I think you are mistaking the map for the territory.
The universe is not “set up” in any way. It is us who interpret the universe as universe and building mental frames, schemes, ideas, concepts, to try to understand it.
It is even bizarre that, after we devise a mental scheme to understand what we call “the universe”, then we forget what we have done and we pretend that the universe is “set up” or obeys according to the schemes we built.

The universe is not “set up” in any way. It is us who interpret the universe as universe and building mental frames, schemes, ideas, concepts, to try to understand it. — Angelo Cannata

I was going to say the same thing.

Reminds me a little of this:

It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.”

― Voltaire, Candide

I think you are mistaking the map for the territory. — Angelo Cannata

:up:

The universe is “set up” in a rather specific way. Do laws and constants dictate the means by which the universe can operate or are the laws and constants emergent properties of a loose soup of possibility that progresses from an “anything goes” scenario towards a “stringency” model. — Benj96

Many of us believe the universe just rolls along doing it's universe thing as it has for billions of years or maybe forever. Then here we come to try to figure out what we should do next so as not to be crushed under its wheels. Scientific laws and models are the tools we invent to help us keep one step ahead, or at least no more than a few steps behind.

The universe is not “set up” in any way — Angelo Cannata

I’m using the term loosely and figuratively so as not to detract too much from the main argument with defining specific words. Because we could be here all day defining exactly what each term used means and then the flow of the discussion never precipitates.

You may use whatever synonym or appropriate replacement for “set-up” as you please. “Established”, “came to fruition”, “exists”, “acts in a certain predictable manner” etc etc. But as you’ll see from the thread the discussion is about whether the properties of the universe are predetermined from the beginning or if they emerged randomly and symbiotically like an evolution. “Set-up” I’m pretty sure falls somewhere in that spectrum.

we pretend that the universe is “set up” or obeys according to the schemes we built. — Angelo Cannata

Also I’m not saying chicken before egg here. I don’t believe the universe “obeys” anything we apply to it rather that our paradigms and algorithms (in physics and chemistry) are descriptive “best” explanations for what we observe. I’m in agreement with you on that.

However it doesn’t address much of what I asked. And whether we apply science to the universe or don’t it still does universe things in a way which is either fixed by some constant property throughout time or it’s all chaos and nothing is constant. I’m asking what others believe is the case in that respect

which is either fixed by some constant property throughout time or it’s all chaos and nothing is constant. — Benj96

There are constants or patterns. But those rules can change in time. The universe is evolving.

You may use whatever synonym or appropriate replacement for “set-up” as you please. “Established”, “came to fruition”, “exists”, “acts in a certain predictable manner” etc etc. But as you’ll see from the thread the discussion is about whether the properties of the universe are predetermined from the beginning or if they emerged randomly and symbiotically like an evolution. “Set-up” I’m pretty sure falls somewhere in that spectrum. — Benj96

This doesn't change the validity of my criticism. What you said is "I am not talking about my interpretation of the universe, but about the universe itself and how it works itself". But this way you don't realize that, even when you refer to the universe itself, or to its rules themselves, you are still talking about your interpretation of these things. In other words, it is impossible to refer to anything objectively, to anything itself, because when we say "anything itself" we are already applying our interpretation of what we are referring to. In other words, it is impossible to refer to being itself, because whenever we say it we are already interpreting it. This is just Heidegger.

Heidegger was later continued by Gadamer. Everything is interpretation and we cannot do but interpret.

A setting. Most of the interesting "emergent," stuff we see, far from equilibrium systems (life, etc.) result from the interactions of discrete amounts of "stuff." They do not follow necessarily from any observable physical laws.

You can have a tremendous amount of variability in a system with extremely simple laws (e.g. a simple differential equation). That is, these simple systems can have strong sensitivity to initial conditions, or exhibit "chaos." James Gileck's book Chaos is an excellent introduction to Chaos Theory. Strogatz' book Synch is also quite good, but it isn't entry level for chaos theory. The book doesn't require a background in the mathematics of chaos to be enjoyable, but it's focused on a subfield of chaos theory, the mathematics and science of self organizing systems. He has a Great Courses lecture series on Chaos too but I haven't listened to it. I'd imagine it's pretty good. Their one on complexity is also solid here. Or for something free, although a bit heavier, there is this wonderful summary of recent developments in physics, information theory, chaos theory, and the mathematics and philosophy tied to them: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1

The laws of physics appear to dictate how these systems evolve but not what they are. To paraphrase John Wheeler, what do you get with a complete set of the laws of physics? A bunch of fancy equations. You need the actual stuff of the universe to be what it is.

Now our "laws" of physics are not the real laws by which things behave. They are gross simplifications and probably filled with entities that we will find out don't really exist, or are better represented as something entirely different (and these will still be mere representations that are limited and shaped by our nature and abilities). The example Cartwright gives for this sort of problem is that Newton's Laws, as useful as they are, are clearly not the laws of physics. They work for two bodies in isolation. Nothing is actually in isolation. Add in multiple bodies and calculating orbits becomes impossible, for us at least. That means we may be missing something essential that would make everything I said untrue, but it seems true for now that a lot of the most interesting stuff in the universe isn't necessary under the laws we observe.

How do game developers create game worlds?

1. First the language

In the beginning was the word (logos)

The universe was written in the language of mathematic. — Galileo Galilei

2. Instructions/algorithms, simultaneous/sequential, creating the stuff and the laws they follow (faithfully).

it is impossible to refer to anything objectively, to anything itself, because when we say "anything itself" we are already applying our interpretation of what we are referring to. — Angelo Cannata

Would this mean we cannot know any truths about anything? Only our “personal/ subjective” truth about them because we cannot observe or consider anything objectively?

I don’t know how I feel about that haha. What would be the point in any pursuit of knowledge, insight and wisdom because it can never be objective true.
Second issue I have is when you factor in pragmatism. If what we “think we know” about electricity (for example) allows us to manipulate it and get it to do useful work for us as a society one would reasonably consider we have concrete objective understanding of the property/ phenomena. Because we know how to use it and can predict what other utilities it can be practical for and then execute those also.

If it’s impossible to refer to anything objectively there would be gross inconsistency in pragmatism

Instructions/algorithms, simultaneous/sequential, creating the stuff and the laws they follow (faithfully). — Agent Smith

How does an instruction instruct its own composition? I find it hard to understand how an algorithm or code or whatever used to determine the structure and components of the universe comes about simultaneously with that which it’s coding

How does an instruction instruct its own composition? I find it hard to understand how an algorithm or code or whatever used to determine the structure and components of the universe comes about simultaneously with that which it’s coding — Benj96

Good questions. All I can say, mon ami, is we've hit a wall which reason at its present level, in its present form, cannot penetrate. We need a new tool to tackle these kinda problems/issues.

we know how to use it and can predict what other utilities it can be practical for — Benj96

Whatever happens in pragmatism is always interpreted by us. When you see that a watch works, you can predict its behaviour and you can build more watches, all these things are under your interpretation, so that ultimately you cannot say what is really happening when you see that the watch works, that what you predict happens, that you can build more watches. In one word: we cannot know anything ultimately for sure. Working things are not evidence that we are in contact with reality, because the fact that they work is an intepretation of ours as well.

What would be the point in any pursuit of knowledge, insight and wisdom because it can never be objective true — Benj96

Philosophy is not technology: it doesn’t matter if its results are weird, not practical, not comfortable, or useless. Philosophy is exploration of the most ultimate things that we are able to think of.
After doing philosophy, we can work on the utility of its results, how they can be used, we can do whatever we want with the results. But this is a next step. The first step must be free from any pre-decision, otherwise your exploration is already limited in advance to what you decided is acceptable, or useful, or whatever. What’s the point of doing philosophy after having established in advance any conditions? If there are conditions, then it is not philosophy. We can discuss these conditions and it is already philosophy, because it is already an effort to explore the most ultimate things that we are able to think about.