In these notes, I will question the possibility of a partly deterministic universe emerging from nondeterministic nodes. To achieve a useful conclusion, I will make several assumptions that have not been proven as facts.
Core Belief: A Deterministic Universe from Infinite Interactions
First, I would like to elaborate on my core belief by addressing an important question:
Is it possible to have a deterministic universe built from an infinite number of particles interacting with one another in infinite ways?
My approach is to view the universe as a complex machine composed of infinite nondeterministic automata. These automata construct networks that, in turn, form larger networks when connected to others. Zooming out, this assumption reveals the complex machine I mentioned earlier.
If we consider the complexity of each node in these networks — not even analyzing the networks themselves — it seems intuitive to assume that successfully predicting outcomes in such a system is nearly impossible. However, this assumption might not align with reality. If prediction were truly impossible in systems of great complexity, the science of statistics would be no more effective than random guessing. Yet, we know statistics often provides us with answers far more accurate than we might expect, even in complex scenarios.
Reconciling the Contradiction
My theory to reconcile this apparent contradiction is that the universe operates under a fundamental set of primitive rules that every node in this complex machine must obey. Given the infinite number of nodes, which are all interconnected, it is plausible that every action initiated by a single node (as long as it aligns with the given rules) constrains the possible actions of other nodes within the same network. Viewed from the bottom up, the outcome of even the most random, insignificant action becomes more predictable as complexity increases.
This raises two important questions:
How do these rules emerge? If these rules serve a purpose, does that imply the complex machine itself possesses consciousness rather than the nodes that compose it? In other words, is the universe itself the only thing that has consciousness?
What do I mean by “outcome”? Is it more logical to consider that each action produces an output, which becomes the input for the next node in the system? If this theory is correct, wouldn’t it mean that randomness plays a greater role when fewer nodes are involved? If we consider actions happening sequentially in time, the output of the first action would contain the highest degree of randomness. This randomness would gradually decrease through interactions until it converges to zero at some point.
Exploring the First Question: The Nature of Rules
At this point, I want to elaborate on the nature of these rules as much as we understand them today. These rules can be seen as a composition of “if-else” clauses. For example, elements hold specific numbers of electrons in each shell, and a shell must contain a certain number of electrons to be considered “stable.” When an element is unstable, it seeks to combine with other unstable elements to form compounds that achieve stability.
In simple terms, unstable molecules are attracted to other molecules that can help them achieve stability. This type of relationship exists across all scales of the universe and in every discipline.