Is Our Universe Just One of Infinite Possibilities?

[Russell E. Rierson]

Most religious texts posit that our universe is a special creation. But if our universe is actually a quantum superposition of all possible universes, then no particular universe would be preferred over another. There would be a symmetry among all possible universes.


There can be no no special, or "preferred" creation.

All possibilities can exist.

Symmetry demands it.



http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec18.html

Symmetry Breaking:

In the early Universe, pressures and temperature prevented the permanent establishment of elementary particles. Even quarks and leptons were unable to form stable objects until the Universe had cooled beyond the supergravity phase. If the fundamental building blocks of Nature (elementary particles) or spacetime itself were not permanent then what remained the same? The answer is symmetry.

[...]

Pure symmetry is like a spinning coin. The coin has two states, but while spinning neither state is determined, and yet both states exist. The coin is in a state of both/or. When the coin hits the floor the symmetry is broken (its either heads or tails) and energy is released in the process (the noise the coin makes as it hits the ground).

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/edis_22_4.htm

Our particular world would have to be generated through "symmetry breaking," where our low-energy world is frozen out through a series of accidents. In other words, elegant symmetry principles specify what sort of dice were rolled to produce our world. Symmetry and randomness are inseparable, the way the symmetry between heads and tails is essential to the randomness of a coin flip. And the more simple and elegant our most fundamental laws, the more this means our world is a result of accidents.

Symmetry itself, does not need a "creator", since, one can describe nothingness, or "non-existence" to be a condition of perfect indistinguishability and therefore it becomes a perfect symmetry.

 

[Iacchus32]

Symmetry itself, does not need a "creator", since, one can describe nothingness, or "non-existence" to be a condition of perfect indistinguishability and therefore it becomes a perfect symmetry.

Or, at least one would think. But how does one define, that which does not lend itself to be defined?

 

[BoulderHead]

Are you speaking about your point?

 

[Iacchus32]

Are you speaking about your point?

Well, it seems like there would have to be something first, before you could even begin to describe "nothing."

 

[BoulderHead]

You’re such a good sport, Iacchus32. You deserve better than me!

Well, it seems like there would have to be something first, before you could even begin to describe "nothing."

Ah, I am reminded of presupposing a subject in order to behold an object.
If you'll promise to eventually ban me I'll join your forum and we can talk at length about it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Ah, I am reminded of presupposing a subject in order to behold an object.
If you'll promise to eventually ban me I'll join your forum and we can talk at length about it.

By virtue of the fact that something exists, lends itself to be described ... if, we have an eye witness that is.