Imago Digest

Пікірлер

@SimonSahyuni Күн бұрын

❤❤❤😊

@Project.09 Күн бұрын

left ear left ear left ear

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

And that ladies and gents is why we edit with both ear buds in. Thanks for the heads up!

@Iskaldr Күн бұрын

It seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of infinity.

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

I’ll admit I was explaining the concept rather crudely. What I was trying to talk about was Actual Infinity not Potential Infinity.

@Iskaldr Күн бұрын

@ImagoDigest I don't think it was the explanation that was flawed, I think it was the whole concept, as the correct concept of infinity doesn't really support any of the conclusions in the video.

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

@@Iskaldr I’ll own up to that too. There was a lot of homework I failed to do going into this!

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

Check out my short I just posted in response to the comments! Thanks to all those who are keeping the conversation going!

@rohhomusic Күн бұрын

I disagree with the arguments in this video, BUT this is a pretty cool concept for a video and criminally underrated channel! Also you should mono your microphone <3

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

@@rohhomusic Thanks for the sound tip and the compliment! I’ll make that happen next time I’m filming!

@bryantoch8967 Күн бұрын

31st subscriber

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

@@bryantoch8967 I am forever grateful #31

@sonni.walkman Күн бұрын

I feel like the 5:58 assumption is wrong, but correct me anyone if I am so, I am by no means a mathematician, There are different sized infinites, There are infinite universes where Wanda has kids And infinite universes where Wanda doesn't have kids, These two statements arent mutually exclusive, because the sum of the two infinites is still infinity.

@KevinNeacy Күн бұрын

Pretty sure it’s wrong, 1 and 2 can co-exist because 1 (infinite outcomes) can produce 2 ( a singular outcome), sooo 3 isn’t true because 2 can be any singular outcome which is produced by 1 /infinity outcomes. Correct me if I’m wrong, I look at it like rules. “If this then this”

@r.lr.l Күн бұрын

I mean there are an infinite numbers between 1 and 2 same for 3 and 4 but there are more numbers between 1 and 4. In calculus it's not even uncommon to have to look at function and determine which side is approaching infinity faster this is like year 1 calculus.

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

I’m not a mathematician either, but I think you’re spot on! I’ve learned a lot more about this topic than I realized there was going into thanks to peeps like you!

@rodrigodelcidq Күн бұрын

My brother in christ, smaller and bigger infinities exist

@rodrigodelcidq Күн бұрын

Also, that there are infinite universes where i exist, doesn't make my existance less unprovable. It's like saying you're 100% certain to flip face just because there are infinite universes where you do

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

My brother in Christ, thanks for pointing that out!

@sonni.walkman Күн бұрын

Wtf y'all 28 subscribers?? Congratulations make it 29

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

@sonni.walkman Welcome to the party, thanks for the subscription!

@That_One_Doom Күн бұрын

I looked down and was flabbergasted by how low your subscriber count is vs the quality of the video seriously underrated

@ImagoDigest Күн бұрын

Hey thanks! I’m hoping to keep increasing the quality, there’s always lots to learn.

@lokeshchandak3660 3 күн бұрын

Hilberts hotel is a "paradox" mostly in terms of how it confuses the audience, not in a logical/mathematical sense. Refer Vsauce on types of paradoxes. Mathematically, Hilbert hotel is a perfectly functional system. Refer numberphile on sizes of infinity. So your basic argument lacking. Would like to see a followup where you address these.

@ImagoDigest 2 күн бұрын

Thanks for the references! Perhaps a follow up is needed!

@jsinferno7134 3 күн бұрын

Really good video, I think your ideas about how we can’t seem to know about aliens or simulation to be spot on. This would also apply to the fine tuning argument, we have no idea (atheists) why the universal constants are what they are, we have no idea if they could’ve been different or if life would be supported if they were different. Without this saying they could have been different and this universe is fined tuned just doesn’t follow it’s a guess. Furthermore when you say you don’t believe in aliens or simulation but do believe in God, the reasons you do are pretty weak in my opinion, just because other people do? Seems not a great thing to base your world view around

@ImagoDigest 2 күн бұрын

Thanks for the support I appreciate it! I see your point on fine-tuning, ultimately it’s totally possible to look at the crazy odds of our universe being fine-tuned the way it is and believe it’s just that, a matter of odds. I also do agree that simply believing in a concept because a lot of other people do is a bad reason to believe in something. Ultimately that’s one small reason of many for why I hold to my Christian beliefs, which I’d love to share in more detail.

@sonni.walkman Күн бұрын

There's this atheistic talking point that I find interesting that goes that like: You get 100 people to flip coins Each time someone flips tails they get eliminated Chances say that 10 rounds later, you will be left with 1 person, who has flipped heads 10 times in a row, And now we proceed to interview them about the secrets to their winning strategy

@jsinferno7134 3 күн бұрын

Unfortunately I don’t think your talk on infinity works, and it can be shown quite easily with a counter example. Take your wanda example: 1) If there are an infinite number of numbers then there is an infinite number of numbers that end in a 2 2) there is a number that doesn’t end in 2 (for example 3) 3) therefore the number of numbers that end in 2 is finite Basically you can have an infinite number of things that belong to another infinite number of things. There are an infinite number of numbers that end in 2 but there are also an infinite number of numbers that don’t end in 2. Taking this to wandas example if there is an infinite number of universes, there is an infinite number where she has kids and an infinite number where she doesn’t.

@ImagoDigest 3 күн бұрын

I appreciate this explanation, however while it works with numbers it does not work in physical reality. That’s what Hilbert’s Hotel attempts to explain.

@noincognito1903 Күн бұрын

@@ImagoDigest I don't see how hilbert's hotel explains this? Hilbert's hotel just shows how our intuitions about infinity are wrong, e.g., there are just as many even numbers as integers because all even numbers can be mapped to a unique integer and vice versa by multiplying or dividing by two respectively, even though this seems wrong because the density of even numbers is half that of the integers. If you wan't a physical example of infinities, physical models that use calculus rely on infinite limits to be rigorously defined. For example, Zeno's paradox seems to require infinite steps/subdivisions in order to explain motion. You could, like zeno, reject infinity by either rejecting motion or some other clever approach, but then you'd just be begging the question.

@comixs-inc.7994 3 күн бұрын

6:22 false dichotomy???

@ImagoDigest 3 күн бұрын

Maybe! I am just a guy in the internet after all haha! What I’m trying to get across is that the minute one fine-tuned universe exists the limit for how many universes there are has been set. The sea seems infinite because of its size, but the minute it meets the shore, it meets its limit.

@comixs-inc.7994 2 күн бұрын

@ not necessarily. This does not contradiction the notion that there is simply an infinite amount of fine tuned universes.

@comixs-inc.7994 2 күн бұрын

For example there are an infinite amount of snowflake shapes. But there’s no rule that you can’t just have an infinite amount of snowflakes that look identical. It’s just not likely

@ImagoDigest 2 күн бұрын

@@comixs-inc.7994 There's definitely not a hard and fast rule that I know of. However, there are not an infinite amount of snowflake shapes, because there are not an infinite amount of snowflakes, there can't be.

@comixs-inc.7994 2 күн бұрын

@ snowflake shapes are not determined by the physicals existence of snowflakes… the concept of infinity is not tied to physical objects? Tf? That’s like saying infinite numbers don’t exist just because infinite numbers don’t physically exist in the real world.

@jonathanwu698 3 күн бұрын

I do find this topic and this video really interesting but I have to note that the explanation of infinite „as far as I know“ isn’t completely correct. Other than that, good Video and keep up the great work :)

@ImagoDigest 2 күн бұрын

Hey thanks! It most likely is, not only was I time-constrained but brain-constrained. I’m definitely not an expert lol

@nicnicol694 3 күн бұрын

So you know I I hear some of the points you're making and and I can understand why you have formulated the thoughts that you have but there's a lot of things that you're not either aware of or or not touching on. First is that the Multiverse is actually already proven to exist. That's right you heard me I said proven to exist. It's because of quantum computers and the way that they operate by accessing the Multiverse to come up with multiple possibilities. Using superposition and they constantly create new notes at the more of the Multiverse . So it is proven. Next I'm talking about infinity your understanding of infinity and what infinite is lacks understanding. Just as Wanda could have an infinite number of children in other universes at the same time she could have infinite number of units versus without children. I know it seems like a paradox but it's not because it is infinite. infinity is a state of probability where all things are constant and true. Like Schrodinger's cat. It exist in both states simultaneously. These states are infinite and both true. So you're understanding of infinite and finite are misguided. Things only become finite when they are realized within the universe you exist in. So none of that breaks the infinite nature of the Multiverse. Something else that's important to understand is God. Many religions have a very misguided understanding of God. They refer to a deity calling it God. But a DT is something that was created. In fact many of the beings that Christians and others called angels have been many times misrepresented as being the deity God by any name. In truth God is no deity. There's no dude with a gray beard sitting on a throne in heaven. God is everything. God is the very fabric of reality the very material of existence. Everything we see and experience here on this earth and every other is made of God. God does not reside in heaven. God is heaven. God is the very atoms from which we are made and God is infinite. The last thing I will touch on is the fact that there are aspects of reality especially those of higher dimensional planes of existence that the human brain just cannot process. The human brain is amazing and can do many things but there are some aspects to reality that you cannot even imagine what they are. It is not possible for our brains to comprehend. We can't even imagine what these things are because our brains can't process it. When discussing this and people don't understand what I'm saying I try and put it in a way that maybe you can. When we take a look at computers and cell phones and all these amazing things that we have at our disposal it's good to know that all these things that they can do happen through its system of computing. It is a binary system. Meaning everything in a computer processes as either zeros or ones. Or you can look at it like yes or on and off but it all happens through these two states of zero and one. Then you talk about quantum computing which like I pointed out earlier doesn't operate on a binary system. It operates using superposition meaning it access his many notes that are in a state of maybe to do its calculations. So if you took a program that was designed for a quantum computer and tried to feed it into a binary system computer the binary system computer could not understand what the programming wanted it to do. It wouldn't make any sense to the binary system. It's not able to process that kind of information. The human brain is also designed to process certain types of information. But there is much,😂 much more information that just does not exist within our reality. We can know that they exist but as to how they actually do that or what they really look like, our brains cannot even fathom what that is. They don't process that type of information. I hope that what I have said to you makes sense to you at least on some level. Again I understand how you were coming to your conclusions and I hope these things that I've mentioned will help you understand why your conclusions were incorrect it was a good effort for sure

@dutiestcorgi8951 3 күн бұрын

Quantum computation does not access the multiverse, it does not demonstrate or even hint at the idea that we live in a multiverse

@jsinferno7134 3 күн бұрын

Quantum computers don’t access the multiverse, if a normal bit has either a 0 or 1 (on or off). Quantum bits can be both on and off from superposition allowing it to do multiple operations and just be so much quicker. That’s a very basic understanding of it but it definitely does not access any kind of multiverse. The idea that an infinite becomes a finite when its superposition collapses is just another complete misunderstanding of the respective fields of maths and physics. You have kind of come up with something about higher dimensional beings (which we can’t process and yet still know about it?) and then use scientific words which you have very little understanding of to back this up

@ImagoDigest 3 күн бұрын

What you said definitely makes sense! And I have some responses too! As far as I know, quantum computing has not “proven” the Multiverse. It may have made serious strides in conversations around super positioning, but it’s not accessing information from the Multiverse like in EEAO. Also, infinity is not a probability. Infinity is endless limits, endless quantity, endless possibility. Probabilities aren’t. Religion is also vast, with a wide array of ideas about who/what God is. I and most of the world ascribe to Theism, and it seems like your view would fall under Pantheism. While I do agree God isn’t a guy with a grey beard sitting on clouds, your philosophy of God is one of many, and one that has not been proven true to me. But many religions do adhere to it! It’s a fairly common worldview! You’re right, there are ideas, concepts, realities, that are too complicated for us to comprehend. But frankly, that’s one of the joys of being human, trying to comprehend the incomprehensible!

@nicnicol694 2 күн бұрын

@ thank you for your response. There are some things that I would argue and some things that I would clarify. First quantum computing. As far as I understand quantum computing does work using superposition which is an aspect of looking through every possibility which is represented in the Multiverse. Now maybe I misunderstood the meaning behind that but from what I understand that is what it proves. Though I am happy to read anything or be shown anything that says otherwise. But this idea of the Multiverse and it been proven is one that fits within my understanding that I've had since I was a small child and was experiencing multiple realities so I don't believe I am wrong on this but again I could be so show me. Next is infinite and infinity. Again what I'm saying is the problem you're having with it is that you are viewing it incorrectly. Infinity is probability it is every possibility that it could exist. Since nothing exists until it manifests And everything is in a state of probability the results are infinite. This is probably the closest we can get to understanding the nature of infinity as it is without end within our understanding. But there is an end to infinity just not in a way that we can understand clearly. So this is the closest we can probably ever get to understanding the true nature of infinity. That it is probability. I want to clarify something about my statement of God. I wasn't meaning that God is one of many gods only that those that were called God or gods are many but not the God or the creator of all things. The creator of all things is not a deity. The creator of all things is all things in both creator and creation. All deities are made of God and so is everything else in existence because whether a deity or a human or anything else in existence we are all made of the same material. Energy, matter in all their forms are made of the same material through the same process of math. Math is the language of the creator through which all of existence is created. Deities can be myth or real which require belief. The creator does not require belief because it is proven that we are all made of the same material. At least what we can see in this reality shows us this fact. So it doesn't matter to me what religion anyone believes in as they are all created out of the ideas of men. Another point I'd like to add two concepts that are too complicated for us to understand which it's part of what I was saying about infinity is the understanding that in this reality time is linear moving in One Direction. But in higher dimensional existence time does not move in a linear state. It is all happening at the same time through many states of possibility or probability

@nicnicol694 2 күн бұрын

@ I may have misunderstood something about quantum computing which I am not an expert in by any means. But still even in what you've said my understanding of it still seems valid. The super positioning of possibility or probability between yes and no is what is accessing the information from the Multiverse coming up with that yes or no doesn't just come out of thin air it has to get that information from somewhere. The more nodes of probability that the quantum computer has access to the quicker it can come up with answers but again where it's getting those answers to the probability is from what I have understood how other people have explained it accessing the Multiverse for those answers. And I did not say that infinite becomes finite when it's super position collapses I said that probability remains infinite until it manifests. That's not a misunderstanding of anything and is clearly shown in Schrodinger's cat where the cat could be either alive or dead until it is revealed. So please if I'm wrong which hey I could be I'm not opposed to that I will learn something if you teach me something. But just saying that I'm having a misunderstanding of something that is clear to me without adding any information to educate me on why I would be incorrect is just gaslighting. Please provide some information so I can learn something if I'm wrong. As far as higher dimensional beings and understandings of things we can't understand goes again I think you misunderstood what I had said. There are aspects of each reality that we can understand and those things we can discuss to as much of our ability as we can but there are other aspects of those realities that we can't even discuss because we have no ability to. We can recognize that there are those aspects but that's about the extent of it. We cannot even conceptualize what those things are. So while the things that we can understand our understanding of them is limited by all the things that we can't even conceptualize. So often those things that we can understand don't seem to make sense. I'm not going to bash you or make statements of your intelligence but please if you're going to say things about me make sure you have an understanding of what it is I'm saying. There's no reason to lay judgment on anyone in the quest for knowledge. I'm always happy to clarify on anything I've said if something is not being understood or seems wrong. And I'm also always happy to learn from any who have more understanding than I do. It never has to be a personal attack. We are all searching for answers and understanding. Let's just keep it real