We owe our existence to the fact that our universe is full of lopsided, not balanced, quantities:
Philosopher and physicist Marcelo Gleiser, author of A tear at the edge of creation (2013), sees lack of symmetry — lopsidedness — as essential to the nature of our universe:
Gleiser reminds us that the great French physicist Paul Dirac an ardent devotee of symmetry, used it to predict the existence of antimatter, “the fact that every particle of matter (like electrons and quarks) has a companion anti-particle.”
The problem is, an expectation that the universe will be symmetrical and thus Platonically perfect, is very often disappointed:
The laws that dictate the behavior of the fundamental particles of Nature predict that matter and anti-matter should be equally abundant, that is, that they should appear in a 1:1 ratio. For each electron, one positron. However, if this perfect symmetry prevailed, fractions of a second after the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have annihilated into radiation (mostly photons). But that’s not what happened. About one in a billion (roughly) particles of matter survived as an excess. And that’s good, because everything that we see in the Universe — the galaxies and their stars, the planets and their moons, life on Earth, every kind of matter clump, living and nonliving — came from this tiny excess, this fundamental asymmetry between matter and antimatter.
Marcelo Gleiser, “Symmetry is beautiful, but asymmetry is why the Universe and life exist” at Big Think (February 9, 2022)
It’s a fundamental question, he says, what created this asymmetry we experience — but we owe our existence to it.
News, “A physicist defends imperfection in our universe: It’s essential” at Mind Matters News
Takehome: Great physicist Paul Dirac discovered antimatter by assuming symmetry (a quality of perfection). But in the details, the wheels came off.
You may also wish to read:
Physicist: Why extraterrestrials couldn’t look much like us. Except in films. They follow the same natural laws but conditions differ on each planet. Marcelo Gleiser explains, there is a “staggering diversity of worlds” out there and that diversity would shape life forms in many different ways
and
Physicist: Science, by nature, can’t have a theory of everything.
Such a theory is a sort of religious quest that has united philosophers, theologians, and scientists, But is it possible? As Marcelo Gleiser puts it, “The very process of discovery leads to more unknowns.” And they may be smaller or larger than our current knowns.
As to: “an expectation that the universe will be symmetrical and thus Platonically perfect, is very often disappointed”
Whilst there are many places in physics, such as asymmetry, where the universe is found not to be “Platonically perfect”, (and/or ‘mathematically perfect’), there are a few rather important places in physics where, (as far as measurement accuracy will allow us to tell), ‘Platonic perfection’ has now been discovered.
But first a little background and history.
As far as 3-D Euclidean geometry is concerned, there are no ‘Platonically perfect’ objects to be found in the universe.
As Dr. Egnor observed, “no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse.”
And as Dr. Egnor observed elsewhere, “A perfect sphere is entirely an abstract concept—no actual perfect sphere exists” (in 3-D Euclidian geometry).
And as Ethan Siegal himself noted, “it’s more correct to call it (the Earth) an oblate spheroid than a sphere. And even if you do, calling it an oblate spheroid isn’t the absolute truth, either.
There are surface features on Earth that demonstrate significant departures from a smooth shape like either a sphere or an oblate spheroid.”
Of related interest, it is also intriguing to point out that, surprisingly, both the electron and the sun are now found to have ‘near perfect’ roundness
Thus, as far a 3-D Euclidean geometry is concerned, (and although some 3-D objects come very close), there are no ‘Platonically perfect’ 3-dimensional objects to be found in the universe.
Now for a little history of looking for ‘Platonic perfection’ in the universe.
In Medieval Christian Europe, prior to the advent of the scientific revolution, it was believed, via neo-Platonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, that any mathematics that might describe this universe would be “God’s thoughts”,
Of important side-note; Godel’s incompleteness theorems have now all but proven, contrary to what is widely believed in present day theoretical physics, that any mathematics that might describe this universe must necessary be “God’s thoughts” since the ‘truth’ of any mathematics that might describe this universe cannot be fully contained within the math itself. i.e. The math will necessarily be a ‘incomplete’ mathematical description of the universe as far as ‘truth’ of the math itself is concerned.
To clearly illustrate the fact that the Christian founders of modern science viewed any mathematics that might describe this universe would be “God’s thoughts”, Johannes Kepler, shortly after discovering the mathematical laws of planetary motion, stated, ‘O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.’
Elsewhere Kepler also stated,
Ever since modern science was born in medieval Christian Europe, science has had a history of looking for ‘platonic perfection’, and assuming the Mind of God to be behind that ‘platonic perfection’. That is to say, that modern science has a history of reaching for perfect agreement between between any immaterial mathematics that might describe a facet of this universe and the experimental results that measure those mathematical predictions.
Prior to Kepler, Copernicus, (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543), postulated (incorrectly) that the planets orbit in “Platonically perfect” circles, (rather than orbiting as ellipses as Kepler later discovered).
Later, Isaac Newton, for allowing God could adjust the orbits of the planets, (to correct supposed orbital imperfections that would be created by perturbations), was heavily criticized by Leibniz, (and also by Laplace of all people), for having a “very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.”.. i.e. For having a narrow view about the ‘perfection’ of any mathematics that God might use for this universe.
I hold that both Newton and Leibniz, (and even Laplace himself), would all be very pleased by what modern science, (via the long term stability of the solar system’s planetary orbits), has now revealed about the wisdom and power of ‘God’s thoughts’ in creating our solar system.
Although not ‘Platonically perfect’, none-the-less, the preceding evidence for the long term stability of our solar system is very impressive evidence as far as God ‘getting the math right the first time’.
And although, for most of the history of modern science in the Christian west, finding ‘platonic perfection’ for the mathematical descriptions of the universe has been a very elusive goal, this all changed with the discoveries of Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the early 20th century.
Which is to say, as far as measurement accuracy will allow, there is no discrepancy to be found between what the mathematical descriptions of Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics predict and what our most advanced scientific testing of those mathematical predictions are able to measure.
As well, quantum electrodynamics (QED), (which is a ‘unification’ of special relativity and quantum mechanics), also now joins the list of ‘Platonically perfect’ mathematical descriptions of the universe in which we can find no deviation from what the mathematics predict and what the measurement accuracy of our best experimental testing can discern. In other words, as far as we can tell, elusive ‘platonic perfection’ is also reached for QED:
As Nima Arkani-Hamed himself, the discoverer of the amplituhedron, stated “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation.”,,,
Not to be too forward on daring to advise a genius of Nima Arkani-Hamed’s caliber on anything, but might it be too bold to suggest to Hamed that the correct explanation certainly looks to be very much like “God’s thoughts” just as the Christian founders of modern science originally held?
Another very important place where ‘platonic perfection’ is now shown to be reached in the universe, (as far as measurement accuracy will allow), is for the ‘flatness’ of the universe.
Verse:
Moreover, this ‘insane coincidence’ of ‘plantonic perfection’ being reached for the axiomatic ‘primitive object’ of the line just so happens to be necessary for us to even be able to practice math and science, (and apply technology in our world), in a rationally coherent manner in the first place:
Simply put, if the universe were not ‘ever-so-boringly’ flat (and if the universal constants were not also ‘ever-so-boringly’ constant), but the universe were instead governed by some random topology, as atheists presuppose, then modern science and technology would, in all likelihood, never have gotten off the ground here on earth.
Nor, if platonic perfection were not present for the overall flatness of the universe would we have eventually been able to deduce the ‘platonic perfection’ that is now revealed in the ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics that lay behind Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.
Of related interest to ‘platonically perfect’ higher dimensional mathematics describing this universe, “Special Relativity,, offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this 3-D temporal realm.”
Also of related interest to the ‘platonically perfect’ higher dimensional mathematics that describe this universe, although free will itself is not contained within the ‘higher dimensional’ equations of quantum theory itself, free will is, none-the-less, necessary for us to properly understand how the equations of quantum mechanics actually work.
Namely, free will is necessary in order for us to complete the measurement process within quantum mechanics.
As the late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, explained, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and precisely because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, the experimental results of quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in these quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal, ‘local-realist’, influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years.
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
Moreover, allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.
Specifically, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Verse:
Hey, it’s the best of all possible worlds. The perfect imperfects.
Why would we expect anything less?