If true, that would mean all of our existing laws of physics are subject to some higher-order universal laws that control this evolution.
TL;DR
Researchers from Microsoft and Brown University propose that the universe might teach itself how to evolve toward more stable physical laws, similar to self-learning systems in artificial intelligence. By applying the principles of Darwinian natural selection, the study suggests that the early universe started with primitive physical laws that gradually became more complex, allowing the universe to sustain itself. The idea merges cosmology with biology, hinting at higher-order laws governing the ones we observe. While speculative, the theory opens doors for bold new explorations in theoretical physics.
_________________________
An autodidact refers to someone who has acquired knowledge on their own without formal education or a teacher. Well-known examples of these self-taught individuals include Leonardo Da Vinci, a polyglot fluent in 16 languages, Kató Lomb, a remarkable Hungarian interpreter who mastered at least 17 languages, and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Now, a new contender may join their ranks: the universe itself. According to research published on the pre-print server arXiv (yet to undergo peer review), the cosmos might be continuously teaching itself how to evolve into a more stable state.
The study, written by researchers from Microsoft, Brown University, and others, suggests that the physical laws we observe today are the result of a gradual learning process over time. To understand how these laws came into existence, the paper proposes applying the concept of Darwinian natural selection to cosmology.
In simple terms, the idea is that, as the universe evolved, the initial, more primitive physical laws transformed into the more complex ones we observe today. Just as certain species like cats and dogs survived while trilobites and dinosaurs did not due to their adaptability, the universe too has “adapted”—though instead of competing with other universes, it merely needs to sustain itself.
Imagine an early universe where the concept of gravitational attraction was far simpler. In this case, Newton’s law of gravitation—which explains the gravitational force between objects based on their masses and distance—wouldn’t apply yet. Today, this law explains why gravity on the moon is about one-sixth as strong as on Earth, due to the moon’s smaller mass. But in that early universe, gravity might have been static, with no distinction between Earth and the moon’s gravity. This thought experiment can be extended to the other 14 laws of physics.
“Over time, that system will teach itself, and some fundamental laws will arise, and that’s really what they’re talking about [in the paper],” explains Janna Levin, a professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College, Columbia University, and director of sciences at Pioneer Works. “If the universe can compute with a given set of algorithms, then maybe it can do the same kind of thing we see in artificial intelligence, where you have self-learning systems that teach themselves new rules. And by rules, in cosmology we mean laws of physics.”
At this point, the paper merges cosmology, the study of the universe and its origins, with biology. “We ask whether there might be a mechanism woven into the fabric of the natural world, by means of which the universe could learn its laws,” the authors write. Essentially, they suggest a universal law that transcends individual scientific fields. This means the laws of physics could be governed by higher-order laws that control them—laws we don’t yet comprehend.
“Exploring links between fields is crucial because knowledge is not fundamentally compartmentalized,” says Bruce Bassett, a professor at the University of Cape Town’s Department of Mathematics and head of the Cosmology Group at the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences in South Africa. Humans, however, tend to compartmentalize knowledge. “We segment and compress knowledge into biology, and physics, and sociology because of our limited brains, and the cost of that segmentation and compression is that we easily miss the commonalities and hidden universality between branches of human knowledge.”
This may be why it’s difficult for us to understand the idea that the universe could be autodidactic—we can’t easily explain it within our current scientific frameworks. As renowned cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.”
Moreover, unlike humans, the universe does not compete with other universes; it functions independently. Of course, using terms like “compete” and “mind” to describe the universe is a reflection of anthropocentrism, the belief that everything revolves around humans. But, as Levin points out, “A lot of the way we think about the world is rooted in the language that we become familiar with. The universe doesn’t have a conscious mind, just like selection hasn’t; selection is 100 percent agnostic.”
Towards the end of their nearly 80-page paper, the researchers acknowledge that they are merely taking the first steps toward forming a new theory. “It is indeed early to comment about whether these ideas have anything to do with our universe. The core idea is intriguing and blends cosmology with the core ideas behind artificial intelligence, but is speculative and radical at the same time,” Bassett comments.
He also emphasizes that theoretical physics needs bold and unconventional ideas. “It is an invitation to explore a crazy idea because we find ourselves confronted by a crazy universe,” he says. “Chances are, it will not lead anywhere interesting, but perhaps it will inspire a real breakthrough, and perhaps it will lead us somewhere even the authors could not imagine.”