Ask A Genius 1289: Does the Universe Exist Without Observers? Quantum Mechanics, Symmetry Breaking, and Information Theory
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, can the universe be meaningfully said to exist if there are no observers?
Rick Rosner: You could argue that the universe observes itself. If you accept the premise that the universe is fundamentally made of information and that information requires a supporting structure, then yes, you can say it exists. The existence of an underlying structure implies that the universe itself exists. The observable order in the universe suggests its inherent existence.
You can make a statistical argument about how the calculation works, but it is far more likely that the universe exists independently of our momentary experience than that our experience of it is just a fleeting coincidence.
To put it another way, it makes more sense that the continuous string of moments we perceive has a real existence rather than the idea that we are living in a randomly generated moment that emerged from nothing and will be followed by nothing.
Jacobsen: You are someone who would adhere to the position that the universe—like Feynman’s three-path principle—has fundamental rules that make it knowable. You likely hold the view that the universe is understandable in its general characteristics, at least in terms of its fundamental structures and functions. So, a follow-up question: Do you think we will ever have an answer to why the universe exists?
Jacobsen: Yes, and we’re getting close now.
For centuries, we dismissed metaphysics because science was vastly more effective. But now, we are diving back into metaphysical questions, and we are reasonably close to answering the fundamental whys of the universe.
Additionally, everything we have learned about the universe—quantum mechanics, relativity, and other major theories—points to the idea that the universe is not needlessly complicated.
Somebody—maybe Einstein, but we could look it up—once said that while the universe is complex, it is only as complex as it needs to be.
When you break it down, the fundamental structure of the universe is probably quite simple. Consider linear time—what else could it be? Three-dimensional space likely arises from the way information is structured. The way space arranges itself around regions that share information and histories likely makes three-dimensionality the most natural and efficient configuration. If you follow that logic, it suggests that the universe’s fundamental design is optimized for the way information flows and interacts.
Yes, the universe is quite knowable. Even given the absence of some crucial data, we can be more optimistic than pessimistic about its knowability.
Einstein wrote about different scientific paths over 60 years ago—probably in 1962 or 1964—when we knew far less than we do now. Today, we know enough to confidently state that the universe appears fundamentally understandable.
Jacobsen: How is quantum mechanics different from sheer randomness at a fundamental scale?
Rosner: There was significant concern in the early days of quantum mechanics—perhaps with Einstein being the most vocal skeptic—because he could not accept that quantum events were purely probabilistic. This was reflected in his famous (or semi-misquoted) statement: “God does not play dice with the universe.”
To challenge quantum indeterminacy, Einstein, along with Podolsky and Rosen, proposed the EPR experiment. Their goal was to demonstrate that hidden variables must exist—meaning that quantum mechanics did not rely on inherent randomness, but instead on as-yet-undiscovered factors governing these processes deterministically. However, their argument did not hold.
John Bell later formulated Bell’s theorem and Bell’s inequality, which demonstrated—though I don’t recall the precise details—that quantum events are inherently probabilistic. There is no deeper hidden variable theory that can account for quantum uncertainty in a deterministic way.
However, quantum events do carry information forward. As the universe evolves, we move from a state where certain events remain indeterminate to a state where they become determined. These fixed outcomes carry with them information about the system.
If you believe in a foundational armature world—a kind of hardware layer that supports a universe made of information—then quantum events are essentially reflections of an increasing accumulation of information about the external reality that the information-based universe is modeling.
Though you could argue that, given the small scale of quantum events compared to the vast scale of the universe—
Fucking hell. I’ll have to think about it. Maybe I need to reexamine that whole idea.
Just because quantum events are inescapably random in our world doesn’t mean they can’t be determined by or reflective of events in an external world. They can appear random in our world while having been determined externally.
There’s no contradiction there.
Rosner: What was the original question about quantum mechanics?
Jacobsen: How is it different from sheer randomness?
Rosner: Because sheer randomness implies no significance—just noise—whereas you can make a reasonable argument that quantum events contain information. They are not purely random noise. But that information may not necessarily be about this world.
If our world is a model of another world, then quantum events could be conveying information from that external world.
Rosner: What if they were—hold on, though. I need to think about that more. There are countless quantum events that leave no trace.
I always use the interiors of stars as an example—there are gazillions of quantum events happening every fraction of a second, and any record of them is quickly erased in the superheated chaos of the stellar core. Not all quantum events leave a lasting record. But the ones that do—those are the ones that convey information.
But what information?
Rosner: Can a universe exist where there is never any spontaneous symmetry breaking?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Wait—I don’t know. That might be a red herring or a false path.
Or, not exactly false, but—
You’re talking about the Big Bang universe originating from an unstable initial state. It’s like a pencil balanced perfectly upright—it’s a symmetrical situation at t = 0, but it’s unstable. When symmetry breaks, energy is released, and that energy is the Big Bang.
But I’m not sure we can ever get to t = 0. I don’t think you can.
Or maybe you can, but what is viewed as unstable symmetry—yes, you can have that. But what we call unstable symmetry—yes.
Everything comes from symmetry breaking.
No, you can’t have a universe without it.
What you call symmetry breaking, I call information pressure.
You can start with a highly compressed, degenerate state of matter that exists in a low-information condition. The sequence of events that establish a timeline—the foundation of time itself in that universe—is embodied in what you call symmetry breaking.
Symmetry breaking is just the universe generating information—moving from a degenerate, low-information state to a specific, information-rich state. So yes, to answer your question—you need symmetry breaking, because what you’re calling symmetry is just an absence of information.You could even argue that the universe loathes symmetry in the same way people say it loathes a vacuum. Given the right conditions, time has to happen. You start with symmetry and move toward a highly specific state, which is a choice among all possible states. That choice—and the process behind it—is what embodies information.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 