Leonard Susskind - How Many Universes Exist?

More than one universe? It's a ridiculous question no more. How could multiple universes be generated, and can we ever find evidence, one way or another, for their actual existence?
Click here for more interviews with Leonard Susskind bit.ly/1xAleZd
Click here for more interviews on how many universes exist bit.ly/1IqQFLm
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com

[@docsoulman9352]

The very existence of existence is truly magic…I like the quote referring to ardent materialists..”You give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest…”.

[@travisgilliam5]

Thank God for that!

[@quasar960]

He talks as though he was there when the universes were created. Yet doesn't appear to come off as arrogant. That's skill

[@astronomic_al]

Hey Lucifer, I think you are describing your dad x)

[@DB-MH11]

I suspect the audio is leaking to another universe.

[@jezebulls]

Correct if we were able to pick up sound from all the dimensions, it would be deafening.

[@Tsamokie]

The greys are doing it.

[@jezebulls]

@@Tsamokie Are you sure it's not the reptilians?

[@Tsamokie]

@@jezebulls Aaaaaah, could be. hehehe

[@Jasonejc]

Einstein once said that we would never be able to confirm the existence of gravitational waves. And yet, here we are in the golden age of gravitational wave observation. I think it's short sighted to say we will never be able to view pocket universes.. we simply don't know how we're going to achieve that yet.

[@michalmaixner3318]

+Jasonejc there is fundamental difference though, i think. Gravitational waves were predicted by his theory and seeing them was only question of technology. However, pocket universes cannot be seen in principle, because of cosmological horizon. Which means that nothing which is beyond it can be seen IN PRINCIPLE, due to causality principle (or due to the fact, that light is maximal achievable speed). So in order for us to see somehow those pocket universes predicted by our theory, we need our theory to be false.

[@jamesbra4410]

The irony is that we used his theoretical models to invent the tools needed to prove them

[@SevenFootPelican]

The smart people are pessimistic because they understand intimately the limits of what’s possible. It’s the people who don’t know much who are unrealistically optimistic (like you and me)

[@donquixoteupinhere]

Let’s create a list of all the things einstein got wrong in front of other people vs got right and same for you then wager on the probability you’re ahead of the game with Susskind 😏

[@SkinnyCow.]

At last, a guy who can explain very complicated ideas to not so complicated minds like mine. Thanks Mr Susskind.

[@josthobic9860]

I agree. It makes interesting stuff even more interesting

[@xgengx7530]

The Bible explains things pretty easy. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

[@cookergronkberg]

That is an assertion without sufficient evidence, not an explanation. Further, it appears to be blatantly incorrect, as we now know that the Earth formed significantly later than the beginning of the universe.

[@ivanobar1]

The Bible requires belief without evidence, science has no such requirement.

[@politics9811]

Dude, these theories are so freaking abstract and out there, it's just mind boggling that there are that many POSSIBILITIES for types of universes (not universes themselves), especially after spending a while flabbergasted at the theoretical size of our objective (not observable) universe... It's insane. Then on top of that, you consider the fact that the universe is equally as small as it is large.

[@glennpresley2103]

Possibilities but highly unlikely.

[@damedash261]

We could be living in a dream of a butterfly 🦋🤯 who knows!!!

[@victor-oq7dl]

Will be watching more videos from this man , more informative than most on utube.

[@rasanmar18]

I would like to understand 10% of the stuff Leonard does, but also, explain myself as clear as he does.

[@James-ll3jb]

If he WERE clear you'd understand as much from him.

[@talalalsaer]

Leonard Susskind has a golden voice

[@esra_erimez]

He sounds like Richard Feynman and Andrew Tanenbaum

[@thinktank8389]

He speaks so much like a good college Professor.

[@rvoros]

and brain...

[@thinktank8389]

Róbert Vörös that's a given!! For sure..

[@politics9811]

Al Pacino comes out every once in a while. Haha.

[@gogogravity]

Leonard's explanation of reaching a point where we can't verify something due to the size a collider would need to be was very interesting. It made me think of the Kardashev Scale. Type III would be needed to work with a collider as large as a galaxy. We aren't even a Type I yet. Maybe in 100 years or so we can become a Type 1.

[@xgengx7530]

Quick summary of this video "we really don't know anything" and the more we know and understand things the more we don't know.

[@jameswhyte1340]

I love these. But why is the audio always so low.

[@MARILYNANDERSON88]

I have to reply: Math and Science Professors at this level have a reputation of being practically unhearable, and they stand directly in front of what they write on the blackboards. LOL. ( Joking as an M.S. Engineering graduate.)

[@daffidavit]

turn up your volume.

[@morgengabe1]

Real gangsters move in silence.

[@polite_as_fuck]

morgengabe1 I think you mean ‘Real G’s move in silence like lasagna.’

[@morgengabe1]

Real gangstas don't quote weezy

[@stephenbesley3177]

The concept of the multiverse is so mind bogglingly vast its comforting to hide in the cupboard with a pot noodle

[@seangrieves4359]

Consider this, you essentially are infinity itself. Beyond words or description. What would infinity do with this consideration? Whatever you do next is the answer. Pot noodles and hiding, such as May be the case.

[@annaobrien3910]

I think the de Vinci book is strategically placed.

[@jordywoody14]

No Shit

[@hamentaschen]

Hello Captain Obvious!!

[@JamesBond-uz2dm]

Yes

[@orion000]

Morons

[@ndotl]

But under it is the complete Martian Chronicles series.

[@WitoldBanasik]

""Though Earth and moon were gone and sons and universes ceased to be And Thou wert left alone every Existence would exists in thee. There is not room for Death Nor atom that his might could render void Since thou art Being and Breath And what thou art may never be destroyed". (Emily Bronte)

[@Tom_Quixote]

Cool story, bro... nte

[@ccsitaround]

Great video, thanks. I read somewhere that Einstein spent the last years of his life, trying to disprove his own theories, now that's science.

[@quasar960]

Stephen hawking did it best, literally proved and disproved his theories and even crazier is each time people's minds were blown. I agree you're absolutely right, that's science.

[@Langkowski]

They say his mistake is that in his older years, he only did mathematics. When he was younger he also visualized a lot more. Just like James Clerk Maxwell did when he came up with his equation for electromagnetism. Even if you need math to describe it and prove, one should never underestimate the power of visualization.

[@comanchio1976]

@Tim Hansen Of I understand it correctly, visualisation/intuition will only take you so far, especially when it comes to the likes of quantum mechanics, because many of the characteristics are so counterintuitive - so only by using mathematics, can we describe it accurately...?

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@comanchio1976 Maybe visualizing QM is basically zen meditation.

[@brycehins206]

Interesting way to say "correct his theories"

[@baladar1353]

In the age of "smart"phones and self-driving electric cars, there's nobody there to make the sound of this video audible. However, the ads are LOUD.

[@figenschau87]

Adblock

[@liberty-matrix]

"We are rapidly coming to the end of the possibility of doing experiments within a human lifetime." ~ Leonard Susskind

[@jasonu3741]

8:55 The Change in dialogue after this point greatly depresses me, not that we will somehow fail to continue our understanding of the universe, but the very real possibility that future discovery and experimentation will take 50+ years to complete (each step).

[@BrianJohnson-nt2mo]

I loved watching Closer To Truth on WLAE TV from NOLA on Sunday mornings. Unfortunately DIRECTV has dropped this little station for our area.

[@ikemuoma8495]

The a analogy of multiple packs of cards representing the different universes is perfect!!

[@johnroesch2159]

Why are there multiple decks of cards??? This makes no sense! This is all aburd! An atheist making things up all to avoid the reality of God. No one knows except God! He knows for sure!

[@mistrrhappy]

@@johnroesch2159 Thanks for saying you cannot understand the topic, without saying "I can't understand the topic!".

[@Trigger_000]

*"Space is really big and has lots of stuff in it." -* Abigail Adams, aged 8.

[@menacelurkingyet8345]

Space has lots of stuff in it, but mostly it is just space.

[@deeestuary]

Douglas Adams quote??

[@enriquedb666]

very good interview, pleasent to watch.

[@patmat.]

6:03 I like your metaphor, he said no initially but he described exactly what you ment.

[@MrGilRoland]

The most fascinating thing about this, is that we are nothing else then matter arranged in a way that allows ourselves (matter itself) to ask: “What am I? Where I come from? How I came to be?” We are nothing else then a piece of universe looking back to itself, trying to understand itself. We are the stars, we are the black holes, we are the planets, the moons, the rocks, the dust, the water, the colors, the clouds, the rain, the snow… we are from the same matter then all of this, we are from all of this, we are nothing else then matter became self aware.

[@StallionFernando]

Nope, we are a creation of God,in his own image, the universe is so vast and big but yet God focuses on us and our little spec of dust that we consider the world. He loves us and knows us personally. The more I learn about the universe the more frightening and awesome the concept of God becomes. We are not pieces of the universe, that doesn't explain our conscious at all.

[@richiekock8835]

It strange when you realize that we live in a time where we have so much info at our finger tips that you do not need be an astronomer to answer the philosophical questions of space. You only need creativity.

[@dionlindsay2]

And verifiability

[@peterhouston161]

You are right we have so much info at our finger tips. So why is it that some people spend most of their time posting pictures of fluffy kittens on Facebook?

[@Tom_Quixote]

@@peterhouston161 Bell curve.

[@1970groupie]

@@peterhouston161 Brains full of fluff?

[@BanBiofuels]

Very thoughtful discussion.

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

2019 here! i know this vid os kindof oldish, but i cannot help thinking this: those "analogy explanations" were used by *excellent* Ytubers (but without your level of education) so... i was hoping for a deeper explanation (but without the math, which i am truly having a hard time to follow) (hate to do this-comparisons, unless i have to ( to explain in accuracy my point;) pbs spacetime i think is at this (desired) level. stil, a joy Doctor to see your vids and (by my autonomous nerving system a always hit like!! :p) keep up!! ps:(or/and upgrade!!)

[@freeforscott]

Two ways forward: yes Dr. Susskind there are two ways to explain the current theories (our understanding). But there is a third. Change the frame of how we understand the data. Like Einstein changing our understanding of electromagnetism and gravity, he expanded and fundamentally changed our perspective and thus opened a large new area of discovery and understanding. One hundred years later we seem to have reached the end of this path, much in the way physics in 1900 had played out Newton to the edge of its usefulness to describe large systems. I think the third way forward is simply to change the frame of our perspective. We need another Einstein.

[@carlof9169]

No! Inflation makes more and more decks, each shuffled differently.

[@dragonnuma9965]

Yeah when he said that it hurt me cuz even I knew that analogy was wrong. Felt bad for him.

[@eunicef1]

He's very articulate which makes it easier for people like me to understand.

[@dmarckos]

Very nice discussion.

[@raykirkham5357]

The interviewer has always been a fair minded man and I respect him as well though I cannot remember his name.

[@baladar1353]

@kevin p Kohn-nell?

[@StabbyMcBlade]

I think he's called Ratfaced McTurtleNeck, although I could be wrong...🤔

[@sysprog1953]

The interviewer looks like Bob Balaban (with a mustache). He was a character from Seinfield and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

[@belablasco6681]

His name is "The Closer to Truth Guy." I actually saw him at LAX a few years ago, and almost went up and called him that, but I didn't because I was too tired and I think he was, too, so I left him alone.

[@gaelhillyardcreative]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn

[@rick777888]

Coolest physicist since Einstein…

[@evanjameson5437]

9:00-10:06 The end of observation.. best comment ever..

[@user-xk6ed4zi3t]

Love it.

[@brianrichards7006]

I think it is remarkable that we humans (or rather, the really, really smart ones) have reached this limit in observational evidence in our lifetimes. It seems both exhilarating and depressing at the same time. But maybe it is a signpost telling us to start looking inwards.

[@ansari1375]

Susskind's reaction in 06:15 is epic... Just priceless... And I believe that it would be great if there were more real, useful, and relevant questions. It is better to use our time more efficiently when sitting in front of great men.

[@Tom_Quixote]

But the question was good. Because it made the guy explain it better. If two experts in the same field are talking, nobody else understands a thing.

[@BryanPatrickNowak]

Does anyone know where to buy that shirt?

[@nicholashardesty2000]

If we're using a deck of cards as the example, I would equate inflation to the difference in blackjack to the difference between double deck and a shoe (six or eight decks). Did I get the general concept?

[@Phal222]

what a rock star physicist.

[@alexrandolph4777]

hahahhahahahhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQHASHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA

[@edgregory1]

They've got groupies too. Feynman was famous party animal.

[@diorsesh]

I love hearing intelligent people talk. man.

[@silberlinie]

What's that special chair Leonard's sitting in? It is super comfortable and huge. How did he get this piece?

[@jc.1191]

Yeah, it does look awesome.

[@silberlinie]

@@jc.1191 YES. How do we get a manufacturer or supplier name to get the cost of the part?

[@shev1970]

When we value these guys more then people who can throw or catch a ball I will have faith in our species

[@philrudski9084]

Me too.

[@dk6024]

At this point he doesn't know about the LIGO discovery, I think. I wonder if he'd be a little more sanguine. Otoh, he has a lecture in which he asserts that we might study quantum gravity on a desktop. He's a worthy successor to Feynman.

[@7864cwebb]

dk6024 it’s the gravitational waves in the CMB that he is referring to in this situation. Gravitational waves in general doesn’t contradict string theory, just in the microwave background.

[@lacodia]

Susskind is as always a joy to watch, and while I agree with most of what he has to say with regard to the idea of a multiverse, I don't think that he put enough emphasis on the limiting effects which logic has on geometry. He did touch on the idea that most other pocket universes would be sterile, but I would go much further and argue that most other pocket universes are nothing more than simple geometries of no consequence. Their physics being too limited to form complex environments. Further, their may be, and probably is only one pocket universe which is both stable and complex. I think that we probably only get one deck of cards, and while you may be able to shuffle it a lot of different ways, there is only one way which is the most logical, and only a few ways which are complex. The rest of the many possible combinations of shuffles will have few logical rules of ordering.

[@GreaterDeity]

+Mark Garcia Logic based on what? Imagine a universe abiding a different set of physical rules, that are stable to the observers in it like we are in ours. They would observe the same about our conditions. For example, in their universe, positrons control charge densities, not electrons. This is a difficult subject to take out from the subjective. Otherwise, we would, in fact, say that other universes that don't obey our geometry or physics, is unsuitable for our perception of order. It really isn't possible to say, given our experience under such tightly constrained parameters. Parameters that would fail our existence, if they deviate their values on orders of the weak nuclear force. Our reality would simply crumble. Now, if I did not regard this, I would certainly claim that most other 'bubbles' are planes of no consequence. That is a far stretch don't you think? How is it that there was an effect to emerge that universe in the first place? A membrane event. There is always a consequence. I think that idea can be further developed given LISO's new detection. To be honest, I really don't know.

[@ironwolves2369]

Anyone know where to find that shirt?

[@brucestirling8215]

Wow loved this

[@SevenFootPelican]

The idea of our universe being a random bubble of a universe in a bubble bath multiverse is scary.. reality (all possible universes, dimensions) seems it could be infinitely big and infinitely small

[@StallionFernando]

It's more reasonable and logical too believe in God than the multiverse theory. So no, if you truly believe that then you are reaching.

[@ancyber6876]

@@StallionFernando Believing in god is nonsense at least logically.

[@StallionFernando]

@@ancyber6876 you would have a far greater chance of striking the lottery that us falling at the right distance from the sun, not too mention gravity, the moon, rotation of the earth, barriers around the world that protect us, how about water and air recycling itself with the water cycle and trees. Seems very illogical all that was pure luck, go bet you entire life's saving into the lottery and you have a better chance at winning than our creation from nothing.

[@aspiknf]

@@StallionFernando Well I am a pantheist, so I believe that the multiverse is God itself. I know it's a weird position to hold but yep. I think there are universes spitting out everywhere...I think String Theory is correct. I think there are Big Bangs and Big Crunches going all over the place, even now. I think we're only in one of these universes. But, I do think that maybe the multiverse itself has a consciousness, it has decided that we should live in one particular universe at this time, it was decided that we should be alive talking to each other right now. It does want humanity to live and learn...it's like a weird Sci-Fi thing, but I think it's true. The random natural disasters that happen...I think it's all part of God...God doesn't have human morality and notions of good and evil like we do...which is why earthquakes kill Christians and you have murders and rapes and torture and stuff...because the real God doesn't care. It's like a lazy, passive, sometimes orderly (fine tuning our existence in the solar system), sometimes chaotic (black holes, supernovae) God, the infinite multiverse itself being God...hence why God has always been there and always will be there, because it's the Multiverse. Sorry if it sounds a bit farfetched.

[@StallionFernando]

@@ancyber6876 logically the possibility of a universe is so low that it pretty much becomes illogical. So you are wrong. It's more logical for a creator than randomness fine tuning everything perfectly right. Try again or he honest with yourself.

[@jakethemistakeRulez]

Who is the guy interviewing Susskind?

[@esra_erimez]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn

[@adamclifford1278]

Inflation and quantum fluctuations,with inflation being a 'flowering' of a universe,in a multiverse, and quantum fluctuations generating it's paricular form and structure,are powerful ideas to me.

[@zedleppelin80]

What is the design on his t-shirt?

[@hwcdlimited5693]

We are not at the end of observation unless we have observed our own minds.

[@raykirkham5357]

Susskind is also very intriguing. He did a talk on holograms that matched a theory of mine regarding the big bang and made me feel perhaps I could have it right...no big bang...just a giant doughnut shaped hologram that has motion that appears to be expanding on one side and contracting on the other.

[@sudstahgaming]

We are basically at the limit then based on current observational limits, we can't really observe further, so we need to start thinking out of the box.

[@HighestRank]

In string theory Is there possible in those ‘cards’ a probability of a bubble universe which doesn’t/didn’t/wouldn’t ever expand? Okay then why doesn’t it just suck in all them other bubbles of universes?

[@ModernandVintageWatches]

what if me and any friend of mine do a experiment, lets supose that i have a time machine, my friend jumps into a black hole...but i have A TIME MACHINE RIGHT?... so using my time machine i can revive my friend(he already passed the event horizont)...but he already passed the event horizont and he cannot be brought back in the same state like before jumping so...can i use my time traveling machine to bring back a man who already jumped into a black hole and passed the event horizont? wtf?

[@timhorton2486]

No, time ceases to exist past an event horizon. That is the theoretical understand, at least.

[@ModernandVintageWatches]

so thats why time machines like in the movies will never be possibe

[@ruskodudesko9679]

well if you invented the time machine after he jumped in you wouldn't be able to go back to that point anyways.

[@jman2oo2]

what are you talking about? I think you really don't know anything about event horizons or what happens to the time coordinate as one passes the event horizon.

[@TheAaronRodgersTao]

With that logic there’s a near infinite pocket within the total infinity that has life on every planet.

[@StallionFernando]

It's illogical and has zero evidence for it. The reason for the multiverse theory is because the most logical explanation for our universe is God, physicist know that the probability of it all coming from nothing or a mere coincidence is so low that it practically doesn't exist and God is a much more logical answer. They reject God and know they can't accept it as a mere coincidence or from nothingness so they came up with the multiverse theory that doesn't really answer the God question or make it go away.

[@addhyaaj6025]

@@StallionFernando but but but who created god? Who is creator of god? Or he just magically appeared out if nowhere. How logical.

[@furiouswolf2566]

@@addhyaaj6025 He didn’t magically appeared If he needs to be created he is not the creator.Creator of everything doesn’t need a creator.You can say he appeared just by himself.

[@billybhoy32]

What would be the point of a universe without life ?

[@SJNaka101]

That's an interesting question. Why does there need to be a point?

[@AgolaOdero]

How do they define universe?

[@ugowar]

Wow, the nutcases are really out and about in this comment section.

[@kevinfairweather3661]

Arn't they always..

[@gungadin1389]

always everywhere

[@tonytafoya6217]

Yes indeed here you are ...

[@alexrandolph4777]

dayummmm straittttt, gurrllll!

[@5tonyvvvv]

So atheists, God is absurd.... But unproven hypothetical infinite universes and vacuums are ok... Laughable!

[@abigailsockeye1586]

Well they told Max Planck when he was starting in physics that there was nothing left to discover...

[@LeafShade]

But that's not even close to what's being said, in fact he said the opposite, that there is so much to discover, but that those things are harder and harder to demonstrate or prove with observational science, experiments span lifetimes, there's more to discover, but for many people living today, there isn't, because they simply don't have the time left to witness the results.

[@aishwarytiwari2534]

woaah... totally amazed ! much needed ! it was a boost

[@edwardrussell7168]

The question is .. multiverses is fine.. these exist but how does this affect my life and how about death? We should explore the outer world as our consciousness questions it but what about the consciousness itself? When I die physically how do my 'I' survive it???

[@hemrh]

I didn’t know that John Malkovich had a hobby interest in String Theory.

[@ziggityfriggity]

I think there is at least one universe.. just my two cents

[@jvs333]

I suspect it is an endless amount as one collapse and big bangs, as for how many types is limited to the number of chemistry/energy/matter combinations that can be had. Like ocean waves just an endless process

[@merlinthegreat100]

This comment section is horrible for a good video

[@GodsMistake]

There are many, genuine web sites available for intellectual discusion. KZbin ain't one of them. Good video though.

[@GreaterDeity]

He's right. The rate that we approach the limits to experimentation and observation shows a signficant flaw in our methods. It shows, that as Stephen Wolfram put it, our conventional axioms may not be suitable in the future. We may have to invent or 'discover' an entirely new mathematics. For example, there is no proof, observation or reproduction of inflation over the scale of an entire universe. Anisotropy could simply be fooling us. But, because the mathematics we invented are so consistent and successful, we have accepted it at large. Now we are finding galaxies and stars, that, based on our science, 'should not exist'. Now I find that very silly for us to say. We'll get it right one of these days, in the very far, unforseeable future. New generations will look back on us, like we look back on the heliocentric model. Good luck, humans.

[@khalilparkinson2299]

there won't be any more generations

[@GreaterDeity]

Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean we should stop thinking about these foundational, motivational, existential questions. I love it. It is what drives me to study physics.

[@khalilparkinson2299]

Study the bible, it's more secrets in it that God would like to show you Himself. More exciting too.

[@polite_as_fuck]

Khalil Parkinson *cough cough* BULLSHIT *cough cough*

[@deandeann1541]

Just remember not to wear linen and wool together! (Leviticus 19:19?, Deuteronomy also).

[@travisfitzwater8093]

So, we are a pocket universe within the the QCs Universe. 10 to the 500 is the string theory tally of how many ways there are to combine strings.

[@guaromiami]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn's questions are so smart, I half suspect that he already knows the answers to them!

[@42872]

I hope I'm as smart as him in some other univerce

[@esra_erimez]

I hope you are too because you can't even spell "universe" correctly.

[@supralex1]

According to him, you are

[@johnarmlovesguam]

@@esra_erimez Universal spelling varies.

[@GeorgeStar]

It seems like we are blind mice in a dark room banging into walls trying to figure out where we are and the nature of our cage.

[@dionlindsay2]

Or ignoring the big questions because the answers are now too technical, and just getting on with our lives as best we can. I did a degree in philosophy including mathematical logic and the latter suits me much better.

[@darrylschultz6479]

George Stone Yeah,I know the feeling,that happens to me too-but it's only when I fail to leave straight after my 5th pint!

[@keezy034]

Poetry really.. that is a perfect description 👌

[@ComaTwin]

Yes. Just as in the Twilight Zone episode "Five Characters in Search of an Exit"

[@theodorei.4278]

+CloserToTruth1 Any good book that discusses string theory both in a detailed mathematical way and also good in writing? I' not looking for a bad written book that only the author can understand

[@johnlannikk2701]

We try to use something that is finite to define the infinite?

[@stussymishka]

mind blowing . not just 10^500 universes out there ...10^500 different catergories of universes each repeated over and over. sheesh.

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

The word universe is a problem since that should cover everything that exists in nature, not just our little part.

[@bl8896]

As if we weren't insignificant enough

[@pzolsky]

i can confirm with no hesitation there is at least one

[@danielhaines8411]

I can confirm there's at least 2, yours and mine...

[@Arziil]

6:27 Infla[permuta]tion

[@aaronjohnson2215]

I still don't understand where do they come from with those claims/theories.

[@browngreen933]

When one universe isn't enough.

[@utubepunk]

Bet you can't inflate just one. No? I'll see myself out.

[@name1483]

This guy is kinda sus, you can even say he is of the Susskind

[@svergurd3873]

Süss = sweet, Kind = child. Süsskind = sweet child. Basic German. Strange name.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

How did inflation start and what did it start from? If it started from an infinitely dense singularity then how could said singularity become less infinitely dense as would have to happen in order to inflate? That would be an oxymoron.

[@Georgia-Vic]

It started in the 1970's, that's when the sub compact cars with hatch backs came into the scene because of the gas shortages when the middle East raised the price of petrol, I remember because I was 6 years old at the time! 🙄

[@evanjameson5437]

God blew it up!

[@buttegowda]

Does all these universes share same space ??

[@mike-Occslong]

This isnt science its philosophy

[@rogerlivingstone3528]

Personally, I would keep the interviewer's face off-screen as much as possible. I'm not sure why, but I find it highly distracting.

[@EinSofQuester]

I don't understand why anyone would think information is lost inside a black hole. From anyone's perspective outside the event horizon of a black hole, nothing ever goes inside a black hole. It just freezes on the boundary of the black hole. So information would always be accessible from outside the black hole. And from the perspective of a person going past the event horizon then information is also accessible. So what's the mystery?

[@cleverestx]

So much for Occam's Razor (if that even applies to this)

[@dancingbubbles1126]

Man, this interviewer is a parody of pretension.

[@psyeffect]

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. - Nikola Tesla

[@UltimateEnd0]

Sounds like Scientology.

[@fischX]

To be fair, Tesla was proven wrong in that case.

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

Sounds like many a physicist actually. We know the models are not telling us the actual nature which is why new models are worked on all the time.

[@squarkino1]

psyeffect you are absolutely right

[@johnarmlovesguam]

the math is good

[@davidlucey1311]

Does anyone have any observable evidence, and I mean anything to matter how small, to support the idea they were multiple universes? If we can prove there are multiple universities, what would we do with that knowledge? Isn’t that kind of like saying all pigs can fly but only when we’re not looking?

[@edwardliu5793]

I agree. As a species, we are in survivor mode right now. I do not expect much progress from observational experiments. Secondly, our best minds are not utilized for physicists and cosmology. Science is a small club relatively to all the new innovations for greed. Cosmology and the Anthropic Principle opened a reflection of our existence: Humans are very special, and our stellar environment is ripe for the taking. Our only competition is ourselves.

[@keonr1]

What causes strange things to happen?

[@Doug923]

I watched another video which mentioned even our solar system is atypical. Star systems and planets discovered so far are most likely different from ours. But it might due to measurement bias as caused by the limitations of current technology.

[@desmonddwyer]

Where does the energy come from to make all those universes?? 🤔🤔🤔

[@stephenwatts2649]

The notion of Consciousness is steeped in mystery and debate, and although it is still generally considered to be human only, there are now schools of thought emerging that believe some animals have ‘consciousness’ as well. The idea that it is an attribute unique to us as human beings arises from the fact that we have an awareness of ourselves and the world we live in, unlike most or any of the other creatures. This awareness we have forms the basis of ‘the self’. The reason for our becoming self-conscious, or self-aware, creatures will become apparent later on, when we begin exploring the nature of being human in greater detail. But this human self-consciousness is something quite different in nature to the reality of the Consciousness that lies behind and within everything to appear as the myriad forms in existence. Consciousness inhabits and animates creation and its creatures not unlike the power that flows through a computer to make it work in accordance with the hardware and software of the device. By this analogy, the specific physical characteristics of a creature’s body constitute the hardware, and the programming of its mind the software. These things are important to understand because if this conceptual ground is not firm, the model we build from here will not endure, and its potential value will be lost. What all this is pointing to is that what you really are―what we all are―is an eternal, unlimited energy source capable of creating and experiencing events. What you are is this creative source, this Consciousness. Who you are is how this Consciousness works through you to express as something unique in the world. Powerful creative Consciousness is your true and essential nature, but of course, you experience your life through the limitations of a human body, so it may not seem that you are an all-powerful being at times, or indeed ever. By its very nature, the body exists as some ‘thing’ and is, therefore, a limitation or restriction of ‘everything else possible’, to become something specific and useful―a human being. And then it must be remembered that these bodies we inhabit are a product of Mother Earth, and have developed for good reasons. Although today there are many philosophes, theories and just sheer guesses put forward to explain the purpose of our existence, none of them fully describe or satisfactorily explain the original intention for our emergence. Some bodies born into this world have, or will develop over time, physical or mental attributes that further alter the creative opportunities and experiences available to them in a lifetime. The influence of our national culture, the general culture of our times, and the impact of our upbringing by parents and other significant people also become major influences that can place limitations on our thinking and power. Other restrictions occur as a result of the pains we might experience in life, the emotions that often get buried in the body as a result, and the accumulating limited beliefs they then give rise to. There is also the concept of ‘karmic debt’ that will limit opportunities, and this too will be discussed later in the work. The state of your own evolved Consciousness is another factor affecting personal power. All these things limit the opportunities you have in life, and so it can be seen that although your true nature is something quite grand, you find yourself in very limiting circumstances. But it is important to keep perspective. Your essential nature is a free and unlimited Consciousness, a potential capable of eternal creation and experience. And this Consciousness was the reality before the Universe that we know emerged.

[@hurrdurr3615]

If at one point we recognize that we cannot find any more practical evidence, I think calling it a day and stopping to think about these things would be really stupid.

[@gregeads6124]

I think everything has a reason or purpose. I've never seen anything that didn't. So all those stars and planets aren't just there to be there. Also I think we are so far apart from other planets so we can never get there. We have a hard enough time dealing with ourselves, much less another whole world.

[@FernandoW910]

Awesome

[@grassCrow]

How could there ever be an end to space? Space must be infinite … if you say where it ends .. then what is beyond the end. I could not wrap my mind around the concept of finite space.

[@afterthesmash]

The phrase "universe where life can exist" actually means "universe where Kirk can get it on with a green hottie". "Parameters are wrong" actually means "insufficiently similar to biochemistry as we know it to bother asking for a subspace phone number". The anthropic principle basically states that while we can't yet define life, we know it when we see bright green hooters.