[staticassertion]

It is not incomplete to say that something does not require explanation, nor is it saying it's "magic". It is a cost that your model might incur, that's it.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15776

In this paper a plurality of physicists stated that they felt that the initial conditions of the universe are brute facts that warrant no further explanation. This is not "our model doesn't yet account for it", it's "there is no explanation to be given".

[Nevermark]

A model is incomplete if it doesn't explain something.

That doesn't make a model wrong. All models we have are partial explanations.

But that doesn't make it rational to claim that an incomplete model is complete. Or to treat unexplained specifics as inherently "just so", without cause or reason (i.e. magic), and we must just accept them as unexplainable instead of pursuing them with further inquiry.

[staticassertion]

> A model is incomplete if it doesn't explain something.

I've just explained that this is not strictly true. I don't know what else to say. Brute contingencies, by definition, do not require explanation. I then gave you a paper where scientists largely believe in brute contingencies.

I think if you want to know more you can look into this. Just look for topics about brute facts and brute contingencies.

If you want to deny that brute contingencies are possible, by all means. That's a totally valid view. Just understand that it's probably not the majority view among scientists and that you aren't necessarily "right" (just as those who hold to brute contingencies aren't necessarily "right").

[Nevermark]

Constraint without an actual constraint? I am not denying it, it denies itself. It isn’t coherent.

Things are what they are because of constraints. Which is more general, and assumes less, than appeals to causes.

Constraints need not be prior. They can can be simultaneous, i.e. co-constraints. And they can be internal to the whole, i.e. all of reality can be a co-constrained structure without external constraint.

An ultimate law of conservation is a strong candidate for a self-constrained reality. All versions of forms existing that neither locally create nor destroy. And since all possible forms within that exist, no choices made universally and there are no conserving forms it excludes. A coherent, infinite, unique, zero information structure. (Uniqueness is inherent to a zero information structure. Non-uniqueness necessitates choice.)

But claiming that some things just are, with no structural necessity, is an appeal to magic. A specific, with no actual constraint matching the specificity isn’t coherent.

You don’t get something for nothing. There is no outside of reality to provide that.

Any “outside” just means that total reality was not being included in the analysis.

I am not saying we can practically figure everything out. Or that there may not be questions, that given the limited resources/laws of our universe may not be answerable from our position, even theoretically. There may be questions we can’t answer. But nothing specific “appears” with some magical independence from the rest of reality.

That is the non-taulogy of it “just is”.

It would also make reality as a whole irrational. Not even a structure that obeys a conservation law. Because it would have specifics that had no reason.

[staticassertion]

Look, I really don't care to explain this. You can reject brute contingencies, as I said. If you want to do so, great. Just don't pretend that it's indefensible, your view doesn't even align with the majority of scientists.

None of your conclusions actually follow from this, which you would be welcome to explore on your own. You can learn why conservation can be held as true while also allowing for brute contingencies. As the leading cosmologists I've cited do.

No, it's not magic. You just don't know what you're talking about. Only you can fix that.

[Nevermark]

Thanks for you patience. I wrote way too much. And have re-read what you wrote and the article.

> It is not incomplete to say that something does not require explanation

> Values of physical constants of nature

> the most popular choice was that the constants are considered brute facts and thus require no exotic explanation

So yes, I deny the coherence of the concept of "brute facts".

If something is determined, something determined it. Some mechanism, constraint, context, structure, ... Perhaps we don't have the right word or connotations, but something.

A specific from a choice is a specific relation. That relation exists, as exemplified by our encountering the specific. Our experience of coming across the specific is not extricable from that specific's consistent connection to the rest of reality. That consistency has some basis, or there would be inconsistency.

A "maintaining" mechanism for an arbitrary consistency doesn't work, because that just pushes the choice of the specific that is maintained into the maintainer, which makes it more than a maintainer.

I can believe in things we will never be able to explain, as a result of observability limitations imposed on us by local physics. Eternal ignorance for any reason is always a practical possibility.

I can believe in undetermined things, which appear with each possibility, where we only experience one, because in the product of possibilities each plays out separately.

That would be the closest I could come to a "brute fact". Because it is in fact completely determined. The specific was not uniquely chosen, because the specific is not unique. Information is conserved, no explanation of each specific is needed. Even though each specific will behave as unique, across each possibility respectively, because differing specifics interact with a disjoint relation. The disjoint relation is the operating condition creating a localization of choice.

People invent ways to explain away persistence ignorance, instead accepting it, like a fractal attractor, over and over. The psychological need to resolve the dissonance, when encountering challenges to investigation that are potentially insurmountable. And then some "way" of sweeping away the lack of explanation gets translated into a proposed lack of reasons, and given a name and connotations. But never an explanation or reason for itself. It is always faith based. The existence or principle of brute facts, must remain meta-brute facts themselves. All untestable.

Scientists can "believe" that is a valid viewpoint. But inherently cannot every demonstrate any evidence for it.

The same reasoning, with different connotations and contexts, is rejected over and over by scientists. Mystical or religious connotations doom those different "versions". But stated in a sciency way, the same situation becomes palatable to some or many. But it doesn't become more coherent by virtue of being the "physics" version of "explanation" by acceptance of non-explanation.

[staticassertion]

> So yes, I deny the coherence of the concept of "brute facts".

Cool, that is fine. I deny lots of things as well. It's a position you can hold.

> If something is determined, something determined it.

That's fine but you'll likely find yourself in an infinite regress. That's a cost you'll have to take on under your theory.

> People invent ways to explain away our ignorance of the reasons behind things, instead of accepting the reality of ignorance, almost like an attractor fractal pattern, over and over.

That's not what's happening here. These concepts are pretty rigorously discussed and debated, it's certainly not a "cop out" - it's a metaphysical cost to your world view that you have to justify.

> Scientists can "believe" that is a valid viewpoint. But inherently cannot every demonstrate any evidence for it.

You've already said that you don't believe all things can be proven via evidence, so that's fine.

But it's incorrect to say that there is no evidence for the position. There are many arguments to support the view of brute facts or brute contingencies. One example is that it seems to not accept them would lead to infinite regress, which many people have reasons to reject as well. These are well evidenced positions, that is why so many scientists believe in them.

This has nothing to do with religion or mysticism. There is nothing about this that requires "magic". Many of our most advanced cosmological models support this view. You are just not aware of this, and so it sounds like magic, but it isn't. If you think it is then I would just suggest that you learn more about it, there are many scientists and philosophers writing on the topic and I'm sure quite a few youtube videos on the topic.