hope you agree it is a reasonable one. The assumption is about a closed system, which is a system where nothing goes in or out, not even information.
The assumption is that there are natural laws of physics, the code of a simulation, or the gears of a clockwork—there are rules governing what happens next. Even if we do not know exactly what they are, we believe these rules exist and a (the?) major goal of science is actually to find them. Let’s for now assume that the rules transition a system from a state to a next state.
Let’s also define a complete state as a state of the system about which everything is known. (i.e. no hidden variables) This is an acceptable (theoretical) assumption.
In a closed system, starting from a complete state, there are two possibilities for transition to a next state:
- Deterministic: One outcome based on the natural laws
- Indeterministic: More outcomes are possible, and nothing determines which one.
(if there was something that determined the outcome, it must be local in the system and the system would be deterministic)
So, I would say that “nothing determines which occurs” falsifies the indeterministic case. “Nothing” cannot act.
A closed system must be deterministic then? Yes!
Real random can only come from outside. There is no random in a closed system, as it is deterministic. Albert Einstein famously rejected fundamental randomness stating “God does not play dice”. Maybe God does play dice, but then God is outside of our universe.
There is structure to the universe
Observed! Apart from movement there is also structure: the universe is not the same everywhere and always. It has galaxies, atoms, DNA, and the precise mathematical ratios that hold them all together. It is not the same everywhere, and it is not the same always.
The structure could have been there from the beginning.
But wait! Is there even a beginning? The answer to that question does not matter now. If there was no beginning, then the structure did not come from a beginning.
If it did come from a beginning (or initial conditions), these initial conditions must have originated outside of the system.
If structure did not come from the beginning (i.e. the beginning had no structure but structure appeared later), structure still cannot come from nothing. It has to come from outside. In this case it is encoded in the rules and the structure must appear because of these transition rules. If the rules contain or encode a structure, the rules would have had to originate from outside. Nothing cannot act. (nor design rules)
Both possibilities mean the structure has to come from the outside and so there has to be an outside in our observed universe.
