"Taking a quantum of super compressed unified energy" is at best something borrowed from popular physics oversimplifications and is more likely just nonsense. Fine-tuning is a fact:
“The fine-tuning of our existence, as encoded in our current best (effective) physical theories—such as the standard models of particle physics and cosmology—is a striking putative fact.”
Azhar, F., & Loeb, A. (2018). Gauging fine-tuning. Physical Review D, 98(10), 103018.
Why? Careful- you're dangerously close to (probably unknowingly) making an argument from fine-tuning.
We don't. At all. Any more than we see god (and both have been "seen" in the universe in pretty much the same way for centuries).
All physical systems are quantum systems.
I don't. This is what many cosmologists and other theoretical physicists do. It is quite obviously true in many cases and is trivially true in others. Also, you are mistaking probabilistic structures and statistical distributions with epistemic and ontological uncertainty, not to mention mistaking predictive capabilities with the nature of physical laws and the structure of physical theories. Quantum theory is a physical theory, and it is precisely because we know how it works and how to use it to make predictions with unheard of accuracy that we require fine-tuning in the more restrictive senses that we tend to use in particle physics (which overlaps with usages by cosmologists and in cosmology). In particular, RG group flows and renormalization schemes in HEP require operational fine-tuning that include those uses of "fine-tuning problems" one sees in the cosmology literature.
Wrong. Actually, in general the evolution of systems in QM is completely deterministic. A central feature of the measurement problem is that the theory requires (barring unorthodox views like Bohmian mechanics) two distinct types of state evolution. But the evolution involving random "jumps" and statistical distributions involves observation or measurement. Otherwise the system's evolution is unitary and deterministic.
We don't know universes are possible. Actually, they are basically impossible by definition. But we don't know that gods or universes are possible, we just have a long history of physics inspired by theistic and deistic belies and principles that remain today despite the increasingly secular growth of science in general and physics in particular.
It's a ridiculous hypothesis that is made almost purely in order to grant some kind of explanation that doesn't invoke the more traditional one that is behind the founding of much of physics: God. Not Zeus or other myths, but that of Newton, Galileo, etc. And I'm not a believer, so you don't have to try and convince me we lack convincing evidence for such a deity.
It wouldn't, and this explanation is often seen as an alternative to mutiverse cosmologies. It is like God- it explains nothing but does allow people who are uncomfortable with fine-tuning and naturalness problems to recover a metaphysical principle (e.g., the cosmological principle or the principle of mediocrity).
Actually, it is admitted by many of the proponents of this nonsense. It is obviously speculative as there is no evidence for it other than that e.g., our universe seems to be too special for comfort. To quote again from a proponent:
"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science... Indeed, Paul Davies regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence"
from the editor's introduction to Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.
