In other words... it's as if the physical constants are the "DNA" of our universe?
Get what I mean?
What you look like today, was completely determined the minute that particular *strong* sperm met with the egg (excluding accumulated scars and other such external personal appearance factors). So too did the universe inherit a "code" at birth (AKA physical constants), that guided infant universe to become the "adult" (or perhaps 'adolescent') we see today...
So some particular "genetic codes" allow for fertile universe whilst others lead to sterile lifeless universe. Us organisms would obviously have chosen fertile universe over sterile... correct? It's not circular reasoning nor is it even an "assumption"; it's a GIVEN by definition (obviously if life emerged in "sterile universe" then this is absurd misuse of the word "sterile")
What I propose is that initial symmetry had choice; + or - (existence of universe(s) vs. nonexistence of universe(s)). I say there need be no display of favoritism; afterall why choose between equally appetizing hay stacks? Let's preserve both choices, and hypothetically consider consequences of making either choice. Harv, now say I choose "universe(s) exist". What would happen? Well we have new symmetry; namely + + -. Notice how surplus + - cancel in order to preserve initial choice of +. So now we are faced with another equally enticing set of hay stacks. We know that universes exist... but we don't know if universes expand or contract. Which do we choose? We have + (for universe exists) but we now must choose between surplus + and - (universe either expands forever, or reaches maximum circumference and proceeds to contract). Which do we pick? Why choose? Let's take same path we took before and simply consider consequences if we were to happen to pick universe that eternally expands. After that, we can consider universe that contracts.
Now say we just keep on branching off more and more +'s and -'s and consider consequences of each choice (while always conserving equal number of +'s & -'s to show no favoritism). At what point do we arrive at particular sequence of choices that favors emergence of life?
If our very first choice would have been "-", then we can immediately disqualify life... correct? No universes = no possibility of atomic elements = no possibility of molecules and chemicals = etc, etc...
So amidst infinite of choices, we find that at least one hypothetical sequence of +'s and -'s gives rise to "favorable DNA" which in turn encodes universe's "genes" (constants). Because all choices exist as potential possibilities, and no decision is ever made as to whether to choose + over - or vice versa (remember perfect symmetry plays no "favorites"), then out of the possibility that there is life... *emerges* life! And because we know that we exist... we logically conclude that symmetry for some reason *favored* "+". So we are here because it was possible for us to be here... and any finite possibility will be realized, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE, if given enough time.
So if you flip a coin for ten years... don't expect to get a perfect sequence of half a trillion uninterupted heads followed by half a trillion uninterrupted tails. However given infinite number of tosses... such an outcome is inevitable, and hence must be realized.
So our universe may have been HIGHLY IMPROBABLE! But nonetheless was inevitable! Therefore we are here, and nobody ever chose + over - (symmetry never "broke"). We simply conclude otherwise, because we are aware of our own existence...
If you take hypothetical (and I emphasize HYPOTHETICAL) sequence of choices to be + + - + - + - - - - + - + - - + + ...and so on and so on... then you arrive at chain of trillions upon trillions (perhaps 10 raised to the 1010th power of individual choices; A VERY LARGE NUMBER!), which is very complex highly improbable choice. However improbable it may seem... the "genetic code" for *our* particular universe was a possibility... and hence inevitable.
Why have initial possibility in the first place? Because *that* itself was inevitable.
Why have possibility that initiated first possibility that made initial symmetry inevitable? Because *THAT* was inevitable! ad infinitum...
Anything that is possible... is logical. Why does photon choose path A over B when both are equally enticing? It doesn't!... unless consciousness "looks" at it. Why does symmetry choose A (exist) over B (nonexist)? It doesn't!... unless consciousness "looks" at it. We are simply *forced* to "look" at choice A by what definition of choice A implies...
Two roads diverged in a wood... and I... I couldn't decide so I took both simultaneously. |