The laws of physics are the software, and the universe is the hardware. Both are interdependent.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3312-the-laws-of-physics-are-the-software-and-the-universe-is-the-hardware
Paul Davies:
Orthodox physics is based on Platonism: the laws are treated as infinitely precise, perfect, immutable mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe and remain totally unchanged by physical processes, however extreme. If instead the laws of physics are regarded as akin to computer software, with the physical universe as the corresponding hardware, then the finite computational capacity of the universe imposes a fundamental limit on the precision of the laws and the specifiability of physical states.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703041.pdf
Paul Davies,The Goldilocks enigma:
For a start, there is no logical reason why nature should have a mathematical subtext in the first place. You would never guess by looking at the physical world that beneath the surface hubbub of natural phenomena lies an abstract order, an order that cannot be seen or heard or felt, but only deduced.
The existence of laws of nature is the starting point of science itself. But right at the outset we encounter an obvious and profound enigma: Where do the laws of nature come from? If they aren’t the product of divine providence, how can they be explained? English astronomer James Jeans: “The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.”
Sir Fred Hoyle:
I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents. How could the whole world of nature have ever precisely obeyed laws that did not yet exist? But where did they exist? A law is simply an idea, and an idea exists only in someone's mind. Since there is no mind in nature, nature itself has no intelligence of the laws which govern it. Modern science takes it for granted that the universe has always danced to rhythms it cannot hear, but still assigns power of motion to the dancers themselves. How is that possible? The power to make things happen in obedience to universal laws cannot reside in anything ignorant of these laws. Would it be more reasonable to suppose that this power resides in the laws themselves? Of course not. Ideas have no intrinsic power. They affect events only as they direct the will of a thinking person. Only a thinking person has the power to make things happen. Since natural events were lawful before man ever conceived of natural laws, the thinking person responsible for the orderly operation of the universe must be a higher Being, a Being we know as God.
Ethan Siegel What Is The Fine Structure Constant And Why Does It Matter? May 25, 2019,
Why is our Universe the way it is, and not some other way? There are only three things that make it so: the laws of nature themselves, the fundamental constants governing reality, and the initial conditions our Universe was born with. If the fundamental constants had substantially different values, it would be impossible to form even simple structures like atoms, molecules, planets, or stars.
WH. McCrea: "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1126/science.160.3834.1295
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3312-the-laws-of-physics-are-the-software-and-the-universe-is-the-hardware
Paul Davies:
Orthodox physics is based on Platonism: the laws are treated as infinitely precise, perfect, immutable mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe and remain totally unchanged by physical processes, however extreme. If instead the laws of physics are regarded as akin to computer software, with the physical universe as the corresponding hardware, then the finite computational capacity of the universe imposes a fundamental limit on the precision of the laws and the specifiability of physical states.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703041.pdf
Paul Davies,The Goldilocks enigma:
For a start, there is no logical reason why nature should have a mathematical subtext in the first place. You would never guess by looking at the physical world that beneath the surface hubbub of natural phenomena lies an abstract order, an order that cannot be seen or heard or felt, but only deduced.
The existence of laws of nature is the starting point of science itself. But right at the outset we encounter an obvious and profound enigma: Where do the laws of nature come from? If they aren’t the product of divine providence, how can they be explained? English astronomer James Jeans: “The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.”
Sir Fred Hoyle:
I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents. How could the whole world of nature have ever precisely obeyed laws that did not yet exist? But where did they exist? A law is simply an idea, and an idea exists only in someone's mind. Since there is no mind in nature, nature itself has no intelligence of the laws which govern it. Modern science takes it for granted that the universe has always danced to rhythms it cannot hear, but still assigns power of motion to the dancers themselves. How is that possible? The power to make things happen in obedience to universal laws cannot reside in anything ignorant of these laws. Would it be more reasonable to suppose that this power resides in the laws themselves? Of course not. Ideas have no intrinsic power. They affect events only as they direct the will of a thinking person. Only a thinking person has the power to make things happen. Since natural events were lawful before man ever conceived of natural laws, the thinking person responsible for the orderly operation of the universe must be a higher Being, a Being we know as God.
Ethan Siegel What Is The Fine Structure Constant And Why Does It Matter? May 25, 2019,
Why is our Universe the way it is, and not some other way? There are only three things that make it so: the laws of nature themselves, the fundamental constants governing reality, and the initial conditions our Universe was born with. If the fundamental constants had substantially different values, it would be impossible to form even simple structures like atoms, molecules, planets, or stars.
WH. McCrea: "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1126/science.160.3834.1295
