if instead we assumed we are randomly selected among the much larger ensemble of observers inhabiting island universes differing both in their cosmological constant and in the size of their galactic seeds, then the predicted value of λ would be a thousand times larger than what we measure.[7]

Einstein’s general relativity emerges from the collective entanglement of a myriad of quantum particles moving about in a lower-dimensional boundary surface.

Even if the inflaton started out with the bare minimum level of jitters allowed for by the uncertainty principle, a burst of inflationary expansion would transform these into macroscopic wobbles, superimposing on the overall smoothness of the expanding universe a wavy pattern of variations in the field, much like ripples on the surface of an

the expansion is the explosion of space.

At the level of experience, then, every act of observing amounts to some sort of pruning of the branching tree of possible futures.

Yet, there is a problem: The no-boundary proposal predicts the most minimal inflationary burst possible.

But here’s the mystery. Obviously entropy can increase only if it starts out low. So why was the entropy lower yesterday than today?

The key difference with the classical mechanics of Newton and Einstein is that the laws of quantum theory predict only probabilities for how things will be at a later moment but no certainties.

reductionism versus emergence would appear too limited a way of looking at the world.