Ooooh i see what he’s saying. Multiverse is just out of reach like a moment ago but it’s still existing and will always exist. What the heck. Kinda nuts but crazy possibility.
Hmm... I took it slightly differently. I took it as the multiverse contains a universe identical to every point in our timeline simultaneously. So let's say you drop a pencil right now, well, there exists a universe (right now) where you're just about to drop the pencil, one where the pencil is in mid fall, one where you dropped it yesterday, one where you don't drop it for 1000 years, etc, etc, all existing "right now". This is how I think of it. Imagine having an infinite film of the story on the universe, with each frame representing a moment in time. You make an infinite number of copies of that film and load them onto an infinite number of projectors and play them all at the same time, but play each consecutive film exactly one frame ahead of the one before it. Because there are an infinite number of these playing, there is no "1st film"... There are always films before and after the one you're watching, with each one playing out the story of the universe either ahead of where you're at or before. If you stopped all the projectors, your time would appear to freeze, but if you ran down the line of projectors to view what's frozen on their screens, time would appear to go forward running one way, and backwards the other way. I might have just made that more complicated. Sorry about that. The idea just fascinates me. So many implications, so many things to think about.
@@Jinxed007 yeah i understood but the multiverse is just out of reach even though we pass through it. The problem is that there isn’t a place to store all of them so it’s stored as potential, something that isn’t fully formed yet like disassembled but it grows through connection/transmission of energy. The energy passes through connected to certain forms we can decipher and interpret. Maybe the multiverse doesn’t exist and we are creating it.
I have always admired David Deutsch’s way of describing the multiverse. Some day I hope to convince him that these branching possibilities exist physically within five orthogonal dimensions, but so far I have not.
They do not branch, but exist as manifold possibility comprising the bulk/block omniverse. Will you elaborate on "five orthogonal dimensions"? It sounds interesting, and I may be able to offer some additional insight. *Oh I see. Another guy trying to sell his 'book'... nevermind.
@@David.C.Velasquez Yes, we’re talking about timelessness here, where the distinction between past present and future is not relevant. I talk about my conversations with David Deutsch on this subject in a 2011 video called Imagining the Fifth Dimension. Hawking called it “imaginary time, at right angles to space time”. Everett said the universe’s quantum wavefunction exists within a “subspace orthogonal to spacetime”, same idea. And Kip Thorne talks about what the “multiple 4D world tubes” of Everett’s Many Worlds would look like to a hypothetical 5D observer in his 2014 book The Science of Interstellar. I say “five orthogonal dimensions” in the context of additional orthogonal dimensions out to Infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space if you choose to go that far. Thorne says we can lump any remaining dimensions together beyond our wavefunction and call that The Bulk. But I would suggest any discussion of additional dimensions where some are spatial and some are temporal is mixing apples and oranges. The fourth and fifth dimension are just as spatial as the first three. Our window into those additional spatial dimensions is limited to three dimensions observed one Planck Frame after another, leading some to believe time can only be an arrow and the fifth dimension is too small to be observed.
Haha, I remember you! I use to follow your videos years ago about 11-dimensional space. I was a fan of your perspective and I even decided to use your name in my sci-fi novels. I created a whole plot device based off of your theories about dimensions. I had no idea you were still active wow
Would love to know the original broadcast date of this episode. Because it seems the multiverse idea of cosmic inflation is being mixed in with Everett’s many worlds idea. Was cosmic inflation a well known thing yet when this was first broadcast?
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...
Basic question: Is the idea that for every quantum event that has more than one possible outcomes, one or more parallel universes are differentiated? If this is the case, then I suppose the interference pattern seen in the split beam experiment is actually the result of the parallel universes interference pattern?
YES! Finally someone else understands. In all seriousness though, I feel like I've been waiting since 1995 to observe somebody outside my circle, and David Deutsch of course, to realize what seems so obvious.
@@David.C.Velasquez Well, don't overestimate me. It seems like this just trades one set of questions for another set. For example, in this theory, you replace the question of how a particle can interact with itself for a question of how different universes interact with each other.
Well said@@AndrewUnruh, and of course anything answered leads to more questions. It may be that bosons weakly interact with their parallel counterparts through a dimension, or degree of freedom, that we cannot access or perceive directly, having mass, and being subject to time. I will link to the original David Deutsch program that I saw on late night PBS *in 1995, that crystallized, my then very chaotic view of reality, well before such matters were openly discussed outside philosophical/metaphysical circles. ruclips.net/video/SDZ454K_lBY/видео.html&ab_channel=despectable
He seems to be saying, if you took a billion exact copies of some animal-lets say a hominid-and set them loose in exactly the same but separate environments, that those hominids would very quickly show differences compared to each other and would eventually be having vastly different kinds of experiences. Or have I got that wrong?
It would be great if R Kuhn's crucial question about time had a more detailed consideration. The answer from D Deutsch involved a sort of 'ergodic' reasoning, and there is also the time-energy uncertainty to blur the equivalence mentioned.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. ---------------------------------------------------
Feynmann, allá por 1960 dijo: quien dice que entiende el significado de la mecánica cuántica, en realidad no entiende nada. Desde entonces la Física avanzó ,sí , pero dando bastonazos de ciego y ninguna teoría resulta completa o consistente. Antes la ciencia ficción iba detrás de los descubrimientos, ahora parece que la física va detrás de la ciencia ficción .
Each entity has its own clock, that's a function of space-time, whichever of the Many Worlds you consider. Assuming anything is possible; Each clock can be converted to 'Absolute Time', both after the 'big bang' and before.
Even when Einstein thought he made his biggest blunder with the addition of the cosmological constant, and was utterly wrong, he was eventually proved to be right. Einstein also saw through some of the absolute absurdities of the Quantum Theory (e.g. the many world interpretation etc.) and I have a suspicion that, when all is said and done, he will prove to be correct there as well.
With do respects to Einstein (as I hold him in highest esteem), his detailed thinking on these topics in his later part of his life are now rather dated by new understandings and discoveries. To say that he was ultimately correct in his thinking with regard to some new “fundamental theory” of QM would point to his problems with things like “superposition” where a particle is in two different places at once and things like “collapse” finalizes the position “instantaneously”, both of which are inconsistent with his theories. So him being “correct” is a little slippery as per what “very fundamental” concepts of his are chosen and what are not. Personally I would love to see him be correct on the concepts I mentioned BUT that requires a lot of other people’s cherished “beliefs” are more than a bit off with regard to …
@@Mentaculus42yes. Causality and the quantum world aren’t reconciled through relativity. If they could have been , they would have been long before Albert died. At least I think so.
@@dr_shrinker I always look at it as; WHOSE “SACRED OXEN” WILL BE GORED! Both QM’s & GR’s adherents to orthodoxy have to come to grips with the paradox of being both “incomplete” and yet also seemly “inviolable” (at least in their minds & entrenched by some impressive results). This rigid incompatibility is a fascinating conundrum from both a scientific and a philosophical perspective. There are so many established stakeholders that will never consider a concordance. That an all encompassing solution has not been found should not be a surprise to a careful observer of the history of the “personalities” involved with these clashing theories. If a more fundamental underlying & subsuming theory were to be found (most likely by an outsider from the intellectual hegemonies) it would be by standing on top of a lot of “broken egos”. So to put it another way, why things have NOT been “reconciled” maybe more about the “inflexibility of human nature” than the “complexity of Mother Nature”, because it is obvious that Mother Nature has an operational “solution” that holds no credence in orthodoxy. So where does one start “poking holes” in the dualistic intellectual hegemonies when dealing with such a conundrum? I personally think that QM & GR are in a metastable state of “perplexassity” ( [sic à la sniglet] yes a Pseudo-Nonce).
A flaw in Deutsch's claim that the number of differentiated universes is finite is that the wavefunctions of most systems have an infinite number of superposed states. Although some observables have a finite number of superposed states (such as electron spin, which can be "up" or "down") and thus produce a finite number of Many Worlds branches when measured, other observables (such as position, momentum, etc) have an infinite number of possible states, so measuring one of those observables would lead to an infinite number of differentiated branches. Perhaps Deutsch omitted some assumption, perhaps involving Heisenberg uncertainty or discreteness of space, that results in a finite limit of the superposed states in a wavefunction.
I think you’re not taking into account quantisation, which means that the possible states of quantum systems are not continuous. They are, well, quantised.
@@simonhibbs887 : No. Although energies are quantized, quantum mechanics allows a photon (for example) to have any (positive) energy. Quantization requires the photon to be entirely absorbed if/when it's absorbed, but doesn't require a photon's energy to be an integral multiple of some unit of energy. So suppose a high-energy photon is absorbed by an electron in an atom, kicking it out of the atom. Some of the photon's energy is converted to the potential energy needed by the electron to escape the attraction of the nucleus, and the rest of the photon's energy, if any, is converted to kinetic energy of the electron. Since the absorbed photon could have had any amount of energy, the electron's kinetic energy could be any value in a continuous range, which implies an infinite number of possible kinetic energies. And consider a photon emitted by a distant star. Its energy loss (red-shift) due to the expansion of space depends on the time & distance it traveled before it reaches us. Since time & distance are modeled as continuous, not discrete, in quantum mechanics, the energy loss can be anything in a continuous range... an infinite number of possibilities even though the range is bounded. As I wrote at the end of my initial comment, some assumption must be added to QM to make the number of possible superposition terms always finite, if one wants to claim the number of branchings in MWI must be finite. Tim Maudlin mentioned the infinite branchings during a discussion months ago on Sean Carroll's youtube channel. Tim was referring to the position observable, which can take any value in a continuous range (unless space isn't continuous). Sean didn't dispute it, and he's one of the foremost authorities on MWI.
Hey Robert what’s so difficult to understand? Do you really find it difficult to understand or to accept? It’s been explained since Luis de Molina and is fully compatible with Feynman’s sum of integral path (sum of all stories), all possibilities have always existed and they all exist, however all counter-factuals are known, human freedom as well as minor natural phenomena updates the actualities and we live a reality in one of all that many universes which has always exististed. You live in one history out of the sum of all histories, which history is that is updated event by event and brought into actualities, some of those events are counter-factuals update from our own agency while most others are external to us, either what we call environmental or brought into actuality by agency of others. That simple. As proven as QED and QFT. Fully theologically compatible, testable and tested on a daily basis by everyone using an iPhone which would never exist without the reliability of QFT. Interviews a quadrilist and they will explain it to you. You got close to it by interviewing Penrose as a trialist. Try the other way around, if you can’t accept but can understand try to refute.
*"Hey Robert what’s so difficult to understand?"* ... If what Deutsch proposes is true, and there is a "finite number of universes" to start with that somehow differentiated themselves into an "infinite number of universes," ... then what determined the limit to the "finite number" of starting universes? Even if it's an "incredibly huge" number of _starting_ universes, then why is it that particular number ... and not one universe more than that? If understanding "Multiverse" is so easy, then the answer to this question should be equally easy, right?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC: Deutsch did NOT say the total number of universes is finite. He said the total number of DIFFERENTIATED universes is finite, and the total number of universes is infinite (and always has been infinite).
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC yes both are true, it’s easy to understand but not to accept and easy to answer, still you had a hard time listening and therefore you misunderstood what he said please see again 0:22 and later 1:17 and please reformulate your question Keeping in mind the central elements of what I added before: what is finite is all histories which can be known and therefore integralized, what is infinite is the configuration of the actualities as one counter-factual which collapses (by interaction of other wave) or objectively reduces (spontaneous collapse worded to reference Penrose’s OR) leads to a whole new configuration of the next set of actual possibilities
@@eksffa *"still you had a hard time listening and therefore you misunderstood what he said please see again **0:22** and later **1:17** and please reformulate your question "* ... No need for the condescending attitude. I corrected myself in another thread. It still begs the question: _"Even if it's an 'incredibly huge' number of resulting "differentiated" universes, then why is it that particular number and not a single universe more than that?"_ In other words, if the number of resulting "differentiated" universes is finite, what sets the number of resulting universes to that finite number? What is preventing it from being more than that number if the original supply of universes is infinite? *"what is finite is all histories which can be known and therefore integralized"* ... If the source that's generating the histories is infinite, then the resulting histories should be equally infinite. ... Infinite-in; infinite out. *"what is infinite is the configuration of the actualities as one counter-factual which collapses (by interaction of other wave) or objectively reduces (spontaneous collapse worded to reference Penrose’s OR) leads to a whole new configuration of the next set of actual possibilities."* ... Unnecessary obfuscation. You're still dealing with the inexplicable existence of "infinite universes" when only a single universe suffices. Ockham razor points to a single universe. Succumbing to the fantastic does not solve anything.
sorry it’s not my intention, English is not my native language so I think it’s matter of ausente of facial expressions to accompany my words. As per Feynman once you have scalar measure of the conditions which you will take as initial, you can calculate how the waves will progress and how they will branch, including the number of them, while as they update in the actuality, but see again you still have your other idea in mind which is different from that the interviewer said, you are asking assuming infinite universes as a premise while he said the opposite, what is infinite is the arrangements of states within each finite “history line”. Your other considerations are based on the same understanding :) As for Okham razor if it pleases your mind to look from this perspective the one universe is the actual one while all other are the universes which is a product of conter-factuality - the set of all universes that could be the actual update one. It’s still one (actual) universe with infinite state arrangements from a set of huge still finite ever-existing universes.
Hence the collapse of the wave function is actually a choice between multiple dimensional options (or threads of fate in a classical literary context). To what degree the individual can inlfuence that wave function vs outide actors, pretty much determines the difference between fate/deterministic and free will/undetermined. Before the collapse, a finite set of possibilities/inlfuence exist, but all exist in the same locality. Perhaps the basis of the irrational need for virtual particles. Ghosts of alternate influence...vying for dominance...to shape the future. Temporal politics then. 😏
In Deutsch's variation of Many Worlds, all of the universes already existed, so none are being created by quantum branching. Branching is just a differentiating of some universes that already exist. (He said that near the beginning of the video.) If there was any creation, it all happened at the beginning, when the infinity of universes were simultaneously created.
Because inflation is so fast, it separates particle pairs faster than they can annihilate each other, like Hawking’s radiation and black holes. The orphaned particles clump/form the matter of the universe. Without inflation, we probably wouldn’t have matter, nor a universe to sustain life as we know it.
@@dr_shrinker Whoa! Experiencing a moment of disorientation here. We actually agree on something. But of course you would say we were destined (or determined) to do so from the beginning of time. Just jesting. 🖖
@@longcastle4863😂thanks for explaining. I can grasp that for single particles briefly appearing and recombining destroy each other. But entire universes that go on existing seems too much.
I don't think this is consistent. Temporal decoherence work-around with the transformations was final red flag. If the universes have never been measured and the MWI is only one of a few interpretations of the wavefunction, AND we're assuming quantum gravity, that still doesn't imply distinct metaverses within a grand universe that co-eveolve discrete-infinitely. You could have the fact that one universe exists and them temporal decoherence isn't a problem to be solved with equivocating different times as 'the same' across already speculative discrete universes. Assumptions as turtles all the way before the horse.
Theory Of Everything Everything/Nothing = (4 M (1/4 -3/4)) / (4E (3/4-1/4)) where m= mass, matter, mind and E= energy, emotion M&E both have 4 different variables. It applies on all things of existence fundamentally smallest to largest particle You can get reason, why something
They shouldn't be called different "universes", it's more like different ways of observing the 1 universe. From some frames of reference, especially differently sized/orientated ones, events can happen in a different order, or cause different effects, and if you really change the size scale as with classical/quantum mechanics you end up with totally different physical laws. Even though some "realities" emerge from others - as in classical mechanics emerging from quantum - they eventually become incompatible with each other. The same is true of relative observations of everyday life: An observer on earth vs an observer far off in the universe will observe different celestial events, they can happen in different orders and cause different effects... if you changed enough of the variables they would be incompatible realities. To say it's another "reality" or "universe" is the same as saying so many of the facts of that reality are different from ours that there's no physical access to it. And yeah, there are infinite, or nearly infinite if you think about it.
I'm no fan of Multiverse/ManyWorlds (MMW), and that's putting it politely. MMW happens to be based on the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of QM. The way that I see it, the CI attempts to reconcile QM based on *physicalist* assumptions, hence their readiness to entertain whacky, unfalsifiable mind-benders like Multiverse & Schrodinger's cat. There exists another school of QM, however, one that is inconsistent with CI. It's called Quantum Contextuality (QC) - Refer Kochen & Specker (1967) and Bell's theorem. I'm putting my money on QC. It sets the stage for a possible interpretation of QM from the perspective of semiotic theory (CS Peirce and his categories), with the suggestion of association as a fundamental principle that begins at the subatomic domain. The Feynman diagrams might be better interpreted from this associational perspective - for example, the association of oxygen and hydrogen atoms to form a water molecule, or the association of an electron and positron, in annihilation, to produce a photon. Whacky, unfalsifiable conjecture? Or a compelling hunch that merits further consideration? Heck, if they're getting away with MMW and taking it seriously, it looks like they're getting desperate, and just about any compelling hunch, supported by an axiomatic framework, is worth a shot, imho.
I am pretty sure he loves it, but that's just how he looks when he really tries to understand what is being said, and is carefully integrating the information he is getting 😄
multiverse theory is bit confusing to understand as it is more mathematically than practical reality , Quantum Gravity can Be Understand With Awareness Laws & when whosoever can build a awareness measurement can distort Gravity as its a complex process involve & require lots of awareness to Focus & manifest things with proper Formula
Put some polonium-210 next to some nitrogen tri-iodide, and there will be a bang after an interval of time. How many new universes will be created in the meantime? Can the bang spot-weld them back together again? Aren’t you just taking probability theory a bit too literally?
My man I had a crazy trip that was all about infinity and crazy loops and things that I don’t have the capacity to fully understand and been searching for information to try to explain it to myself and the more answers I get the scarier it gets
If all our measurements are idealized as numbers, or binary conditions, then isn't all our theory idealized and imaginary, and the real universe is always just out of reach of theory? This paradox of how to differentiate between real and imaginary scientifically, historically is a problem that we approach a solution to through a repeated process of theory and experimentation. Of course, it's never a truly resolved problem in science. I think there's a physical process that corresponds nicely with this paradox in quantum information theory. The idea is there's no such thing as true independence - everything is interdependent in some small way on some level. Then, even the real is in superposition with the imaginary. Or, in other words, even the universe is in superposition with the theory. It's a paradox because ultimately the real and imaginary are the same thing - there's no imagining without a context of real. In this universe one can't even propose a theory without creating a branch of the multiverse where that theory wasn't created, or was formulated in a different manner, such as to create a universe that is consistent with the theory, instead of the other way around. Physically, if you understand the imaginary as in context of the real, then even a minimal theory (a simple measurement) must create some disturbance in the universe. The dynamics of this interaction, thankfully, excludes the most nonsensical universes with extreme unlikelihood. It's by chasing this paradox of differentiating the real and imaginary that theories become more precise, and it's in this particular treatment of the problem that quantum mechanics, and science, achieves its most precise imagining of the universe.
And yet somehow quantum mechanics has entered into almost every sphere of our lives, with applications for everyday life that benefit both the quality of our lives and the health and longevity of our lives: Would you, per chance, like me to list a few _?_ 😊 • integrated circuits • lasers • magnetic resonance imaging • quantum optics • superconducting magnets • improving computers and smart phones • silicon stacking • kids toys, even, controlled by quantum enhanced computer chips • improvements in fiber optics • light emitting diodes • electron microscopy • electron microscopes • atomic clocks used for GPS • better batteries • solar cells And that’s hardly even scratching the surface. Feeling silly yet?
@@offtheradarsomewhere. Okay, I’ll continue, because almost every consumer electronics on the market today uses quantum mechanics: • CDs • DVDs • LEDs • Blue-ray players • solar panels • Smartphones • Computer games • UV sterilization and water purification • Flash memory • LED monitors And I could go on, especially in the field of medical technology. But to answer the question you threw in at the end, imagination arises out of consciousness and consciousness arises out of biological evolution. Would you like to discuss biological evolution? Because it’s probably the only science that has more scientific evidence backing it up than quantum physics and general relativity. But maybe just answer thus one question: why all this animosity toward science. What do you think science has done to you that makes you so angry?
@@longcastle4863 Similar to the theory of general relativity in regards to these ideas being our constructs of the mechanics of reality, as inherently flawed as these models are they have in many ways advanced our understanding, tech, etc. "Quantum theory" though encompasses such broad and branching ideas that it manifests kook philosopher so-called scientists, for example, with their very popular multiverse bubbling worlds metaphysical nonsense. Don't be offended by my comment, castle. The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
We all live and die in this Universe. The rest is just pure speculation and guessing and doesn't fundamentally matter to our temporary particular life here on Earth. Our beliefs, theories are just approximate guesses that don't affect how Nature actually operates. Life is not a quiz where you need the one answer and even if we knew exactly and completely how Nature worked, what difference would it make?
Knowing how nature works, at least how it behaves according to our observations anyway, has worked out pretty well for us. Its enabled us to build useful technologies, and specifically in the case of Quantum Mechanics it’s given us transistors, lasers, solar cells, atomic clocks, MRI and PET scanners, moderns chemical engineering, biochemistry, and on, and on. Those, and many other quantum technologies that fundamentally rely on quantum effects, have made quite a big difference.
@@simonhibbs887 I agree Simon and technology because of our scientific knowledge is improving and making our lives better for the most part. I'm just saying that Science, technology, has it's limits and that people don't need and never will have final complete solutions and answers to our existential lives.
@@Resmith18SR People could have made the same argument though in 1500 and I'm glad we've got the technology developed since 1500. I'd like to see all the technology that can be developed in the next twenty years too.
@@davegold I'm not saying that Science isn't our best method to discover truths about the Universe, it is. Paradoxically technology may be the reason we may destroy all life on this planet because our moral evolution hasn't kept pace with our technological evolution. Hopefully it won't ever happen but I don't know if I would take the over under on it.
@@Resmith18SR Agreed but our moral evolution is not unscientific. Game theory, experimentation, observation of results, separating correlation and causation, etc, are all going to help our moral evolution.
My dear friend CloserTT, tonight, I'm preparing a gourmet meal featuring teriyaki-infused ribs, accompanied by handcrafted mashed potatoes and delicately buttered hamburger buns.. I am poised to introduce a scientific theory for you consideration.; The amalgamation of the Quantum Zeno Effect within the framework of Einstein's field equations constitutes a compelling exploration toward a unification of quantum and classical mechanics. The Quantum Zeno Effect, premised on frequent projective measurements preventing quantum state evolution, introduces a nontrivial dynamic to the spacetime metric in the context of general relativity. Within the quantum realm, the superposition principle dictates the state of particles until measurement-induced collapse. Extending this quantum behavior to a macroscopic scale and embedding it within the metric tensor formalism yields a conceptualization where continuous observations act as a source term in the Einstein field equations. The probabilistic nature inherent in quantum systems confronts the deterministic backdrop of classical mechanics, leading to intricate tensorial modifications. The gravitational influence exerted by the observed state on the geometry of spacetime can be formulated as a perturbation in the metric tensor. This altered metric tensor encapsulates the dynamical effects of frequent measurements, offering a novel perspective on the unification of fundamental forces. By incorporating the Quantum Zeno Effect into the curvature of spacetime, this theoretical framework delves into the intricate interplay between quantum phenomena and gravitational dynamics. The gravitational perturbation induced by measurements, traditionally considered external to the system, emerges as an inherent component in the gravitational interactions of particles and fields. This conceptual synthesis presents a nuanced perspective, suggesting the inseparable entanglement of quantum and classical mechanics. The incorporation of the Quantum Zeno Effect into the mathematical apparatus of Einstein's equations beckons a deeper understanding of the underlying structure of the universe, particularly in elucidating the perplexities surrounding quantum gravity. In navigating the intricacies of this theoretical endeavor, we embark on a trajectory toward a more profound comprehension of the universal fabric.
(1:25) *DD: **_"But there is very good reason to believe that the total number of different universes is finite while the actual total number of universes is infinite."_* ... That statement alone should send up warning flags to all Multiverse proponents as this is what happens when science succumbs to the fantastic. This is a perfect example of how physicists know that they need to walk-back their proposition of "infinite number of universes" because of logical ramifications. ... Unfortunately, _they can't!_ Even the proposition of a *"finite number of universes"* that somehow _differentiate_ themselves resulting in an *"infinite number of subsequent universes* doesn't heal Multiverse's logical wounds because science would still need to explain why it's a huge "finite number" to start with. *Q:* Why would the original "universe pool" suddenly stop at say 200 thousand universes? ... or 30 million universes? ... or even 900 trillion-trillion universes? What is the underlying factor that decides how many "finite universes" should exist? ... And why is it that specific number and not just "one?"
Ok. Here is my attempt at an answer (and, it is based on my understanding of what they said, not my belief). At the beginning were an infinite number of identical universes. Each time a probabilistic quantum event happens every possible outcome is represented in the multiverse so the universes in the multiverse become differentiated. This explanation at least explains how there can be an infinite number of universes but only a finite number of differentiated universes.
@@AndrewUnruh *"At the beginning were an infinite number of identical universes."* ... First off, Duetch is positing a "finite" number of original "starting" universes, not an "infinite" number. Secondly, you used the phrase, _"at the beginning."_ If an infinite number of universes exist, then what/when is their beginning? Thirdly, if there are an infinite number of identical universes, ... then why not just have one? ... Why the needless redundancy?
@@AndrewUnruh *"At the beginning were an infinite number of identical universes."* ... *Correction:* After rewatching the video, it does seem that Deutsch is positing an infinite number of starting "identical" universes and the resulting number of "different" universes is finite. This still begs the question of how a "finite number of outcomes" can be extracted from an "infinite supply of variables." If there are no limits to the number of possible universes, then why would any differentiation from universe to universe result in a finite number of universes? ... Shouldn't the resulting number of "different universes" be equally as infinite (i.e., "infinite in - infinite out")? *Example:* If I have an infinite supply of "numbers" and I extract every third number, ... is the resulting amount of numbers I've extracted "finite" or "infinite?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC: No, Deutsch said there have always been an infinite number of universes. Assume that initially all the universes were identical. That means the total number of differentiated universes was 1 at time=0. Suppose also that the earliest quantum branching was due to a ¹/₂ & ¹/₂ probability event in every universe. Then the number of differentiated universes became 2, and there was an infinite number of each kind. The total number of universes is always infinite, while the number of differentiated universes keeps growing Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "different" and "differentiated?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC OK...first...although I have published a couple of papers in one field of physics, this stuff is so far outside of my wheelhouse, you may as well be talking to a short order cook...I mean I know ZERO about this stuff. My feeling is that it's not that an infinite number of universes is resulting in a finite number of universes, it's that it is resulting in a finite number of *unique* universes. Let's use a really simplified example. Say we have an infinite number of sets. The elements of the sets can take on the values 0 or 1 only. At time t=0, all elements are 0, there are no ones. So we have an infinite number of sets, but only one unique set. At time t = 1 second, the first element of each set can randomly either remain the same, or change to a value of 1. So, at one second, we still have an infinite number of sets, but only two unique sets. Then, at time t = 2 s, the second element of the set can either stay the same or change to 1. Now we still have an infinite number of sets, but only four unique sets, ([0,0,0...0],[1,0,0....0],[0,1,0....0],[1,1,0....0]). Every second, the next element will randomly remain 0 or change to 1 so we always have an infinite number of sets, but an ever increasing yet finite number of unique sets.
@@brothermine2292 It's like them saying blackholes could be wormholes. They aren't actually ever going to send anything into one and find out. It's all just bullshit.
...Hello I would like to submit the following concept. From the very place at which you stand, you have the free choice to make your next step. Here All Every and Every All is possible. There-by the Multiverse is right in front of you. Also, Time/Space as we observe and interact, moves as a Turbulent Flow. You will experience Vortices and Eddie's no matter the step you are about to take. This is true for everyone, proving the continual existence of the Multiverse, and how all our choices effects everything, and everyone. We should expect that every fresh data and thought will produce New & Altering past conclusions. Please consider my comment, respectfully, Chuck, captivus brevis Blessings...
Sounds like the mindless gibberish of geniuses inventing a quantum physics mythological reality as a means to occupy the manic attention span of undiagnosed schizophrenia.
🤣so infinite or finite?it's been centuries talk but nothing bring satisfying solution creat more confusion n questions , If itkeep go like this brain will explode ,. What is time ? This should be question, no thers no such thing like time but it's appearing feel such way has no Power ,time we create for our convenience sort out time time then anything which relates time ll make sense , eg gravity can't affect micro levels ! Graviton ...!? While it should be work equally on all macro micro level I'm talking only on earth but it won't !
I'm happy to be ignorant enough to never talk about something so mind-numbingly stupid as multiple universes. He might as well be pondering the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin.
Well then where is even a smidgeon of observable or testable evidence? The fact he interviewer asks no such questions questions relegates this to less than conjecture. He even calls this a ‘theory’ which requires evidence. Pure garbage:)
So pull some imaginary theories from their backside hole and good reasons to believe....and say that it's science. Quantum Physicists are definitely jokers 😅
New mathematics - the fraction is greater than the whole! What kind of mathematics is that? If he were to say I'm confused, that would have been a better explanation.
Many Worlds (and Deutsch's variant of Many Worlds) is a metaphysical interpretation of quantum theory. Quantum theory has been very useful -- much of modern technology depends on it -- but none of the interpretations of quantum theory has proved itself useful to our daily lives yet... and perhaps never will.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. : A receding hairline isn't necessarily a "flaw." But it's a fact that some people "comb over" a receding hairline because they believe exposing the receding hairline makes them less attractive. (Some wear a hat.) People often have traits they want to hide or change.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. : If you're trying to offer a useful lesson, could you make it more clear? In my previous reply, I DID offer you a lesson that's about more than comb-overs. Perhaps you stopped reading it before the end.
Yes, it is strange. But the difference between snake oil and science is evidence. Please educate yourself about the strong foundation (although not 100% certain, as they openly admitted) upon which these hypotheses are based. Please learn about the astounding mathematical precision and predictive value with which quantum mechanics describe our universe. Our “common sense” and intuitive notions of the cosmos have been proven wrong continually for millennia. We should have a little humility and open-mindedness before new ideas, so long as they are based in reason and evidence.
And God is hard to believe in and needs proof? There actually is no proof in this belief system only something that seems possible, not even likely. And, I'm a firm believer in both science and God. Science it not capitalized and God is.
@longcastle4863 Yes, the very epitome of arrogant thinking. I'm not saying he's wrong. It just takes faith, either way you approach the issue. The true nature of existence is not determined by the thoughts of man.
@@JesseRedmanBand You want to know what I see with religion these days, especially Christianity? A lot of hate, intolerance, bigotry, racism, science denial, a tendency to fall for conspiracy theories and recently, even, a proclivity for violence. So excuse me please, if I don’t share your enthusiasm for God.
@@longcastle4863 That is simply because you are ignorant. Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence. Christianity is the religion of love for all of God's creation, including all of mankind. I don't know how or why you have come to your conclusions but there are many videos on RUclips where very liberal people have gone to conservative and or religious gatherings with preconceptions similar to yours only to find that they were completely wrong. #Walkaway I'm open to new ideas and new concepts. I'm open to views that don't agree with my own and open to compromise. Sometimes I've had my mind changed by listening to people with opposing ideas. Your comments above are not an attempt to provide insight into why science is on more sound footing than religion. It was simply a statement, which I believe to be untrue and lacking foundation, attacking Christianity. You don't prove that I'm right but you certainly leave no convincing reason for me to believe as you do. I invite you to investigate the World around you more and truly understand that we are all on this journey together and we all deserve mutual respect, and tolerance, which you statement above appears to lack. My original comment was not an attack on science. It was a personal observation that although I find science interesting, it is always being revised to meet the current state of understanding. What was widely accepted, for instance, before the, Theory of Relativity, is not science any more. Scientists of the time also thought they knew the truth but found they did not. I love the ideas that physicists come up with. They stretch the mind. It just seems to me that many of these theories require as much, if not more faith, than does a belief in God. I also believe that, "scientists", are simply discovering God's handiwork and that people should guard against making science their religion. Knowledge is fulfilling but embracing your creator has no other parallel in life.
@@JesseRedmanBand Look at the polls. Why are so many people, especially young people, leaving Christianity? The blatant hypocrisy of preaching love but spouting hate. The utter rage and intolerance Christianity exhibits toward others, especially people from the LGBTQ community. The disgrace of the Church of Jesus (who certainly had a middle eastern complexion) embracing White Christian Nationalism. People don’t want to have to fall back into the medieval dark ages of relations toward others Christianity expects of them. But go ahead. Be in denial. Lash out at those who hate Christianity because of Christian hate. Take it personally instead of recognizing the church has taken a bad turn. It’s one way to ensure nothing will change.
He pontificates, and pontificates, and pontificates…. But how does he KNOW that what he is spouting is true. Just speculation. Interesting, for sure. But where are the observations? Where is the scientific method?
First of all, 1) this is like the speculating part of the scientific method. Ideas don’t fall fully formed like gum balls from the minds of scientists, but are the result of lots of thinking, discussion, arguing, debating and throwing ideas around. Would you have criticized all the early quantum theorists with all their seemingly wild, crazy and out of the box thinking, until they finally started producing hypothesis that could be tested and verified by experiment? And 2) how many observations and how much data and mathematics do you expect in an 8 minute video? It’s clear there’s a lot more facts and mathematics behind what the guest is saying and they are no doubt available for anyone who wants to look deeper into the the subject. And finally, 3) the whole thing about CTT is asking scientists and philosophers and, yes, even theologians, to discuss on topics still on cutting on edge of science, philosophy and human understanding. Btw, _The Age of Entanglement_ by Louise Gilder is an absolutely fun layman friendly read on the discovery of entanglement in quantum physics. Put into novel / story telling form and using only written and spoken words by the actual physicists involved in the discovery over the course of decades. Shows the speculating process in action. Highly recommend. 😊
@@longcastle4863 Hi Longcastle. Yup. You see that it’s speculation. And I see that it’s speculation. But Deutsch is hardly treating it as speculation. He comes across as pretty authoritative. That’s what I’m complaining about. I do have my own speculation - that each of those myriad universes in the ‘multiverse’ is only POTENTIAL, but THIS one - our universe - is the one being ‘chosen’ and ‘observed’ into real existence. That’s MY hypothesis, but I’m not going to ‘pontificate’ about it. I’m 81 years old, so I probably won’t have much longer to wait to find out whether I am on the right track or not. Live well and prosper!
The observations are superposition states. Many Worlds takes multiple simultaneous states seriously and just says the collapse of the wave function, fur which we don’t have a physical theory anyway, doesn’t happen.
To replace the god factor. Atheist scientist try so hard. Like multiple universe and string theory or were living in a matrix well so the science. Watch closer to truth utuber and cool worlds and chemist James tour new science
You live in upside down world. No mental wrangling needed to follow science. Now virgin births and resurrection, oh the mental gymnastics needed to keep that lunacy afloat.
Best to stick with the concept of the “OLD ONE”, as Einstein seemed to imply. The different QM interpretations just show how fragmented the thought process is, as they can’t all be “fundamentally correct”!
It's a sheer joy to meet a scientist from 16th century. 🦔
I would go back even farther to when he pulled the sword from the stone.
My man, Sir Isaac
Ooooh i see what he’s saying. Multiverse is just out of reach like a moment ago but it’s still existing and will always exist. What the heck. Kinda nuts but crazy possibility.
Hmm... I took it slightly differently. I took it as the multiverse contains a universe identical to every point in our timeline simultaneously. So let's say you drop a pencil right now, well, there exists a universe (right now) where you're just about to drop the pencil, one where the pencil is in mid fall, one where you dropped it yesterday, one where you don't drop it for 1000 years, etc, etc, all existing "right now".
This is how I think of it. Imagine having an infinite film of the story on the universe, with each frame representing a moment in time. You make an infinite number of copies of that film and load them onto an infinite number of projectors and play them all at the same time, but play each consecutive film exactly one frame ahead of the one before it. Because there are an infinite number of these playing, there is no "1st film"... There are always films before and after the one you're watching, with each one playing out the story of the universe either ahead of where you're at or before. If you stopped all the projectors, your time would appear to freeze, but if you ran down the line of projectors to view what's frozen on their screens, time would appear to go forward running one way, and backwards the other way. I might have just made that more complicated. Sorry about that. The idea just fascinates me. So many implications, so many things to think about.
@@Jinxed007 yeah i understood but the multiverse is just out of reach even though we pass through it. The problem is that there isn’t a place to store all of them so it’s stored as potential, something that isn’t fully formed yet like disassembled but it grows through connection/transmission of energy. The energy passes through connected to certain forms we can decipher and interpret. Maybe the multiverse doesn’t exist and we are creating it.
Ah yes...the Ol' Jimmy Saville look. Never goes out of style, does it?
I have always admired David Deutsch’s way of describing the multiverse. Some day I hope to convince him that these branching possibilities exist physically within five orthogonal dimensions, but so far I have not.
They do not branch, but exist as manifold possibility comprising the bulk/block omniverse. Will you elaborate on "five orthogonal dimensions"? It sounds interesting, and I may be able to offer some additional insight. *Oh I see. Another guy trying to sell his 'book'... nevermind.
@@David.C.Velasquez Yes, we’re talking about timelessness here, where the distinction between past present and future is not relevant. I talk about my conversations with David Deutsch on this subject in a 2011 video called Imagining the Fifth Dimension. Hawking called it “imaginary time, at right angles to space time”. Everett said the universe’s quantum wavefunction exists within a “subspace orthogonal to spacetime”, same idea. And Kip Thorne talks about what the “multiple 4D world tubes” of Everett’s Many Worlds would look like to a hypothetical 5D observer in his 2014 book The Science of Interstellar.
I say “five orthogonal dimensions” in the context of additional orthogonal dimensions out to Infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space if you choose to go that far. Thorne says we can lump any remaining dimensions together beyond our wavefunction and call that The Bulk. But I would suggest any discussion of additional dimensions where some are spatial and some are temporal is mixing apples and oranges. The fourth and fifth dimension are just as spatial as the first three. Our window into those additional spatial dimensions is limited to three dimensions observed one Planck Frame after another, leading some to believe time can only be an arrow and the fifth dimension is too small to be observed.
Haha, I remember you! I use to follow your videos years ago about 11-dimensional space. I was a fan of your perspective and I even decided to use your name in my sci-fi novels. I created a whole plot device based off of your theories about dimensions. I had no idea you were still active wow
I love the complexity of explanation, BUT still remain confused, 🧐🤭👍👀
That’s because it’s hogwash:)
So deja vu then might be an accidental collision of those very specific parts of at least two universes
Would love to know the original broadcast date of this episode. Because it seems the multiverse idea of cosmic inflation is being mixed in with Everett’s many worlds idea. Was cosmic inflation a well known thing yet when this was first broadcast?
Inflation theory was invented decades ago.
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature:
1. Guilt
2. Blame
3. Pride
4. Anxiety
5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future
These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above.
Cont...
Basic question: Is the idea that for every quantum event that has more than one possible outcomes, one or more parallel universes are differentiated?
If this is the case, then I suppose the interference pattern seen in the split beam experiment is actually the result of the parallel universes interference pattern?
YES! Finally someone else understands. In all seriousness though, I feel like I've been waiting since 1995 to observe somebody outside my circle, and David Deutsch of course, to realize what seems so obvious.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. LOL. Not in the least.
@@David.C.Velasquez Well, don't overestimate me. It seems like this just trades one set of questions for another set. For example, in this theory, you replace the question of how a particle can interact with itself for a question of how different universes interact with each other.
Well said@@AndrewUnruh, and of course anything answered leads to more questions. It may be that bosons weakly interact with their parallel counterparts through a dimension, or degree of freedom, that we cannot access or perceive directly, having mass, and being subject to time. I will link to the original David Deutsch program that I saw on late night PBS *in 1995, that crystallized, my then very chaotic view of reality, well before such matters were openly discussed outside philosophical/metaphysical circles. ruclips.net/video/SDZ454K_lBY/видео.html&ab_channel=despectable
@@offtheradarsomewhere. Yeah. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to read something. Anyway, you come off as mentally imbalanced. I wish you well.
He seems to be saying, if you took a billion exact copies of some animal-lets say a hominid-and set them loose in exactly the same but separate environments, that those hominids would very quickly show differences compared to each other and would eventually be having vastly different kinds of experiences. Or have I got that wrong?
That’s not what he’s saying , sorry
We can have eggactly as we want
That is essentially what he's saying dude.
1:31 Math tricksery - putting in infinity always leads you on the wrong track. (Heisenberg tells otherwise.) 🤓
It would be great if R Kuhn's crucial question about time had a more detailed consideration. The answer from D Deutsch involved a sort of 'ergodic' reasoning, and there is also the time-energy uncertainty to blur the equivalence mentioned.
This interview is pure gold ❤
Pure something…
Yes pure pseudoscience gold
Entertainment at it's best
I will be taking delivery of the beginning of infinity this week and that would be the beginning of my journey as a philosopher
Cycles & Recursion
*"Cycles & Recursion"*
... "Recursions" are a key existential element in my book.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
---------------------------------------------------
Feynmann, allá por 1960 dijo: quien dice que entiende el significado de la mecánica cuántica, en realidad no entiende nada. Desde entonces la Física avanzó ,sí , pero dando bastonazos de ciego y ninguna teoría resulta completa o consistente.
Antes la ciencia ficción iba detrás de los descubrimientos, ahora parece que la física va detrás de la ciencia ficción .
Мы навсегда должны следовать этой фразе Фейнмана? Или всё таки разрешаете пытаться найти объяснения?
Just when I think I got it... It's gone into another universe
Maybe to the same place your dreams go when you wake in the morning 😊
that we're in a simulation!
How to explain the laws of thermodynamics in the multiverse where there is no arrow of time?
This is the first time I’ve got the strong impression that Robert is actually taking the piss!
Each entity has its own clock, that's a function of space-time, whichever of the Many Worlds you consider. Assuming anything is possible; Each clock can be converted to 'Absolute Time', both after the 'big bang' and before.
The fact that these men vaguely resemble Newton and Einstein is either beautiful or uncanny
Communities somehow follow each other's style and way of thinking 🤔
The Paradox.
this is nuts
Please, don't stop. More Deutsch 😂
Even when Einstein thought he made his biggest blunder with the addition of the cosmological constant, and was utterly wrong, he was eventually proved to be right. Einstein also saw through some of the absolute absurdities of the Quantum Theory (e.g. the many world interpretation etc.) and I have a suspicion that, when all is said and done, he will prove to be correct there as well.
With do respects to Einstein (as I hold him in highest esteem), his detailed thinking on these topics in his later part of his life are now rather dated by new understandings and discoveries. To say that he was ultimately correct in his thinking with regard to some new “fundamental theory” of QM would point to his problems with things like “superposition” where a particle is in two different places at once and things like “collapse” finalizes the position “instantaneously”, both of which are inconsistent with his theories. So him being “correct” is a little slippery as per what “very fundamental” concepts of his are chosen and what are not. Personally I would love to see him be correct on the concepts I mentioned BUT that requires a lot of other people’s cherished “beliefs” are more than a bit off with regard to …
@@Mentaculus42yes. Causality and the quantum world aren’t reconciled through relativity. If they could have been , they would have been long before Albert died. At least I think so.
@@dr_shrinker
I always look at it as; WHOSE “SACRED OXEN” WILL BE GORED! Both QM’s & GR’s adherents to orthodoxy have to come to grips with the paradox of being both “incomplete” and yet also seemly “inviolable” (at least in their minds & entrenched by some impressive results). This rigid incompatibility is a fascinating conundrum from both a scientific and a philosophical perspective. There are so many established stakeholders that will never consider a concordance. That an all encompassing solution has not been found should not be a surprise to a careful observer of the history of the “personalities” involved with these clashing theories. If a more fundamental underlying & subsuming theory were to be found (most likely by an outsider from the intellectual hegemonies) it would be by standing on top of a lot of “broken egos”.
So to put it another way, why things have NOT been “reconciled” maybe more about the “inflexibility of human nature” than the “complexity of Mother Nature”, because it is obvious that Mother Nature has an operational “solution” that holds no credence in orthodoxy.
So where does one start “poking holes” in the dualistic intellectual hegemonies when dealing with such a conundrum? I personally think that QM & GR are in a metastable state of “perplexassity” ( [sic à la sniglet] yes a Pseudo-Nonce).
This has little to do with "What is quantum theory?" It is just another "many worlds" video. This breaks my trust.
Best time to be alive folks. Technological Renaissance.
Spotter sounds smart
A flaw in Deutsch's claim that the number of differentiated universes is finite is that the wavefunctions of most systems have an infinite number of superposed states. Although some observables have a finite number of superposed states (such as electron spin, which can be "up" or "down") and thus produce a finite number of Many Worlds branches when measured, other observables (such as position, momentum, etc) have an infinite number of possible states, so measuring one of those observables would lead to an infinite number of differentiated branches. Perhaps Deutsch omitted some assumption, perhaps involving Heisenberg uncertainty or discreteness of space, that results in a finite limit of the superposed states in a wavefunction.
I think you’re not taking into account quantisation, which means that the possible states of quantum systems are not continuous. They are, well, quantised.
@@simonhibbs887 : No. Although energies are quantized, quantum mechanics allows a photon (for example) to have any (positive) energy. Quantization requires the photon to be entirely absorbed if/when it's absorbed, but doesn't require a photon's energy to be an integral multiple of some unit of energy.
So suppose a high-energy photon is absorbed by an electron in an atom, kicking it out of the atom. Some of the photon's energy is converted to the potential energy needed by the electron to escape the attraction of the nucleus, and the rest of the photon's energy, if any, is converted to kinetic energy of the electron. Since the absorbed photon could have had any amount of energy, the electron's kinetic energy could be any value in a continuous range, which implies an infinite number of possible kinetic energies.
And consider a photon emitted by a distant star. Its energy loss (red-shift) due to the expansion of space depends on the time & distance it traveled before it reaches us. Since time & distance are modeled as continuous, not discrete, in quantum mechanics, the energy loss can be anything in a continuous range... an infinite number of possibilities even though the range is bounded. As I wrote at the end of my initial comment, some assumption must be added to QM to make the number of possible superposition terms always finite, if one wants to claim the number of branchings in MWI must be finite.
Tim Maudlin mentioned the infinite branchings during a discussion months ago on Sean Carroll's youtube channel. Tim was referring to the position observable, which can take any value in a continuous range (unless space isn't continuous). Sean didn't dispute it, and he's one of the foremost authorities on MWI.
Summary: The universe is an analogue wave between 2 frequencies. I think?
Didn't he play bass for Buffalo Springfield or The Hollies? ☮️
Looks like Herman's Hermits to me.
Hey Robert what’s so difficult to understand? Do you really find it difficult to understand or to accept?
It’s been explained since Luis de Molina and is fully compatible with Feynman’s sum of integral path (sum of all stories), all possibilities have always existed and they all exist, however all counter-factuals are known, human freedom as well as minor natural phenomena updates the actualities and we live a reality in one of all that many universes which has always exististed.
You live in one history out of the sum of all histories, which history is that is updated event by event and brought into actualities, some of those events are counter-factuals update from our own agency while most others are external to us, either what we call environmental or brought into actuality by agency of others.
That simple. As proven as QED and QFT. Fully theologically compatible, testable and tested on a daily basis by everyone using an iPhone which would never exist without the reliability of QFT.
Interviews a quadrilist and they will explain it to you. You got close to it by interviewing Penrose as a trialist.
Try the other way around, if you can’t accept but can understand try to refute.
*"Hey Robert what’s so difficult to understand?"*
... If what Deutsch proposes is true, and there is a "finite number of universes" to start with that somehow differentiated themselves into an "infinite number of universes," ... then what determined the limit to the "finite number" of starting universes? Even if it's an "incredibly huge" number of _starting_ universes, then why is it that particular number ... and not one universe more than that?
If understanding "Multiverse" is so easy, then the answer to this question should be equally easy, right?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC: Deutsch did NOT say the total number of universes is finite. He said the total number of DIFFERENTIATED universes is finite, and the total number of universes is infinite (and always has been infinite).
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC yes both are true, it’s easy to understand but not to accept and easy to answer, still you had a hard time listening and therefore you misunderstood what he said please see again 0:22 and later 1:17 and please reformulate your question
Keeping in mind the central elements of what I added before: what is finite is all histories which can be known and therefore integralized, what is infinite is the configuration of the actualities as one counter-factual which collapses (by interaction of other wave) or objectively reduces (spontaneous collapse worded to reference Penrose’s OR) leads to a whole new configuration of the next set of actual possibilities
@@eksffa *"still you had a hard time listening and therefore you misunderstood what he said please see again **0:22** and later **1:17** and please reformulate your question "*
... No need for the condescending attitude. I corrected myself in another thread. It still begs the question: _"Even if it's an 'incredibly huge' number of resulting "differentiated" universes, then why is it that particular number and not a single universe more than that?"_
In other words, if the number of resulting "differentiated" universes is finite, what sets the number of resulting universes to that finite number? What is preventing it from being more than that number if the original supply of universes is infinite?
*"what is finite is all histories which can be known and therefore integralized"*
... If the source that's generating the histories is infinite, then the resulting histories should be equally infinite. ... Infinite-in; infinite out.
*"what is infinite is the configuration of the actualities as one counter-factual which collapses (by interaction of other wave) or objectively reduces (spontaneous collapse worded to reference Penrose’s OR) leads to a whole new configuration of the next set of actual possibilities."*
... Unnecessary obfuscation. You're still dealing with the inexplicable existence of "infinite universes" when only a single universe suffices. Ockham razor points to a single universe. Succumbing to the fantastic does not solve anything.
sorry it’s not my intention, English is not my native language so I think it’s matter of ausente of facial expressions to accompany my words.
As per Feynman once you have scalar measure of the conditions which you will take as initial, you can calculate how the waves will progress and how they will branch, including the number of them, while as they update in the actuality, but see again you still have your other idea in mind which is different from that the interviewer said, you are asking assuming infinite universes as a premise while he said the opposite, what is infinite is the arrangements of states within each finite “history line”.
Your other considerations are based on the same understanding :)
As for Okham razor if it pleases your mind to look from this perspective the one universe is the actual one while all other are the universes which is a product of conter-factuality - the set of all universes that could be the actual update one.
It’s still one (actual) universe with infinite state arrangements from a set of huge still finite ever-existing universes.
Hence the collapse of the wave function is actually a choice between multiple dimensional options (or threads of fate in a classical literary context).
To what degree the individual can inlfuence that wave function vs outide actors, pretty much determines the difference between fate/deterministic and free will/undetermined.
Before the collapse, a finite set of possibilities/inlfuence exist, but all exist in the same locality.
Perhaps the basis of the irrational need for virtual particles.
Ghosts of alternate influence...vying for dominance...to shape the future.
Temporal politics then. 😏
If a new universe is created how is all of the extra mass and energy created?
In Deutsch's variation of Many Worlds, all of the universes already existed, so none are being created by quantum branching. Branching is just a differentiating of some universes that already exist. (He said that near the beginning of the video.)
If there was any creation, it all happened at the beginning, when the infinity of universes were simultaneously created.
By separating nothing-that is 0 (zero)- into +1 and -1 and hoping that the twain shall never meet.
Because inflation is so fast, it separates particle pairs faster than they can annihilate each other, like Hawking’s radiation and black holes. The orphaned particles clump/form the matter of the universe. Without inflation, we probably wouldn’t have matter, nor a universe to sustain life as we know it.
@@dr_shrinker Whoa! Experiencing a moment of disorientation here. We actually agree on something. But of course you would say we were destined (or determined) to do so from the beginning of time. Just jesting. 🖖
@@longcastle4863😂thanks for explaining. I can grasp that for single particles briefly appearing and recombining destroy each other. But entire universes that go on existing seems too much.
I don't think this is consistent. Temporal decoherence work-around with the transformations was final red flag. If the universes have never been measured and the MWI is only one of a few interpretations of the wavefunction, AND we're assuming quantum gravity, that still doesn't imply distinct metaverses within a grand universe that co-eveolve discrete-infinitely. You could have the fact that one universe exists and them temporal decoherence isn't a problem to be solved with equivocating different times as 'the same' across already speculative discrete universes. Assumptions as turtles all the way before the horse.
Theory Of Everything
Everything/Nothing = (4 M (1/4 -3/4)) / (4E (3/4-1/4))
where m= mass, matter, mind and E= energy, emotion
M&E both have 4 different variables.
It applies on all things of existence fundamentally smallest to largest particle
You can get reason, why something
ask your Elite Intellectuals working on consciousness , multiverse or Dimension theories to enlighten if they can think beyond minds parameters
Os noone guna talk about the moving acenery in the background making me feel sick!?!?!
His ideas sound too wrong, that Robert didn't even try to question him or push him!
They shouldn't be called different "universes", it's more like different ways of observing the 1 universe. From some frames of reference, especially differently sized/orientated ones, events can happen in a different order, or cause different effects, and if you really change the size scale as with classical/quantum mechanics you end up with totally different physical laws. Even though some "realities" emerge from others - as in classical mechanics emerging from quantum - they eventually become incompatible with each other. The same is true of relative observations of everyday life: An observer on earth vs an observer far off in the universe will observe different celestial events, they can happen in different orders and cause different effects... if you changed enough of the variables they would be incompatible realities. To say it's another "reality" or "universe" is the same as saying so many of the facts of that reality are different from ours that there's no physical access to it. And yeah, there are infinite, or nearly infinite if you think about it.
> so many of the facts of that reality are different
Namely, the passage of time and nature of cause/effect in that frame
What it means is that the world is discontinuous.
The variables of the theory of relativity are continuous.
This means they cannot both be correct !
I'm no fan of Multiverse/ManyWorlds (MMW), and that's putting it politely. MMW happens to be based on the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of QM. The way that I see it, the CI attempts to reconcile QM based on *physicalist* assumptions, hence their readiness to entertain whacky, unfalsifiable mind-benders like Multiverse & Schrodinger's cat. There exists another school of QM, however, one that is inconsistent with CI. It's called Quantum Contextuality (QC) - Refer Kochen & Specker (1967) and Bell's theorem.
I'm putting my money on QC. It sets the stage for a possible interpretation of QM from the perspective of semiotic theory (CS Peirce and his categories), with the suggestion of association as a fundamental principle that begins at the subatomic domain. The Feynman diagrams might be better interpreted from this associational perspective - for example, the association of oxygen and hydrogen atoms to form a water molecule, or the association of an electron and positron, in annihilation, to produce a photon. Whacky, unfalsifiable conjecture? Or a compelling hunch that merits further consideration? Heck, if they're getting away with MMW and taking it seriously, it looks like they're getting desperate, and just about any compelling hunch, supported by an axiomatic framework, is worth a shot, imho.
This guy looks like he could be a singer from Herman's Hermits
Robert was so confused and uncomfortable, he doesn't like new perspectives emerging.
I am pretty sure he loves it, but that's just how he looks when he really tries to understand what is being said, and is carefully integrating the information he is getting 😄
multiverse theory is bit confusing to understand as it is more mathematically than practical reality , Quantum Gravity can Be Understand With Awareness Laws & when whosoever can build a awareness measurement can distort Gravity as its a complex process involve & require lots of awareness to Focus & manifest things with proper Formula
Indeed, that is unbelievable. I used to think that science was dispelling of superstition. Silly me !
It is.
I totally agree. With your last sentence.
You need to read David Deutsch’s two books if you think this is superstition. It is actually the exact opposite, and what his two books are all about.
Put some polonium-210 next to some nitrogen tri-iodide, and there will be a bang after an interval of time. How many new universes will be created in the meantime? Can the bang spot-weld them back together again? Aren’t you just taking probability theory a bit too literally?
You can experience all this through deep meditation or psychedelics
My man I had a crazy trip that was all about infinity and crazy loops and things that I don’t have the capacity to fully understand and been searching for information to try to explain it to myself and the more answers I get the scarier it gets
Evidence?..Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge
QM classicalized in 2010: Forgotten Physics website; so,no.
Is he speaking science?
Triggering the Deutsch Proposition! 🎉 🌌 🕳 ☀️ !
Pure baloney upon baloney pseudoscience.
I have no clue what he's saying😮
What does it mean? It’s complicated. ❤😊
The first movie woke me up to align my actions with my morals and become vegan.
🤦♂️
If all our measurements are idealized as numbers, or binary conditions, then isn't all our theory idealized and imaginary, and the real universe is always just out of reach of theory?
This paradox of how to differentiate between real and imaginary scientifically, historically is a problem that we approach a solution to through a repeated process of theory and experimentation. Of course, it's never a truly resolved problem in science.
I think there's a physical process that corresponds nicely with this paradox in quantum information theory.
The idea is there's no such thing as true independence - everything is interdependent in some small way on some level.
Then, even the real is in superposition with the imaginary.
Or, in other words, even the universe is in superposition with the theory.
It's a paradox because ultimately the real and imaginary are the same thing - there's no imagining without a context of real.
In this universe one can't even propose a theory without creating a branch of the multiverse where that theory wasn't created, or was formulated in a different manner, such as to create a universe that is consistent with the theory, instead of the other way around.
Physically, if you understand the imaginary as in context of the real, then even a minimal theory (a simple measurement) must create some disturbance in the universe. The dynamics of this interaction, thankfully, excludes the most nonsensical universes with extreme unlikelihood.
It's by chasing this paradox of differentiating the real and imaginary that theories become more precise, and it's in this particular treatment of the problem that quantum mechanics, and science, achieves its most precise imagining of the universe.
Only people that watch TV r going to get it ❤
It means chasing the Goos.
So David would know not of nothing but something usless.
Metaphysician philosopher
Is there any proof of what he’s saying?
No !
Hello everyone I am the one the world 🌎 has been waiting for. I'm going to answer every impossible question Mankind has. Including this one.
Wake me when any of your answers has been peer-reviewed.
I'm listening...
Quantum theory means that science is very very far from understanding how things actually work.
Quantum theory is no different from a roulette wheel..
how to predict your future is to create it moment by moment
And yet somehow quantum mechanics has entered into almost every sphere of our lives, with applications for everyday life that benefit both the quality of our lives and the health and longevity of our lives: Would you, per chance, like me to list a few _?_ 😊
• integrated circuits
• lasers
• magnetic resonance imaging
• quantum optics
• superconducting magnets
• improving computers and smart phones
• silicon stacking
• kids toys, even, controlled by quantum enhanced computer chips
• improvements in fiber optics
• light emitting diodes
• electron microscopy
• electron microscopes
• atomic clocks used for GPS
• better batteries
• solar cells
And that’s hardly even scratching the surface.
Feeling silly yet?
@@offtheradarsomewhere. Okay, I’ll continue, because almost every consumer electronics on the market today uses quantum mechanics:
• CDs
• DVDs
• LEDs
• Blue-ray players
• solar panels
• Smartphones
• Computer games
• UV sterilization and water purification
• Flash memory
• LED monitors
And I could go on, especially in the field of medical technology. But to answer the question you threw in at the end, imagination arises out of consciousness and consciousness arises out of biological evolution. Would you like to discuss biological evolution? Because it’s probably the only science that has more scientific evidence backing it up than quantum physics and general relativity.
But maybe just answer thus one question: why all this animosity toward science. What do you think science has done to you that makes you so angry?
@@longcastle4863 Similar to the theory of general relativity in regards to these ideas being our constructs of the mechanics of reality, as inherently flawed as these models are they have in many ways advanced our understanding, tech, etc.
"Quantum theory" though encompasses such broad and branching ideas that it manifests kook philosopher so-called scientists, for example, with their very popular multiverse bubbling worlds metaphysical nonsense.
Don't be offended by my comment, castle.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
we've had to go well outside various 'comfort zones' to explain stuff. this is perhaps one or two infinities too far.
LSD
Does he also make house calls to bleed people of bad humors?
Pacman or skatman
We all live and die in this Universe. The rest is just pure speculation and guessing and doesn't fundamentally matter to our temporary particular life here on Earth. Our beliefs, theories are just approximate guesses that don't affect how Nature actually operates. Life is not a quiz where you need the one answer and even if we knew exactly and completely how Nature worked, what difference would it make?
Knowing how nature works, at least how it behaves according to our observations anyway, has worked out pretty well for us. Its enabled us to build useful technologies, and specifically in the case of Quantum Mechanics it’s given us transistors, lasers, solar cells, atomic clocks, MRI and PET scanners, moderns chemical engineering, biochemistry, and on, and on. Those, and many other quantum technologies that fundamentally rely on quantum effects, have made quite a big difference.
@@simonhibbs887 I agree Simon and technology because of our scientific knowledge is improving and making our lives better for the most part. I'm just saying that Science, technology, has it's limits and that people don't need and never will have final complete solutions and answers to our existential lives.
@@Resmith18SR People could have made the same argument though in 1500 and I'm glad we've got the technology developed since 1500. I'd like to see all the technology that can be developed in the next twenty years too.
@@davegold I'm not saying that Science isn't our best method to discover truths about the Universe, it is. Paradoxically technology may be the reason we may destroy all life on this planet because our moral evolution hasn't kept pace with our technological evolution. Hopefully it won't ever happen but I don't know if I would take the over under on it.
@@Resmith18SR Agreed but our moral evolution is not unscientific. Game theory, experimentation, observation of results, separating correlation and causation, etc, are all going to help our moral evolution.
Huh ?
My dear friend CloserTT, tonight, I'm preparing a gourmet meal featuring teriyaki-infused ribs, accompanied by handcrafted mashed potatoes and delicately buttered hamburger buns.. I am poised to introduce a scientific theory for you consideration.; The amalgamation of the Quantum Zeno Effect within the framework of Einstein's field equations constitutes a compelling exploration toward a unification of quantum and classical mechanics. The Quantum Zeno Effect, premised on frequent projective measurements preventing quantum state evolution, introduces a nontrivial dynamic to the spacetime metric in the context of general relativity.
Within the quantum realm, the superposition principle dictates the state of particles until measurement-induced collapse. Extending this quantum behavior to a macroscopic scale and embedding it within the metric tensor formalism yields a conceptualization where continuous observations act as a source term in the Einstein field equations.
The probabilistic nature inherent in quantum systems confronts the deterministic backdrop of classical mechanics, leading to intricate tensorial modifications. The gravitational influence exerted by the observed state on the geometry of spacetime can be formulated as a perturbation in the metric tensor. This altered metric tensor encapsulates the dynamical effects of frequent measurements, offering a novel perspective on the unification of fundamental forces.
By incorporating the Quantum Zeno Effect into the curvature of spacetime, this theoretical framework delves into the intricate interplay between quantum phenomena and gravitational dynamics. The gravitational perturbation induced by measurements, traditionally considered external to the system, emerges as an inherent component in the gravitational interactions of particles and fields.
This conceptual synthesis presents a nuanced perspective, suggesting the inseparable entanglement of quantum and classical mechanics. The incorporation of the Quantum Zeno Effect into the mathematical apparatus of Einstein's equations beckons a deeper understanding of the underlying structure of the universe, particularly in elucidating the perplexities surrounding quantum gravity. In navigating the intricacies of this theoretical endeavor, we embark on a trajectory toward a more profound comprehension of the universal fabric.
but im getting old ?
But still searching for a heart of gold…?
Multiverse doesn’t exist
Ok, so the mathematics yields things that are not proveable.
This is so sad. American science became Hollywood.
(1:25) *DD: **_"But there is very good reason to believe that the total number of different universes is finite while the actual total number of universes is infinite."_* ... That statement alone should send up warning flags to all Multiverse proponents as this is what happens when science succumbs to the fantastic. This is a perfect example of how physicists know that they need to walk-back their proposition of "infinite number of universes" because of logical ramifications. ... Unfortunately, _they can't!_
Even the proposition of a *"finite number of universes"* that somehow _differentiate_ themselves resulting in an *"infinite number of subsequent universes* doesn't heal Multiverse's logical wounds because science would still need to explain why it's a huge "finite number" to start with.
*Q:* Why would the original "universe pool" suddenly stop at say 200 thousand universes? ... or 30 million universes? ... or even 900 trillion-trillion universes? What is the underlying factor that decides how many "finite universes" should exist? ... And why is it that specific number and not just "one?"
Ok. Here is my attempt at an answer (and, it is based on my understanding of what they said, not my belief). At the beginning were an infinite number of identical universes. Each time a probabilistic quantum event happens every possible outcome is represented in the multiverse so the universes in the multiverse become differentiated.
This explanation at least explains how there can be an infinite number of universes but only a finite number of differentiated universes.
@@AndrewUnruh *"At the beginning were an infinite number of identical universes."*
... First off, Duetch is positing a "finite" number of original "starting" universes, not an "infinite" number. Secondly, you used the phrase, _"at the beginning."_ If an infinite number of universes exist, then what/when is their beginning? Thirdly, if there are an infinite number of identical universes, ... then why not just have one? ... Why the needless redundancy?
@@AndrewUnruh *"At the beginning were an infinite number of identical universes."*
... *Correction:* After rewatching the video, it does seem that Deutsch is positing an infinite number of starting "identical" universes and the resulting number of "different" universes is finite. This still begs the question of how a "finite number of outcomes" can be extracted from an "infinite supply of variables." If there are no limits to the number of possible universes, then why would any differentiation from universe to universe result in a finite number of universes? ... Shouldn't the resulting number of "different universes" be equally as infinite (i.e., "infinite in - infinite out")?
*Example:* If I have an infinite supply of "numbers" and I extract every third number, ... is the resulting amount of numbers I've extracted "finite" or "infinite?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC: No, Deutsch said there have always been an infinite number of universes.
Assume that initially all the universes were identical. That means the total number of differentiated universes was 1 at time=0. Suppose also that the earliest quantum branching was due to a ¹/₂ & ¹/₂ probability event in every universe. Then the number of differentiated universes became 2, and there was an infinite number of each kind. The total number of universes is always infinite, while the number of differentiated universes keeps growing
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "different" and "differentiated?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC OK...first...although I have published a couple of papers in one field of physics, this stuff is so far outside of my wheelhouse, you may as well be talking to a short order cook...I mean I know ZERO about this stuff.
My feeling is that it's not that an infinite number of universes is resulting in a finite number of universes, it's that it is resulting in a finite number of *unique* universes.
Let's use a really simplified example. Say we have an infinite number of sets. The elements of the sets can take on the values 0 or 1 only. At time t=0, all elements are 0, there are no ones. So we have an infinite number of sets, but only one unique set. At time t = 1 second, the first element of each set can randomly either remain the same, or change to a value of 1. So, at one second, we still have an infinite number of sets, but only two unique sets. Then, at time t = 2 s, the second element of the set can either stay the same or change to 1. Now we still have an infinite number of sets, but only four unique sets, ([0,0,0...0],[1,0,0....0],[0,1,0....0],[1,1,0....0]). Every second, the next element will randomly remain 0 or change to 1 so we always have an infinite number of sets, but an ever increasing yet finite number of unique sets.
Should scientists be paid for not knowing? There are 8 billion+ people on the planet who also don't know.
Scientists are paid for researching and analyzing.
@@brothermine2292You could do that.
@@brothermine2292 It's like them saying blackholes could be wormholes. They aren't actually ever going to send anything into one and find out. It's all just bullshit.
Can’t possibly trust anyone with hair like that.
...Hello I would like to submit the following concept. From the very place at which you stand, you have the free choice to make your next step. Here All Every and Every All is possible. There-by the Multiverse is right in front of you. Also, Time/Space as we observe and interact, moves as a Turbulent Flow. You will experience Vortices and Eddie's no matter the step you are about to take. This is true for everyone, proving the continual existence of the Multiverse, and how all our choices effects everything, and everyone. We should expect that every fresh data and thought will produce New & Altering past conclusions. Please consider my comment, respectfully, Chuck, captivus brevis Blessings...
Science fiction
So was landing a man on the moon at one time.
@@longcastle4863 What if it was actually a one way trip?
Still more probable than your theist fiction.
This is fantasy. Let’s see some proof of this fantastical hypothesis.
The evidence is quantum superpositions of states, this is an interpretation of that evidence.
it's about machines and discreteness. There is only one worlds, but discreetness leads to unpredictability
mumbo multi-jumble
Sounds like the mindless gibberish of geniuses inventing a quantum physics mythological reality as a means to occupy the manic attention span of undiagnosed schizophrenia.
The funniest thing is that this guy seems to really believe what he's saying.
🤣so infinite or finite?it's been centuries talk but nothing bring satisfying solution creat more confusion n questions , If itkeep go like this brain will explode ,. What is time ? This should be question, no thers no such thing like time but it's appearing feel such way has no Power ,time we create for our convenience sort out time time then anything which relates time ll make sense , eg gravity can't affect micro levels ! Graviton ...!? While it should be work equally on all macro micro level I'm talking only on earth but it won't !
I'm happy to be ignorant enough to never talk about something so mind-numbingly stupid as multiple universes. He might as well be pondering the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin.
QM classicalized in 2010: Forgotten Physics website; so,no.
Nah....Theori and Religion, not science, evidence is lacking.
Well then where is even a smidgeon of observable or testable evidence? The fact he interviewer asks no such questions questions relegates this to less than conjecture. He even calls this a ‘theory’ which requires evidence. Pure garbage:)
The evidence is quantum superpositions of states, this is an interpretation of that evidence.
So pull some imaginary theories from their backside hole and good reasons to believe....and say that it's science. Quantum Physicists are definitely jokers 😅
New mathematics - the fraction is greater than the whole! What kind of mathematics is that? If he were to say I'm confused, that would have been a better explanation.
Very interesting but totally meaningless in our daily lives. One more theory that will succumb to something else down the road.
And general relativity was irrelevant to people’s lives until GPS became a thing.
Many Worlds (and Deutsch's variant of Many Worlds) is a metaphysical interpretation of quantum theory. Quantum theory has been very useful -- much of modern technology depends on it -- but none of the interpretations of quantum theory has proved itself useful to our daily lives yet... and perhaps never will.
Nothing. It's fake. See Nobel Prize Robert Laughling!
What's with the Brits, and there hair styles.
Beatlemania 😊
Perhaps his "comb forward" hides a receding hairline.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. : A receding hairline isn't necessarily a "flaw." But it's a fact that some people "comb over" a receding hairline because they believe exposing the receding hairline makes them less attractive. (Some wear a hat.) People often have traits they want to hide or change.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. : If you're trying to offer a useful lesson, could you make it more clear?
In my previous reply, I DID offer you a lesson that's about more than comb-overs. Perhaps you stopped reading it before the end.
@@offtheradarsomewhere. : Don't bite the bed bugs.
Everything Quantum has a whiff of snake oil . Humm ?
Oh, there’s more than a whiff…
Except that it works well at describing & predicting observations.
Yes, it is strange. But the difference between snake oil and science is evidence.
Please educate yourself about the strong foundation (although not 100% certain, as they openly admitted) upon which these hypotheses are based. Please learn about the astounding mathematical precision and predictive value with which quantum mechanics describe our universe.
Our “common sense” and intuitive notions of the cosmos have been proven wrong continually for millennia. We should have a little humility and open-mindedness before new ideas, so long as they are based in reason and evidence.
Utter nonsense IMO.
And God is hard to believe in and needs proof? There actually is no proof in this belief system only something that seems possible, not even likely.
And, I'm a firm believer in both science and God. Science it not capitalized and God is.
Yes, the very epitome of religious thinking. Right up there with Aquinas !
@longcastle4863 Yes, the very epitome of arrogant thinking. I'm not saying he's wrong. It just takes faith, either way you approach the issue. The true nature of existence is not determined by the thoughts of man.
@@JesseRedmanBand You want to know what I see with religion these days, especially Christianity? A lot of hate, intolerance, bigotry, racism, science denial, a tendency to fall for conspiracy theories and recently, even, a proclivity for violence. So excuse me please, if I don’t share your enthusiasm for God.
@@longcastle4863 That is simply because you are ignorant. Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.
Christianity is the religion of love for all of God's creation, including all of mankind.
I don't know how or why you have come to your conclusions but there are many videos on RUclips where very liberal people have gone to conservative and or religious gatherings with preconceptions similar to yours only to find that they were completely wrong. #Walkaway
I'm open to new ideas and new concepts. I'm open to views that don't agree with my own and open to compromise. Sometimes I've had my mind changed by listening to people with opposing ideas.
Your comments above are not an attempt to provide insight into why science is on more sound footing than religion. It was simply a statement, which I believe to be untrue and lacking foundation, attacking Christianity. You don't prove that I'm right but you certainly leave no convincing reason for me to believe as you do.
I invite you to investigate the World around you more and truly understand that we are all on this journey together and we all deserve mutual respect, and tolerance, which you statement above appears to lack.
My original comment was not an attack on science. It was a personal observation that although I find science interesting, it is always being revised to meet the current state of understanding. What was widely accepted, for instance, before the, Theory of Relativity, is not science any more. Scientists of the time also thought they knew the truth but found they did not.
I love the ideas that physicists come up with. They stretch the mind. It just seems to me that many of these theories require as much, if not more faith, than does a belief in God.
I also believe that, "scientists", are simply discovering God's handiwork and that people should guard against making science their religion. Knowledge is fulfilling but embracing your creator has no other parallel in life.
@@JesseRedmanBand Look at the polls. Why are so many people, especially young people, leaving Christianity? The blatant hypocrisy of preaching love but spouting hate. The utter rage and intolerance Christianity exhibits toward others, especially people from the LGBTQ community. The disgrace of the Church of Jesus (who certainly had a middle eastern complexion) embracing White Christian Nationalism. People don’t want to have to fall back into the medieval dark ages of relations toward others Christianity expects of them. But go ahead. Be in denial. Lash out at those who hate Christianity because of Christian hate. Take it personally instead of recognizing the church has taken a bad turn. It’s one way to ensure nothing will change.
He pontificates, and pontificates, and pontificates…. But how does he KNOW that what he is spouting is true. Just speculation. Interesting, for sure. But where are the observations? Where is the scientific method?
First of all, 1) this is like the speculating part of the scientific method. Ideas don’t fall fully formed like gum balls from the minds of scientists, but are the result of lots of thinking, discussion, arguing, debating and throwing ideas around. Would you have criticized all the early quantum theorists with all their seemingly wild, crazy and out of the box thinking, until they finally started producing hypothesis that could be tested and verified by experiment? And 2) how many observations and how much data and mathematics do you expect in an 8 minute video? It’s clear there’s a lot more facts and mathematics behind what the guest is saying and they are no doubt available for anyone who wants to look deeper into the the subject. And finally, 3) the whole thing about CTT is asking scientists and philosophers and, yes, even theologians, to discuss on topics still on cutting on edge of science, philosophy and human understanding.
Btw, _The Age of Entanglement_ by Louise Gilder is an absolutely fun layman friendly read on the discovery of entanglement in quantum physics. Put into novel / story telling form and using only written and spoken words by the actual physicists involved in the discovery over the course of decades. Shows the speculating process in action. Highly recommend. 😊
@@longcastle4863 Hi Longcastle. Yup. You see that it’s speculation. And I see that it’s speculation. But Deutsch is hardly treating it as speculation. He comes across as pretty authoritative. That’s what I’m complaining about. I do have my own speculation - that each of those myriad universes in the ‘multiverse’ is only POTENTIAL, but THIS one - our universe - is the one being ‘chosen’ and ‘observed’ into real existence. That’s MY hypothesis, but I’m not going to ‘pontificate’ about it. I’m 81 years old, so I probably won’t have much longer to wait to find out whether I am on the right track or not. Live well and prosper!
The observations are superposition states. Many Worlds takes multiple simultaneous states seriously and just says the collapse of the wave function, fur which we don’t have a physical theory anyway, doesn’t happen.
@@rankpa I hear 80’s the new 60. May you have the most excellent of holidays 🖖
To replace the god factor. Atheist scientist try so hard. Like multiple universe and string theory or were living in a matrix well so the science. Watch closer to truth utuber and cool worlds and chemist James tour new science
Actually, succeeding without even trying.
@@longcastle4863With pseudoscience
@@longcastle4863
It’s not science. It’s science fiction, which becomes a new faith. And that’s your religion.
You live in upside down world. No mental wrangling needed to follow science. Now virgin births and resurrection, oh the mental gymnastics needed to keep that lunacy afloat.
Best to stick with the concept of the “OLD ONE”, as Einstein seemed to imply. The different QM interpretations just show how fragmented the thought process is, as they can’t all be “fundamentally correct”!
The Emporer's new Universes
This guy’s smokin too much ganja 🙄
What it means is that the world is discontinuous.
The variables of the theory of relativity are continuous.
This means they cannot both be correct !