Fumfer Physics 10: Algorithms, Emergence, and the Universe

In this dialogue, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner debate whether algorithms adequately describe the universe. Jacobsen begins with the standard definition of an algorithm as a step-by-step, finite process like a recipe. Rosner counters that the universe does not follow strict routines but operates through emergence—patterns forming from possibility rather than predetermined rules. They compare laws of physics to contours shaped by statistical dynamics and symmetry, not rigid instructions. Rosner emphasizes counting numbers as emergent from discrete macro objects, while quantum systems can blur definitions. Their exchange highlights the tension between algorithmic order and emergent complexity in nature.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let us do some quick math. We have a few minutes. I want to settle the “algorithm” question by starting with a standard definition and then contrasting it with how physical laws and emergence work.

An algorithm is a finite, step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or completing a task. It is like a recipe in that it specifies an ordered sequence of operations. The key points are finiteness, determinacy at each step, and an input–output mapping.

Rick Rosner: Right. However, the universe does not have rules in the sense that an algorithm does. The universe does not follow a routine. It operates according to what is possible at any given moment. What happens is what can happen—emergence, in other words.

Jacobsen: So you are saying the laws of physics are not really rules in the strict sense?

Rosner: The universe is emergent. I’ve said this many times. The things we see aren’t rigidly predetermined. They unfold. Think of leaves falling from a tree: you might expect them to drop uniformly, but instead they swirl, get caught in currents, and settle in irregular patterns. That’s emergence in action.

Jacobsen: But we do have laws of physics, which are highly regular. I think of them more as contours than commands. They emerge from deeper principles—statistical dynamics, symmetry, and consistency. They’re not step-by-step rules like an algorithm. They’re looser regularities that arise from what is possible.

Rosner: Take numbers. The set of counting numbers—1, 2, 3, and so on—emerges naturally from the fact that macro objects are discrete. A rock isn’t 1.3 rocks. At the scale of ordinary objects, it makes sense to count in whole numbers. At more minor scales, of course, things can be divided, and in physics, some properties are continuous while others are quantized. But the everyday discreteness we observe is an emergent fact of reality, not an algorithm written into the universe.

Our system of counting is highly consistent until you get into very advanced mathematics, where you encounter Gödelian problems about proving consistency. But at the basic level, counting numbers and the operations on them are highly consistent and non-contradictory. They show up for the same reasons: consistency and non-contradiction. You have objects in the world that exist in whole number quantities, because it would be inconsistent and contradictory to have, say, one and a half protons.

Now, you can talk about “one and a half protons” in a fuzzy, quantum-mechanical sense. In an incompletely defined system, you can set things up so that you don’t know exactly how many particles are present. But once the system is defined sufficiently, objects appear in whole-number quantities.

I don’t know. But I don’t really see how the concept of an algorithm applies to that kind of emergent development of the universe.

Anyway, I’ve got to go to the gym.

Jacobsen: Enjoy the gym. I’ll ask different questions tomorrow. Happy 19-millionth session.

Rosner: Thanks, bye.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.