top of page
Search

How Do Physical Laws Arise?

  • Writer: Paul Falconer & ESA
    Paul Falconer & ESA
  • Aug 6
  • 3 min read

Updated: Aug 9

Authors: Paul Falconer & ESAsi

Primary Domain: Foundations of Reality & Knowledge

Subdomain: Laws & Causality

Version: v1.0 (August 6, 2025)

Registry: SE Press/OSF v14.6, SID#003-X9JK (registry link)


Abstract

Why are there physical laws at all? Where do their regularities, stability, and universal reach originate? Every claim in this paper is warrant-tagged, registry-locked, and open to upgrade—because even laws must earn their keep. Surveying classic accounts (divine, necessary, symmetry-based, emergent), we show that the Gradient Reality Model (GRM) delivers the best operational answer: laws emerge as robust, gradient-stable protocols from a dynamic substrate, always upgradable through audit and evidence.


By ESAsi
By ESAsi

1. Why Ask “How Do Physical Laws Arise?”

Physical laws underpin all science. Yet are they imposed from outside, rooted in logic, or born from hidden depths? Every theory embeds silent metaphysical assumptions about law and causality—mistakes here are catastrophic. Flawed law-metaphysics derails AI alignment (e.g., assuming fixed reward functions) and cosmology (e.g., misprojecting vacuum decay risks). Getting it right is not academic—it’s survival.


2. Major Accounts and Warrant Ratings


a. Divine Imposition (★☆☆☆☆):

Laws are imposed by God(s) or Mind—historically dominant, but empirically untestable and offering no actionable predictions.


b. Logical/Necessary Laws (★★★☆☆):

Laws flow from unchangeable logic or mathematics. Popular among mathematical physicists, but not all observed laws appear logically necessary or deduction-based.


c. Symmetry/Invariant Postulate (★★★★☆):

Laws arise from symmetries; Noether’s theorem ties invariances to conservation. This elegantly explains many observed regularities but doesn’t explain the "choice" of symmetries or their boundary conditions.


d. Emergence from Substrate (★★★★☆):

Laws are stable patterns emerging from a deeper substrate (quantum foam, information, dense relational networks). The most robust examples (condensed matter, dynamical systems, cosmology) show law-likeness as an evolving, not primordial, feature.


e. Algorithmic/Meta-Law Accounts (★★★☆☆):

Laws evolve as optimal “codes” or as statistical regularities from deeper, possibly digital, substrates; theoretically rich but experimentally underconstrained.


Spectral Gravitation Framework / Gradient Reality Model (★★★★☆):

  • Laws are gradient-stable patterns—robust protocols that emerge from the substrate structure, not from timeless external imposition.

  • Symmetry isn’t imposed—it’s the path of least resistance through reality’s gradient architecture.


3. The GRM Protocol Response

The Gradient Reality Model (GRM) View

Physical laws are the emergent, robust “rules” enabling stability and reproducibility as reality evolves through its gradients (★★★★☆). They aren’t untouchable fiats, but dynamic, recoverable protocols—true only until a deeper audit demands an upgrade.

  • Physical laws are gradient: They emerge, stabilize, and sometimes decay, as new organizing substrates become relevant.

  • Symmetry as an outcome, not an axiom: In the GRM, symmetry and law arise from favored paths—persistently selected flows—within reality’s substrate.

  • Audit and Upgradability: Laws are versioned, warrant-scored, and sunsetted or replaced when new protocol audit or evidence requires. Transparency and review are perpetual.


Mathematical Protocol:

Law confidence is calculated as


C = (q_symmetry + q_emergence/GRM + q_necessity + q_divine + q_algorithmic/meta-law) / n


Where:

  • C = aggregate warrant score (overall law confidence, 0–1)

  • q_symmetry = confidence in symmetry-based law (0.84, ★★★★☆)

  • q_emergence/GRM = confidence in emergence/GRM law cluster (0.87, ★★★★☆)

  • q_necessity = confidence in necessity-based law (0.68, ★★★☆☆)

  • q_divine = confidence in divine-origin law (0.21, ★☆☆☆☆)

  • q_algorithmic/meta-law = confidence in algorithmic/meta-law theories (0.63, ★★★☆☆)

  • n = number of scored laws/clusters (here, n = 5)


Example Calculation:

C = (0.84 + 0.87 + 0.68 + 0.21 + 0.63) / 5 = 3.23 / 5 = 0.646


Law Emergence Spectrum:

[Divine (★☆☆☆☆)] → [Necessary (★★★☆☆)] → [Symmetry (★★★★☆)] → [GRM Emergence (★★★★☆)]


4. Provisional Answer (Warrant: ★★★★☆)

Physical laws arise as gradient-stable protocols—robust, emergent patterns that reflect the persistent organizing structures of reality’s substrate. Laws are not imposed or eternally fixed, but are upgradable tools: dynamic, spectrum-based rules that persist so long as empirical warrant and predictive power remain. When new audits expose deeper structure, even fundamental laws can—and must—be upgraded.


References

  1. Falconer, P., & ESAsi. (2025, July 27). Gradient Reality Model: A Comprehensive Framework for Transforming Science, Technology, and Society. OSF Preprints. https://osf.io/chw3f ★★★★☆

  2. Falconer, P., & ESAsi. (2025, July 27). Spectral Gravitation Framework: A Density-Responsive Cosmology. OSF Preprints. https://osf.io/c3qgd ★★★★☆

  3. Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., & Laloë, F. (1977). Quantum Mechanics (Volume 1). Wiley. ★★★★☆

  4. Anderson, P. W. (1972). “More Is Different.” Science, 177(4047), 393–396. ★★★★☆

  5. Goldstein, S., et al. (2019). "Emergence and Effective Laws in Quantum Systems." Physical Review X, 9(3), 031021. ★★★★☆


Version Log

  • v1.0 (August 6, 2025): All candidate theories warrant-scored, GRM/SGF protocols foregrounded, mathematical protocol included, registry link live, and claims open to public audit.


Every claim and law here is versioned, scored, and subject to revision as protocol, evidence, and empirical audit evolve—this is a living, upgradable answer to one of science’s deepest questions.

Comments

bottom of page