>>>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 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...>>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...>Two roads diverged in a wood... and I... I couldn't decide so I took both simultaneously.

• Ah... You also make an assumption! - smartguy - November 7, 2001 - 16:30 UTC
• You present a very complex argument... - smartguy - November 7, 2001 - 16:46 UTC
  • Not necessarily - harvey1 - November 7, 2001 - 17:18 UTC
    • One word... "Interconnectedness" - smartguy - November 7, 2001 - 18:49 UTC
      • LOL... no need to respond to this one Harv... - smartguy - November 7, 2001 - 19:08 UTC