Some say there's a set of mathematical laws governing the universe. The system of mathematics, as Godel's theorems show, has no finite, consistent set of axioms that can prove all theorems. It's a system in which you'd have to have to repeatedly add axioms to ever form a single 'mathematics'. If there really were some platonic realm of mathematical laws, governing matter and its behavior within the universe, it hardly seems likely that there would be an infinite system with only a minute subsection of it being special enough to be given some sway on reality. Even then we'd need a meta set of laws to describe what is so special about this subsection.

A system like mathematics is incredibly versatile. It's a system that can be made to basically describe any regularly behaving system. Any regularly behaving thing can have variables assigned to parts of it, and so long as the interactions between these parts are consistent, we can apply some mathematical rules to it. The same could be said for many systems of logic. If we assign variables to the fundamental components of a system, and they interact in a consistent way, then logic can be made to describe it.

The point is that mathematical rules are a thing that humans project onto the world and the universe does have fundamental parts that interact with one another in consistent ways. Hence why it seems to be so weirdly mathematical. It is no coincidence that we can apply rules to the universe that seem to be so heavily mathematical and logical in nature.

So maybe the universe doesn't have a platonic realm of rules dictating the material. If it did, then surely it would be immaterial itself.

But why do the parts of the universe exist in the way that they do? If there is indeed an explanation for that, say reason A, what is the reason for A to be the case? We get this infinite chain of causality unless at some point we accept that not everything has to be the way it is for a reason. Some things simply are.

If we accept this premise, then the answer of "where do the laws of the universe come from?", could simply be nowhere. The universe exists in the way it does just because.

For evolutionary reasons, our monkey brains always feel the need to see every effect as having a cause. But the universe wasn't built to satisfy us.

C. S. Pierce says that nature forms habits. So for that matter does Rupert Sheldrake. However there is an implied metaphysics in that apparently obvious idea, in that habits are the attributes of intentional agents, as they imply memory and expectation, which are normally considered excluded from the inanimate domain. Arguably it's a form of panpsychism.

There's a philosopher of science called Nancy Cartwright - not to be confused with the actor of that name - who has a paper called No God, No Laws, for anyone interested.

My thesis is summarized in my title, ‘No God, No Laws’: the concept of a law of Nature cannot be made sense of without God. It is not as dramatic a thesis as it might look, however. I do not mean to argue that the enterprise of modern science cannot be made sense of without God. Rather, if you want to make sense of it you had better not think of science as discovering laws of Nature, for there cannot be any of these without God. — Nancy Cartwright

My thought on it is that it's not the job of science as currently practiced to explain or account for the laws of nature. Put simply, 'naturalism assumes nature'. In other words, science starts from the observation of nature, which already exhibits regularities, patterns and principles, and attempts to discern the nature of those relationships, how they operate, and how they can be represented mathematically or abstractly. But science can't explain why f=ma or e=mc² - or perhaps you could say that any attempt at that level or kind of explanation enters the realm of metaphysics as a matter of definition, and so is no longer in the domain of natural science. However this is a distinction that appears to elude many popular science writers, many of whom seem to think that the principles that govern phenomena can be extrapolated to a notional first cause through a kind of reverse engineering, a notable example being Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing.

Maybe but then again, pointing out that people still insist in using the same heuristics in their philosophy ~500 years AFTER the revolution of the Philosophy of Nature is a Description of a fact, not an conclusion based on unsound premises...... — Nickolasgaspar

No, it is an interpretation of an historical evolution of ideas.

So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48

What do you envision, a chaotic random stew being suddenly jolted into order?



Note this translation is more accurate and does not indicate creatio ex nihilo.

My answer would be that uni means one, which describes a single thing existing as it always has, whether that has a starting point or has been eternal.

Dividing creation/ultimate origins into stages is problematic.

My answer would be that uni means one, which describes a single thing existing as it always has, whether that has a starting point or has been eternal. — Hanover

Alexander Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe - referring to the scientific revolution.

How could one come first?



Assuming laws are discoverd, not invented....

Assuming laws are discoverd, not invented... — ZzzoneiroCosm

IIRC, natural regularities are observed (i.e. "discovered") and then mathematically described-encoded (i.e. "invented") as invariant features of physical models for specified aspects of nature.

:cool:

From cats. The laws of physics come from cats.

That's how a cat can jump out a three story window without injury, and they are said to have nine lives, they are above the laws of physics.

(did land on turf, though.)

My cattle dog once ran after a ball that went off the end of our balcony. The balcony was three floors high on the side of a steep incline. Oblivious, the dog leapt off the balcony after the ball. I went to have a look dreading what I might find. And there was our foolish dog chasing the ball down the hill.

That's one smart cat. Many human beings wouldn't make that jump with a safety net below; you'd have to push them or throw them.

It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." ___Wikipedia — Alkis Piskas

I think this description of Natural Laws makes an important point. The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, in part by analogy to human intentions & choices. The logical organization of Nature "implies" the rational intention to create Causes that produce Effects that can be detected & manipulated by rational methods to result in desirable ends. In other words, the ability to choose between Good & Evil.

Random accidents reveal no logical connection between Cause & Effect. But human Reason is attuned to such meaningful relationships, because linking causes & effects is valuable for survival in a dynamic world, where effects can be either Good or Bad. Perception of such causal links allows organisms to choose the Good and to eschew Evil. But, as far as we know, only human reason has analyzed the complex inter-relationships of causal networks down to abstract mathematical ratios. Hence, Mathematics is essentially the Logic of Nature. And "Reasoning" is the ability to infer personal meaning from those impersonal numerical values.

Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. They only mimic those general regulations for specific goals, by inventing artificial mechanisms that "reflect" those of Nature. For pragmatic purposes of Science, we can simply take that universal Logic for granted. But for the curious motives of Philosophy, we can try to trace its real-world effects back to the Source : the "LOGOS", as Plato called it. :nerd:

linking causes & effects is valuable for survival in a dynamic world, where effects can be either Good or Bad. — Gnomon

The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never. — Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality

The issue brought up in the Hoffman quote is the same as the true vs. useful issue. It is the fundamental problem of empiricism. So long as scientific hypotheses are judged according to a principle of usefulness, such as predictive capacity, those hypotheses will never give us truth. Evolution is guided by usefulness, not truthfulness.

Cats are obviously the highest life form here. Of course the competition is not very stiff but still.

Anyway, apropos, sometimes it appears to me that many people interested in philosophy have rather a sketchy, quite basic idea of natural science. I would say that the best thing humankind has to show for us is our literature and art but that theoretical physics (et al) gives it a real run for the money. I guess Friedrich maybe could be given some grudging honorable mention - or Hume or Kant).

The laws of biology seem to possess a tenuous positve valence, morally speaking. Physically, it's impossible for one person to commit genocide: after stabbing about 50 or so people to death, one would be utterly exhausted, unable to even lift the sword let alone hurt anyone with it.

On the flip side, how many old grannies can you help with their shopping bags? 50 tops?!

:snicker:

Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!).

Is there anything life-like about the laws of physics? I mean do these laws possess any qualities/characteristics that indicate sentience & intelligence? We can answer this question by assuming the role of the law-giver. What kinda physical laws would we frame and why? Do our laws resemble in any way the laws of physics in our world? Intriguing, wouldn't you say?

Hoffman treds on the grounds of philosophy with his "conscious realism". He uses prior concepts of real and unreal to form his posterior argument that we only know the unreal and ultimately he has Kant's view of noumena

we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality

I find Hoffman's notion that we don't see Reality-as-ding-an-sich plausible. However, I was referring to the useful, yet imperfect, mental ability to perceive the mathematical logic in Nature. That talent for seeing invisible (implicit) links gives us a fitness advantage over animals (by making the logic explicit). Reason & Logic may be our substitute for fangs & fleetness.

Even so, homo sapiens in-general are still not very a good at Math, especially Statistical relationships. Yet, we are good enough to create machines that are much faster & more accurate (to serve as our fangs & fleetness), but still depend on emotional humans to interpret the value & meaning of those abstract relationships. :joke:

PS__Reasoning sees & interprets geometric physical relationships by reference to some relative-but-reliable perspective -- usually the Self, or other authority. As a whole, and in general, the mathematical structure of the world is sometimes called "Sacred Geometry", because it seems to be designed by an omniscient Mathematician. But humans only see it "through a glass darkly".

Sacred Geometry :
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C2FYSLC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

First of all, sorry about the long delay of my response. I was not near my PC for the last two days ...

The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, — Gnomon

I agree.

Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. — Gnomon

Good point. I never thought about that. Most probably because Physics is not my cup of tea ...
For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...

Your whole description is quite interesting. :up:

Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!). — Agent Smith

Biblical morality assumes that the world was created perfect, with ideal laws, but was corrupted by a couple of freed nature-slaves, who learned how to distinguish between Good & Evil. I take a different perspective though. According to Big Bang theory, our universe began from a formless spec of nothing (Chaos??), and has evolved -- apparently in accordance with innate rules -- into a vast complex Cosmos. Unfortunately for inquisitive creatures, the BBT gives us no insight into where those organizing rules (laws of physics) originated.

The usual (non-biblical) assumption is that self-organization is just an inherent creative property of Nature. But scientists have also concluded that dis-organizing Entropy is dismantling organisms almost as fast as they emerge from the contingencies of competitive Evolution. Yet, the very existence of a pocket of organic order in one corner of a minor galaxy, indicates that destructive Entropy is counter-balanced by some constructive "force" or "law".

I call that positive power EnFormAction (the ability to give form to the formless). Both "Form" and "Information" convey "intelligible" meaning to perceptive minds. Part of that meaning is what we could call objective Geometric Organization (shape) and part is the subjective Relevance of that object to rational observers. Formal application of that self-relevance is what we call "Morality" : how the social & natural environment impacts the well-being of sentient creatures.

So, Science & Religion interpret the origin & meaning of natural laws from different perspectives. Genesis implies that the laws were supposed to favor sentient creatures, especially rational beings. But, Science observes that Nature seems to be impartial or uncaring. Even the biblical Ecclesiastes sheds shade on the idea of favorable divine justice : "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

My conclusion then, is that Nature is indeed indiscriminate, in the sense that its effects on both sentient & insentient creatures are fair, and delicately balanced on a knife-edge of homeostasis between Good & Evil. So, if humans have an unfair advantage in evolutionary competition, it's in their moral sense : the ability to discern potential Good from Evil (i.e. to predict the future course of Nature & Culture, and its impact on the discerner). Yet, all predictions -- especially about the future -- are constrained by the limits on our information & understanding about both now and then. Which is why human societies have developed human-oriented moral rules, to supplement the impartial physical laws of Nature. To tip the balance in favor of moral agents. :cool:

Cosmos : implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity. ___Wiki

Form : A form, according to Plato, is an abstract intelligible pattern that has various concrete sensible objects as specific instantiations. ___Quora

Chance : Fate ; probability ; happenstance ; un-intentional

The balance of Nature : The controversial Gaia hypothesis was developed in the 1970s by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis; it asserts that living beings interact with Earth to form a complex system which self-regulates to maintain the balance of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature

Homeostasis : tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

It's intriguing that the laws of physics are not broken by evil but there seems to be at the very least what could be termed as resistance to evil chemically/biologically (homeostasis, pain & death are actively avoided by animals). I guess this could be taken as a sign that evil violates a biological law/drive (horror mortem - life abhors death & horror dolor - life abhors pain).

The laws of physics are unbreachable; the laws of biology can be breached but you'll face stiff resistance when doing so. :chin:

For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...
Your whole description is quite interesting. — Alkis Piskas

My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is an attempt to answer that pertinent question. It traces the lawful order of the physical world back to the Big Bang, and beyond . . . Since Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 : EnFormAction [my term], I have concluded that some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos*2 : creative Causation within formless Chance. And the "where" is out there beyond the bounds of our finite Cosmos.

Since the ab origine causal input that created our complex universe, from a formless spec of nothingness (Singularity), is necessarily external to the knowable world --- imagine a pool shooter who stands apart from the pool table, but causes intentional effects on the table --- the only way to know the absent First Cause is to look at its real-world Effects. We can 'know' the long-gone artist by looking at his art-work. So if, as Information theorists have come to believe, everything in the world is some form of Generic Information (e.g. Energy), we can describe the Cosmic Cause as "Enformer" (form-giver), and as "extrinsic" (beyond the limits of space-time).

Understandably, most people are not content just to infer the "where" of the Source : the fount of Form. Instead, they want to know "who" created this organized world, along with its self-defining "laws". Yet, without a direct revelation from the Creator, we can only infer some logically necessary characteristics, and only guess at specifics. Which is why history is full of wild guesses about Gods, Prime Movers, First Causes, LOGOS, Creators, and now Enformers. But, your guess, about the time-before-time, is as authoritative as mine.

So, where-and-from-whom do you think the logical rules for Cosmic Self-Organization originated? Was it Random Chance or Happen-stance or Magic? If you are uncomfortable with ascribing personality to an unknowable absentee otherworldly 'Father' of Form, then we can use improper-names & impersonal-metaphors, such as Enformer or Programmer to describe the logical function of Law-Maker. :nerd:

*1. Matter-Energy and Information :
In the realm of physics, everything is matter-energy, a single element that takes two basic forms
as explained in special relativity. . . . . Can information be reduced to matter-energy, and return us to only that single element?
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf

*2. Nietzsche's Butterfly: An Introduction to Chaos Theory :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/nietzsches_butterfly_an_introduction_to/

2) Universe then habits (not laws)

If the “laws” of physics are in reality habits of physics, then they are descriptive; that is, they simply describe what has occurred in the past every time we looked. So, we notice what a brick habitually did in the past, and we assume the brick will behave in the same way in the future. — Art48

You're describing a Humean view, which is somewhat outdated. "Law realists", such as Armstrong, Sosa, and Tooley, believe there are actual laws of nature that represent a necessitation, not merely a (Humean) regularity. The law realists are physicalists - they do not believe the laws are platonic entities (like equations existing in the mind of God, or a platonic "third realm"), but rather - they represents relations between universals.

Any set of properties can be considered a universal. Examples: electrons and protons have sets of properties that are held by every individual electron and proton. Because a proton has a -1 charge and an electron has a -1 charge, it is a "law of nature" that they will attract. The law is a consequence of their intrinsic properties. The behavior (attraction) follows necessarily from their respective properties.

Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 — "Gnomon

The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course.

some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos — "Gnomon

This is logical but not necessary. We don't have enough information about that chaos, and if indeed there was a chaos. Maybe this "apparent" or "initial" chaos contained a kind of order in itself, a state of being settled down, etc. For example, when you throw a dice, there is a chaos in its movement and at some point it stops moving, becoming inert. The cause for that inertia is gravitation. (I guess, I'm not good in Physics.) Likewise, the chaos produced by the Bing Bang containd gravitational forces in itself or has produced then iself. I can't say, of course if this could ba a possibility or not.
This is one viewpoint. Another is that Big Bang is only a theory, which indeed has been prevalent for a lot of years over any other. However, we know that today, it is disputed (Re: https://www.inverse.com/article/62192-scientist-disputes-big-bang-theory . (Re: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/astronomer-who-rejected-theory-of-big-bang-1.324257, etc. I got 6.5m results in Google about < Big Bang disputed >.)

The same, more or less, goes about Singularuiy.

***

Again, I find your whole description quite interesting. But ssince my knowledge of Physics is very limited to be able to get involved more. I can only discuss what is logically possible and facts.

The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course. — Alkis Piskas

Attributing a hypothetical Mind to the Big Bang, is a logical extrapolation from the cutting-edge of Information Theory. Claude Shannon removed Mind & Meaning (semantics) from General Information, in order to make it abstract & mechanical (syntax)). But, since then, physicists have discovered that Information is the essence Energy & Matter, as noted in the PDF. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1.

Like most features of Quantum Theory, understanding the relationship between Energy, Matter & Mind can be complex & technical & counter-intuitive. Unless you are willing to get your hands dirty with "Quantum Weirdness", you'll just have to accept that some physicists have come to believe that Information (logical order ; meaning) is at the root of everything, both material and mental. Just as astronomers traced the light (energy) from stars back to a sudden emergence of something from nothing (who-knows-what), that Point of Beginning was also the origin of everything in the world today --- including Mind & Matter.*2

Likewise, the Enformationism Thesis*3 traces the evolution of Generic Information (in all its forms) back to the Big Bang. So, like Plato, I infer that the source of all rational order in the world (including Meaning) was what you could call "a mental force", which he labeled LOGOS (word, thought, principle, or speech). And all of those features of reality are associated, not with Matter, but with Mind. So, I infer that some kind of Mind "spoke" the world into existence. However, since I am skeptical of most pre-scientific speculation on the genesis of the world, I try to avoid the baggage-laden terms associated with Theism.

In view of the essential role of Information (the power to enform) in the world, I use such non-traditional terms as "Enformer" and "Programmer" to describe the abstract principle that Plato gave the mundane moniker "LOGOS". Generic Information*4 is not yet a settled scientific theory, but the causal role of Information is accepted by many Physicists & Philosophers. Most of them are also hesitant to use the "G" word, but a "rose by any other name" would smell like Deus.

So, you are correct that a world-creating Mind is necessarily prior to the Big Bang (space-time). Which means that we have no way of knowing the source of our enformed world. But, just as Cosmologists speculate (without evidence) on alien Multiverses & Many Worlds, Philosophers are free to ask questions about the Time-before-Time. Like most philosophical conjectures though, there is no final answer to such ultimate mysteries about "God, the Universe, and Everything". (Douglas Adams). :cool:


*1. Causal Information :
"information causality might be one of the foundational properties of nature"
Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird
Note -- This is a book about why Quantum Theory is non-classical. He says "it's a theory about information"

*2. Big History – The Unfolding of “Information :
The Big Bang – and then there was “1”
https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/article/view/2254/2099

*3. Enformationism :
A worldview grounded on the axiom that Information (the power to enform, to create), rather than matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. As a paradigm, it is intended to be a successor to 17th century Materialism, and to ancient Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*4. Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Information is the essence Energy & Matter. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1 — "Gnomon

I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". Yet, I would be really surprised if that could be proved and become part of our reality. Because there are too many things that don't make sense in it, which I mention below.

In the PDF (From http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf), Max Tegmark is quoted to say “I believe that consciousness is, essentially, the way information feels when being processed.”
I found this included in Tegmark's Book/paper "What Are You Optimistic About?"
Now, I wonder what kind of "information" the author of this book and the anonymous(!) author of the PDF are talking about ... Because the following question came to my mind when I read this quote was "How can an information feel?". So because this is totally absurd, I had to interpret it as follows: "the way a person feels when his mind processes an information". Then a second question was: "What kind of information is he talking about?"

Anyway, both authors should at least define "information" before using it in such an "exotic" theory. Well, I know, this is a very common unfortunate phenomenon among writers and speakers, namely, that they assume their readers/audience know and share the same meaning with them of the (key) terms they use! Moreover, most often they don't use standard/common definitions but rather their own, which makes the situation much worse! And, BTW, this is exactly why knowledge --starting to be built at an early age in life-- is so imperfect an so much confusion and misundestanding occurs in what we read and hear and then store as "knowlege".

In the present case, I can only use a standard/common/baswic definition of "information": "Facts provided or learned about something or someone." (Oxford LEXIKO) If you check other dictionaries, you will find this term in common: facts, i.e., things that are known or proved to be true. The word "known" is critical. A fact, and hence information, cannot exist by its own. It has to be processed by the mind --its nature identified, undestood, classified, etc.-- and become knowledge. Only then can information have a meaning. A computer contains millions of data, stored in its chips. Yet, they are useless and have no meaning unless they are retrieved, undestdood and used, in whatever way, by either a program in the computer itself or a person.

Another point I can mention in the PDF is that the autor maintains "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion", 1) He is the only one that has expressed this position, after I checked in the Web and 2) Wheter otr not Dualism has a faoundation or not, rejecting it in this way shows that one is ttally immerged in the physical world and cannot see anything outside it. Well, how can one judge or undestand anything about dualism if one tries to "process it" --analyze it, undestand it, etc.-- using exclusevely information from the physical world? How can I undestand anything about human logic, emotion, feelings, etc. by just looking in and examining the cells of the human body?

Then, "Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, ..."
I'm working in the IT field since the early 80s and I've never heard connecting Cybernetics or IT or even AI to matter and energy. as far as their essence and nature are concerned. So I can safely say that this is a big misconception (in contrast with that of the "Cartesion dualism" that the author brought up!)

***
In short, this is one of the most unfortunate articles related to matter, energy and/or information I have ever read. Sorry about that.

Therefore, I cannot digest or process further this "exotic" subject in the current circumstances.

The hallmark of intelligence is being systematic and that's what we see in the world, manifesting as the much-discussed order in the universe (re the laws of nature). The inference to a creator/governing deity is as natural as breathing.