You can possibly define it to rules, defining a universe Bill. You need a mathematical set of points, then you need what connects them. If you are able to define how they connect you also should be able to see a topology describing it. All of it follows from accepting us being 'inside', experiencing this arrow to measure in. That means that the topology you define is a result of the communication(s). There's where constants come in, they guarantee us all to locally finding the same set of rules. As seen from a inside this universe exist, and is ruled by 'universal laws'. But the way you get to that ideal description is through local measurements. So what is true from a inside should have little relevance to some imaginary outsides description. It's even possible that to this 'outside' we don't exist

What connects us is local constants and rules. And there I would call 'c' the one that creates the geometry, the 'time' (local arrow), as well as its original definition of a constant (local) ruler and clock measuring a 'speed' of light in a vacuum.

So I would say that 'time' ('c') is what creates us. Without it? If you then want to add to it by defining more possible universes, 'materializing' in each event you can see it two ways possibly. One I would call a continuing of a Newtonian world view, that's what I call a container model. In this case it assumes that all possible bifurcations (possibilities) added up for one event becomes just such a perfect container, and there I think you will need to use dimensions very cleverly to describe that 'container'. What one need to notice with that idea though is that it presumes a finiteness, so many probabilities to an event, but no more. The other is similar to Mach ideas of a universe in where everything connects to everything, in such an idea-world I don't think you can define a event as something singular containing probabilities. Instead the event becomes a representation of a existing pattern, which makes each new universe created unique, resulting in new unique patterns for each 'probable outcome'. There you won't find anything 'finite', and that's the one I'm thinking of. It becomes too complicated for my taste, and my first description doesn't fit the way I look at it.

=

I don't mean that the last one makes it wrong to assign probabilities to a 'isolated event', I just say that what this event generates is not one alternative singular description from our reality and outcome. Instead it will generate a whole universe built on that alternative outcome, becoming a new unique pattern, which in its turn then should generate new unique 'events', in their turn creating new unique universes, those patterns adding new events creating new... ad infinitum. And that one do hurt my head.

If it is a symmetry break, then the break should be the arrow. That makes any definition of what exists outside meaningless, because we're already there. The arrow becomes the 'illusion' making us see it otherwise, and define it by measuring. On the other hand, there is no better way to define this universe (than measuring on it), never liked gurus

myself. A honest universe is one where we do as good as we can, use what logic we can find, and correct it if we find ourselves wrong. And that's science to me.

Well, there's one more thing defining a geometry. Gravity. Possibly you can split that in two though, where 'c' defines a geometry whereas 'c' and gravity defines the topology, as locally measured.