Our Models About the Universe Are Wrong, And There's Only 2 Explanations Why...

[@inkfingers]

I love how existential philosophical questions overlap with astrophysics in so many of your videos. They awaken wonder, which is at the roots of wisdom, in my opinion.

[@SuperYtc1]

If the probabilities are this low, it’s much more likely that it’s indicating that we simply don’t understand something.

[@anthonywood7420]

Light behaves funny, we haven't yet reproduced abiogenesis, the mass of the observable universe isn't enough to explain its motion and consciousness, we're hunting down its origin but haven't fully got it yet. It seems wherever we look we don't understand what's happening. I think we're missing something big, I don't know what it is but I think it's big.

[@silverwerewolf975]

Yup

[@JP_26]

​@@anthonywood7420 John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

[@Terrorrai1]

perhaps even a higher power

[@mewheni1776]

​@@JP_26nah lol

[@SilverYuffie]

I need to stop watching your videos when I try to sleep, I keep getting stuck with all the thinking and rewatching and suddenly it 5am and my brain just won't shut up... But seriously, thank you for making videos that actually makes me want to learn more. ❤

[@sparky7915]

Pls watch some videos on pressure points. By pressing on a spot you can calm your mind and help yourself go to sleep. I have done it and it works well.

[@thekingofmojacar5333]

Beautiful video with incredible ideas of a possible multiverse, thanks Astrum! We living beings are also a (albeit very small) reflection or expression of our universe. Everything here and there is connected and everything works with natural (material and spiritual) processes, from quantum mechanics to chemistry, order and chaos, cosmic expansion to retraction, karma and all other tools of life! However, you first have to learn to live happily, sometimes it's not that easy...

[@AaronMcHale]

If you ask why the universe exists, and the answer is multiverse, well then the next question is why does the multiverse exist, and how did it come to exist. This leaves me feeling unsatisfied with the multiverse explanation, it still doesn’t really give me any more answers, it just introduces another layer of abstraction.

[@leroyjenkins1911]

Same with the exogenesis hypothesis. By putting the creation of (intelligent) life into an earlier time at another planet we only superficially solve the problem to explain life on earth. In reality it just moves the question how life was created to an earlier timeframe.

[@torontocitizen6802]

The odds that our universe is the way it is, is 100%.

[@adamh1228]

yeah, putting a number to a single instance is pretty jank.

[@DHPuppy]

the odds that i replied to this comment is at least 5 percent

[@fajaradi1223]

Are you sure about that?

[@briannenurse4640]

The odds of our universe turning out the way it did out of all the ways it could have been are astronomical. The odds of our universe being the way it is are absolute.

[@torontocitizen6802]

@@briannenurse4640 We don’t know how many ways universes can exist. Until you can demonstrate that a universe can exist differently, you have no way to calculate any odds.

[@Kevwa51]

Watching these videos stoned is the greatest thing ever.

[@FirstSword-o6f]

Haha faacts 🚀

[@flooodo]

I can't focus when I'm high

[@djayjp]

Nope, the powerful euphoria derived from gaining deep insights and being inspired (and remembering it later and not suffering side effects or withdrawal the next day) is the superior experience 👍

[@FirstSword-o6f]

@@djayjp haha that was a little passive aggressive. Side effects and withdrawals 😅? You've never smoked I take it 😁✌️

[@EsdrasOlivaresPcmasterrace]

ONG

[@alhesiad]

The multiverse hypothesis is still a bit of a conceptual cop out. Is intuitive from a physics perspective, but like God, is not really testable.

[@elagabalusrex390]

Funny how surprisingly often science and faith in the divine come close to touching.

[@adamh1228]

@@elagabalusrex390 only to those that don't understand the mechanics behind the emergent properties. presuming a divine only adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. those seemingly arbitrary electron orbitals become obvious when you learn some basic physics and advanced mathematics. my morality is not derived from fear of punishment, and neither should yours.

[@andrewsirchenko9663]

The formulation itself with numbers sounds rather silly, as it's just an attempt to rid existence or God of their immaterial nature. Let's just come up with a bigger number so that our lottery, in which we won our existence, seems more realistic. Silly, but that's just how humans are.

[@enshala6401]

​@adamh1228 as a devout Christian and a tenured experimental space physicist, I have the best of both worlds, including living a morality system that is based in love and beauty, not fear and anxiety. It's a pretty great life actually. Once people embrace all forms of reality, not just the material, they can live well-rounded lives rich with all that humanity has to offer.

[@AwakenedOne-qu]

I have to agree, science just began with Newton, we're just monkeys throwing rocks, we have no idea of existence

[@atypical1000]

The description of the spacial multiverse theory felt a little inadequate. The currently preferred version is the eternal inflation model, where cosmic inflation didn't actually stop, but bubble universes periodically "pinch off" while the rest of the bulk continues to rapidly expand, pinching off more bubble universes as it goes. These "island universes" are fundamentally separate from each other and under no obligation to have the same laws of physics and constants. I also doubt that universes resulting from the many worlds interpretation, would have different constants and laws of physics, since they are the result of a branching of a parent universe with the constants we experience. If an unstable nucleus is in a superposition of decay or not and then we experience the weak force triggering a decay event, then presumably another universe branched off where it didn't decay, but that universe would still have the same strength of weak force and the same mass for the proton and W boson. It stands to reason then that other constants such as the gravitational constant, fine structure constant, C etc, would also remain the same.

[@kinguq4510791]

As far as I know there is no accepted model for dark energy. Given that, I can't understand how the probability distribution of the density of dark matter could possibly be predicted by any theory. Maybe you can make a video about that! I really enjoy your videos, thanks for making them.

[@michaelteegarden4116]

Observer effect and anthropic principle. We see the universe in its peculiar uniqueness, and change it because we see it. And it is suited for us, uniquely, because, if it were not, then we would not exist. Thus, we must see a universe that suits us, and we must see it and be seen by it.

[@dangerfly]

@@nickinskeep Just communicate it as survivorship bias. No need to reinvent the wheel when scientists use it daily. Nothing magical about pros using a tool that others outside the discipline don't know about.

[@unbatteristaacaso]

Also, it's not "the universe". It's just **our idea** of the universe. And that's all that it can **ever** be... If those are the odds, Occam's razor dictates we are simply wrong about how the universe actually works. After all, we're trying to observe something that is 10^WTF bigger than us, pretending our observations might somehow be accurate... Maybe the flaw is in our brain, as we (as species) seem to have a blind need to have to **explain** everything. We just can't accept the existence of "unexplainability". And maybe that's the only precise, satisfying answer: to us, universe is unexplainable. But I'm weering into philosophy here...

[@enshala6401]

@@unbatteristaacaso can confirm. Theoretical cosmologists are having identity crises because their theories have been upended by JWST. I've read about it and witnessed it first hand from my theoretical colleagues (I'm experimental).

[@sparky7915]

According to Edgar Cayce God created us as spiritual beings with free will. Some time ago we could enter into the earth plane and into things. But over time we got locked into our physical bodies. But when we die we go back to the spiritual plane.

[@unbatteristaacaso]

@@sparky7915 And this, to me, it's just another example of 'our idea'. In this case, of "divinity". I don't believe in any **idea** about God provided by any religion. Since they are fundamentally different from each other, and I've no way to prove which one is right, I assume they are all wrong (at best, all but one are wrong). God, or divinity in general (although, to me, its/their existence is not even a necessity), to me definitely falls into the "unexplainable" category. And I'm fine with it.

[@Hassaansyed85]

Your narration has fixed my insomnia. Thank you!

[@mhoover]

When I was a kid in the '50s I read in a comic book what turns out to be the perfect answer to our existence..."In an infinity of time and space all things that can happen will happen".

[@mandreadfg]

Murphys Law??

[@112Famine]

Yes anything with odds + infinite universe = 100 Percent

[@InMusic47]

But the problem is there was a begging, so its not infinite. And as one of my favorite movies says: "Everything that has a beginning has an end"

[@replica1052]

(infinite acceleration of space as opening sequence of an infinite universe where planets are fed with stellar wind and stars and galaxies are fed with cosmic radiation (cosmic radiation origins by entropy )

[@bigedslobotomy]

“In an infinity of time and space all things that can happen will happen” assumes that each alternate universe is randomly generated. This saying is often illustrated by an “infinite number of monkeys typing on type writers for an infinite amount of time will eventually produce the works of William Shakespeare.” There was a researcher that wondered what would happen if he put monkeys into a cage with typewriters. Most of them simply hit one key over and over and over again. Others smashed multiple keys at one time. Still others defecated on the type writer! They operated in very unrandom ways. We shouldn’t assume that the universe (or multiverse) is totally random either.

[@opalglass8101]

I just wanna say thank you Alex. You're one of the only space-youtubers out there that doesn't actively make fun of those who have beliefs that differ yet still love to learn about the universe. Keep up the good work ❤

[@LawOfEvolution]

I swear I was driving in silence the other day thinking about this exact thing. About how our Universe won the Multiverse Lottery, but who printed the ticket? Who rolled the numbered balls around in that metal cage? More questions, more answers; more questions.

[@ScientistBaffled]

So you believe in a multiverse?😂😂😂😂

[@SenorTucano]

And who made the cage?

[@sparky7915]

Check out what Edgar Cayce said.

[@charity9660]

And if there’s a multiverse, then how do you know ours is the winner? This could be some of the worst stuff happening to people lol this could also be the most boring or lame universe of all of them. It could be on the verge of ending any second now 😂 you never know. An evil universe of all of us could be on the way to destroy us all right. NOW! 😂😂

[@josie6291]

absolutely love your videos and your sleep podcast. you are only furthering my curiosity in the universe and filling me with such awe. thank you :)

[@1three7]

It's hard for me to put into words how much I appreciate your channel. I think it has become fashionable to scoff and dismiss many natural conclusions from the science we know. Other ideas and conclusions which imply we aren't important and our lives are meaningless are accepted at face value even though they are based on blind assumptions. People will laugh and mock someone for saying there's a chance we're the only world with life on it because there are a trillion planets in our galaxy, but we still only have a single data point. Maybe the odds of a planet getting life are 1 in a septillion. Everyone dismisses the possibility of a constructed universe, but there are insanely specific constants all over the place. In my opinion, this mode of thinking comes from a good place. A few hundred years ago many people were blinded by stories from organized religion. The pendulum swung away from that and now we have people blindly defending conclusions without evidence just because they imply we aren't important and that seems intuitively correct. What we need is more people taking your approach. Don't stop looking for scientific truth. Don't ignore scientific evidence. But don't conclude things based on assumptions and always be honest about what we actually know and what is an assumption. Otherwise you become the person who believes in a multiverse because it seems more scientific than a god when the reality is neither explanation is scientific right now and either or neither might be right

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

There’s nothing “insanely specific” about it. It is what it is. If it wasn’t what it is we wouldn’t exist to study it. I’m a theist myself, but there’s absolutely nothing in physics that proves or even suggests a God or Gods exist.

[@1three7]

@@UpperDarbyDetailing that's not actually accurate though. You're just ignoring them and dismissing the fact that so many things seem fine tuned. The fact that we wouldn't exist if things were different is not an explanation of why the fine structure constant is exactly what we needed for atoms to exist. There may be an explanation as we get further in to our understanding of things but there may not. There currently isn't one. I sort of get the argument that it's not worth wasting time focused on those questions because they don't seem to be answerable by science, but even then it doesn't remove the significance. Maybe you instinctively push back on this because ideologues always turn these ideas into cult like groups or full fledged religions. I agree with you there. People run with ideas and start making claims they can't about how to live and usually use that to control each other. All I'm saying though is about being honest with ourselves about what we see and don't make claims we can't support. So no, I'm not claiming there's an old man who built our universe in his garage. I'm saying we can't actually say anything about what finally tuned anything. All we can say is that certain aspects DO appear to be finely tuned. There seems to be no reason for some rules to be what they are other than there wouldn't be any life or consciousness if they changed

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@1three7 I’m not ignoring them. They “seem fine tuned”, because that’s how evolution works. Every living thing undergoes mutations of their DNA, if that mutation helps them to survive then they get to procreate and pass that positive mutation on to the next generation. Thus becoming “fine tuned” to the existing environment. I’m not ignoring that there isn’t currently an explanation of why things are the way they are. Jumping to “because God” is the “God of the gaps” argument. Claiming it MUST have been designed is the watchmaker’s argument. Neither of which are valid. I wouldn’t at all call it a waste. It’s a part of our human existence to question and study the universe. They may not be answerable by science NOW, but a lot of things couldn’t be answered by scientific investigation before. The universe appearing to be “fine tuned” means nothing. It’s simply the effect of the physical processes of the universe acting as the forces upon them require them to act. Hopefully, at some point we’ll understand everything there is to understand about it.

[@wilveno3185]

Great video series. And like some are finding, the deeper you go the fewer answers appear & the questions grow exponentially 😂.

[@fotisaugeris4778]

Thanks for all the good job!

[@RealJohnnyAngel]

if a puddle wakes up in a pothole on the road, will it look at that hole and thing "wow, what a coincidence that this is shaped perfectly to fit me" or will it consider that it came to be that shape because the hole was that shape first?

[@ruud9767]

The chance of life being possible in the universe is known: It is 1. We are 100% certain that life exists in the universe. If a model suggests that there should not be any, then clearly that model is wrong. Make a better model. Introducing multiverses or gods is entirely unnecessary. By the way, the chance that the universe is the way it is, is also 1. And although life exists in it, most of the universe is an extremely hostile place.

[@mahadahmedbaloch]

Logic doesn't work. Elon Musk is a billionaire, therefore there is a 100% chance that all humans will be billionaires

[@jayall00]

And at the same time, the chance that the universe should cease to exist tomorrow is a good 1

[@kanal7523]

Yeah, all of these conjectures about "The chance of our universe being like X is Y%" doesn't make any sense, how many universes have scientists observed to assert this? lol For all we know all of the parameters of our universe ar the only possible parameters and saying that they could've been otherwise is akin to saying 1+1 could've been 3 (and please no philosophical/math mumbo jumbo, you know what I mean by this).

[@mequavis]

you sound like the guy that wakes me up on saturdays asking me if I know jesus yet... ffs

[@mahadahmedbaloch]

​@@kanal7523you dont need to observe all possible rolls on a dice to understand that the chance for say 3 is 1/6

[@WideCuriosity]

All it hints at is that given sufficient space/time anything that can be, will be. Given that both time & space may be emergent rather than fundamental it suggests we are not yet sufficiently informed to make claims for other options.

[@TiE23]

This misunderstanding of odds is very annoying to see people constantly babble on about. Take your birthday: What are the odds that you were born on that day, on that moment, in that room, in that country, on that continent, on that planet, in that star system, in that galaxy, in that local cluster? Like eleventy-trillion to one!!!!! I read about the different types of the Anthropic Principle years ago and I latched onto the Weak Anthropic Principle. The fact that we’re here to live and think about these questions is the only reason it seems impossible: but alas, we’re here! Therefore, it’s possible. Odds don’t matter here.

[@JohnBoen]

Under a minute... I think the first question is "Can universes exist in any other way than ours?" There is likely to be an underlying mechanism that creates all the universes. Something about this mechanism may preferentially select key starting values. Everything we know of behaves this way, so it seems reasonable to expect the same here. It sounds like 1e56 is the entire possibility space - I have no reason to think each of those possibilities is equally likely - I have many reasons to believe some range of states disallow other ranges of states. I hope you don't skip over this.

[@RosieIsNosie56]

Ill be cleaning my room to this now, and will sleep to it tonight, Thank you!

[@maggs131]

Nothing like Astrum to tuck you in ❤

[@tysonjbest]

If you have somthing you created and loved you would not push to get it to understand how great you are at creating you just silently appreciate it for what it already is and dose ,this is unconditional ,this is an awareness that could create entire galaxies.🙏🌠

[@someguy-k2h]

There is another much more useful theory that the underlying values of the universe are dependent on each other. Changing one value has a knock on effect that changes other values that eventually returns the values back to what we see. Asking what would it be like if gravity was stronger isn't a valid question because there is only one possible value dictated by the dimensions and symmetries in our spacetime.

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

Bruh gravity ain’t uniform on earth , it’s a perfectly valid question to ask

[@someguy-k2h]

@@NexxtTimeDontMiss Um, Bruh?, gravity is constant ( G ) across the universe as far as we can see. The force varies directly with the product of the masses and inversely with the square of the distance, but the gravitational constant is 6.6743 × 10^-11 Nm²/kg².

[@MichaelDeHaven]

​@@NexxtTimeDontMissAs Prometheus pointed out you are thinking of a different g. Specifically small g, a local value value. He was referring to big G, a universal constant. If you want to know more just Google "Big G vs small g".

[@briannenurse4640]

@@NexxtTimeDontMiss That's because earth isn't a perfect sphere, and has uneven collections of denser material in its core that cause gravitational differences across the planet.

[@SBImNotWritingMyNameHere]

​@@NexxtTimeDontMiss He's talking about "gravitational constant" which is applicable to all matter/energy and not "gravity of earth"

[@matthewboire6843]

10:34 I have had this idea in the past, I though of what if the multiverse was just the same universe so far away that they can interact with each other without travelling in a way that’s like multiverse travel, cool that I though of this idea separate from who ever came up with it.

[@JavierSalcedoC]

where does the 10^56 comes from? I missed that part

[@ScientistBaffled]

​@@servethesongs🎉

[@MarcioMarsiglia]

Amazing as always!!!

[@jxmbusab]

One of the things that's annoying about trying to couch this in terms of probability is that doing so assumes any or every other value was actually possible. It's garbage math.

[@MichaelDeHaven]

Bingo, we don't know they could be different. Besides this all stems from our model making a bad prediction! That should tell us our model is flawed in some way. We should try to refine the model or build a new one. Not appeal to unknowns or unfalsifiable premises. Then there's the fact we basically know we'll already need a new model to "fix" the issues between GR and Quantum theory. If multiverses happen to emerge from that mode naturally that's one thing. But to try and use them to adjust for a clearly flawed model is crazy.

[@Jatheus]

I am not a fan of multiverse ideas in general, but the way you tackled it, I love. You are candid and honest, as well as thorough. Thank you for what you do.

[@GraveUypo]

i think if you go far back in the past, anything that ever happens is basically a miracle, because the chance of going from a point in the past to the exact present we inhabit is basically zero. but, on the other hand, from the perspective of the present, what exists is basically inevitable. it's all a matter of perspective.

[@colinjohnrudd]

The most philosophical video I have listened to with regard to our existence..... beautiful!!

[@ScientistBaffled]

What are you talking about? This was the lack of... That was kind of the point.

[@MTG69]

The religion of science, the science of religion.

[@vincent3017]

As a software engineer working on Odoo platform during every long hard working day, now laying on the bed and maybe going to sleep in just 5 minutes more, can you imagine my reaction after seeing this advertisement? I should have slept 30 minutes ago.

[@auntvesuvi3872]

Thanks, Alex! 🌌

[@kadinwynne304]

I’ve spent many years in the field of telecom. Thinking about dark matter as, not matter, but as gravitational interference from neighbouring quantum universes is a lot like a telephone wire. The more signals going through each pair of a 100 pair copper wire for instance will cause cross talk and interference, slowing down the rate of information. Interesting to think about

[@TristanBeulah]

2 things: 1) Invoking anything higher level than the universe begs the need to explain that thing; you can't escape the anthropic factor. 2) Philosophically, what's the motivation for invoking a causal relationship between "bubble universes", even via a parent "universe" or substrate? This appears to be a limit of our imaginations. In other words, we simply don't need to exist within a continuum that supports any other "universes". We were inevitable (evidently), possibly without any pre-conditions. Chance of anything => inevitability of everything.

[@1three7]

I like your comment, but I can conceive of something for number one that doesn't need to go deeper. Like how the effects of gravity can be seen as an emergent property of a space-time that bends around mass. Maybe x being true implies y which implies z etc. Maybe the Creator isn't a thing within a different universe with time and causality but something more fundamental and eternal that our space time inherently emerges from. Maybe there is a bottom truth that may or may not be reachable from our perspective

[@stephanieparker1250]

We can experience the joys of life.. ‘ shows a traffic congested parking lot ‘ … you got that one right on the nose, Alex 😂

[@raybeauvais296]

I'd much rather it be random chance than believe there is 'something out there' that wants me to be able to see how mind-numbingly tiny it can make me.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

But how else would it make you feel guilty for Petting the Cat or Celebrating Palm Sunday?

[@robbierobinson8819]

As always, a great video with clear explanations, really meaningful images and scientific integrity. Thank you, Alex. Either physicists and astrophysicists have to really make some major breakthroughs or I have to live for a VERY long time! I really want the evidence to support the assumptions needed and the models of the different kinds of explanations for our universe. At my level of understanding and knowledge, it just seems that the multiverse idea is the most appealing. Going to the level of the origin of matter at the Big Bang - it might be that different foci of quantum particles acquiring mass through interaction with the Higgs field emerge, with each focal point being slightly different, perhaps in dark energy density.

[@kyle782]

If its that far off, and people cant figure out why, because other things are spot on. then the simple answer is the people are wrong, their maths is wrong, or the wrong maths is being used, or there are still plenty of things we don't know exist or understand about the universe, that we just cannot get to the correct answer because those variables cant be taken into consideration. Its also probably about time we stopped worrying about things that arent going to effect us as a species for another millennia and start focusing all science onto things that will have a positive impact on humanity as a whole in the next century. Understanding how we came to be is irrelevant if we continue to drive head long into the wall of oblivion we seem to be going towards.

[@Friedolays]

Amen. Praise to His highest

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

Wild how wrong you are literally ALL of that

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@@Friedolayslol this man thinks fairy magic is real?

[@andymouse]

Damn right Kyle, oh may I call you Kyle ?

[@Luredreier]

8:14 It would also work to fo this serially instead of in parallel. The chance of getting a 6 if you throw 6 x 6 sided dies or throwing a die 6 times in a row (assuming that the previous results doesn't affect the next one, and you don't know the results of anybof those throws before you look at all of them) should be the same, no? 9:39 Guess that fits my suggestion pretty well...

[@LuisAFlorit]

Another video of our worst physics claiming to be our best physics.

[@ScientistBaffled]

I don't know why we platform these freaks

[@SicilianDefence]

I think one type of multiverse has been overlooked in this video: the bubble/baby universes created by the inflation after/during the Big Bang (inflationary multiverse). All of these universes are part of a larger entity, rather like a Swiss cheese in style.

[@iamscythed]

"Just so you know Jeff, you're now creating six different timelines."

[@Toastmaster_5000]

My main gripe with the concept of intelligent design is that it implies whatever designed us or our universe perhaps has their own laws of physics that work perfectly. So, although it may explain why _our_ universe behaves the way it does, it doesn't explain our creator's universe.

[@oldschoolman1444]

Intelligent design is silly, relying on some magical being is nonsense.

[@Kelnx]

The thing is, there are simply things we cannot know or explain using science. Science is the study of nature, as in our universe. Any attempt to explain what is outside of our universe or what came before or any of that isn't science. So "multiverse" hypothesis or intelligent design/God or aliens or simulation hypothesis are all in the same realm of metaphysics (although that last one could potentially be proven true but not false), not actual physics. Which is why many serious scientists have scoffed at the idea of the multiverse concept being an actual scientific explanation. A good scientist would simply admit "we cannot know" and leave the speculation to philosophers and the like. Of course that means you'll never get any satisfying answers, but that's just how it is. There is no way to "know", so it's a matter of faith or speculation. Many like to say that inserting the idea of a creator to answer these questions about the fundamental nature of our universe is a "god of the gaps", but the multiverse concept is basically just a "sciency-sounding thing of the gaps".

[@BunnyUK]

The assertion that you have to have a creator then poses the question, so who created the creator? And who created them? Ad infinitum.

[@JP_26]

@@oldschoolman1444 I think you should revaluate your conclusion. There are plenty of intelligent people who believe in God. To think it's silly to believe in an intelligent designer, is in itself, silly. Whether you believe or not is you free choice, I would though, like to point out the irony in scoffing at intelligent design, given how clearly this video just laid out the incredibly low probability of its existence. With all due respect of course.

[@raytracer5726]

My main gripe with concept of intelligent design is that it explains nothing. How was this designer created then? Sooner or later a conclusion will have to be made that natural processes have created life by chance.

[@anthonyfamularo8875]

I'm sorry, but I confess that I laughed when the phrase "all the joys of life" was accompanied by video of a parking lot.

[@rmx4087]

Dark Energy; the magical inflating invisible pink unicorn of science.

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

No it’s dark because we don’t understand it but we see it’s effects. A tribesmen don’t need to know how nukes work to understand a missing village

[@user-dt3rj8qm3k]

Another mind bending classic. Thank you, Alex!

[@stin11111]

I disagree, if you think of multi verse concept in linear time line, the theory still stands, as you would have infinite attempts to roll the dice until the right critiras are met to produce galaxies and life. You would have no means of methods to prove what existed before and or after since we wouldn't exists at those time frames. So how a linear model is different than a pararrel multi verse model different? This is definitely a topic that is for the future, not with today's knowledge or tech to be able to explain.

[@神林しマイケル]

But time is not linear, general relativity already proved that.

[@esoteric404]

The holographic principle also accounts for this deviation. While an infinite amount of projections happen simultaneously, they all manifest from the same source, the surface from which all information is stored. This is the same way information is thought to be conserved within a black hole. Rather than the information being proportional to its volume, it’s proportional to its surface area.

[@RationalZellinial]

I hate this type of ridicule. “The universe should not exist!” Have you tested every type of universe? Then stop telling me that ours is rare.

[@GOOAT69]

Oh dear its like extremely perfect that's why ❤

[@ericsilver9401]

It’s almost like having intellectual conversations on what we may think will result from measured realities is the entire point of this.

[@theunluckycharm9637]

You sad?

[@fjaps]

You did not understand the video did you

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

😂 man you don’t understand math do you?

[@pathcoinfirst8936]

The Multiverse is a mechanism proposed for the emergence of our unique universe. If the Multiverse exists it does not address the issue of Intelligent Design as it may be necessary to have a Multiverse for our Universe to emerge. We have no understanding of Infinity or Eternity except that Infinity is Limitless, a concept separated from physical units and Eternity is outside of Time. In the enter, Genesis states it best: In the beginning (or The starting point) there is Time, then space. And from this point, the Universe comes into existence.

[@comrad011]

I feel a bit sad when i see science channels with millions of viewers discuss fantasies like this instead of asking the real questions that should be asked in physics

[@Buzz_Kill71]

This guy "Astrum", is a great, great video creator and editor. 💯

[@MacDKB]

And, yet, my life is absolute garbage, always has been, & I want to die. "Lucky"? No, "cursed" is more like it. EDIT: I imagine it's difficult for haves to grasp how bad life can be for have-nots that they wish they had never been born. I get it, too bad you don't. But of course it's unsurpirsing, given that there's no consequences to you for not understanding.

[@Crumbling_Vortex]

Dude you need therapy. Idk if it's affordable, but if you can you should cuz like it sounds like you have more mental problems than anything (no shade tho)

[@enshala6401]

I've been there man, and I do understand. I just kept trying and eventually things got better. I hope it will for you as well.

[@markigirl2757]

Hopefully one day u learn to value urself

[@istvansipos9940]

seek help. NO trolling here. Unless your comment is a bad BAAAAD joke, it is very serious. A cry for help into a public forum. And I've never been good at issues of this nature, so this is the only thing I say: Seek professional mental help.

[@MacDKB]

@@istvansipos9940 Yes, I can see you're not great at this. Here's an observation: if you know you're not good at a thing, especially something requiring delicacy, & more than brute force, don't try. It's easy, man: just say or do nothing. Unless my misery is so offensive to your ego, because it so thoroughly conflicts with your perception of reality, that you simply MUST say something (let's face it, that's why you simply HAD to respond). I'm going to take a pass on speaking to a mental health "professional". First of all, psychology is a pseudoscience, & a "loss leader" in the Replication Crisis facing science. 2nd, as such, the overwhelming majority of them are brainwashed leftists, who have absolutely no insights of value for someone like me. They're mindless automatons regurgitating the brainwashing they've been programmed with. All that having an exchange with someone in the mental health industry (& that's what it is--an industry) would serve to demonstrate is what an absolute joke everything is.

[@inkfrogrfx]

Multiverse is the longing for fairness in the midst of chaos

[@Cowface]

This is getting ridiculous. Not only do humans think we’re the only life that exists in the whole universe, now we think we’re the only life that exists in 10^56 universes? I’m sorry I just don’t think we’re that special.

[@fabioa.8008]

yeah...thats kinda absurd and very arrogant

[@saltyyf1802]

We are

[@Aleiza_49]

Humanity loves thinking it's special

[@saltyyf1802]

@@Aleiza_49 it is

[@Aleiza_49]

@@saltyyf1802 in the sense of, unique as a species, sure. But not in the sense of we have some kind of special purpose, or that we're some kind of exception to the entirety of existence. We're here because it was possible and was eventually going to happen.

[@freddyjosereginomontalvo4667]

Awesome videos as always say 🌍🌟

[@andreitone]

So weird how, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of design in the physical world, 'scientists' stubbornly ignore the existence of a Designer, just because they can't prove it, although there are a myriad of other things they can't prove.

[@Simple_But_Expensive]

The “space differentiated” universe could explain the absence of antimatter in the observable universe. It could be that there are parts of the nonobservable universe that contain only antimatter. Think of the nonhomogeneous distribution of matter in the observable universe and expand that. In places matter dominated enough to have leftover matter after all available antimatter had been annihilated, and in other places antimatter dominated. Also, how do these concepts align with the holographic universe theory?

[@CornelisWH4303]

One minute in and Genesis 1:1 is already proven.

[@MrFancyFingers]

How is it proven?

[@matthewboire6843]

I have an idea, there are many multiverse and each has many universes that all share a universal constant, each multiverse has a different constant for its universes.

[@Guy_on_Youtube]

Ai thumbnail... Shame on you guys

[@rXHrzn]

Why?

[@rXHrzn]

Is the video bad because of it?

[@coltonbuhler]

Ai or not it's cool af. People to worked up about ai art

[@gnomefuel]

dumb comment, shame on you guy

[@realityisenough]

It looks so cool, shut up lossr

[@monkerud2108]

so yes, there are two options, either all kinds of value exist in a similar type of situation elsewhere, or there is some reason why it is always very low, i personally find this to be unlikely, because all we have to do is go back to inflation to find a universe so skewed that normal matter was not a thing, no atoms could form and so on, i think it is more likely that all vacuums even if they have variations in laws and lifetimes, still have transitions, slow periods and fast periods of expansions, and eventually all pass away through further phase transitions. i am very skeptical about crunches, because models like that takes away a reductionist framework for understanding expansion at a deeper level that requires expansion to be more or less permanently directional, from phase transition to phase transition, such that all of space is always expanding as some rate with respect to the matter inside it, and that is related to an increasing entropy of the vacuum configurations and the fields in it and so on. instead of a crunch you would have space expanding until it has lost too much energy and the interactions and matter like atoms, electrons and the associated fields, themselves decay, as the small scale sub plankcian physics that make them up undergo a phase transition, and essentially starts in its own hot dense state as it is no longer fed by the decay of the phenomena at our scale of interaction and object. it is not really this simple, but more or less it could work like this, then it would form smaller scale particles in much greater number and the whole thing starts all over again, even though the universe already expanded for a lifetime before, the small scale detail that we cannot even measure now has a life of its own and starts in a new hot dense state. something like that is possible without any part of the system ever contracting.

[@opalglass8101]

This makes me want to write a short-story about someone pings across the multiverse, experiencing what they would have been in a universe different from ours witje different rules...

[@sparky7915]

Some people can communicate with the dead. Edgar Cayce a clairvoyant stated that there is a thin veil between people in the earth plane and those who have passed and are in the spiritual plane. There is another universe.

[@matthewboire6843]

The universe wasn’t made for us, we were made for the universe, we adapted to it.

[@therese2301]

The quantum multiverse is the most appealing but I like to think of it only as a multiverse of endless possibilities until it happens then it's set into a single timeline/universe

[@MrVisionDPB]

So much eye catching imagery. How many of these images are actually from Hubble?

[@_andrewvia]

Here is some poetic license: The word "multiverse" could describe a song or poem with paragraphs - multiple verses. Then apply this thought to the universe, and there could be other universes with their own constants - their own vibration frequency. And this comes back around to the three leading theories of the multiverse. It's at the level of philosophy, but it's a fun thought experiment.

[@liquidbeans4209]

I personally am betting on the multiverses separated by time. It's likely a cycle of big bangs, probably. Idk. I just like that idea the best

[@colinjohnrudd]

I noticed your "ick".... modesty is a beautiful and sadly underated quality x

[@PasiDays]

But time can be bent by gravity

[@PasiDays]

Time is not absolute

[@cg1704]

I really want to watch the first video in the series that you mention, but I can't figure out which video it is 😕

[@koppadasao]

If a cyclic multiverse, or any other kind of multiverse; how did it *START?* And then we're right back right where we started...: a Creator... The adage still remain: "Give us one miracle, and we'll explain everything else."

[@danielduarte6086]

Your videos are a blessing, please never ever stop

[@ScientistBaffled]

Gay

[@ickebins6948]

@@ScientistBaffledCongrats to you for your coming out.

[@juanford55]

One of the universe questions we probably wont know the answer, if we cant even see whats beyond the observable universe... We cant neither know where it ends, and if we dont know that less will be know whats outside of it.

[@rhayat10]

I've assumed that both multiverses exist: There are infinite universes in different dimensions (space, so to speak), and in time. Ours is one of an infinite number of pulsating universe phases in an infinite array of universes. Not only is it inevitable that we would exist, but it's also inevitable that infinite exact copies or ourselves exist, and will continue to exist forever.

[@illusions77]

Stacked against infinity is 10 power 56 insignificant or god like a great number ?

[@Killer_Kovacs]

Fundamental randomness doesn't produce eventual outcomes. Order and Causality are something else.

[@gweebara]

😊 The cosmological constant is not necessarily constant we observe it now but cannot know for certain what the cosmological constant could have been billions of years ago we assume it to be constant but have no way to measure something that could have changed over that vast amount of time

[@ThatsNotVeryFunnyLol]

In all seriousness, some things may make sense. However, I dont understand how the very first thing in the universe or whatever, existed. I can understand things that come after. Im talking about the very first initial “things” that existed. What was the inception of everything? How does something come from nothing?

[@anti-Russia-sigma]

You should feature the mysteries in sci.

[@BradfordCB]

You should count the number of times you use "if" or "possibly" or "perhaps" as part of the foundation of the Multiverse theory.

[@replica1052]

what can foresee movement is intelligence -as in fom where brains origin (to master a solar system as identity has become a talent to explore )

[@djayjp]

"We're here because we're here!"

[@istvansipos9940]

03:35 because it is not an idea, but a bad joke in a bazillion flavours. It is not a "lack of evidence" type of thing, it is way worse: None of our deity c0ncepts make any sense at all. More importantly 06:53, why and how does it make any sense to discuss the CHANCES for different cosmological constantS? It is a constant. And we have a sample size of 1. We don't know whether it could be different. Do we? I don't get this part at all. As if we were discussing why the density of gold is exactly the density of gold. thanks for any explanation, Anybody.

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

It’s simple, the fact our universe has these rules and they work they way do is amazing; when considering most other models leave you with universes that CANNOT exist , either the electron can’t come into being, the weak or strong force is not effective, gravity is different etc any number of things that would make life as we know it , or even physics as we know it literally impossible

[@istvansipos9940]

@@NexxtTimeDontMiss my problem not solved. we cannot know anything about this value. or these values. We have 1 constant, and we cannot know if it COULD be any different. Maybe it has the value it has, because that's the onyl value it can have. that's why I wrote the density of gold in my example. It is that number, because it is that number. But it is so well known and so simple 6th grader chemistry, that nobody sees any awe and cosmic woowoo in it. I only see older known numbers vs newer known numbers in this comparison.

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@@istvansipos9940 yes we can. Just because *YOU* can’t understand the math dosent mean WE can’t

[@istvansipos9940]

@@NexxtTimeDontMiss can you then tell me HOW we tested whether those values can be different? We did not just assume it, I hope. we still have a phenomenon described by a number, and we have never seen the number change. English is not my first language. I am more and more convinced that you don't understand what I don't understand here. let me try it with another example: tea. tempereture. we measure it. then we measure it again. the tea is colder now. We KNOW that temperature changes. Test done. In the 1 universe we have access to. What did we measure and test and why and how in our 1 universe to KNOW that the constants could change?

[@erikm8372]

That perspective does make sense, that planeta, stars, and living beings shouldn’t really exist… it’s all down to fractions of fractions of luck. But also, despite life being this grand “miracle” and we should all be grateful to be experiencing it, we know it is not perfect. Animals, at least that we know of, operate on survival mode at all times. They know what it’s like to not be hunted, to be hunted, to be hungry, to be satiated, to be “horny” and other “natural” processes shared by all living things. They don’t sit and reflect “ah, today was a good day, I’m so grateful to the universe.” That’s a human, higher intelligence concept. But life is still just as much of a delicate tightrope walk for us… at any moment, we could be hit by a car, caught in a freak explosion, or a crime. Or catch a disease and die… merely to be “alive” is just as perilous as if one were born as a celestial body, a cloud, a rock, a piece of magma, a water molecule, or even an atom. We are no different than “natural” materials and objects. Living beings are made of the same elements as the universe, after all, and scientists say “we are all made of stardust”, and that’s true. What’s different is that we can reason and experience emotional responses to our situations. In some ways, that’s worse than if you were a deer, or a bird, or a wolf, or any other animal that is simply operating on the instincts of hunger, reproduction, sleep, and fight or flight. Humans are aware of what’s going on so much that we try to suppress our natural instincts. Hungry, diet. Horny, control yourself. Lol. If someone threatens you, turn the other cheek. Tired? Caffeine.

[@billmilosz]

If there are multiple universes - each with it's own physical laws - then only a subset of them will have physics that permit life to exist. Clearly life is possible in our universe, because we are here to see it. Some other universes may allow physicists to exist also.

[@AndrasBalintBoroczky]

Okay, it's extremely rare that exactly these are the constants, but think about it. If a universe has constants which make it unstable, there won't be any life forms to experience it. We live in this universe because this one is stable.

[@bugstomper4670]

if the universe has an eternity to happen, it will eventually happen!

[@rudigerwolf9626]

I love you videos. Little something to consider… it is not just the cosmological constant that is fine tuned for life. What are the odds that all those constants are fine tuned in a single universe that gives rise to life? I would guess almost zero. I’m not a statistician. It seems to me that “science” is obsessed with finding an explanation for our existence that does not include God. We have forgotten to live by the precepts of most every religion. And look at the world that approach has created.

[@bryansansone3301]

There is one absolute certainty: I AM going to crank 1 out to some smut immediately following this video. However, going to bed and sleep following this event are an uncertainty. The prevalence of dark energy in this region of the universe presents several probabalities. High-energy, low-frequency sounds, accompanied with lyrics that rhyme, are just one good example of what could occur. Pulses of red and blue lights after high-energy outbursts are more common as well. Thank you for reading. If you like this, be sure to check out my other comments. All the best, I'll semen til next time.

[@johnmurray3346]

I recommend “midget Helena”

[@thepartysjustbegun5557]

Wow. Way to lower the vibe 😐

[@michaelmccray3207]

I hate to break it to the religious people.But the fact that it does exist proves that even though the probability of it existing is extremely Minescule Is one hundred percent proof that it could Happen given the infinite possibilities

[@jon4tina]

I’ve always liked to believe in a multiverse. It answers the question of existence. Why are we here? Because if everything is possible then of course we exist.

[@agxryt]

I think its probably an emergent phenomenon. The value is where it is, because that is how it evolved - because it could only evolve that way. How it "evolved"? Idk, and i think were a ways off from understanding. But were speculating on spooky origins of a spooky substance

[@NativeJoe012]

Well, it greatly depends on how you define a universe. Your diving into well tilled soil when it comes to realms and planes. There also the expanse outside all of that. Creation for lack of a better phrase to describe all there is- as the universe as you describe and know of it, is a realm. And really you only interact with a few layers of this realm at best.

[@mr1spamification]

12:17 so while multiverse theory in whatever form it would take COULD explain the cosmological constant problem, there is no evidence for it and so to believe this theory, you, therefore, need to operate on an initial stage of * pure faith* out of sheer necessity in order to attempt to pursue the validity of said theory any further... 3:36 yet, at the same time, the cosmological argument being what you are referencing here that mentions how intelligent design could solve the conundrum isn't a favored hypothesis because 'taking matters (such as a potential solution to the cosmological constant problem) on faith is not really what science is about'!? 12:16 "we have no evidence that (multiverses) exist beyond the offering of an explanation (for the cosmological constant problem)" If the only value this multiverse theory you're presenting as the favorable explanation has is simply that it offers one potential solution with absolutely no empirical evidence backing it, then said argument can also be applied to the intelligent design theory, so why dismiss it in your opening as though it is less desirable or logically unfavorable like that? I used to like your channel a lot more, but the way you present things seems not just contradictory but a smidgen smug at times. No, smoothing it over with "believe what makes you happy" at the end doesn't circumvent this, it just means you coat your bias in a disney-channel-sentiment candy wrapper. Maybe you didn't mean it in a biased way and were just trying to explain that the scientific community generally dislikes any explanation that implies God exists but will turn right around and hypocritically jump through ridiculous hoops of guesswork and non-theistic blind faith reasoning and then publish said hypotheses as 'highly likely' when trying to solve really big problems or answer really big questions... but the way you worded it in your script just seemed smug and biased to me, kind of like you were on board with that *'science has all the answers, that's how we KNOW it isn't God... also we have absolutely NO clue about this extremely all-encompassing thing pertaining to our very existence, but here's our best guesses and also we're wearing lab coats and you're not so let us do the questioning and you just listen'* routine that the scientific community always pedals, which is a tired argument from authority fallacy at best.

[@johnmurray3346]

Have a whiskey mate.

[@mr1spamification]

@@johnmurray3346 How would alcohol resolve a huge logical flaw in a youtube astronomy and universe-origins video?

[@kevinlutz5994]

Voltaire said, "We live in the best of all possible universes." It's a theory thiat is hard to prove like string theory.