Mindscape 200 | Solo: The Philosophy of the Multiverse

[@tookie36]

Sean Carroll in another universe is arguing against this crazy Sean Carroll

[@johnnytass2111]

And in another universe Sean Carroll is the Pope.

[@tookie36]

@@johnnytass2111 all hail

[@HouseJawn]

Funny but true

[@idesel]

😂😂😂

[@Zeno2Day]

I like your talks… you’re honest and you speak with clarity.

[@justabunchofbees4120]

Knowledge+curiosity+integrity+genuine laugh=your success. Best science podcast on the internet today!

[@mgenthbjpafa6413]

Lex Fridman's Artificial Intelligence Podcast has been rising. Inspiring. Good young man, already a giant. Sean Carroll is pedagogy made human. His mind is quite organised, trained, all considering a high level of of intelligence, the best humanity has to offer. Hive mind, as "JustABunchofBees" implies, is devoloping our race to a new era. I talk too much, sorry for any unauthorised inference.

[@chriswhitt6618]

Seconded

[@smlanka4u]

Buddhism rejects the theory of cosmic inflation. According to the explanations in Buddhism about the world and universe, the world starts to end during the contraction period of the universe which begins with a rain of liquid energy that destroys the world and heavenly worlds including material Brahma worlds within a duration called Sanvatta Asankhya Kalpa. The contraction of the universe continues without matterial worlds during Sanvattai Asankhya Kalpa. And then, the universe starts to expand with a rain of liquid energy called Sampatthi Mahamegha, during a similar period called Vivatta Asankhya Kalpa. Also, the duration of the further expansion (called Vivattai Asankhya Kalpa) that starts with the formation of worlds is similar to the duration of the first period of expansion that filled the universe with a rain of liquid energy beams (called Sampatthi Mahamegha), the rain that stopped falling, before the start of the formation of worlds that happens with the further expansion. Again, the universe contracts and destroy worlds during Sanvatta Asankhya Kalpa. Buddhism doesn't dismiss General Relativity to expand matter faster than light.

[@peterp-a-n4743]

That's all true but to me *succinctness* is really the main thing (missing in your equation). Despite it being over two hours it really feels very concise, entertaining and on point.

[@chriswhitt6618]

@@peterp-a-n4743 that’s all true but potatoes

[@metiusabt2581]

Congrats! I hugely appreciate it that great physicist and other scientistss are willing to share and explain their insights over here

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(31:00) *"I'm not creating a different region of space far away; I'm creating a whole other parallel universe. And it's not located anywhere. They just exist simultaneously."* ... And this parallel universe exists for what reason? By all other standards, Existence is efficient and expeditious. What is gained by more than one universe when everything that can be extrapolated from a single universe is mirrored in all others. "Multiverse" presents _special pleading_ for unnecessary multiplicity. *"There are many copies of my future self, so there's one copy of me right now. There's other copies that have descended from my past self, but here I am right now. There will be many descendants of my present self in all of these different worlds."* ... And why do these multiple versions of you exist when one version of you suffices? Eight billion humans produce a satisfactory amount and a variety of information. Why would infinite versions of eight billion individuals even be necessary? What is gained through this needless pleading for multiplicity?

[@omp199]

Your questioning about "what reason" and talk of things being "necessary" and "unnecessary" are all misplaced. You seem to have a default assumption that the universe has a purpose and that the things that exist are only those that are required for that purpose. Drop the assumption of purpose, and all your questions become meaningless. Things are not necessary or unnecessary. They just are.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@omp199 *"Your questioning about "what reason" and talk of things being "necessary" and "unnecessary" are all misplaced."* ... What IS known is that this "one" universe is essentially uniform (CMB), well-balanced (energy vs expansion), and highly efficient (2nd law of thermodynamics). The universe is not wasteful, and it operates by a specific set of rules (logic/physics). All of these components are "necessary" for the universe to operate like it does. ... Therefore, the onus is on the ones making the unfalsifiable claims of "Multiverse" (you) to prove that there is more than one universe and provide a logical basis for this supernatural belief. *"You seem to have a default assumption that the universe has a purpose and that the things that exist are only those that are required for that purpose."* ... The moment you set your alarm clock last night you demonstrated purpose. Everything you did this morning was purposeful all the way up to when you set your alarm clock tonight. Therefore, it is empirically established and demonstrated that *purpose absolutely exists* within the universe. The only remaining question is to what extent? However, there is ZERO empirical evidence of a multiverse, and the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that a multiverse exists at all. I have empirical, demonstratable, falsifiable evidence that purpose, logic, orchestration, and mathematics are essential ingredients within this "single" universe. ... Where is your evidence for a multiverse? *"Drop the assumption of purpose, and all your questions become meaningless."* ... I'm sorry, but I cannot simply ignore empirical evidence, and that evidence is "us" and the 4 billion years of life that preceded us. Life demonstrates a level of "purpose" operating within the universe and this is demonstrated by every purposeful thing we do every single day of our lives. It is not very scientific of you to simply ignore this fact, don't you think? *"Things are not necessary or unnecessary. They just are."* ... You are demonstrating the absolute lowest possible assessment of our universe by claiming _"it just is."_ You're standing on the lowest rung of the intellectual ladder, and the reason you think that way is because you "can." It doesn't mean that you are right; only that you "can" think that way. The opposite viewpoint (from your lowest possible level of consideration) is postulating an outrageously fantastic theory involving infinite numbers of universes with infinite versions of "us" populating these infinite universes that have no beginning nor have any end. Again, the reason you think that way is because you "can." It doesn't mean that you are right; only that you "can" think that way. You have a LOT to prove when forwarding crazy supernatural nonsense such as the multiverse, my friend. ... I suggest you get busy proving it before questioning others who prefer to remain grounded in logic.

[@seionne85]

The Monty Hall problem is similar to this observer/world first approach problem but framed in a game show. And Congratulations on 200!!

[@StevieObieYT]

Wow! The 200th episode of Mindscape! And I've been subscribed since the very first episode. Hard to believe it's been 4 years though. Time flies when you're having fun. Especially when you're learning new stuff everyday... 😏

[@omp199]

It's good to learn new stuff every day. Here's a new thing to learn today: "every day", meaning in every 24-hour period of time, is two words. It is an adverbial phrase, following the same pattern as "every hour", "every week", and so on. You can tell that it is two words because you can add words in between the two words, as in "every other day", for example. The two-word adverbial phrase "every day" should not be confused with the single word "everyday", which is an adjective meaning either literally "happening or used every day" or more figuratively "encountered or used routinely or typically" or just "ordinary".

[@dannypowell594]

@@omp199 Something new for you to learn today: You are a douchebag. I have provided the definition below. I would also advise you to lookup the word "incel" as I'm quite sure that you are also one of those but perhaps not aware that there was a term for it. Noun. douchebag (plural douchebags) (US, slang, vulgar) A jerk or asshole; a mean or rude person; someone seen as being arrogant, snobby or obnoxious.

[@omp199]

@@dannypowell594 Wow, you really are an obnoxious piece of work, aren't you? I went to the trouble of typing out some helpful information for the benefit of someone who had stated an interest in learning new things, thus helping them to learn a new thing. For you to have a fit of rage over one person helping another, and to _insult_ the person who is providing that help makes you seem not only breathtakingly rude but actually unhinged.

[@paxdriver]

I absolutely love your work. Your book on time, the big ideas series, and especially the TTC lectures on dark matter that got me hooked on physics after getting hooked on philosophy from Daniel Robinson's TTC lectures on the great ideas of philosophy. Congrats on 200+ episodes and best wishes on your new commitments. You've made a huge impact in my life, I sincerely appreciate all the interviews too.

[@Neurability]

Sean, best of luck with your new responsibilities and in breaking down historic separations between important disciplines. If I’m feeling sad, I can locate a small corner of awe in my universe and I find some joy and happiness in doing just that. Cheers!

[@Lance_Lough]

Glad to hear the Ask Anything episodes will continue...I was worried there for a moment!

[@dablaqueguy]

I don't understand any of this, and fascinated at the same time. My family has no idea of the the things I think about lol

[@tomlicata703]

I hope that some of the other versions of me are having more fun! But more seriously, great episode, great series. Congratulations!

[@Gribbo9999]

An infinite number of you are having more fun but not the infinite number who were just diagnosed with terminal illness. Infinity is big isn't it?

[@ChazWick4]

As someone who never paid much attention to science or astrology growing up, and considers myself way out-of-field in the topic (a musician/music educator), I find your podcast so intriguing and fascinating to listen to. The way you communicate is very inviting, open-minded and non-condescending. It allows me to learn so many things I never thought I'd be interested in. Been hooked since your first appearance on Rogan. Congrats on 200 episodes!

[@tugbacnarl6060]

Congratulations for the 200th episode!!! thanks to Mindscape and similar content, we’are able to listen all these talks we wouldn’t have a chance to even know❤️❤️❤️

[@jballenger9240]

Congratulations!!!🎈🍾 🎉🍾🎈

[@mitchkahle314]

Congrats on the milestone, Sean.

[@whirledpeas3477]

Thanks for using milestone instead of kilometer-stone 💖

[@FreeIreland32CountyRepublic]

A World Class Educator is what you are Sean 👑 Kudos and many, many thanks from sunny Ireland 🇮🇪

[@shubhamagarwal605]

Congrats Sean and every mindscape community member.🤗🤗

[@alevans51]

Wow! The arguments you make are blowing my mind like 10 to the 140. Thanks! Enjoying your talks more and more.

[@user-pf2qm5je3r]

thanks for all the podcasts sean!

[@이규빈-q7s]

Congratulation sean!! Amazing podcast utility Incrementing channel

[@keithchalmers-l1l]

Bravo thank you for your time and the good work you do

[@tjthreadgood818]

Belated congratulations on four years🥳. My favorite podcast, especially the AMA episodes.

[@robertmolldius8643]

Congrats! It has been great fun!🙂👍🇸🇪

[@mimidhof2179]

Congratulation, You're doing a fabulous job. I've seen some of them. It is quite adictive. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge, ideas and thoughts.👍

[@akumar7366]

Congratulations 🎊 200 episode , tremendous channel !

[@johnjoseph9823]

Congratulations Sean and well done

[@martinds4895]

Great show!! Thanks Sean. Mindscape podcast keeps getting better and better.

[@michaeljfigueroa]

Take as much time as you need. Thanks for everything!

[@vladyslavkorenyak872]

I think we could have a different approach to the Multiverse through the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?". The answer with the least amount of presuppositions is that EVERYTHING EXISTS. And existence has no rules a priori, so our consistent physics is just a coincidence. From this perspective, Boltzmann brains fall short since they assume that they exist because of QUANTUM fluctuations. But actually you have to take into account every possible instance in all of existence with a subjective experience identical to yours, and compare it to the instances of you in the subset of all existence that appears to have our rules.

[@omp199]

What do you mean by Boltzmann brains falling short?

[@michaeljfigueroa]

Thank you for your time

[@timveseli]

Congratulations. Love you podcast

[@daverei1211]

Congratulations Sean - well done.

[@risunokairu]

If the universe is infinite and there an infinite number of you'd in the infinite universe due to how there are only a finite ways matter can come together, there's no reason why two of the copies of you -have- to be a long, long way from each other.

[@Cotten-]

*Sean, I want to thank you for bringing me joy with all these mind bending episodes. You are appreciated!* ❤

[@mazelme]

"I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers."

[@Suggsonbass]

58:50 oh my god you've just explained why my mum drives me up the wall lol

[@TairaKirkland]

Congratulations!!!

[@stormymangham5518]

I prefer hearing you alone, I think... That was my favorite podcast so far.

[@mgenthbjpafa6413]

Professor, congratulations, maybe I have missed some, but, from the beginning, I appreciated all your episodes. While my guitar gently weeps, if I actually had one...

[@chriswhitt6618]

Outstanding. It’s so good to be able to learn and expand my knowledge of the topics Mr Carroll presents so to speak. I don’t pretend to fully understand everything but it matters not. And im in no doubt that’s how lots of us lay people feel about this podcast. Bravo 👍👍👏👏👏

[@ZeddZul]

This channel is going to explode soon!

[@cripplingautism5785]

i find the infinite multiverse scenario terrifying, since presumably it means all your worst nightmares somewhere come true.

[@montyburnz]

All your good dreams too. :)

[@cripplingautism5785]

​@@montyburnz i realize that, but i'm not as excited about those as i am worried about the nightmares. i think suffering is more bad than pleasure is good.

[@ai_serf]

This is beyond awesome!

[@thomasl.seidman2223]

Happy Anniversary. Congratulations on the milestone. I look forward to your future podcasts.

[@aocbound]

I’m in Baltimore city & live in Roland Park. Welcome to the neighborhood!

[@bohanxu6125]

1:51:46 This.... I have asked this question to quite a few professors in different universities. I have never got an directly response like this "Yes. the CMB is gradually changing because we are looking at different regions as time goes on"

[@raidermaxx2324]

how did you end up at multiple different universities?

[@bohanxu6125]

@@raidermaxx2324 I transferred during undergrad, and I'm now a grad student (for Phd.).

[@BIGWUNuvDbunch]

In the string multiverse, wouldn't you eventually tunnel to the ground state, i.e. some negative CC and then the universe would eventually crunch?

[@jimbernard8964]

Thanks. Congratulations on the new gig. You mentioned new teaching duties at JHU, I hope you'll be teaching undergrads. I've always felt the best professors should be teaching undergrads. The earlier you can hit them the stronger the impression you can make.

[@Reddles37]

It always seemed to me that these bad anthropic arguments implicitly depend on the idea of a disembodied soul that is somehow randomly assigned to a specific body. Then "observers" is just code for "people with souls", and it makes sense to talk about the probability that you could have been a jovian or someone in the future or whatever. And I think this sort of thinking seems intuitive to most people even if they aren't religious, since religion is such a big part of our culture in general. But if you don't believe in souls then the whole thing immediately falls apart, since "you" are the result of your genetics combined with your specific life history, and if any of that changed then the result wouldn't be you anymore. So the only anthropic arguments that really make sense are the fully non-indexical ones, and the stuff about the mediocrity principle or observer classes just seem like attempts to make the soul-based reasoning seem more rigorous that it really is.

[@juanaq]

congratulations! and thank you for one of the most enjoyable podcasts around.

[@eddieking2976]

Talk starts @8:30

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Congratulations Professor Carroll! ^.^

[@bentationfunkiloglio]

From a free floating Boltzmann Brain and JHU alumnus, welcome to Maryland! Excited to hear about your move to JHU. Profs there are insanely hard working. You should fit in quite well.

[@mrbangkockney]

Happy Birthday! 🍰 🎉 🍾

[@sy11ll15]

Philosophy, cosmology and the Multiverse, first hypothesized by a distant ancestor of mine - Thomas Wright of Byers Green, England circa 18th century. Perhaps a fairly out there theory, notwithstanding said theory I’m pleased to see his drawings are clearly reflected in the representations of the current thinking😎

[@joshuakliveca]

Sean Carrol has discovered the plural to Everything.

[@Tubluer]

Mad thought of the day: IF entropy were a conserved quantity, what would the corresponding fields and particles look like? (I'm thinking on cosmological scales of space and time here, in which entropy might be conserved on average over many cycles of the universe.)

[@ladybirdlee3058]

Another fascinating talk.

[@kaarlimakela3413]

What I like to consider is what will 'emerge' in the future. Going by the past emergences, it could be amazing yet again.

[@watcher8582]

Sounds like an undergrad level math error. Let's cut the R^3 into countable boxes (e.g. given by corner points Z^3 on some scale). Given particles take positions in the continuous R^3, we should have plenty of configurations to choose from, such that we can have one box (our observable universe) that looks entirely different from all the others.

[@michaeljfigueroa]

I wish i could donate to your patreon. All i have to offer is my gratitude

[@martifingers]

We are tremendously lucky to have your contributions across so many disciplines. "Thinking carefully" could be your motto or even a mission statement.

[@grixlipanda287]

Multiverse theory cannot be tested, but it is saying something definite, so it doesn't have the problem of falsifiability, as Popper intended it. The argument about testability and falsifiability has often been used by atheist materialists in the past to counter notions about God. It seems like the argument that you are presenting in favour of multiverse theories could just as easily be applied for God, in that case. And since God is a simpler theory than multiverse theory, it is the more rational explanation.

[@Edgarbopp]

I’m re listening to this. So fascinating.

[@Nchallah-u6z]

I like this idea of “which (you) are you?” (in a many worlds interpretation). It rings true of some type of quantum state or what might be “freedom” or degrees of freedom-that there is “agency” in this version of the universe-that there is “change” and it is actively happening in every now-that something is possible (in contrast to interpretations of time or the future being set in some way). It kind of reminds me of Lee Smolin’s recent idea about how the past is when the quantum becomes definite but that the now (or many worlds quantum wave function) is not definite but “becoming definite” perhaps. I don’t see why this idea this concept of quantum freedom-even in the case of a multiverse-wouldn’t be attractive to philosophy, especially existentialism. Perhaps the multiverse is the only way observers can truly have what we call freedom. Freedom can only exist in a multiverse.

[@caveman4659]

Sean, please have Peter Woit on the podcast. Would love his perspective on ideas like the multiverse/anthropic principle.

[@ecspermusic7470]

lets get a 1000 episodes

[@saniyagamer-xd2oq]

Keep it up sir ❤️❤️❤️❤️ Love from India

[@alexcwagner]

I'm not worried about appearing as a Boltzmann brain somewhere in the deep future of the universe because I'm still waiting for a brain here and now.

[@kevconn441]

What keeps me going is the hope that in some far away part of the universe, or the wavefunction, or in eternity, there is a version of me that understands all this. If there are infinite versions of me... why me? Is there a meta-me?

[@benayers8622]

Ketamine is highly recommended it detatches the conscious from the body.. U can use floatation tanks or pure willpowers too but these can take lots of time and be hard for a closed mind to achieve so imo pushing the threshold with K is a very good way of showing someone untrained the other side.. Unless you can get your hands on a kyrenzov mirror? 1000s of untrained volunteers successfuly used those during a Russian test in the 90s.. We are born with wisdom that education and the system hide from 99% of ppl.. I was lucky enough to escape the brainwash as mum taught me a high level of maths n reading before i ever went school so i made sure to avoid their conditioning and remain myself free will intact! I accidentally taught myself and a friend a version of the cia gateway method too i never knew other ppl let alone the cia could do this stuff till 15yrs later this was 6 months ago wnen i read the gateway files and realized that the govr had been doing what we was doing 10yrs erlier!! Allof us deserve to know thesd skills its our birthright hidden from us at a young age and blocked replaced by ego conditioning and lies because if we remained as nature intended then everyone would be like me immune to lies propagandas and conditioning and that would ruin their hold over the masses.. They learned many things can trigger this during mk ultra and it un brainwashes soldiers whov had deep conditioning so it works miracles for the general public whov had slightly less abuse and training.. Im happy to answer anything i can but if u seek truth then just trust your self and senses above all else and you can become wiser than you could ever imagine.. Tesla knew..

[@robotaholic]

It is funny that such an unlikely and stupid idea as (if you ask me) Boltzman brains can be such a McGuffin for so many theories lol I loved your take down of fine tuning. It is the best refutation of fine tuning I have ever seen. You absolutely vaporized that theory 👍and wlc if you ask me

[@thewiseturtle]

I think that most people who call themselves "philosophers" aren't really doing philosophy. Philosophy is the love of thinking about reality, and the love of exploring all of the diverse models of existence, to figure out how they all fit together, like a puzzle, where all experiences of reality are pieces, and we have to find out where they all fit in to create a wholistic view of everything. If someone is telling you that your "logic is wrong", that's politics, as far as I'm concerned, not philosophy.

[@NathanMcKay199]

I have an observation regarding the multiverse conjecture and our universe. The mathematics of the multiverse stems from the 1 - the probability of the collapsed waveform, and because we know with a high probability because of collapsed waveform. What I observe is that the math is infinitely reducible by decimal, to give "infinite" possibilities. But what about the finiteness of the universe, with a bottom value of Planck's constant? Does Planck's constant limit the number of multiverses, or rule it out entirely because infinite math isn't supported by finite reality?

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

All Life-Unit's is Living Beings, our Local Universe, is a Life-Unit. All Universes is Life-Units, and all Life-Units is in Principle Universes. We might also say that all Life-Units is Life-Cell's. So, the Life-Unit-Princip, and the Perspective-Princip is the Key, to See, the Idea/Reality of Universes.

[@kn9ioutom]

IS THERE EXISTANCE OUTSIDE OF THE SPACE / TIME UNIVERSE ???????

[@4a-yh]

Do other worlds exist equally all in the same thought of energy and matter, too, must be a very great discussing to gather from too

[@aprylvanryn5898]

Assume the event horizon of a black hole creates a holographic representation of the object falling thru. If mass is converted to energy at the singularity and Einstein and Rosen were right about worm holes, could a new universe be created in a worm hole? It would certainly explain why space is expanding faster than the speed of light

[@red8884]

Multiverse seems rather obvious to me, since when you go smaller there are limits; hardly when you go bigger / larger/ hotter

[@joskeguereza3714]

congratulations on 200 awesome podcasts! Thank you so much for doing these!

[@balasubr2252]

Mindscape is indeed an appropriate description for what both the philosophy and the physics disciplines are exploring since the perception seems to be our reality. Can humans ever understand reality without the perception limiting its abilities? If yes, isn’t there a yet another way to describe the multiverse- one in which individuals, languages, values and cultures- become central to our perceived combined reality? Would that perhaps be societal spacetime, language spacetime and words spacetime instead of the cosmological/physical spacetime currently claimed to be studied?Could string theory be applied to the societal spacetime to confirm the link between matter and the abstract thoughts and the energies? And the presence of entanglements among all?

[@cripplingautism5785]

isn't a universe that produces minds less complex than a mind itself? the universe didn't start with minds, they evolved out of simpler conditions. i don't get why boltzmann brains are more likely than these evolved minds.

[@matthewsierleja2193]

"WHY?" Is a query for which science has no solution nor has solving for such abstractions ever been requisite for a perfectly functional science. The task of solving for HOW? Describing the orientations of those solutions in spacetime and the resultant generation of a plurality of brand new "HOWS".

[@honeyj8256]

Wow ,has it been four year’s already.

[@sunroad7228]

One wishes Sean, having now achieved the highest authority over the awareness of all 20th Century Physics, focuses from now on - on the Energy available to the Observer who studies 21st Century Physics - literally, when the fuel tank of the Observer's car is empty, the grid electricity is blacked out for good, and food needs to be self-grown in the backyard. This class of an Observer prioritises what to be understood in Physics and Cosmology - first - for survival. I am confident Sean will realise soon how finite fossil fuels, put on the market cheaper than water, have played havoc with the mind set of the 20th Century Physics and Science. Going to Natural Philosophy - Sean can put the foundations of the 21st Century Physics - where Energy and the 2nd Law are never dismissed: "Energy, like time, flows from past to future".

[@websurfer352]

If it’s true that a successful coherent consistent universe where causality is preserved would be fine-tuned like ours is then the multiverse would definitely consist of a finite number of universes?? I personally don’t think there could be much variation in the laws of physics since the laws are mathematical and mathematics is based on logical entailment?? As in if P then Q. And mathematics in terms of logical entailment is already bare bones, mathematics is pure entailment. Every equation speaks entailment with both sides being equal, so there cannot be much variation or no variation at all in the laws of physics?? Actually the laws of physics we have may be the only variant of any physical laws in any universe?? So, if these laws give rise to fine-tuning in order to birth a logically consistent universe where causality is preserved then the tolerance for physical laws birthing successful universes is very very narrow?? Logical entailment is the glue that keeps a universe that could be called a universe together!!

[@PicturesJester]

Disclaimer unrelated to most of the content in the video - Sean Caroll doesn't understand Popper's theory. He understands most people misunderstand Popper, but he misunderstands him as well. Popper wrote refutations of bayseianism and the theory that theories have credences, that Sean seems to be oblivious about.

[@dennisestenson7820]

1:35:54, I respectfully disagree with this. I think you're conflating the notion of typical observer with the traits a specific observer like one of us might have. A typical observer should simply be defined as a physical entity that interacts with electromagnetism (or any or all 4 fundamental forces if you like). A typical observer need not be in any specific location in space or time or take any specific shape or form. It is clear by that definition that typical observers are abundant in this universe.

[@emceha]

Can a bacterium be an observer? What about Boltzmann bacteria?

[@johnyaxon__]

U can find some antibiotics for your problems with Boltzmann bacteria

[@tatotato85]

This was a pleasure to listen to

[@radishpineapple74]

Skip to 8:39.

[@polkad3v]

I'm sure there was a 'monty hall problem' solution going on at one point, brill.

[@danbreeden5481]

Is there anything to the last paper written by hawking and someone else concerning the smooth exit from eternal inflation

[@joshuacornelius25]

One issue I have with the "observer first" theory and using the qualifier "I" when surmising likelihoods or probabilities is that there is no definition for "I" other than a subjective experience that has no fundamental explanation or actual measurable locality of any real precision. It is impossible for an observer to deduce probabilities of what is unobservable especially when it can't logically assume anything about it's own qualities. An observer can't even predict it's own locality in the future beyond the uncertainty principle, much less anything else about the unobservable universe/multiverse it finds itself in. Any observation is a measurement of the past by definition, and qft clearly shows that the present cannot be precisely predicted by the past because of the uncertainty principle, so an observer can't even predict which "branch" of the multiverse it is currently in, much less which it will be in in the future... So any prediction it attempts to make is not precise and becomes more imprecise the further into the future it is predicting. That of course doesn't make the questions illogical, just fundamentally unknowable unless the hidden variable interpretation turns out to be true and we discover what the hidden variables actually are... Which is unlikely by all the evidence we have today. The more we try to define "I" as the subjective observer, the more we find that "I" becomes an amorphous concept.

[@schmetterling4477]

An observation in physics is an irreversible energy transfer. Everything else follows from that in a more or less trivial fashion.

[@howtheworldworks3]

There actually may be a way to prove the existence of multiverses but I don't think most people will like my answer. What are the two main things that matter and energy are doing repeatedly? 1. Sit in one spot and build stuff. 2. Travel. If these are true then there may several possibilities in witch most of the stuff that makes us did not even start doing 1 and 2 in this universe but they come from other extremely ancient universes who were insanely far at some point both in time and in space. So far in fact that they could be categorised as belonging to other universes compared to our point of reference in the current time and space. Scientists are currently too primitive in their methods to be able to find out all the answers of the universe if all they could figure out was how to smash atomic particles to see what happens. It's like smashing a cow to it's atomic components hoping to find the answer of how was it feeling last year in a particular way. The method of smashing the cow to pieces is obviously not the right way to do that. I gave that analogy to reach to this particular point: What if the one and only way to find out about other universes is by asking the particles that have been there and done that? I am very serious. Currently humans don't know how to do this but maybe in the future there may be a way for humans to communicate with energy itself and ask it where has it been and what it has been doing. If energy is immortal/indestructible then the answer it would give would be to show exactly that past. It would be to show different places and states in witch it has been and it would most probably show that it had done this for an infinite amount of time and that in fact it can never stop doing it. Supposing that what I just said is true, the only way I see for humans to be able to communicate with energy and subatomic particles any time soon would be through the invention of super intelligent AI that could have access to the most tiny bits of information and learn their language in order to have that conversation. And there you go. That's how you can prove and even find out in great detail about all the secrets of the multiverse. Ask the building blocks for the whole story. Good luck. I never said it would be easy :D.

[@kennethadkins8432]

Physics and philosophy has always been curiosity to the max stuff ive enjoyed all my life. They are not two different sides of the same coin but living within the coin and being curious about the same thing maybe take Slightly different approach but yes both real interests and both same thing and different things to say about reality, the membrane manifold we live in that looks more empty and expansive, and is with respect....so worlds within worlds comes about with this logic and observation as far as we can see having scale and worlds within worlds...

[@kennethadkins8432]

Some say that is a more philosophical way of saying it but it is what we conscious beings observe, relatively.

[@lancepaa]

Gotta ask...is the universe aware of itself?

[@schmetterling4477]

Does it look like it cares? ;-)

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Theory of Everything solution: [Short answer] swap from Newton to Leibniz as our fundamental blueprint of the universe. [Long answer] I contend Gottfried Leibniz was correct about the fundamentals of our contingent universe and he just lacked 2022 verbiage and Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra. More importantly is that humanity chose Isaac Newton's "real" universe, calculus, gravity, etc. This was a big mistake. We need to correct this problem. Finishing what Leibniz started (with the intention of destroying what Newton started): [Math; Geometry 0D point] A point is a 0-dimensional mathematical object which can be specified in -dimensional space using an n-tuple ( , , ..., ) consisting of. coordinates. In dimensions greater than or equal to two, points are sometimes considered synonymous with vectors and so points in n-dimensional space are sometimes called n-vectors. 1D = line, straight; two points; composite substance; matter 《0D (point) is exact location only; zero size; not a 'thing', not a 'part'; Monad》 "He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. A being can have a relationship with a God but not the Monad as that would be a contradiction." - The Apocryphon of John, 180 AD. Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the monad as an elementary particle. [Quantum] Quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental 'constituent' of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei. What is another word for quark? fundamental particle, elementary particle. Do quarks take up space? Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space. How fast do quarks move? the speed of light [In mathematics, a tuple is a finite ordered list (sequence) of elements. An n-tuple is a sequence (or ordered list) of n elements, where n is a non-negative integer. There is only one 0-tuple, referred to as the empty tuple. An n-tuple is defined inductively using the construction of an ordered pair] 1st four dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D ✅. 1st four dimensions are not 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D 🚫. Human consciousness, mathematically, is identical to 4D quaternion algebra with w, x, y, z being "real/necessary" (0D, 1D, 2D, 3D) and i, j, k being "imaginary/contingent" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk). 1D-9D 'contingent' universe has "conscious lifeforms" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk)..."turning" 'time'. [In mathematics, a versor is a quaternion of norm one (a unit quaternion). The word is derived from Latin versare = "to turn" with the suffix -or forming a noun from the verb (i.e. versor = "the turner"). It was introduced by William Rowan Hamilton in the context of his quaternion theory.] [Math; 4D quaternion algebra] A quaternion is a 4-tuple, which is a more concise representation than a rotation matrix. Its geo- metric meaning is also more obvious as the rotation axis and angle can be trivially recovered. How do you make a quaternion? You can create an N-by-1 quaternion array by specifying an N-by-3 array of Euler angles in radians or degrees. Use the euler syntax to create a scalar quaternion using a 1-by-3 vector of Euler angles in radians. "Turn" to what, you might ask. 5D is the center of 1D-9D. The breadth (space-time). All 'things' and 'parts' are drawn to the center, the whole. (The Dawn -Book of Cain on the creation of the contingent universe) [Contingent Universe]: 3 sets of 3 dimensions: (1D-3D/4D-6D/7D-9D) The illusory middle set (4D, 5D, 6D) is temporal. Id imagine we create this middle temporal set similar to a dimensional Venn Diagram with polarized lenses that we "turn" by being conscious. Which requires energy. 3D height symmetry/entanglement with 9D absorption is why we are "consumers", we must consume/absorb calories, and sleep, to continue "to turn" 'time' (be alive). 1D-3D spatial set/7D-9D spectral set overlap creating the temporal illusion of 4D-6D set. According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock. Does time exist without space? Time 'is' as space 'is' - part of a reference frame in which in ordered sequence you can touch, throw and eat apples. Time cannot exist without space and the existence of time does require energy. Time, then, has three levels, according to Leibniz: (i) the atemporality or eternality of God; (ii) the continuous immanent becoming-itself of the monad as entelechy; (iii) time as the external framework of a chronology of “nows” The difference between (ii) and (iii) is made clear by the account of the internal principle of change. The real difference between the necessary being of God and the contingent, created finitude of a human being is the difference between (i) and (ii).] 1D, 2D, 3D = spatial composite (line, width, height) 4D, 5D, 6D = temporal illusory (length, breadth, depth) 7D, 8D, 9D = spectra energies (continuous, emission, absorption) Symmetry/entanglement: 1D, 4D, 7D line, length, continuous 2D, 5D, 8D width, breadth, emission 3D, 6D, 9D height, depth, absorption Conclusion: Humanity needs to immediately swap from "Newton" to "Leibniz". Our calculus is incorrect (Leibniz > Newton): What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. Our Universal Constants have convoluted answers. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason fixes this in a day. (FUNDAMENTALS > specifics)

[@nadikim1740]

i cant find you on audea - can you post audio versions of your videos there? would love to listen to them! thanks again for the awesome content!

[@freehat2722]

43:00 Ha thermal equilibrium.

[@daltanionwaves]

Multiverse theories, and string theory, are equally brilliant, in their ability to divert massive amounts of human capital, without making any falsifiable predictions about the real universe we live in. They've also been great for science fiction writers.