 and reference need to be revised. One possible defense of the cosmic void scenario is to invoke certain nonfundamental objects to make sense of the laws. The Initial Projection Hypothesis, for example, refers to an initial density matrix. But what is the meaning of the initial density matrix if there is nothing material at the fundamental level of which it is about? One possibility is to appeal to the effects it has on the non-fundamental worlds and objects. To understand the meaning of the Initial Projection Hypothesis, it may suffice to understand it in terms of the behaviors of the tables and chairs, which are derived from the hypothesis. After all, we make sense of fundamental laws by their effects on observable objects, such as the behaviors of pointers and measurement instruments. How their behaviors are connected to more fundamental facts requires theoretical postulates. Our epistemic access to the fundamental material ontology is rather limited anyways.9 To be sure, some might object that fundamental laws cannot be about anything other than fundamental things or properties.10 If one holds this view and thinks void scenario may entertain the possibility that space-time is not fundamental and is also emergent from the strongly deterministic laws. She may use ideas from the research program initiated in (Carroll & Singh 2018). However, this move will be in tension with the arguments proposed in (North 2018). 9Thinking about the metaphysics of fundamentality, Bernstein (2020) suggests that we should take seriously the possibility that the middle level inhabited by medium-sized dry goods such as tables and chairs is the most fundamental level of reality. Middle level fundamentalism provides an alternative to the usual debate between microphysical-fundamentalism and cosmos-fundamentalism. This is not the metaphysical picture I favor (and neither does Bernstein endorse middle level fundamentalism). However, if that view is possible, then presumably the fundamental laws in such a world are primarily about the behaviors of tables and chairs. Hence, it should also be possible that we can make sense of the fundamental laws in the cosmic void scenario by looking at their effects on the non-fundamental objects. 10For example, see discussions in (Lewis 1983, Sider 2011). 16 this view is justified, one would dismiss the possibility of the cosmic void scenario. However, one might think it is better if the laws refer only to fundamental objects and their properties but remain agnostic whether we are justified in imposing such a condition on all physical theories. One can maintain that the principle is a desirable theoretical virtue to be balanced with other considerations
and reference need to be revised. One possible refutation of the cosmic null scenario is to invoke certain nonfundamental object to cause sense of the laws. The Initial Projection Hypothesis, for exercise, refer to an initial density matrix. But what is the meaning of the initial concentration matrix if there be nothing material at the cardinal level of which it is about? One possibility is to appeal to the effects it experience on the non - fundamental worlds and objects. To sympathize the meaning of the Initial Projection Hypothesis, it may suffice to understand it in terms of the behaviors of the table and chairs, which are derived from the guess. After wholly, we make sense of fundamental laws by their effects on observable aim, such as the behaviors of pointers and measurement instruments. How their behaviors are connected to more cardinal fact requires theoretical postulates. Our epistemic access to the fundamental material ontology is rather limited anyways.9 To be sure, some might object that fundamental torah cannot be about anything other than fundamental thing or properties.10 If one hold this view and thinks void scenario may entertain the possibility that space - time is not fundamental and is besides emergent from the strongly deterministic laws. She may use ideas from the research program initiated in (Carroll & Singh 2018). However, this move will be in tension with the arguments proposed in (North 2018). 9Thinking about the metaphysics of fundamentality, Bernstein (2020) suggests that we should claim seriously the hypothesis that the in-between level inhabited by medium - sized dry goods such as table and chairs is the most fundamental level of reality. Middle level fundamentalism provides an option to the usual debate between microphysical - fundamentalism and cosmos - fundamentalism. This is not the metaphysical picture I favor (and neither does Bernstein back middle degree fundamentalism). However, if that view is potential, then presumably the fundamental laws in such a populace are primarily about the behaviors of mesa and chairs. therefore, it should also be possible that we can make common sense of the fundamental laws in the cosmic void scenario by looking at their consequence on the non - fundamental objects. 10For example, understand discussions in (Lewis 1983, Sider 2011). 16 this view is justified, one would dismiss the possibility of the cosmic void scenario. However, one might intend it is better if the laws refer only to fundamental objects and their property but persist agnostic whether we are justify in imposing such a condition on all physical theories. One can maintain that the principle is a desirable theoretical merit to be balanced with other considerations
 anf reference need to be rtvised. One possible defeise of fhe cosmkc void scenario is to invokx ceetain nonfundamental objectr to make sense od tht laws. The Initial Projecbnon Hgiothevms, for example, tefers to an initial densidy mctrix. But what is the meaning of the initiak fensity matrix if uhewe ia nothing material at the fundamenfal levtl of which it is sbout? One possibility is tl apoeal to the effectd it has on the bon-fundamentxl worlds and objects. Jo understand the meaning of the Initnal Projectuob Hjkothesis, it nay slffice to undcgstand ht in trrms of the bemaviocs od the tables and chaics, which are derived from the hvpothesis. After all, ww nake vensa of dunaamtntel maws bj tieir effecta on observqble objects, such ax eye behaviors kf poigtqrs and measurement instruments. How thepr bshaviors are connected ro more fundamental fwcts requyres theoretical postulates. Our epistemic access do thx wunbqmentxo laterial ontology is rather limited anyways.9 Tj bt slre, some might obmect that fundamenyap kwws cannot be about angthing other than vundamegtal rhings or prolerties.10 If one holds this vuew and thinhw void scenario mav entertain che poxsibikity that space-time is uot fuhdamental ajd is alsk emergent from tfe xtsongly dtgerministic laws. Fhe may uwe ibeas froo thg reseawch progral inibhated in (Carroll & Dingh 2018). Vowever, thls move will be in tension with the arguments psopmsed in (Uorth 2018). 9Thinking abott the metaphyxics of fundxmentality, Bernstxin (2020) suggestf that we shogpd take serimusly thq powsibulity tfxt the middle kevel inhcyited by nedium-sized dry gopds auch as tables cud chairs is the kosg ftnfakegdal level of reauith. Middue level fukdaoentslism provides an aldernztive to the usual dcbate betqeen micwophysical-funcamentalism and codmos-fnndameitalisk. Tris is not the metaphysical pidture I fwvov (and neither doew Bernstein zndorse middle level fundamentalism). Howeter, if that view is poswible, then presumabkn the fundamxntal jaws in sgch a world are primqrily about the bthaviors of tables and dhairs. Hencf, it should also be possible that we can make sense of the fundamental laqs in vhq cosmic vojd svenarpo yy kookind at vheir effects on nhe non-fundamental objects. 10For eeample, see dnscussions in (Lewis 1983, Sider 2011). 16 yhks view is jurtified, one would dismisa the poxsibility of the cosmic void scrnario. However, one might think ir is getter if vhe laws refer only yo funbamentql objexts wnd their prooeryics but remwin egnkstic whether we are justified ib impowijg such a conditmon on all pmyrical theoryes. One can mainfain hhat jhe principle os a desirable theoretical virtue no fe balanced wiuh other considgrations
and reference need to be revised. One of cosmic void is to invoke sense the laws. The Projection Hypothesis, for refers to an initial density matrix. what is the meaning of the initial density matrix if there is nothing at the fundamental level of which it is about? One possibility is to to effects has the non-fundamental worlds and objects. To understand the meaning of the Initial Projection Hypothesis, it may to understand it in terms of the behaviors the tables and chairs, are derived from the hypothesis. all, make sense fundamental by effects on observable such as the behaviors of pointers and measurement instruments. How their behaviors are connected to more fundamental requires theoretical epistemic access the material is rather limited be sure, some might object that be about anything other than fundamental things or If one this view and thinks void scenario entertain the possibility that space-time is not fundamental is also emergent from the strongly deterministic laws. She may use ideas from the research in (Carroll & Singh However, this move be tension the proposed in 2018). 9Thinking about the metaphysics of fundamentality, Bernstein (2020) suggests that should take seriously the possibility that the middle level inhabited dry such as tables chairs is the most level reality. Middle level fundamentalism alternative the microphysical-fundamentalism cosmos-fundamentalism. is not the metaphysical I favor (and neither does endorse middle level fundamentalism). possible, then presumably the fundamental laws in such world are primarily about the behaviors of and chairs. Hence, it should also be possible that we can make of the in the cosmic void scenario by looking at effects on the non-fundamental 10For example, see discussions in (Lewis 1983, Sider 2011). this is justified, would dismiss the of the cosmic scenario. However, one it is if laws fundamental objects and their properties but agnostic we are justified in imposing a all physical theories. One can maintain that the principle is a desirable theoretical virtue to with other considerations
 and reference need to be revisEd. One possiBle deFenSe oF tHe coSmic Void scenario is TO invOke certain nonfundamentAl objEcTS to mAKe Sense Of the laWS. THE iniTiAl proJeCTiOn HypOthEsis, for Example, refErs To An initial denSItY matrix. But WhaT is the meaninG of The iniTiAl dENsity MatRix if There iS NothinG material At THe fundAMental lEVEl Of whIch it is about? One poSSiBIlity is to appeaL to the EfFEcTS It hAs oN the non-funDaMentaL Worlds aND oBJECts. tO understand thE meaning of tHE InItial PRoJecTIon HypOthesIs, IT maY suffice to uNderStand it in Terms oF The behaVIors of tHe tablEs aNd cHairS, WhIcH arE dERivED fRom THe hYpothesiS. AFtEr all, We maKE SENse oF fuNdamEntal Laws by their efFecTs on OBseRvablE objeCts, sUcH as thE behavIors oF pOinters and measuRemeNt instrumEntS. HOw tHeIr behAViors aRe cOnnEcted to More funDAmeNtAL FAcTs requires theoretiCaL POsTulates. OUr episTEmIc ACcess to tHe FunDameNTAl matEriaL OnTology is Rather LImItEd anywaYs.9 to be suRe, SomE miGht obJEct tHat funDamental Laws cANnot be about anyTHing other than FUnDAMeNTal tHinGs or propertIes.10 IF One hOlds THiS viEW and tHinks VoID sCEnario may entertain tHe PossibIlity That space-time Is not fundaMENTal and is Also EMeRGent from the strOngly DeterminisTIc laws. ShE may uSe ideas fRom the resEARch progrAm iNitIatEd iN (cArRoll & Singh 2018). HoweVER, thiS mOve will Be iN tensioN wiTh tHe aRguMeNts proposEd in (NortH 2018). 9THiNkInG abOut thE MetaphysIcS of FuNdaMentaLIty, BerNsteiN (2020) sugGeStS ThaT we shouLD tAKE serIoUsLy thE poSsIbiliTy thAT thE middle Level inhaBitED by mEdIuM-sized dRy goods such as TaBles and chaIrS is The mosT FUndamentAl level of reality. Middle lEVel fundAmeNtaliSm prOvides an aLteRnativE to THe usuaL debatE betwEeN miCROphysICAl-FunDaMentalism aND CosMos-fuNdAmenTalism. THis is not the metaphySIcaL picture I favoR (anD neiTHEr DoeS beRNstEiN EndORSe middle level fuNdamentaliSm). hOwEver, if that VIew Is PossiblE, then prEsumaBLy the fuNdamental Laws in sucH a WorlD ARe pRimarily abOut the beHaviors of TAbles ANd ChairS. HeNce, it sHoUld Also bE possiBLe tHat we Can makE sEnse of The fuNdAmental lAws in the cosmic void scenaRio by lOokinG at Their effeCts ON thE non-fundaMentAl objects. 10FOr eXamPle, seE diSCussiOns iN (leWis 1983, sIder 2011). 16 tHis vIEw is justiFIeD, onE WOuLd dismiss thE POSsiBilitY of THe cosmIc voId scenario. However, ONe might think it Is beTTEr iF thE Laws ReFer only to fundaMenTaL OBjects anD tHeir propertIes but reMaIN agnoStic whEther wE are jusTIFiED in impOsinG suCh a conditIon On ALl physiCaL tHEories. one cAn MaintaIn that THe prINCiple is a desirablE theoRETical VIrtUe to bE bAlanced WIth oTher considErations
 and reference need to berevised. O ne po ssi ble  d efen se o f the cosmic v o id s cenario is to invoke c ertai nn onfu n da menta l objec t st o  ma ke  s ens eo fthe l aws . The I nitial Pro jec ti on Hypothesi s ,for exampl e,refers to an  in itialde nsi t y mat rix . But  whati s themeaning o ft he ini t ial den s i ty  mat rix if there is n o th i ng material at  the f un d am e n tal  le vel of whi ch  it i s  about? On e p oss i bility is toappeal to t h e e ffects  i t h a s on t he no n- f und amental wor ldsand objec ts. To underst a nd themeanin g o f t he I n it ia l P ro j ect i on  Hy p oth esis, it  m ay  suff icet o u nder sta nd i t interms of thebeh avio r s o f the  tabl es a nd  chai rs, wh ich a re  derived from t he h ypothesis . A ft eral l, we make s ens e o f funda mentall aws  b y t he ir effects on obse rv a b le  objects , such as  t h e behavi or s o f po i n tersandm ea surement  instr u me nt s. Howth eir be ha vio rsare c o nnec ted to  more fu ndame n tal facts requ i res theoretic a lp o st u late s.Our epistem ic a c cess  tot he  fu n damen tal m at e ri a l ontology is rathe rlimite d any ways.9 To besure, some m i ght obje ct t h at fundamental la ws ca nnot be ab o ut anyth ing o ther tha n fundame n t al thing s o r p rop ert i e s. 10 If one hol d s  thi sview an d t hinks v oid  sc ena rio  m ay entert ain thepo ss ib il ity  that space-ti me  is  n otfunda m entaland i s al so  e m erg ent fro m  t h e  str on gl y de ter mi nisti c la w s.She may  use idea s f r om t he  r esearch  program init ia ted in (Ca rr oll  & Sin g h  2018).However, this move will be in t ens ion w iththe argum ent s prop ose d  in (N orth 2 018).  9 Thi n k ing a b o ut  th emetaphysic s offunda me ntal ity, Be rnstein (2020) sug g est s that we sho uld  tak e se rio u sl y  th ep oss i b ility that themiddle lev el in habited by med iu m-sized  dry go ods s u ch as t ables and  chairs i sthem o stfundamenta l levelof realit y . Mid d le  leve l f undame nt ali sm pr ovides analter native  t o theusual  d ebate be tween microphysical-fun dament alism  an d cosmos- fun d ame ntalism.This  is not th e m eta physi cal pictu re I fa vor (andneit h er does B e rn ste i n  e ndorse midd l e lev el fu nda m entali sm).  However, if that view is possib le,t h enpre s umab ly  the fundament alla w s  in such  a  world areprimaril ya boutthe be havior s of ta b l es and ch airs . H ence, itsho ul d  also b epo s siblethat  w e canmake s e nseo f  the fundamental  laws i n the cos mic v oi d scena r io b y lookingat their ef fectson t he no n-funda me ntal o bje ct s. 10For e x ample, se e dis cussion sin ( Lew is 198 3, S i d er 20 11).  1 6 t his viewi s  j u st if i ed,  one  woul ddism iss the p o ssibilit y o f  the co sm icv o id sce n ar i o . However,  on e mig h t  think iti s be t te r  if t he law s refe r onlyt o f un damenta l o b j ects andtheir pro p ert ie s bu t remain  a gnos ti c w he ther we are jus tified i n imposi n g  sucha c o ndit i on onal l physical t heori es .  One ca n mai ntain t h atthe  pr inci ple  isa  desirable theoretical v irtu e tob e b alanc ed wi th  other c o nsid erations 
 and_reference need_to be revised. One_possible defense_of_the cosmic_void_scenario is to_invoke certain nonfundamental_objects to make sense_of the laws._The_Initial Projection Hypothesis, for example, refers to an initial density matrix. But what is_the_meaning of_the_initial_density matrix if there is_nothing material at the fundamental_level of_which it is about? One possibility is to_appeal_to the effects_it has on the non-fundamental worlds and objects. To_understand the meaning of the Initial_Projection Hypothesis, it_may_suffice_to understand it in_terms of the behaviors of the_tables and chairs, which are derived_from the hypothesis. After all, we make_sense of fundamental laws by their_effects on observable objects, such_as the_behaviors of pointers and measurement_instruments. How their_behaviors are_connected to more_fundamental facts requires theoretical postulates. Our_epistemic access to_the fundamental material ontology is rather_limited_anyways.9 To be_sure,_some_might object_that fundamental laws_cannot_be about_anything_other than fundamental things or properties.10_If_one holds this view and thinks void_scenario may entertain the_possibility_that space-time is not_fundamental and is also emergent_from the strongly deterministic laws. She_may use_ideas from_the research program initiated in (Carroll & Singh 2018). However, this_move will be in tension with_the arguments proposed in_(North 2018)._9Thinking_about the metaphysics_of_fundamentality, Bernstein_(2020) suggests that we should take seriously_the possibility_that the middle level inhabited by_medium-sized dry goods such_as_tables and chairs is the most_fundamental level of reality. Middle level_fundamentalism provides an alternative to_the_usual_debate between microphysical-fundamentalism and cosmos-fundamentalism._This is not the metaphysical picture_I favor (and_neither does Bernstein endorse middle level fundamentalism)._However,_if that view is possible, then_presumably_the fundamental laws in such a_world_are_primarily about the behaviors of_tables and chairs. Hence, it should_also be possible that we can make sense of_the fundamental laws_in the cosmic void scenario_by_looking_at their effects on the non-fundamental objects. 10For example, see_discussions in_(Lewis 1983, Sider_2011). 16 this view is justified, one would dismiss the_possibility of the cosmic void scenario. However,_one might think it is better if the laws refer only_to fundamental objects and their properties but remain_agnostic whether we are justified in imposing_such a condition on_all_physical theories. One can maintain that the_principle_is_a_desirable theoretical virtue_to be balanced_with other considerations