Brian Greene never talked about an omniverse, he just used the term "ultimate multiverse," which I think might be the same thing. I got his list from the Wikipedia article on multiverses, which I'll add to the description. Here it is for convenience: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Brian_Greene's_nine_types
Is it possible that, in landscape multiverse from string theory, our 3d spatial universe is just a slice of more spatial universe but we can perceive them ecause of our limited consciousness?
That is metaphorically true in many ways. I'm sure you've had aha moments where you suddenly saw whole new dimensions of connections, or math, or evolution. As for spatial dimensions, though, if we could interact with them our minds would have evolved to see them. It's possible to envision 4 dimensions; I can do it. The reason it's so hard is because our universe has only 3.
I knew I was getting into an uphill battle when I made the statement, but I really do believe math is invented. Here's why: When we invent something in real life it's not conjured up out of nowhere. The possibility of the invention was there all along, we just had to put the material and energy in the right configurations. When we discover something in real life, it already existed and we just didn't know about it. What mathematicians do is use the tools of formal logic to construct concepts. A concept does not exist before someone thinks of it, just like a device does not exist before someone builds it. In both cases, the _possibility_ of it existing was there beforehand, but it did not exist. This is invention, not discovery.
@@chrishorst2124 Cannot argue with your logic. To me this seems more of a matter of semantics. But I was thinking of Math in terms of the laws of nature which are inherent which exist in a form to be described by some form of mathematics. You are clearly discriminating the two which is valid. Mathematics does not need to follow natural law.
@@jfcrow1 You can think of it like semantics, but the difference has implications for our perspective. If math is discovered and the universe is mathematical, then reality is restricted by math. However, if math is invented, then reality is unrestricted, but can still be represented by math. I favor being open-minded, so I believe math is invented. It just so happens I can make a philosophical argument for it too.
Hi, I really enjoy your channel. Now that I'm retired it's fun seeing how Physics has evolved since I got my degree back in 1976! And you have a very succinct and uncluttered style in describing things which I appreciate, and I love the philosophical thinking that you bring The subject of maths 'discovered or invented' fascinates me. The closest that I can get to an opinion on it is that something seems to determine how the Universe operates (motion of particles etc) and we are comfortable in embracing maths as that something i.e. discovered. And maths has never let us down yet. However, we are very comfortable in accepting that our current theories of Physics are at best incomplete and just approximations to reality (whatever that is), can the same be said of maths? i.e. we have invented something that only approximates something more fundamental.
Because these multiverses are a logical result of legitimate scientific theories. The final What If universe is pseudoscience, the rest are legitimate hypotheses.
@@matterasmachine In coming up with the concept of pseudoscience, Karl Popper drew a line with snake oil and interpretive psychology on one side, and science on the other. I think logical deductions of science should be placed on the same side as the science it is deduced from, provided we present it as a possibility, not as fact.
@@chrishorst2124 If we can't check, we can always say that aliens did that. At the same time existing knowledge is not checked as if it's all true. Science turns in another religion.
@@matterasmachine Peace. The YT comments don't have to be a status competition. You're concerned about people being led astray by poorly-supported ideas that appeal to irrational desires. So am I. In fact, that is one of the main themes of this video. Because the idea of a multiverse feels exciting, we are drawn to it and tempted to take it more seriously than it deserves. That's why I made the claim that they are actually boring. The excitement is a lure with no payoff, and by calling it out, I help people notice their own susceptibility and hopefully learn to question their motivations and impulses.
Okay you're completely fantastic!
You know that right?
9 complexity is special. I followed the 9+
Why is it when people imagine higher dimensions it's a spatial direction and not an extra time direction?
Good question. I haven't put much thought into that. Would probably have to start with the math before I could imagine what that would be like.
Would you happen to have a link to the Brian Greene omniverse you were referencing?
Brian Greene never talked about an omniverse, he just used the term "ultimate multiverse," which I think might be the same thing. I got his list from the Wikipedia article on multiverses, which I'll add to the description. Here it is for convenience: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Brian_Greene's_nine_types
Interesting video, but thanks for the book recommendations! :)
Is it possible that, in landscape multiverse from string theory, our 3d spatial universe is just a slice of more spatial universe but we can perceive them ecause of our limited consciousness?
That is metaphorically true in many ways. I'm sure you've had aha moments where you suddenly saw whole new dimensions of connections, or math, or evolution. As for spatial dimensions, though, if we could interact with them our minds would have evolved to see them. It's possible to envision 4 dimensions; I can do it. The reason it's so hard is because our universe has only 3.
@@chrishorst2124 Do you think there's really a being that can perceive this extra spatial dimension?
Thank you for the video, but the hand movements are very dizzying for my eyes. I cannot watch, only listen.
Math is discovered
I knew I was getting into an uphill battle when I made the statement, but I really do believe math is invented. Here's why:
When we invent something in real life it's not conjured up out of nowhere. The possibility of the invention was there all along, we just had to put the material and energy in the right configurations. When we discover something in real life, it already existed and we just didn't know about it.
What mathematicians do is use the tools of formal logic to construct concepts. A concept does not exist before someone thinks of it, just like a device does not exist before someone builds it. In both cases, the _possibility_ of it existing was there beforehand, but it did not exist. This is invention, not discovery.
@@chrishorst2124 Cannot argue with your logic. To me this seems more of a matter of semantics. But I was thinking of Math in terms of the laws of nature which are inherent which exist in a form to be described by some form of mathematics. You are clearly discriminating the two which is valid. Mathematics does not need to follow natural law.
@@jfcrow1 You can think of it like semantics, but the difference has implications for our perspective. If math is discovered and the universe is mathematical, then reality is restricted by math. However, if math is invented, then reality is unrestricted, but can still be represented by math. I favor being open-minded, so I believe math is invented. It just so happens I can make a philosophical argument for it too.
Hi, I really enjoy your channel. Now that I'm retired it's fun seeing how Physics has evolved since I got my degree back in 1976! And you have a very succinct and uncluttered style in describing things which I appreciate, and I love the philosophical thinking that you bring
The subject of maths 'discovered or invented' fascinates me. The closest that I can get to an opinion on it is that something seems to determine how the Universe operates (motion of particles etc) and we are comfortable in embracing maths as that something i.e. discovered. And maths has never let us down yet. However, we are very comfortable in accepting that our current theories of Physics are at best incomplete and just approximations to reality (whatever that is), can the same be said of maths? i.e. we have invented something that only approximates something more fundamental.
Why it’s not pseudoscience?
Because these multiverses are a logical result of legitimate scientific theories. The final What If universe is pseudoscience, the rest are legitimate hypotheses.
@@chrishorst2124 In old times legitimate was meaning falsifiable
@@matterasmachine In coming up with the concept of pseudoscience, Karl Popper drew a line with snake oil and interpretive psychology on one side, and science on the other. I think logical deductions of science should be placed on the same side as the science it is deduced from, provided we present it as a possibility, not as fact.
@@chrishorst2124 If we can't check, we can always say that aliens did that. At the same time existing knowledge is not checked as if it's all true. Science turns in another religion.
@@matterasmachine Peace. The YT comments don't have to be a status competition.
You're concerned about people being led astray by poorly-supported ideas that appeal to irrational desires. So am I. In fact, that is one of the main themes of this video. Because the idea of a multiverse feels exciting, we are drawn to it and tempted to take it more seriously than it deserves. That's why I made the claim that they are actually boring. The excitement is a lure with no payoff, and by calling it out, I help people notice their own susceptibility and hopefully learn to question their motivations and impulses.