Whenever I hear about infinite universes I like to think about really funny ones like for example one where every coin flip ever made in that universe always landed on heads and that just became something everybody accepted but never quite understood why it always landed on heads.
In that case, couldn't it be possible that some of the things that _we_ establish as "true" is just something highly improbable happening over and over again? How would we tell the difference between that and established laws of nature?
@@BenoHourglass yup you are absolutely right and there isn't any we would be able distinguish what is a true law of nature and what is just some weird quirk of our universe that is actually highly improbable.
Nice reference in 4:59 to Borges’ Library of Babel, a tale about a (possibly) infinite library that contains every possible book that random letters could write. Always a pleasure to watch your videos PBS Space Time!!
Infinitely many of me have decided that whenever I have a difficult decision to make I'll just flip a coin. Because among those of me who agonize over the decision, infinitely many will make one choice and infinitely many will make the other, so why waste time agonizing about it? Infinitely many of me are still agonizing over whether or not that's a good idea.
The thing never mentioned about the Infinite Monkey Theorem is that each Shakespeare novel randomly typed by a phenomenally lucky monkey would be buried under an astronomically immense haystack of typographically flawed near-replicas of that novel. In practice, the problem would not be how long you'd have to wait before a perfect reproduction just happened to be typed, but how many near misses you'd have to proofread and reject...
That was my first reaction. My feeling is that each time my life branches in a new direction, I become a unique person. So it's more like I have an infinite number of siblings, rather than infinite "me"s. But that's more a question of philosophy than quantum physics.
@@Mamurai Once, when I was in grad school (~30 years ago, for a Humanities degree), I even had an argument with a Philosophy major over dinner. His argument is that, because our bodies are constantly changing, and our thoughts are constantly changing, there _is_ no single "Self" -- that none of us are the same people we were when we were born. Now, I don't agree with _that_ But it is an argument that's out there.
seems to me that infinite starting conditions isnt necessarily impossible but infinite results could occur given infinite time especially if new beginnings can be the effect of criteria in the chain.
I've loved all the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy references in this show over the years but I never expected to learn something new about my favorite books. When Arthur told Ford "There's an infinite number of monkeys out here that want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out" I always thought it was just some weird/funny idea DNA came up with
People need to acknowledge that this whole concept is nonsense. There is no such thing as "infinite", it's not an actual thing, numerical value or destination. It isn't anything, so he's neither disproving or arguing for anything. The entire video he's speaking absolute babble. It's just comical. You might as well say "I hope my other 1234456443 unicorn versions can understand all this."
This is similar to an idea that I had when I was a kid and I’ve got a ZX Spectrum 48k back in the ‘80s: I just thought that if I’d create an assembly program using its entire 48kB of memory as a counter, by the time it would have counted to the end, it would’ve created any possible program, game, photo, sound, book or anything that would be possible for this computer to run, among all the garbage that were also meaningless... Then I realised how long it would take it to just run this program and just finish counting using a 48kB long counter and a 4MHz CPU... Probably the last black hole in the universe would seize to exist by the time it would be over, not to mention if you needed to stop and test in between steps if the counting program had created something meaningful. :-)
@@DERIVATIVES-mh6ej oh yeah, that's why I said "travel" not travel. Infinities every which way packed with infinitely infinite possibilities except we'll never see them!
@@PeterB12345 oh, didn't see those quotation marks. But also, what if there were wormholes that were so vast and long that they stretched from our observable universe to another. I'm probably wrong about that. They'd most likely be too large to be sustained and just collapse as soon as they were created but still, who knows.
Well if literally anything can happen in a infinite multiverse,there must be a scientist named Bob for example that created a machine that can teleport objects through universes,and he teleported for example a ham sandwich into our universe,into my hands.But this didnt happen 🤨
I've been thinking about this and the big thing I can't get over is... we've been able to entangle whole molecules, right? But the atoms within those molecules are obviously able to interact with each other without messing up the entanglement we observe from the outside? If that supposition is correct, it means that the 'system' represented by the molecule can be entangled from our perspective, but still operate according to normal physical laws from the point of view of something inside the system (such as one of the atoms making up the molecule). From our point of view on the outside all possible interactions are in supposition until the molecule's wave function collapses from our perspective. If this is correct, does it mean that *ANY* system regardless of size could be seen as entangled and not collapsed by an observer outside of that system? And could that scale up to the entire universe? Then perhaps this is what 'time' is for us... just one possible path out of many through the universe's wave function. -Matt
It does make you think that possibly the easiest way to manage this on a universal scale would be just to keep the entire universe, or at least the perception thereof, contained within each individual observer's mind/consciousness. Closed systems.
I came here to write it, noticed that there were already 1500 comments and did not have to scroll too far to find it. One of my favourite Simpson's quotes, the perfect opportunity to use it but just too slow. Doh!
It's all just so beautiful. Sometimes I just close my eyes and let the language of science wash over me. I'll never regret the day I traded this language for the "some dude did it" belief system.
So there both is a god and isn't a god at the same time? Uh. Whatever you want man. But my comment was about people, who when they encounter something difficult to understand, their immediate tendancy is to make up an invisible man and say that invisible man did it with magic, instead of using science to figure out what's going on. It's about laziness vs initiative. The god shrugs his shoulders and begs off saying "some dude did it." I don't respect that.
The universe is just reflecting our inner self back at us, whether we believe in lockness monster, UFOs, ghosts, goblins, whatever bait we're willing to take is hung before us. how else can humans learn who they truly are if their inner self is not hung before them on a daily basis.
Zen Dean yeah I should have elaborated on that sorry I meant to convey why not understand this beautiful cosmos with the understanding that it was created by a being. It is very lazy to not explore the universe we find ourselves in and I agree with you on that aspect
Depends on what you mean by "me." If you mean the illusory "me" that you developed a year after the event you call "birth" then yes, there is one of you. The more correct answer is no, there is not even one of you. The reason god knows all and sees all is because god is everything and the only thing that "exists" There is no self. There is no physical substance "matter" The net energy content of the universe is zero. Energy cannot be created or destroyed because it is merely "the ability to do work" and exists only conceptually.
I've noticed that his nose has grow more and more red over the last few years. I guess the embarrassing thing that astrophysicists do is to over-indulge in the bottle. Or at least this one.
0:05 _"It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not"_ *Agent Smith - The Matrix*
I always hated that line, because there is no truth to it at all. While to us it may appear that most other animals are in harmony with the environment, that is only because hey are normally unable to take more out of it and destabilize it. All you have to do is look at a successful invasive species. They absoultly destroy the ecosystem they end up in. Taking everything they can with no thought about conservation or anything like it. All organisms are like that. They will take and take everything they are capable of taking and never think twice. It isn't that most aren't in a position where they can cause harm by taking to much.
Yep, we are essentially an invasive species to the entire world. Of course, the fact that we do it does make us worse yen other creatures. They don't know any better and are rule by their base instincts. They don't know tht will cause the kind of harm they can. We however are fully aware of it. And completely capable of fixing to e problem. So we are worse in that way.
Actually, both pronunciations of "principia" are reasonably justified, as is the pronunciation where the makes a "ch" sound. This is an argument about "correct" Latin pronunciation. The "k"-sound matches Classical Latin, naturally spoken in the early Roman empire. The "ch"-sound matches later Vulgar Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin. The "s"-sound doesn't really match any specific type of Latin, per se, but does match the way s before and ended up being pronounced in French and, later, Latin American Spanish (which are both technically very late forms of Latin). Since English was heavily influenced by French, the normal English way to pronounce Latin loanwords, including modern latin coinings like species names, is with a "s"-sound for before or . Isaac Newton and other academics of that era would have been explicitly taught Latin pronunciation, which had been reformed with reconstructions that were done in the 15th century and spread to English Universities in the 16th century, so it's quite likely that Newton and his contemporaries would have used either a "k" or a "ch" sound, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to.
I think it becomes easier to grasp when you think about how every combination is equally likely and that a play of Shakespear is just something we personally would find cool.
Unless your waifu was a physically possible person... Or its possible that other regions of the universe may abide by different physical laws. I'm not pulling this part out of my ass, its a genuine theory. This would mean that not only everything possible to us would exist, but also everything possible by the different potential perameters of the universe. This could mean, superpowers, magic, waifus... maybe that last one was a stretch. Unfortunately, these different laws of physics would kill us in all likelihood, seeing how us carbon based lifeforms are so immensely fragile.
Since "infinite" is not an actual thing, numerical value or destination, you might as well ask: "Are there unicornite versions of you?" It will be the exact same nonsensical question.
PBS Spacetime is actually one of my favorite channels but quite honestly I'm not a fan of the grandiose, highly speculative topics that have gotten more attention in the past few months. I understand how tempting it is to try to generate maximum excitement with fantastic topics that border on sci-fi, but I find the videos on neutrinos, QFT and other reality based topics much more useful.
@@chriskennedy2846 A lot of it is gedankenexperiment which is important on its own and relates to more specific subjects. I wouldn't call it grandiose as all subjects can be questionned by the scientific method, and no episode goes outside of the current knowledge and questions of science. At the end of the day, all modern physics is grandiose, don't you think so?
@ Classical or classic physics is the name given to Newtonian based physics, or the physics developed prior to 1900 that does not account for principles in quantum mechanics and relativity.
I suspect there is no absolute reality in the same way that there is no absolute reference frame. The latter expresses itself as relativity, while the former does so as quantum mechanics.
"There's no version of you out there where you have Captain Marvel superpowers. Tough I guess there could be one where you're Batman. Or NOT Batman, if, you know, you're already Batman in this one." He is among us.
If you can't have Captain Marvel superpowers, you also can't have Superman's powers. Batman knows Superman. You can't know Superman because Superman can't exist, which means you can't be Batman. So you aren't. Sorry.
15:56 you were correct. There is no was Newton would have pronounced it as "prinkipia". Church Latin was strong at the time (it uses the soft "c" compared to classic Latin) and the word principle was borrowed from Latin so your pronunciation was entirely correct.
The current rules dictate that everything must be pronounced like classic Latin. (Which nobody knows what it sounded like anyways :) ). Therefore pinKipia is correct by default. And pedantic and queer as f***. PrinSipia is also correct, because Matt is free to speak church Latin. Or Australian English, or Klingon... Since we have no audio recording of Newton, nobody really knows how he would have pronounced it.
@@vampyricon7026 You're jumping to conclusions. Nobody can verify if the linguists got it right. We can and do verify physics all the time. A theory without verification is a belief, not a science. This particular useless knowledge was provided by the commenters, not by the channel.
The smallest interval of time is Planck time. Planck time is how long it takes light to travel one Planck length. (I believe the universe is still frames. Each frame being at Planck time intervals).
This is what I know based on well nothing really but my own experience through observation and contemplation and yes you can call me crazy. When I say experience it's because I observe my body responds to my thoughts. I can even feel energies coursing through my body. The body is the entire material universe. Infinite versions of me are my cells replicating within hours. Everything I see externally is a projection. Therefore my eyes are just like a flashlight.
I used to work in a very funky IT Consultancy. They had really groovy toilets: the back of the door, the ceiling and the wall behind the toilet had space wallpaper and the side walls had mirrors. This created an interesting simulacrum of the multiverse with infinite ‘me’s’ trailing off forevermore far as the eye could see. The fact that in all the alternate realities I could see I was on the toilet was mildly disappointing.
@@mikewagner2299 Yes, an 8 and a 6 are used in fractions that appear between 1 and 2. I guess you were scrrrd to simplify 8/6 to 4/3'rds because you'd have had to use a 3 🤣
Me and my husband were talking about this last night, which is why I am here. We talked about a theory of there being infinite "YOU" the multiverse, so several versions of you exist but overlapped and in the same time period and all of the versions of you share the same consciousness and that is the reason for different unexplained events such as seeing things that relate to you but also not or people having feelings of not belonging here. Your conscience makes mistakes and there for you will have memories of things that didn't happen in this version of you. I'm not good at explaining things but an example of this is that there has been times in my life where I had a brief moment of thing not feeling real like nothing in my life made sense cause to me in that moment the life I was in never existed so in that moment I may have been in another multiverse and that's why things didn't seem right. Now back to the being overlapped and in the same time, we all exist at the same time living our lives next to each other but since we can only see and hear so many sound and colors we are not able to see these other versions of ourselves but in some cases people have been able to do that such as those who have uses psychedelics which opens your eyes and ears to the ones we cannot see it hear and yes we feel that in this theory there are times that the multiverses do have an impact on the others. Sorry for not doing a great job at explaining talking is just easier for me than writing my thoughts.
There will eventually be you who THINKS he has Captain Marvel powers but in fact all his powers is a collection of random non-zero probability things that look exactly like a consistent superpower
@Gyri Sulcie So, he doesn´t know maths. "I do my homework" means he was self educated, probably meaning didn´t have higher education. "regurgitating dogma" means that he doesn´t read any science books or scientific journals neither has quotes to back up anything. The quote of the strawman (in a situation that was not appropriate) shows that he frequently uses low key "hype" words that make he seem "smart". yeah, if fit the profile. He should open an account on quora they had a lot of those over there.
Great video. There's one ; perhaps many, a universe where you, and, I go for a coffee, or tea, and chat about an experience I had in my butchers shop. Of that, I'm sure. Really enjoyed it 👍
I have a problem with the infinite monkey theorem. Yes, the probability of the monkeys typing any given finite string approaches 100% given enough time. However, what is the probability of the monkeys typing an infinite string of all a's or alternating a's and b's, what is the probability of them typing every finite string except for the work's of Shakespeare? The probability of any particular infinite string of characters is always 0%, so why then are the infinite strings which contain every finite string preferred over all the other infinite strings?
what? He already addresses this in rhe video when he says there would be infinite variations as well. I don't think you understand probability given infinite time. It's a thought experiment
@Giantcrabz My point is just, in my opinion, it is more helpful to think in terms of asymptotcs. The probability that they type Shakespear increases asymptotically toward 100% given more time.
I believe theres infinite versions of me in the multiverse. Each one has a different life. Some have great lives, others are living terrible. Many many different lives. Infinitely so.
"A hundred billion billion times less likely than winning a raffle in which there are as many raffle tickets as there are particles in the universe". Give me that ticket.
You have it, an infinite number of times. You just aren't in that universe right now, but will be, an infinite number of times. Leonard Susskind has said that there are two things that our brains simply cannot comprehend. We cannot comprehend a fourth of fifth dimension (never mind more), we just can't "see it" in our minds. The second is that we cannot get our heads around infinity. My statement about you "having" that ticket is true. You will have it an infinite number of times, if it is true infinity. That is enough to keep my brain from even contemplating it. For me, I have to go back to the fact that there is something at all, even "space" for particles to randomly fluctuate to produce a universe. There is still "space" and something "quantum" - so there is "something" rather than nothing. In that sense, I limit the infinity thing, bc something initially "started" something. It's not religious to believe it - though it can be for some - but there is something more here. I think consciousness has to play a role.
@@jasonmiciak1407 I can kind of conceive an extra dimension. Think about the tiny little bugs that crawl around on every square inch of us. Their whole world is our skin. They have no way of interacting with the world beyond the peaks and valleys of where they live. Would the world beyond their host not be like an extra dimension to them? Something that is unknowable to them and cannot be accessed.
"The probability of a raffle with as many tickets as there are particles in the universe" in a video about the possibility of the universe containing an infinite number of particles made me tick...
@@qwerhbo2255 Yeah 99.9% sure he meant observable universe because you can't X times more or Y times less of anything compared to infinity because it's not a number it's a concept.
What makes the infinite universe theory hard to swallow is the fact Thad it seems like there is an infinite supply of matter, which unless it’s not infinite but abundant, but still. It just makes more sense for things to be finite and sucumba to entropy.
Actually, there is another important condition mentioned only briefly at the start of the video - Universe being perfectly deterministic. If it is not, everything else is thrown out of the window.
My favourite extrapolation of this thought experiment is "Quantum Immortality". In an infinite universe exists a copy of a younger version of you who's neurons rearrange spontaneously in that way that it contains the whole knowledge of you at yor time of death. Your experience will inform another version of you. PS: Now thinking about it, it would probably be waaay more likely to be "reincarnated" that way as a Boltzman Brain.
@@Liam-qr7zn even simpler. there is a version of you whose telomeres (the bits at the end of chromosomes that keep them from deteriorating, thus cause aging) malfunctioned (or possibly decided to function correctly) and actually grow back. meaning you never grow old, and can never die except by disease or accident.
Assuming an infinite universe, every question raised falls more into a philosophical matter than an applicable one, and I’ll end by using my favorite philosophical razor : "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating”.
This episode makes me hope that there is eventually a similar episode talking about if and how Poincaré recurrence can cause the universe to repeat itself over time. There are some videos out there (e.g. Numberphile) that talk about the estimated Poincaré recurrence time of the Universe but they aren't really clear about why a Universe with an expanding volume would meet the necessary criteria for a recurrence. (Poincaré recurrence normally requires that the volume of the states be bounded.) It would be nice to see a fuller explanation of this and PBS Spacetime manages to explain some complicated topics in an entertaining way. :)
Yeah because who cares? That’s not the point of the thought experiment. It’s a metaphor to make people understand how we exist in a deterministic universe despite the ridiculously low chances
@@rewmoo1805 it could not be a joke. There's no joke rulebook. The only way to verify whether it's a joke or not is to ask the person who wrote the comment and even if it was a joke, it can quite easily be interpreted otherwise so shush ur lips
According to General theory of relativity space-time bends by mass. But a star doesn't behave like black hole but same star with same mass behave as black hole when it's density increases that means mass is not responsible for space-time bending but density i.e mass per unit volume. Please clarify me.
Infinite versions of yourself is an inevitable conclusion with naturalistic only assumptions built in to your argument. You are obligated to taking the abiogenesis idea and the macroevolution hypothesis as part of your logic. I can only imagine what the creationists would be thinking of such. You have provided a very good demonstration of how exclusive naturalism hits a brick wall in this regard.
When you talk about regions of the Universe being repeated, that's certainly evident at the level of atoms and molecules. I wonder; does Bekenstein and Hawking's theory apply at the subatomic level? I mean, does the small number of different types of particle (in QCD) tally with the surface area of the volume they occupy in some way? _*I underscore this question with fecal matter._ 💩
It’s not about religion it’s about nature things can be repeated it’s called goes in cycles 😑if the universe in anyway had a beginning it will end but if the universe had no beginning it won’t end 😑ether way the odds of a planet having life is 1 and we were all ready dead before and since the odds of life are 1 you have a higher then 0% chance you will be reborn again as a true death does NOT mean it no longer exists….a true death means their is a 100% chance of something NEVER EVER being not again their is no again a true death means that something has a 0 chance of ever being created 😑as 0* infinity=0 but since the odds of life are 1 you have a higher then 0% chance you will be reborn again 😐
Wow I'm having flashbacks to drunk conversations I had at 16 (30 years ago) -- I guess this debate will go on forever, an infinite amount of times, somewhere!
*your Otherwise, you're saying "You are Batman joke..." and that would only work if you say "Your 'you are Batman' joke...," as well. The syntax is just wrong, if you say it without a pronoun referring to him. Not to be an insult, just to help you out.
I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I appreciate the effort that goes into making these videos. However, this video touches upon a lot of different concepts that aren't explained here or in any other PBS spacetime video. The reason I watch PBS spacetime videos is to learn new things, but because of this issue I find them to not be very educational. I am a layperson with a master's degree in a science subject that isn't maths or physics. I've always read encyclopaedias as a child and particularly loved reading the sections about outer space. If only these videos could somehow be made simpler and clearer.
You say that quantum randomness can produce the same result with a different starting configuration. But doesn't that also imply that with the same starting configuration there is only a very small chance to produce the same result as ours?
One monkey already has randomly written all of Shakespeare's plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Just use a cup of tea to create the finite improbability machine and then use that to make the infinite improbability drive. Douglas Adams had it right all along. So long and thanks for all the fish.
If the universe is infinite, wouldn't that include parts of the universe where our physics don't fit? Wouldn't it contain everything possible and everything not possible? An infinite number of finite universes seems more probable and would require less explanations.
Even if the universe is infinite (if it is), the entirety of infinity (if this even makes sense but you get what I mean) will be governed by laws of physics only. There are no rules to the universe except physics. If we are to assume that a part of universe exists where "physics" doesn't apply, it'll have to be born out of the rules of physics itself. Hence, it's not possible. So yeah..we're not becoming Thor :(
It would not contain everything impossible. The whole point of infinite universe is that any probability that is not 0% must happen, not once but infinite times, because any % of infinite is infinite. But if the probability is 0%, which are laws of physics, than 0% of infinite is still 0. Basically, a proton will always be made up of 3 quarks in the infinite universe. There will no no region where a proton has 4 components. This is because the “probability” that a proton has 3 quarks is 100%, there fore everything else can never exist no matter how infinite times you reset. While things like unicorns should exist, since they really are just horses with single horn- that is possible for a evolved biological matter. As in, there must be at least 1, or really infinite places, where matter was randomly arranged in such a order to make a perfect copy of what we call an unicorn. But in all universe, the speed of light should still be the same to preserve the copernican principal and locality.
I don't understand why (for example) if there are infinite universes, there aren't infinite universes where physics doesn't exist, or where the typewriter had an inverted question mark. If there were infinite universes, wouldn't there be universes where the laws of that universe are different, and therefore all outcomes are 'possible' outcomes?
Whenever I hear about infinite universes I like to think about really funny ones like for example one where every coin flip ever made in that universe always landed on heads and that just became something everybody accepted but never quite understood why it always landed on heads.
Sounds like a Douglas Adams passage.
But man the fire storm if it eventually does land tails.
@@jsmunroe I also imagine a universe where every coin flip landed on heads, except there was one time it landed on tails but nobody believes it.
In that case, couldn't it be possible that some of the things that _we_ establish as "true" is just something highly improbable happening over and over again? How would we tell the difference between that and established laws of nature?
@@BenoHourglass yup you are absolutely right and there isn't any we would be able distinguish what is a true law of nature and what is just some weird quirk of our universe that is actually highly improbable.
“Ford! There's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out.”
How many monkeys do we need to write a « prefect » copy of the Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy?
@@qu4n7um82 42
I wanted to like this. But I would have been 43rd.
@@timenixe That's OK. 42 is the answer anyway.
@@slick4401 Exactly
The dislikes are just grumpy parallel versions of the people who liked.
I find it oddly comforting that there could be an alternate universe where there's an alternate me that didn't make the mistakes I made.
It's not rational but it's good. I approve👍
I wish i was them.
But it is not possible as other probabilities are actually ocurring at the same time, in the 5th dimension or so on
some of them made even more mistakes, you're the best one there is mate :D
*reality is just another construct of infinite realities*
If there are other versions of me I hope they're having a better time.
Jonata
and some can be living the same exact life as you
Some are some aren't, but all are possible for you to become.
@@cl4655 There's an infinite number living the same life. Just a smaller infinity 😉.
There’s a version of you that does everything the same as you except for posting that comment.
Perhaps some of them have learned to cope with not having a better time.
Nice reference in 4:59 to Borges’ Library of Babel, a tale about a (possibly) infinite library that contains every possible book that random letters could write. Always a pleasure to watch your videos PBS Space Time!!
You said "a universe where Shakespeare's plays are long strings of S underscored with fecal smears" with a straight face. Mad props.
This kind of infinity is very beautiful if you try to really imagine what it means
Yes but it lets me think if I am a copy or I’m not and we are all real or we are all fake and everything is fake in this universe/galaxy
Infinitely many of me have decided that whenever I have a difficult decision to make I'll just flip a coin. Because among those of me who agonize over the decision, infinitely many will make one choice and infinitely many will make the other, so why waste time agonizing about it?
Infinitely many of me are still agonizing over whether or not that's a good idea.
The thing never mentioned about the Infinite Monkey Theorem is that each Shakespeare novel randomly typed by a phenomenally lucky monkey would be buried under an astronomically immense haystack of typographically flawed near-replicas of that novel. In practice, the problem would not be how long you'd have to wait before a perfect reproduction just happened to be typed, but how many near misses you'd have to proofread and reject...
“But have they read Shakespeare?”
- Karl Pilkington
Brilliant reference🤣🤣😂
Karl lives in a Universe where Will-I-AM Shakespeare is a Pop Star.
Neiet! Dasvadana
Why not start with Hamlet?
He isn't me if he didn't do that really embarrassing thing that one time.
That was my first reaction. My feeling is that each time my life branches in a new direction, I become a unique person. So it's more like I have an infinite number of siblings, rather than infinite "me"s. But that's more a question of philosophy than quantum physics.
Infinite universe with infinite possibilities and I'm doing that embarassing thing every time.
@@petev.6598 And my fear is that in each universe, I'm doing something different, but they're *all* embarrassing.
True! I mean what is "me" ? Is it from the time you are born with the same parents and same genetics etc.? Then everything can branch after that.
@@Mamurai Once, when I was in grad school (~30 years ago, for a Humanities degree), I even had an argument with a Philosophy major over dinner. His argument is that, because our bodies are constantly changing, and our thoughts are constantly changing, there _is_ no single "Self" -- that none of us are the same people we were when we were born.
Now, I don't agree with _that_ But it is an argument that's out there.
"There can't be an infinite number of starting conditions. Therefore you're Batman" is now my favourite logical argument.
I thought there is a hair on my screen follomwing the scrolling))) nice avatar
I wonder how many people you fooled with your profile picture
I think he repeated the argument twice. Fun.
The Catmother
Lol! U think?
seems to me that infinite starting conditions isnt necessarily impossible but infinite results could occur given infinite time especially if new beginnings can be the effect of criteria in the chain.
I've loved all the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy references in this show over the years but I never expected to learn something new about my favorite books. When Arthur told Ford "There's an infinite number of monkeys out here that want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out" I always thought it was just some weird/funny idea DNA came up with
"Where Shakespeares plays are long strings of s underscored by fecal smears." Wow new sentence.
I'm already a long string of S, held together by feces, in a trenchcoat. This video made me feel less unique.
I dont know why that made me laugh so hard
*He* knows Alfred Shakespeare??!
I lost it COMPLETELY at that sentence 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🙃
James Hernandez because it was hilarious and unexpected lol
"Therefore you're batman", although also the gimp from pulp fiction 🤔
god no no please no
I'm Batman
@@flyingiguana409 No you are the Joker!
@James Sloan Then wake his ass up.
The only difference is that one has bat ears on his suit...
I hope my other infinite versions can understand all this.
People need to acknowledge that this whole concept is nonsense. There is no such thing as "infinite", it's not an actual thing, numerical value or destination. It isn't anything, so he's neither disproving or arguing for anything. The entire video he's speaking absolute babble. It's just comical.
You might as well say "I hope my other 1234456443 unicorn versions can understand all this."
@@TheMysticAxiomlmao what makes you so credible
This is similar to an idea that I had when I was a kid and I’ve got a ZX Spectrum 48k back in the ‘80s: I just thought that if I’d create an assembly program using its entire 48kB of memory as a counter, by the time it would have counted to the end, it would’ve created any possible program, game, photo, sound, book or anything that would be possible for this computer to run, among all the garbage that were also meaningless... Then I realised how long it would take it to just run this program and just finish counting using a 48kB long counter and a 4MHz CPU... Probably the last black hole in the universe would seize to exist by the time it would be over, not to mention if you needed to stop and test in between steps if the counting program had created something meaningful. :-)
There's a lot of cool stuff that can be done in 48KB :0
@@ZedaZ80 The demo scene proves that.
Heck, we use 128 and 256 BITS, not bytes as encryption keys, because brute forcing them all would take years and years.
If time is infinite, does that mean every single event possible will happen and already has happened an infinite amount of times?
Yes, but also because space is infinite. "Travel" far enough, and you'll eventually find another Earth with an exact copy of you on it.
@@DERIVATIVES-mh6ej oh yeah, that's why I said "travel" not travel. Infinities every which way packed with infinitely infinite possibilities except we'll never see them!
@@PeterB12345 oh, didn't see those quotation marks. But also, what if there were wormholes that were so vast and long that they stretched from our observable universe to another. I'm probably wrong about that. They'd most likely be too large to be sustained and just collapse as soon as they were created but still, who knows.
Well if literally anything can happen in a infinite multiverse,there must be a scientist named Bob for example that created a machine that can teleport objects through universes,and he teleported for example a ham sandwich into our universe,into my hands.But this didnt happen 🤨
@@vovabars1234 just be grateful no one has teleported a hornets nest into your hands 😆
I came to comment section for my entertainment but I can't even understand the comments! Lol!😂
Same bruh
Are we in the right universe?
Well, the dolphins managed to find at least one exact copy of our planet elsewhere in the universe.
Its not hard. Either you order one from the magrathea custom made planet factory or since the economy collapsed use the infinte improbabilty drive.
I wish I could go with them, maybe I could find some free land I could live on by myself without a renter there.
Oh Snap.! 😄 ...and thanks for all the fish.
good luck.
Try finding God on the crap planet he/she/it lives .(it's been 3 years since i read hitchhiker's, i dont remeber a lot of it.)
I've been thinking about this and the big thing I can't get over is... we've been able to entangle whole molecules, right? But the atoms within those molecules are obviously able to interact with each other without messing up the entanglement we observe from the outside? If that supposition is correct, it means that the 'system' represented by the molecule can be entangled from our perspective, but still operate according to normal physical laws from the point of view of something inside the system (such as one of the atoms making up the molecule). From our point of view on the outside all possible interactions are in supposition until the molecule's wave function collapses from our perspective.
If this is correct, does it mean that *ANY* system regardless of size could be seen as entangled and not collapsed by an observer outside of that system? And could that scale up to the entire universe?
Then perhaps this is what 'time' is for us... just one possible path out of many through the universe's wave function.
-Matt
Junker Zn, your post made me feel stupid.
this has also been cooking my noodle.
Time already happened, we're just experiencing it with our monkey brains slowly
Yes entanglement can scale up under the right conditions, if something can prevent the system from collapsing.
It does make you think that possibly the easiest way to manage this on a universal scale would be just to keep the entire universe, or at least the perception thereof, contained within each individual observer's mind/consciousness. Closed systems.
"It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times...."
Blast! Beaten by my arch nemesis. Michael Jordan!
Go thumbs up his comment.
Simpsons lol
I came here to write it, noticed that there were already 1500 comments and did not have to scroll too far to find it. One of my favourite Simpson's quotes, the perfect opportunity to use it but just too slow. Doh!
1 day too late... damn-.- lol
@@karlzen86 quick question? Will our Sun survive outside of our galaxy?
It's all just so beautiful. Sometimes I just close my eyes and let the language of science wash over me. I'll never regret the day I traded this language for the "some dude did it" belief system.
Zen Dean I mean why not both?
So there both is a god and isn't a god at the same time? Uh. Whatever you want man. But my comment was about people, who when they encounter something difficult to understand, their immediate tendancy is to make up an invisible man and say that invisible man did it with magic, instead of using science to figure out what's going on. It's about laziness vs initiative. The god shrugs his shoulders and begs off saying "some dude did it." I don't respect that.
The universe is just reflecting our inner self back at us, whether we believe in lockness monster, UFOs, ghosts, goblins, whatever bait we're willing to take is hung before us. how else can humans learn who they truly are if their inner self is not hung before them on a daily basis.
In a way, I envy those people. Must be comforting to think you have a buddy watching you and life after death.
Zen Dean yeah I should have elaborated on that sorry I meant to convey why not understand this beautiful cosmos with the understanding that it was created by a being. It is very lazy to not explore the universe we find ourselves in and I agree with you on that aspect
Here I am still trying to figure out if there's even 1 of me.
Yes and no. Depends on who is observing =)
Depends on what you mean by "me."
If you mean the illusory "me" that you developed a year after the event you call "birth" then yes, there is one of you.
The more correct answer is no, there is not even one of you. The reason god knows all and sees all is because god is everything and the only thing that "exists"
There is no self.
There is no physical substance "matter"
The net energy content of the universe is zero.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed because it is merely "the ability to do work" and exists only conceptually.
insert deep though post :)
No. 1 is odd therefore there is not even one of you only the odd one.
Well you're doing one better. I'm still trying to figure out what 'me' even means.
PBS Space Time: "does that mean that one of them didnt do that really embarrassing thing that one time?"
Me: *how did you know*
Can someone please explain to me what the f*** a configuration is exactly
A set of starting values
Only one embarrassing thing? :P
I've noticed that his nose has grow more and more red over the last few years. I guess the embarrassing thing that astrophysicists do is to over-indulge in the bottle. Or at least this one.
Alex this is stupid
0:05
_"It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not"_
*Agent Smith - The Matrix*
I always hated that line, because there is no truth to it at all. While to us it may appear that most other animals are in harmony with the environment, that is only because hey are normally unable to take more out of it and destabilize it. All you have to do is look at a successful invasive species. They absoultly destroy the ecosystem they end up in. Taking everything they can with no thought about conservation or anything like it. All organisms are like that. They will take and take everything they are capable of taking and never think twice. It isn't that most aren't in a position where they can cause harm by taking to much.
@@kylegesin7178 Yep harmony only occurs because after the chaos it stabilizes there. Why almost everything goes extinct sooner or later.
Finally someone who understands me :D.
Its just that we Humans lack any natural enemy's ...
Yep, we are essentially an invasive species to the entire world. Of course, the fact that we do it does make us worse yen other creatures. They don't know any better and are rule by their base instincts. They don't know tht will cause the kind of harm they can. We however are fully aware of it. And completely capable of fixing to e problem. So we are worse in that way.
Existence is invasive toward non-existence anyway.
Several of the infinite other versions of me understood the video, but not this version.
It looks like you understands it.
Actually, both pronunciations of "principia" are reasonably justified, as is the pronunciation where the makes a "ch" sound. This is an argument about "correct" Latin pronunciation. The "k"-sound matches Classical Latin, naturally spoken in the early Roman empire. The "ch"-sound matches later Vulgar Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin. The "s"-sound doesn't really match any specific type of Latin, per se, but does match the way s before and ended up being pronounced in French and, later, Latin American Spanish (which are both technically very late forms of Latin). Since English was heavily influenced by French, the normal English way to pronounce Latin loanwords, including modern latin coinings like species names, is with a "s"-sound for before or . Isaac Newton and other academics of that era would have been explicitly taught Latin pronunciation, which had been reformed with reconstructions that were done in the 15th century and spread to English Universities in the 16th century, so it's quite likely that Newton and his contemporaries would have used either a "k" or a "ch" sound, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to.
I think it becomes easier to grasp when you think about how every combination is equally likely and that a play of Shakespear is just something we personally would find cool.
4:36 "Only everything that could happen" Sorry guys, there's no universe where your waifu loves you back.
Why? Why would you shatter my delusions in such a harsh manner?
*hugs a body pillow while crying*
Unless your waifu was a physically possible person... Or its possible that other regions of the universe may abide by different physical laws. I'm not pulling this part out of my ass, its a genuine theory. This would mean that not only everything possible to us would exist, but also everything possible by the different potential perameters of the universe. This could mean, superpowers, magic, waifus... maybe that last one was a stretch. Unfortunately, these different laws of physics would kill us in all likelihood, seeing how us carbon based lifeforms are so immensely fragile.
"Are there infinite versions of you?" Immediate thought: "Oh my god, I hope not!"
Good one.
"Are there infinite versions of you?" Me? Noooo! The universe would never allow such chaos!
You downvoted this video in one of those universes.
I hope so... Sounds like a cool guy to smoke with.
Since "infinite" is not an actual thing, numerical value or destination, you might as well ask: "Are there unicornite versions of you?"
It will be the exact same nonsensical question.
"Unless there's something weird hiding in the laws of physics that we don't understand"
Well that's an absolute certainty.
Baboom!
PBS Spacetime is actually one of my favorite channels but quite honestly I'm not a fan of the grandiose, highly speculative topics that have gotten more attention in the past few months. I understand how tempting it is to try to generate maximum excitement with fantastic topics that border on sci-fi, but I find the videos on neutrinos, QFT and other reality based topics much more useful.
@@chriskennedy2846 I agree. I feel exactly the same about Anton Petrov's astronomy channel too.
The more grandiose the better.
@@chriskennedy2846 A lot of it is gedankenexperiment which is important on its own and relates to more specific subjects. I wouldn't call it grandiose as all subjects can be questionned by the scientific method, and no episode goes outside of the current knowledge and questions of science. At the end of the day, all modern physics is grandiose, don't you think so?
The way you pronounced the name of Newton's opera is the correct Latin pronunciation, so keep it going!
"Therefore, you're batman."
*looks at overweight self*
Actually, classical physics forbids this.
OMG you're so cute
lmao why would you call physics, classical
I bet you're fun at parties
@ Classical or classic physics is the name given to Newtonian based physics, or the physics developed prior to 1900 that does not account for principles in quantum mechanics and relativity.
Batman works out, it's not too late.
I suspect there is no absolute reality in the same way that there is no absolute reference frame. The latter expresses itself as relativity, while the former does so as quantum mechanics.
"There's no version of you out there where you have Captain Marvel superpowers.
Tough I guess there could be one where you're Batman. Or NOT Batman, if, you
know, you're already Batman in this one."
He is among us.
If you can't have Captain Marvel superpowers, you also can't have Superman's powers. Batman knows Superman. You can't know Superman because Superman can't exist, which means you can't be Batman. So you aren't.
Sorry.
@@a-blivvy-yus I could be Manbat that is close enough
Christian Bale taken into account.
@@a-blivvy-yus Can you prove that Batman knows Superman or is this just something you saw or read in a work of fiction, like a movie or a comic book?
@@lonestarr1490 Can you prove that Batman exists outside of any fiction you saw or read like a movie or comic book?
15:56 you were correct. There is no was Newton would have pronounced it as "prinkipia". Church Latin was strong at the time (it uses the soft "c" compared to classic Latin) and the word principle was borrowed from Latin so your pronunciation was entirely correct.
The current rules dictate that everything must be pronounced like classic Latin. (Which nobody knows what it sounded like anyways :) ). Therefore pinKipia is correct by default. And pedantic and queer as f***.
PrinSipia is also correct, because Matt is free to speak church Latin. Or Australian English, or Klingon...
Since we have no audio recording of Newton, nobody really knows how he would have pronounced it.
@@remcolangbroek656 We do know what classical Latin sounded like. What do you think linguists were doing this whole time?
@@vampyricon7026 Wasting funding. Latin is a dead language.
@@remcolangbroek656 Then why are you watching a channel dedicated to useless knowledge?
@@vampyricon7026 You're jumping to conclusions. Nobody can verify if the linguists got it right. We can and do verify physics all the time. A theory without verification is a belief, not a science.
This particular useless knowledge was provided by the commenters, not by the channel.
I recommend listening to Matt talk this stuff, for people with insomnia
Follow-on topic: is time quantized and, if so, does motion actually exist, or is our universe a sequence of still frames?
You're treating time like it's the same everywhere. "Still frames" means nothing.
The smallest interval of time is Planck time. Planck time is how long it takes light to travel one Planck length. (I believe the universe is still frames. Each frame being at Planck time intervals).
This is what I know based on well nothing really but my own experience through observation and contemplation and yes you can call me crazy. When I say experience it's because I observe my body responds to my thoughts. I can even feel energies coursing through my body. The body is the entire material universe. Infinite versions of me are my cells replicating within hours. Everything I see externally is a projection. Therefore my eyes are just like a flashlight.
If there are infinite universe then i know for 1 thing for sure
That i am lazy in all of them
No there will b a version that we both are friend and ur not lazy
@Gyri Sulcie there is infinite version of universe 1of them we both living on mars XD
"At least you are not fascist - wait, when did this become the default?!"
Don't blame yourself...in all of the universes it's not laziness it's just depression!
@@paradox1093 Didn't you listen to Matt? The impossible is still impossible, even if you try infinite interations.
I used to work in a very funky IT Consultancy. They had really groovy toilets: the back of the door, the ceiling and the wall behind the toilet had space wallpaper and the side walls had mirrors. This created an interesting simulacrum of the multiverse with infinite ‘me’s’ trailing off forevermore far as the eye could see.
The fact that in all the alternate realities I could see I was on the toilet was mildly disappointing.
The way I always like to explain it is: “there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but none of them are 3.”
1.33333333333333333...
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt but thats not a number 3
@@mdza
It's a magnitude 3.
It would be impossible to write 1.3333... without using a 3
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt 8/6
@@mikewagner2299
Yes, an 8 and a 6 are used in fractions that appear between 1 and 2.
I guess you were scrrrd to simplify 8/6 to 4/3'rds because you'd have had to use a 3 🤣
The graphics were great, thank you. keep it up 👍
ha ha, For 10 minutes i was questioning why you made the assumption that the universe was infinite. was so relieved when you addressed that .
2:52 "Dr. Matt O'Dowd counted all the characters in all of Shakespeare's plays for me" is going on my LinkedIn profile.
Definitely one of my favorite episodes yet.
I really like this man , he counted all the letters of the Shakespeare for us
Me and my husband were talking about this last night, which is why I am here. We talked about a theory of there being infinite "YOU" the multiverse, so several versions of you exist but overlapped and in the same time period and all of the versions of you share the same consciousness and that is the reason for different unexplained events such as seeing things that relate to you but also not or people having feelings of not belonging here. Your conscience makes mistakes and there for you will have memories of things that didn't happen in this version of you. I'm not good at explaining things but an example of this is that there has been times in my life where I had a brief moment of thing not feeling real like nothing in my life made sense cause to me in that moment the life I was in never existed so in that moment I may have been in another multiverse and that's why things didn't seem right. Now back to the being overlapped and in the same time, we all exist at the same time living our lives next to each other but since we can only see and hear so many sound and colors we are not able to see these other versions of ourselves but in some cases people have been able to do that such as those who have uses psychedelics which opens your eyes and ears to the ones we cannot see it hear and yes we feel that in this theory there are times that the multiverses do have an impact on the others. Sorry for not doing a great job at explaining talking is just easier for me than writing my thoughts.
Wouldn't that have information travelling faster than the speed of light
There will eventually be you who THINKS he has Captain Marvel powers but in fact all his powers is a collection of random non-zero probability things that look exactly like a consistent superpower
11:55
Tell us how many takes this took before you could say that with a straight face
Infinite number of times 😜
Probably several. The one left in wasn't exactly a straight face either, but they just went with it.
It certainly was perfect in one of those infinite versions.
I checked it myself:D
@happier story Yeah, I opened the links thinking it could be good science channels, but apparently mr dog didn´t take his rabis vaccination
@Gyri Sulcie So, he doesn´t know maths. "I do my homework" means he was self educated, probably meaning didn´t have higher education. "regurgitating dogma" means that he doesn´t read any science books or scientific journals neither has quotes to back up anything. The quote of the strawman (in a situation that was not appropriate) shows that he frequently uses low key "hype" words that make he seem "smart". yeah, if fit the profile. He should open an account on quora they had a lot of those over there.
If there's an infinite version of me, then there are infinite possibilities of absolutely everything.
Yes. If the universe is infinite then anything with a probability over 0 is happening an infinite amount of times this second.
Wow. Just imagine. There's a version of me out there who isn't a complete disaster.
I love this channel in infinite universes, no exceptions.
I'm often late but i enjoy every Matt's content..#spacetime 👍
Mats wearing my favorite shirt again! Maybe somewhere in the infinite universe there’s a version of me that has one too...
Monkey Supervisor "No you fool, you've signed it Francis Bacon!"
In one of universe i am the host of space time
I know, and you did that embarrassing thing that one time.
Forgot to zip your fly
In one Universe I am Kal El found and raised by Thomas and Martha Wayne.
Oh my god same!
Great video. There's one ; perhaps many, a universe where you, and, I go for a coffee, or tea, and chat about an experience I had in my butchers shop. Of that, I'm sure. Really enjoyed it 👍
You've outdone yourself on this one Matt
Wow! That’s how I used to type - mostly the letter s and defecating on the keyboard. I lost that job but I’m doing better nowsssssssssssss💩
I have a problem with the infinite monkey theorem. Yes, the probability of the monkeys typing any given finite string approaches 100% given enough time. However, what is the probability of the monkeys typing an infinite string of all a's or alternating a's and b's, what is the probability of them typing every finite string except for the work's of Shakespeare? The probability of any particular infinite string of characters is always 0%, so why then are the infinite strings which contain every finite string preferred over all the other infinite strings?
what? He already addresses this in rhe video when he says there would be infinite variations as well. I don't think you understand probability given infinite time. It's a thought experiment
@Giantcrabz My point is just, in my opinion, it is more helpful to think in terms of asymptotcs. The probability that they type Shakespear increases asymptotically toward 100% given more time.
I believe theres infinite versions of me in the multiverse. Each one has a different life. Some have great lives, others are living terrible. Many many different lives. Infinitely so.
I was infinitely entertained by this video, but only for this one instance.
Great video. Chariot chariot
-Cave Johnson
"A hundred billion billion times less likely than winning a raffle in which there are as many raffle tickets as there are particles in the universe".
Give me that ticket.
Somewhere it's in your wallet.
Ya but after taxes you'd be lucky to get 15 or 20 vigintillion
You have it, an infinite number of times. You just aren't in that universe right now, but will be, an infinite number of times.
Leonard Susskind has said that there are two things that our brains simply cannot comprehend. We cannot comprehend a fourth of fifth dimension (never mind more), we just can't "see it" in our minds. The second is that we cannot get our heads around infinity. My statement about you "having" that ticket is true. You will have it an infinite number of times, if it is true infinity. That is enough to keep my brain from even contemplating it.
For me, I have to go back to the fact that there is something at all, even "space" for particles to randomly fluctuate to produce a universe. There is still "space" and something "quantum" - so there is "something" rather than nothing. In that sense, I limit the infinity thing, bc something initially "started" something. It's not religious to believe it - though it can be for some - but there is something more here.
I think consciousness has to play a role.
You are that ticket!
@@jasonmiciak1407 I can kind of conceive an extra dimension. Think about the tiny little bugs that crawl around on every square inch of us. Their whole world is our skin. They have no way of interacting with the world beyond the peaks and valleys of where they live. Would the world beyond their host not be like an extra dimension to them? Something that is unknowable to them and cannot be accessed.
When the headline is a question... the answer is usually "no".
As it is with this one
Penn Gillette ;)
huepix Did you not watch the video, or just miss the point?
In this case the answer is "yes", assuming an infinite universe. Which is a reasonable assumption
Yes. They have broken the first law of RUclips!
"The probability of a raffle with as many tickets as there are particles in the universe" in a video about the possibility of the universe containing an infinite number of particles made me tick...
Perhaps he meant "number of particles in the observable universe"
@@qwerhbo2255 Yeah 99.9% sure he meant observable universe because you can't X times more or Y times less of anything compared to infinity because it's not a number it's a concept.
What makes the infinite universe theory hard to swallow is the fact Thad it seems like there is an infinite supply of matter, which unless it’s not infinite but abundant, but still. It just makes more sense for things to be finite and sucumba to entropy.
Actually, there is another important condition mentioned only briefly at the start of the video - Universe being perfectly deterministic. If it is not, everything else is thrown out of the window.
Quit telling everyone I'm Batman. It's supposed to be a secret
My favourite extrapolation of this thought experiment is "Quantum Immortality". In an infinite universe exists a copy of a younger version of you who's neurons rearrange spontaneously in that way that it contains the whole knowledge of you at yor time of death. Your experience will inform another version of you.
PS: Now thinking about it, it would probably be waaay more likely to be "reincarnated" that way as a Boltzman Brain.
My preferred version of that is that somewhere in an infinite universe there is a copy of you that is kept alive forever by sheer quantum fluctuation.
@@Liam-qr7zn even simpler. there is a version of you whose telomeres (the bits at the end of chromosomes that keep them from deteriorating, thus cause aging) malfunctioned (or possibly decided to function correctly) and actually grow back. meaning you never grow old, and can never die except by disease or accident.
"hit the letter S over and over... and... pooped on the machine."
XD
I was surprised I had to look hard for this comment. I knew someone would do it.
Same thing happened for my World Lit final.
Assuming an infinite universe, every question raised falls more into a philosophical matter than an applicable one, and I’ll end by using my favorite philosophical razor : "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating”.
This episode makes me hope that there is eventually a similar episode talking about if and how Poincaré recurrence can cause the universe to repeat itself over time. There are some videos out there (e.g. Numberphile) that talk about the estimated Poincaré recurrence time of the Universe but they aren't really clear about why a Universe with an expanding volume would meet the necessary criteria for a recurrence. (Poincaré recurrence normally requires that the volume of the states be bounded.) It would be nice to see a fuller explanation of this and PBS Spacetime manages to explain some complicated topics in an entertaining way. :)
No-one ever considers the possibility that the infinite monkeys may produce something even better than Shakespeare.
Yeah because who cares? That’s not the point of the thought experiment. It’s a metaphor to make people understand how we exist in a deterministic universe despite the ridiculously low chances
@@alexanderokak5112 its a joke
@@rewmoo1805 barely
@@alexanderokak5112 no, the comment is completely and utterly a joke. There is not a single tone of seriousness in the original comment.
@@rewmoo1805 it could not be a joke. There's no joke rulebook. The only way to verify whether it's a joke or not is to ask the person who wrote the comment and even if it was a joke, it can quite easily be interpreted otherwise so shush ur lips
9:16 check the birthdate of Jacob. You immensely confused me as on the picture he looks older than 39 :D (its 47 not 74)
I noticed that too, he was born in 1947 not 1974, it was probably a mistype.
According to General theory of relativity space-time bends by mass. But a star doesn't behave like black hole but same star with same mass behave as black hole when it's density increases that means mass is not responsible for space-time bending but density i.e mass per unit volume. Please clarify me.
The infinite versions of you ARE YOU. These yous only EXPERIENCE a planck time length each.
Infinite versions of yourself is an inevitable conclusion with naturalistic only assumptions built in to your argument. You are obligated to taking the abiogenesis idea and the macroevolution hypothesis as part of your logic. I can only imagine what the creationists would be thinking of such. You have provided a very good demonstration of how exclusive naturalism hits a brick wall in this regard.
When you talk about regions of the Universe being repeated, that's certainly evident at the level of atoms and molecules. I wonder; does Bekenstein and Hawking's theory apply at the subatomic level? I mean, does the small number of different types of particle (in QCD) tally with the surface area of the volume they occupy in some way?
_*I underscore this question with fecal matter._ 💩
It’s not about religion it’s about nature things can be repeated it’s called goes in cycles 😑if the universe in anyway had a beginning it will end but if the universe had no beginning it won’t end 😑ether way the odds of a planet having life is 1 and we were all ready dead before and since the odds of life are 1 you have a higher then 0% chance you will be reborn again as a true death does NOT mean it no longer exists….a true death means their is a 100% chance of something NEVER EVER being not again their is no again a true death means that something has a 0 chance of ever being created 😑as 0* infinity=0 but since the odds of life are 1 you have a higher then 0% chance you will be reborn again 😐
*Glorbo:* Remember that stupid thing you said 3 trillion years ago?
*Oola:* Of course I do, I still have crippling anxiety about it.
“one of them didn’t do that embarassing thing that one time”
euhm … that ‘one’ time … yeah sure
This topic was surprisingly understandable
Wow I'm having flashbacks to drunk conversations I had at 16 (30 years ago) -- I guess this debate will go on forever, an infinite amount of times, somewhere!
"I'm batman!"...somewhere. In this universe, I'm silly zentai man, your welcome.
7:43 - Repetitions of Initial Conditions: I am... Inevitable
You're Batman joke was pretty hilarious, there were quite a few layers to that joke LOL😂
*your
Otherwise, you're saying "You are Batman joke..." and that would only work if you say "Your 'you are Batman' joke...," as well. The syntax is just wrong, if you say it without a pronoun referring to him.
Not to be an insult, just to help you out.
Macbeth - Chapter 1
Sssssss______poo_____sssss etc.
Literary genius.
That bit had me in tears btw. And delivered with such a straight face too xD
I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I appreciate the effort that goes into making these videos. However, this video touches upon a lot of different concepts that aren't explained here or in any other PBS spacetime video. The reason I watch PBS spacetime videos is to learn new things, but because of this issue I find them to not be very educational. I am a layperson with a master's degree in a science subject that isn't maths or physics. I've always read encyclopaedias as a child and particularly loved reading the sections about outer space. If only these videos could somehow be made simpler and clearer.
You say that quantum randomness can produce the same result with a different starting configuration. But doesn't that also imply that with the same starting configuration there is only a very small chance to produce the same result as ours?
And in none of them my crush likes me back
that hurts
The impossible is impossible, even if you gave it infinite tries.
Stop simping and you'll find some other girl that will want you
@@maythesciencebewithyou well that certainly helps
Nope in one of them you cant stand her, and she stalks you...
The irony...
Is there a reason this isn't called the "infinite you-niverse" theory.
One monkey already has randomly written all of Shakespeare's plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Just use a cup of tea to create the finite improbability machine and then use that to make the infinite improbability drive. Douglas Adams had it right all along. So long and thanks for all the fish.
When translated to numbers (A=01 ,B=02, ...) you will also find Shakespeare somewhere in the number Pi
If the universe is infinite, wouldn't that include parts of the universe where our physics don't fit? Wouldn't it contain everything possible and everything not possible? An infinite number of finite universes seems more probable and would require less explanations.
Even if the universe is infinite (if it is), the entirety of infinity (if this even makes sense but you get what I mean) will be governed by laws of physics only. There are no rules to the universe except physics.
If we are to assume that a part of universe exists where "physics" doesn't apply, it'll have to be born out of the rules of physics itself. Hence, it's not possible.
So yeah..we're not becoming Thor :(
It would not contain everything impossible. The whole point of infinite universe is that any probability that is not 0% must happen, not once but infinite times, because any % of infinite is infinite. But if the probability is 0%, which are laws of physics, than 0% of infinite is still 0.
Basically, a proton will always be made up of 3 quarks in the infinite universe. There will no no region where a proton has 4 components. This is because the “probability” that a proton has 3 quarks is 100%, there fore everything else can never exist no matter how infinite times you reset.
While things like unicorns should exist, since they really are just horses with single horn- that is possible for a evolved biological matter. As in, there must be at least 1, or really infinite places, where matter was randomly arranged in such a order to make a perfect copy of what we call an unicorn. But in all universe, the speed of light should still be the same to preserve the copernican principal and locality.
Wouldn't the no cloning theorem prevent the universe from being able to support multiple copies of the same quantum starting conditions?
Considering that it isn't cloned, I'd think that's not an issue, but I don't really know much about this stuff.
Is there a universe where I can have a pet cheetah? I want that one!
I don't understand why (for example) if there are infinite universes, there aren't infinite universes where physics doesn't exist, or where the typewriter had an inverted question mark. If there were infinite universes, wouldn't there be universes where the laws of that universe are different, and therefore all outcomes are 'possible' outcomes?
7:37 "Repetitions of the intital conditions" sounds like a good song