All of science is based upon the presumption of causality. Many people don't recognize this but that's just because logic and natural philosophy seem to be out of vogue. Without the presumption of causality, there is nothing to connect observation to event and no justification for the belief that mathematics can describe reality.

However, when we look at cosmic history, causality breaks down at time = zero, about 13.8 billion years ago. After puzzling over how to proceed from such a situation I decided to attempt to learn from a master reasoner, Einstein. When faced with the problem that the speed of light seemed to be required to be a constant for all observers (which made no sense in terms of Newtonian physics), he just accepted it as a given and reasoned that space and time must adjust to keep *c* a constant. So, I reasoned, what if the situation prior to time = zero was non-causal?

Causality is all about conservation symmetries. In fact, every physical law we've found can be described as a conservation symmetry, which is apparent in the quantum mechanical "eigenmatrix" for any system and the fact that they must be Hermitian. A non-causal condition would be free from causal constraints... no limitations on getting something from nothing and/or nothing from something. There couldn't be anything like time or space, but there could be an infinity of anything. Chaos. Not the mathematical chaos of systems that are actually deterministic but so heavily dependent upon initial conditions that they are unpredictable. Real chaos with no rules.

It occurred to me that such non-Hermitian quantum states might not be impossible. Schrödinger just stated that such systems are unobservable. Maybe this requirement of quantum mechanics provides a filter so that an observable universe can *find itself* within a limitless complexity of information (or quantities... I find Wheeler's "It from Bit" idea compelling).

Schrödinger stated that quantum systems for which the physical symmetries do not balance, systems whose quantum state matrix is non-Hermitian, are “unobservable”. So, I took that as literal. I assumed everything quantum mechanics describes (a virtual infinity of allowed states, supported by evidence such as Bell’s Inequality) exists but that something about the nature of observation (causality) filters out anything that doesn’t fit. It would provide a mechanism so that, even within a chaotic froth of infinite information, every observer would experience only causal consistency.

Not only would this provide a universe, it would provide for a complete multiverse, with every observable reality instantiating. Every observation by every possible observer could instantiate, which is all you really need since, for all observers, observation defines existence. In fact, every possible combination of mutually-consistent physical laws could instantiate. Instead of our universe, able to support sentient creatures being unlikely, it would be inevitable.

Given that any such observable system must adhere to some set of conservation symmetries, where does the matter come from? Causal systems can’t get something from nothing… at least, something from nothing cannot be observed. So, the new matter must appear at the observable horizon.

Because no entanglements extend across the observable horizon, quantum mechanically, the horizon must appear as a black body. If you model a very small universe, the horizon will be very hot. In quantum mechanics there is currently a (mis)understanding that space at very small levels must be a high-energy froth, which doesn’t match observation. The problem is, instead of modeling a small part of a large vacuum, which would correspond to our current universe, they are modeling a small universe. The error comes from forgetting that what is observable is determined entirely by the set of entanglements within the system. A small portion of a large vacuum will be entangled with a large empty region… from which it’s unlikely any matter will impinge on the small vacuum being examined. I can explain this more if anyone’s interested. It’s just a problem of not using the right physical model for setting up the equations.

But, our young and small cosmos would have had very hot horizons, just as QM predicts. The horizons would cool as space expanded.

Also, because this model, in which all physics is local to the observer must satisfy conservation symmetries, the resulting cosmos should be expected to look just as ours does, with no net spin, no net electrical charge, and spherically-symmetrical.

Just presuming causality can get one from a non-causal condition to the universe we see. It’s a very powerful rule and I think it deserves greater consideration.