Our Universe Is A Math Problem! Max Tegmark’s Brilliant Theory of Reality [Ep. 465]

[@DrBrianKeating]

Is the Multiverse real?

[@invariant47]

no

[@jagatiello6900]

There's a version of the universe where they figured out that the multiverse doesn't exist (with probability 1).

[@innocentsmith6091]

The multiverse is just the platonic realm for materialists.

[@Nochannel00]

@DrBrianKeating Is part 2 available yet? I signed up for the newsletter and joined your KZbin community.❤ I loved this episode and your podcast in general. Thanks for everything you do! I read The Mathematical Universe in hardcover the moment it came out. Highly recommend, even if one doesn’t buy into the “radical” thesis. Fantastic read.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes, in Hollywood

[@Thedudeabides803]

I wish you guys had a weekly podcast together. Two of the best at getting people interested in physics.

[@Jeremy-Ai]

Max, you have demonstrated good leadership. As with all world leaders… I will be honoured to remain silent for 7 days. There is an established effort to support confidence in your decisions and performance. please do whatever needs doing in good confidence. We will talk later. Take care. Jeremy

[@DrBrianKeating]

That would be a blast!

[@IntuitiveIQ]

Happy birthday, Brian. May your podcast do even better this year than last year. 🙏🏻

[@ShubhamKumar-uv6ri]

Right on Schedule!! It's going to be amazing. And, Happy Birthday Brian .

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much!

[@AKA_SIMPLYHUMAN]

Thinking the universe is a mathematical problem “is” the problem. And it started 100 years ago.

[@isatousarr7044]

Max Tegmark's theory, presented in his work "Our Universe Is a Math Problem," offers a bold and revolutionary perspective on the nature of reality. Tegmark, a leading theoretical physicist, proposes that the universe is not just described by mathematics, but that it is mathematics. This audacious idea-known as the **Mathematical Universe Hypothesis**-suggests that all physical entities and phenomena, from subatomic particles to entire galaxies, can be understood as mathematical structures, and the universe itself is a mathematical object that exists independently of our perceptions. What makes Tegmark's theory so compelling is its simplicity and elegance. By embracing the idea that reality is a mathematical construct, he provides a framework that could unify quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. He shows how the laws of physics and the fundamental constants of nature could be seen as the outcome of mathematical relationships, offering a deep, consistent structure to the universe that transcends human cognition.Tegmark’s approach is not only intellectually stimulating but also profoundly visionary. His theory opens up exciting new possibilities for understanding the universe, suggesting that what we see as reality is merely one of an infinite number of mathematical structures that could exist. It offers a fresh perspective on everything from the multiverse to consciousness, urging us to think beyond our conventional views of what “reality” is. For anyone fascinated by the intersections of physics, philosophy, and mathematics, Tegmark’s work is an enlightening and thought-provoking read that challenges the very nature of existence. His ability to distill complex concepts into accessible insights makes this theory a remarkable contribution to modern science, sparking a new way of thinking about our place in the cosmos.

[@wendyg8536]

Love and conciousness is anathema to counting and calculation Our Universe...is a Love poem

[@mikeflannery7219]

I’ve been going down your playlist. Excellent material professor. Max is one of my favorite people to listen to. I believe you will become one of my favorite people to listen to as well. I just received my meteorite piece yesterday. I really appreciate it, It’s so cool having a piece of space debris!

[@keepcalm7453]

Happy birthday, Dr. Keating!!❤❤🎉🎂🎉❤❤

[@calvingrondahl1011]

I like the multiverse interpretation because we want boundaries so we can measure infinity. The speed of light is a boundary that measures our playground. Brian and Max 🖖👍

[@anthonybrett]

"When do you stop trying an experiment." It's a great question. The move Wargames had a core theme about this. The AI computer in the movie could never learn when to give up. That was the lesson it had to learn in the end.

[@vincewatkins8439]

@@anthonybrett it wasn’t a matter of learning when to give up, but rather, learning not to play in the first place.

[@anthonybrett]

@@vincewatkins8439 Quote from the film... Stephen Falken: "The whole point was to find a way to practice nuclear war without destroying ourselves. To get the computers to learn from mistakes we couldn't afford to make. Except, I never could get Joshua to learn the most important lesson." David Lightman: "What's that?" Stephen Falken: "Futility. That there's a time when you should just give up." Joshua had to learn that lesson first... I agree with you, but he could never apply the logic to the wargame without learning there is no way to win.

[@abesimpson9661]

Happy birthday Brian thanks for all the excellent videos🎉🎉🎉

[@100percentSNAFU]

I certainly don't have the credentials to say whether or not I think a multiverse exists, however one thing I can say with relative confidence is that a multiverse no more solves the problem of infinite regression than a single universe does. It's most likely something beyond both of these things that we can't even conceive.

[@jimheaven]

@@100percentSNAFU the multiverse doesn’t exist. If this universe emerges from mathematical fundamentals then any universe emerges in the same way along the same lines. The multiverse suggests there is different maths, but there is not. Pi is pi….whatever universe you are in. The universe emerges from pure fundamentals maths and therefore this universe is not only the only universe, but the only universe that can be….

[@yalexander9432]

@jimheaven . Another universe will always follow logic because math is logic. But the values of the fundamental constants and the fundamental physics can be different.

[@blijebij]

Happy belated birthday! Reality is more complete then Math!

[@JungleJargon]

I suggest letting the observations guide our theories. There are plenty of unexplained observations that would be useful in helping our understanding.

[@mjhzen8313]

Mathematical equations don't "rule" the universe, they describe the universe. Our universe is NOT a "math problem". Mathematics has a reality problem.

[@mensaswede4028]

Interesting, my opinion is the exact opposite of yours. Neither of us can prove it, but we all have an opinion!

[@ky-effect2717]

So this approach backs the many worlds theory I believe. It’s a controversial one because the possibilities are seemingly endless without seeing the horizon of experiment to back its claims. But there isn’t another complete solution to this problem yet. Something has to give and for now, I have to agree also with this approach. I come to accept we might never find a theory of “everything “ because there will be no end of knowledge and thus no end to science.

[@v2ike6udik]

naah, math pretty much rules the universe. the problem with math is that it is not precise. lets call it pseudo math. do remember the meme. "Go to university. Forget about everything they have thought you." It´s all scam in that sense. Forever scam. And on top of that we have consciousness that is self-reflecting machinery. As Ziunist Froggo Pordan Jesterson would say: "It´s complicated, you see."

[@v2ike6udik]

ahh, btw, there is no time. future has already happened. but you have an ability to change the future, switch the perceived timeline. precognition is not just fantasy. Cultural fantasy is hide the truth in plain sight. And it use used to keep us slaves in the matrix. They collect our suffering. And then sell this sht (for mocking) as "well, earth is a school". It´s a fkngprison.

[@Karmicinnovations]

@@mjhzen8313 heavy

[@nunomaroco583]

Happy Birthday, Max incredible ideas too....

[@IzudeDarkwolf]

Happy birthday!

[@tomaspocius2223]

Happy Birthday 🎉

[@Zurround]

Most of what he says makes no sense to me at all and that is WHY I enjoy listening so much.

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

Love his reference to human life as "meat bags" LOL

[@SONALI-w2s]

Brilliant explanations .

[@dodgingrain3695]

There are no true equations. Math is an abstraction, and abstraction is never going to match reality. The fundamentals of math are not sufficient and we are building on something that will never work out.

[@ky-effect2717]

As far as the the probability of the existence of intelligent life in our universe, I do believe it’s very small, because it seems to me there’s a connection of our “collective consciousness” that’s involved with the reality of our universe in order to have the perspective of its existence in the first place. Thus, theres simply isn’t enough “room” for the existence of some different “alien” intelligence. But this needs more definition for clarity because I don’t simply rule out the existence of intelligent life just that it might not exist in the same universe as us.

[@pastorastafari]

Happy Birthday 👍🏼

[@isaklytting5795]

34:08. This is beautiful. Thank you Max.

[@TroyYoung-hg8qd]

Great chat ,soo cleverly eye opening.Reminds me whilst our species forged forward and left the trees.We are yet to leave the jungle or jungle mentality. Wish our geographical leaders could lead us as loving stewards of our planet to show us how unity and a love for each other and our planet is the best outcome ❤😊 So easy right …Max..Brian 👏👏👏

[@saibalmitra776]

Our brain simulates a virtual world based on information from our environment that we obtain via our senses. We directly experience this virtual world, not the real world. So, our consciousness, the fact that experience things that do not exist at the level of the universe like e.g. pain, is evidence for the thesis that all algorithms define their own realities. You could, of course, argue that the universe does instantiate the algorithms that our brains are running. But the question of what consciousness is, is i.m.o. best answered by saying that it is the algorithm that describes it.

[@darthjarwood7943]

When you are a hammer you will only see nails

[@matt5742]

I thought the same exact thing. Falling into the trap believing that the symbols used to describe reality are the actual reality is about as hardware store interpretation as you can get.

[@gfargonetoo1]

@@darthjarwood7943 Yaaaa…, this is very common in science. Lacking actual evidence we just make more equations.

[@jasongillis1336]

Thank God for math!

[@subhuman3408]

16:15 true man. We all have one belief in life

[@paragpotdar3172]

Happy birthday 🎂🎉🎊

[@markwrede8878]

Our best model of reality will be a math problem.

[@center__mass]

Max is on ,I'm in

[@aeaf123]

It's a math problem that never runs out of questions to ask or solutions. Each solution creates more questions. More exploration.

[@mad_muhammad]

The real question is why?

[@aeaf123]

@mad_muhammad I personally like that there is always a why question. Making peace with the why, and I think just gratitude for having a why.

[@100percentSNAFU]

There's the possibility also that "why" is just a human construct, and things in reality just are. I personally don't really like that explanation, but I also wouldn't rule it out.

[@aeaf123]

@100percentSNAFU I suppose I see it is as even if things just "Are" as a reality, we still get to have the why. Just like we always have. I am also of the mind that the Big Bang itself is likely just a picture or frame/snapshot so to speak of something far greater we cannot conceive... It's just that we have this tendency to think of things in terms of beginnings and endings because our own human life has a beginning and ending... Still trapped in this kind of hubris of forms that we cannot escape.

[@mad_muhammad]

What are we trying to accomplish as a species? It seems like our most brilliant minds spend their every waking hour searching for another planet to devour. Are we Termites?

[@JungleJargon]

Just because the measurements in other galaxies are similar to our measurements doesn’t mean that the measurements between galaxies are the same.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

If there are measurements between the galaxies, we would know if they were the same or not. I fail to see your point.

[@JungleJargon]

@ That’s part of the problem. There’s nothing to measure and there’s no mass to slow time or shorten distance.

[@lukaszwinchulla4327]

amazing how far it went wrong... madness those theories

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Happy birthday I know you wanted it otherwise you wouldn't have said it 🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@slofty]

The map is not the territory. Maths / formalized sets of axioms function as a DESCRIPTION. _Ding an sich,_ people. Now make sure you count from one and up starting with your pinky, otherwise they’ll catch on!

[@morphixnm]

Why say the universe is mathematical? That it is open to measurement and mathematization does not mean that IT is mathematical. How about putting some thought to the idea that there is something necessary in the nature of things such that specific order must exist for ANYTHING to exist, and therefore the same regarding all physical relationships. This is different than inserting math into the nature of things, where math is said to BE their nature. It is a question of ontology and whether we should reify numbers and geometric forms, as the Pythagoreans and Platonists did. Are numbers about things or are things about numbers?

[@ephimp3189]

100% agree that all long term advanced civilizations will not be biological, or at least not naturally evolved, but engineered

[@Berend-ov8of]

Our universe (the one you and I exist in) is the universe, which is not a problem. The notion there could be more versions of something, that by grace of its definition can't be more versions of, excludes the relevance of the material existence of actual other universes, so that's okay. Forementioned notion is based on the conviction that the universe is fundamentally mathematical, which in its turn is based on the commonly accepted idea that mathematics describes physical reality, which fortunately it doesn't, so that's okay too. Mathematics as the ultimate rabbit hole, describes the organization of common factors in among other things the physical reality, with those factors in themselves being stricktly conceptual, so it literally doesn't matter. The possibility to produce ever more refined mathematics, leading to ever more accurate descriptions of those common factors, does neither guarantee nor exclude ever being done with that, so that's a leap of faith. Similar to that, the reason why quantum mechanics and relativity cannot be combined, is because the one explains calculations, whereas the other calculates explanations. They exist in conceptually different dimensions, or if that makes it easier to understand, different universes.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Petty comment: No, mathematics is a paradigm, vocabulary, grammar, and logic of ratios. The universe can be (and must be) described with ratios. The universe isn't mathematical. In fact, if anything it's computational (discrete) and NOT mathematical (continuous). If you grasp that mathematics (meaning mathematical reasoning) is universally statistical, and not operational (meaning computational reasoning) then you will make fewer errors in modeing the universe. We can rather easily say that the failure of physics over the past thirty or more years is due to 'mathiness' (as we call it in economics) which means failing to have an operational (meaning physical) model. Hence, please study the quantum background. If we have the background model, the standard model, and the einsteinian model of relativity we have three models to make commensurable. And if it's not obvious, that will only be possible if we begin with an operational model at the quantum background. ANd it's not as though no work has been done at that subject. But trying to harmonize the standard model with relativity has failed largely because there is no physical model (and space time is a bit of a fudge that's made it worse). Why? The information present is insufficient for the disambiguation of phenomenon without the physical model. And unnecessary because, as odd as it may seem, the universe is consistent at all scales. CD, NLI

[@suncat9]

Consciousness is definitely a part of our reality, and it IS NOT based on mathematics, or any mathematical or geometric structure. I just falsified Dr. Tegmark's theory as presented in this video.

[@robertferraro236]

The Universe is not a mathematical structure, it is a geometric structure definable by mathematics. Yes, indeed, the equations mentioned at the beginning of the video have been discovered. They will be published in 2025, along with a newly discovered grand constant that quantifies reality.

[@figo88figo]

quantum and relativity, are just flavors of the day, in place for 100 years, as mainstream, with gaping holes all the while, what's the next flavor for pop culture physics.? and this is just pop culture level here.

[@nathanroberson]

Yea! I love Max

[@JonnyCodona-fs6bo]

Hi, I haven't received the link to the second part of this podcast. 😕

[@ramonbrescovici8970]

Awesome!

[@gregoryhead382]

energy of a photon with a wavelength the size of the visible universe = (m_CQ ℓ_CQ a_H), was a mathematical problem to multiply the gravity of a photon with 3 Einstein cosmological constants. Now, it is a Physics equation. 🌊

[@bobbymcgeorge]

There's something else but it's not other Universes

[@Nudnik1]

Except all maths are not perfect or solvable often do not match physical experiment conducted.

[@isaklytting5795]

Great chemistry.

[@daveozip4326]

I am frustrated and slightly annoyed that mathematics has ‘taken over’ physics. Let me state clearly that maths does not drive physics - rather maths represents physics. Period. I love Max and have a lot of respect for his work and I have followed his trajectory for a long time. But he is deluded. At the smallest levels, right down at the Planck limit, mathematics will play a huge role, in particular geometry. But it is still not physics. As for multiverse - like string theory, it is a great way for scientists to pay down their mortgage, but creating unprovable models only achieves that one goal, it has nothing to do with science. Dragons be here…

[@andyroth619]

Yom huledet sameach 🥂

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

13:28 ultimately we live in a imperfect world and we have imperfect mathematical structures because of that... With our current mathematical system it becomes less accurate when approaching towards Infinity... If we face shift to the Terrence Howard system with a plus one on the multiplication side and a -1 on the division side then this maintains the same Fibonacci spiral sequence and it becomes less accurate when approaching zero instead... Under this system decimals don't really work and become negatives because zero represents true zero... X*0=X and X÷0=X just as multiplication was made to simplify chains of addition division was made to simplify chains of subtractito therefore if we do the plus one on the multiplication side then we must do the -1 on the division side... What does system you can see as it approaches down towards zero it starts to become non-linear but it only starts to become non-linear near zero... Under our current mathematical system we have pushed this problem out towards infinity and have accuracy increasing as we approach zero. We can calculate this difference and hopefully be able to overlay the two systems on top of each other and calculate the curve that we have when approaching down towards zero and overlay it so it overlays on the curve towards Infinity so we can increase the accuracy of our mathematical structures and start to solve the disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics... I really wish someone would have me on their podcast. I really wish the government didn't just keep me dominated and stuck...

[@WayOfAges]

Math measures and describes everything but it does not explain anything.

[@MorisHenline]

Explain what? The idea of meaning or explanation is purely human and doesn’t exist beyond our pitiful imagination, it applys to nothing

[@WayOfAges]

@ Anything.

[@lifeisgood339]

I disagree with the idea that technology should replace biology. Organic life is superior in many ways-it self-heals and has quantum-level computation. Instead of replacing biology, we should hack it and build on it to augment ourselfs. But this was a really entertaining interview thank you.

[@mad_muhammad]

Yes, but we are emotional and thus irrational. Machines are not burdened by this handicap.

[@lifeisgood339]

@mad_muhammad I think you're still missing it

[@JKDVIPER]

I have a theory. What if gravity is no more than the speed of a falling fluid?

[@MegaDeano1963]

Pleasure to watch two next level clever guys . But is a multiverse ever going to be provable science ? .

[@branimirsalevic5092]

Reality is a mathematical structure if you are a mathematician.

[@mykofreder1682]

If gravity is the support of space that is continuously reduced by matter and sent out to have the desired local effects, but is not reversable. What becomes of the used and maybe reused support with billions of years of matter doing its thing is not simple. Low and high spots may affect things like weather, the initial light speed radiation from large sources of gravity may affect things and create turbulence. Making assumptions and measurements, followed by models that may resemble weather forecast may be the best anyone ever does, a simple set of equations for such a complex system has been proven a certain failure. Most space is empty may simplify, but the grouped matter affect may be larger than anyone would think compared to the simple assumptions taken from local to matter gravity we can measure and observe.

[@mensaswede4028]

I really favor the MUH (mathematical universe hypothesis) over all other explanations of why anything exists, but I don’t think we’ll find the real equations. It seems unlikely that they would fit on a t-shirt, given that we live in a universe that is an equation randomly plucked from all possible equations that just so happens to create sentient beings.

[@johnhetherington8830]

I would rather not be referred to as a meat bag

[@mw-th9ov]

Lots of dreaming in technicolor about universal general intelligence.... That comment about the likelihood of intelligent life within shouting distance being less than one in two as the result of a complex bayesian calculation was as funny as it is uninformative as in "lets flip a coin"!

[@losingthenobelprize4494]

Too much fun🎉

[@petrospetroupetrou9653]

How is the verb "is" used in The Universe IS a Mathematical Structure.?

[@chanpol321]

The idea that our universe has only mathematical properties is a fascinating concept proposed by physicist Max Tegmark. He suggests that the universe is not just described by mathematics, but that it is mathematics. This theory, known as the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, posits that all physical entities and phenomena can be understood as mathematical structures, and the universe itself is a mathematical object that exists independently of our perceptions. Tegmark's theory aims to provide a unified framework that could explain the laws of physics, the fundamental constants of nature, and even the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. By viewing reality as a mathematical construct, it offers a deep, consistent structure to the universe that transcends human cognition. It's a bold and revolutionary perspective that challenges our conventional views of reality. What do you think about this idea?

[@kirkturner8872]

One of the major sightings was touted as definitive poof, was actually a seagull. So yeah, a lot of nonsense.

[@Albiee0]

Happy bday

[@slofty]

The map is not the territory. Maths / formalized sets of axioms function as a DESCRIPTION. _Ding an sich,_ people. Now make sure you count from one and up starting with your pinky (get it?).

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I like to let people know that if a planet has a hot core then there is a built-in butter zone under the crust of that planet where life can potentially exist... A core is a heat source...

[@geraldeichstaedt]

I see a considerable overlap between Max Tegmark's points of view and my own ones. I just disagree with one fundamental thing. And that's his 4-level (metaphysical) multiverse. In my best understanding of mathematics, there is no finite hierachy in mathematics, and no notion of everything, or of all mathematics, in an absolute sense. So, Max Tegmark's 4-level multiverse can only be a choice of a first four levels within an unlimited, even in the sense of outside the notion of ordinal numbers, of nestings. That said, yes I agree that our universe is presumably isomorphic to, and hence indistiguishable from, a model of a mathematical theory. Starting from this, very roughly speaking, you'll get a "large" (the size of a proper class in GB set theory) network of morphisms interconnecting all mathematics within the ZFC set-theoretical framework. This would correlate to the 4th level multiverse. But that's only the first step. This structure itself is only one object in a network of 5th level multiverses. Then take the structure of all 5th level multiverses to form a first 6th level, and so on. Once this sequence is continued to any finite level, unite all finite levels to obtain the first infinite (omega) level. It doesn't end here, at all, but I'll conclude my comment at that first transfinite level.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

1:22 we are THE planet lol 🤣 that's awesome 👍🏼

[@ClaudeEnckels]

Congratulations ! world has no limits, no beginning, no end big bang is a collision the TRUE world is a world of abstractions abstractions CAN create matter

[@bentonpix]

Does the state and presence of infinity, which is not quantifiable, intersect with and affect the quantifiable in the universe?

[@gnome963]

No one can or ever has figured out God.

[@drMerényiAttilaBoxdokiSsdCoach]

Roger Penrose looks the best. CCC is the best, inflation can be true regardless, it is true along with that. He would get a Nobel Prize if he managed to find the initial gravitational waves. Dark energy seems to be slowing down. Great news. There is no dark matter. Gravity needs to be re-evaluated. In the Bohr-Einstein debate, the ball was in Bohr's court for a long time, but now Einstein is winning again. This party is good.

[@riversun12]

reality is your life

[@luigicantoviani323]

Max has to be one of the most 'lost in math' delusional academics out there. How beautiful academy is....gives some people the freedom to ramble and explore nonsensical out of touch with reality stuff. Guth .....the same.

[@winstongludovatz111]

There aren't any different systems of logic used in the mathematics needed for physics. It is completely ridiculous mentioning modus ponens or modus tollens from propositional logic. At most you can consider restricting the axiom of choice as you need at least the functional analysis of separable Frechet spaces.

[@vernlindbergs3221]

Mathematics is just a tool to help describe reality, it is not reality.

[@Mr.Anders0n_]

True, but the question remains to why nature lends itself to mathematical description through physical laws and equations

[@onemediuminmotion]

Occam's TOE (my nickname for the below summarized, which I hope is worthy of our esteemed friend's moniker): By Einstein's Equivalence Principle, a particulate mass object held suspended at a specific height above the Earth's surface -- i.e. at a specific radial distance from the Earth's single point gravitational center of mass -- is being subjected to a constant point radially outward (vertically upward) accelerating force of, and thereby undergoing a rate of proper acceleration upward at, 32 ft/sec**2. The instant this mass object is released, it's vertical acceleration with respect to the Earth's single point gravitational center of mass ceases, and the still-"point radially outward" accelerating ["3D"] surface of the Earth rushes upward to catch up with and overtake the now 'stationary' (traditionally understood and referred to as "falling") mass object and slams into it at a relative velocity determined by the vertical distance from ("height above") the Earth's surface from which the object was released -- or equivalently -- a relative velocity ("kinetic energy") determined by the "time" [as defined by and in terms of the relative (e.g. cyclic) motions of other mass bodies at the same relative "size" scale] elapsed since the object's vertical acceleration ceased being applied by the platform from which it was released (a.k.a. "during which it was in freefall toward the Earth's surface"). If we reword, and correspondingly re-conceptualize, the scenario in this way, we recognize that the "3 dimensional" spatial extension of a mass-object (such as the planet we call "Earth") is actually a point radial extension in space constituted by that body's sustained (and progressively increasing rate proportional to the radial distance of its surface from its gravitational center) point-radial acceleration -- which we might validly conceptually reorient ourselves to recognize and understand as being the constitution of that body as a 'package' (if you will) of "[pure, I claim,] point-radial momentum", which we contemporary humans observe -- by means and in terms of the sequential impingements of multiple light waves with that surface -- and otherwise experience, and traditionally linguistically refer to ("indicate" to each other and internally conceptually "index") as its "inertial mass". Note that, since the velocity of light is (taken by we "human" likewise mass-"observer"-objects as a baseline universal) "constant", any acceleration [such as that undergone point-radially by the "3D spatially extended outer surface" of a mass-object], as a continuous [over/as "time"] change in velocity (e.g. by definition), constitutes a (sustained over/as "time") displacement from the constant velocity of light "during the time" (manifested by those multiple light wave/"photon" impingements) that acceleration takes place. Note also that, because acceleration is a continuous change in the velocity of a mass-body's (relative) motion, proper acceleration can be described as a state of "self-relative motion" -- that is, as "motion relative to itself [through/as space over/as time]". [Following is my likewise relevant, and elaborative upon the above, commentary response to Veritasium's "Hidden Universes" video:] [Note as well that] In a hyperbolic geometry universe, the "distance", as perceived/measured in terms of other spatially extended (i.e. mass) objects by the "observer" (as also a mass object) at/as its "center", to the edge of the universe -- defined as the distance the light of the Big Bang has thus-far traveled -- is effectively infinitely far away in every direction around that center (of mass), in the same sense that the event horizon of a black hole would be to any mass-body "inside" of it. However, to an "observer" (with mass) who is "outside" of a black hole's event horizon, both the black hole's spatially extended "size" (diameter) and its "distance" away "appear" to (in terms of multiple sequentially impinging light waves) and are measured (as described above) by him to be "finite". So, what's going on here? Might it be, perhaps, that the (unseen) path of individual light waves/"photons" from one particulate (i.e. asymptotically "finite"-bounded) mass object to another is hyperbolic, while the "motion" relative to each other at subluminal velocity (as necessitated by their reciprocal multi-light wave impingement manifested "appearance" to each other) motion of individual particulate mass objects relative to each other is "linear"? And what are these "separate individual" particulate mass objects, as manifested to "each other" in terms of multiple sequentially impinging light waves, but ["gravitational (as "curved spacetime") lens"-focused] "standing waveforms"? And if this be the case, then this "material universe" of particulate mass objects (including our own, and each other's physical bodies, which comprise the "contents" of one another's "consciousness", if you will) clearly comprises a single "self-configuring" network of spatially distributed I/O (of infrared light waves, at a minimum, due to their > 0 degrees Kelvin temperature) devices -- i.e. as a single 'self-aware entity' that has 'settled upon' (again, if you will) this "network" architecture as the mechanism of its self-constructing 'manifestation' of itself to itself. As Descartes declared to be the foundational premise of his philosophy, "Cognito ergo sum" ([or "SUM" for "(in the absence of its self-relative motion) Scale-Uniform Medium", if I may be so bold] there must be a "me" for me to be conscious of, and to contemplate and conjecture the "existence" of, such as I've linguistically encoded and shared with you my body's 'on-board' "conceptual", i.e. neurological, map of [as (part of) its operational sensory-environment response "program"] here). So, fellow Anthropos Cartographer (or, if you prefer the Greek, "homo cartographus") species members, why don't we consider where we might take this 'epic story' (linguistically encoded neurological map) of ourselves from here.

[@galenvanbrok]

Isnt Godel's incompleteness theory a refutation that any logically self-consistent syntax can explain reality? If all you have is mathematics all problems look like a nail.

[@nathangonzales2661]

Right.. this video isn't even fringe science. It's "Cringe Science"

[@BillyThetit]

I don't understand how AI will enable us to explore the galaxy or even the universe. Even AI can not exceed the speed of light as far as we know.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

22:14 in the world of artificial abundance it would not be monetarily driven... You would have algorithms basically to figure out whether or not that was the best use of the satellite because the use is what matters at that point not the money... The most efficient use of that vehicle would be what a truly Smart and advanced society would push for because their mindset will be about advancing the collective and not the individual person corporation or entity.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

@Zen-d1z what do you mean no are you saying you want to promote the individual person corporation or entity‽

[@zdzislawmeglicki2262]

I've always wondered if an AI would arrive at the same laws of quantum mechanics if it was presented with known experimental data. Perhaps it would arrive at a non-linear formulation that would be strikingly different?

[@ikeax4892]

yes

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

26:42 I would say infinitely small... You're not considering the odds of you being the sperm that made it into the womb... When you consider that you need to push your numbers near Infinity! And if we follow the logical progression of the spatial dimensions infinite amounts of the previous dimension can stack in any size version of the next dimension... Given this if the third dimension is the highest spatial dimension we should observe the relative state or shape of our universe as spherical or evenly distributed in all directions... This is not what we observe we observe it as relatively flat which means there is a higher spatial dimension... Time can be considered a spatial dimension because it can stack infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality inside of all of its existence... Time is how we explain the fourth dimension... We have logical proofs that this fourth dimension exists and that means infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality exists... Remember there's infinite different three-dimensional realities where different sperm cells made in two different bodies and made totally different 3d worlds... Its truly infinite here if we just follow the logic based off our observations. When we know that we're dealing with the world of fundamental infinities built into the system then we can start to account for these better. I created this function X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³ this function is true because a square function means length and width only whereas a cubed function means length width and depth... The moment that depth is added in infinite amounts of two-dimensional planes can stack into any size three-dimensional existence because now you have depth... So you can stack as many two-dimensional areas as you want and they can never equal a cubed function thus X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Typically when I switch universe versions whatever is new in that universe version that was not part of the previous three-dimensional universe I came from will be Shown to me so I can know... These are basically Mandela effects. I have a lot more universal potentiality because I am completely open to whatever happens in our three-dimensional reality therefore whenever I need to switch universal potentiality I have plenty of potentiality because my mind is not shut down to the only one universe version... I go with the flow.

[@CharlieMarno100]

That’s what my rabbi tells me.

[@comrad011]

That's what happens when you abandon observational and experimental science and listen to the mysticism these mathematicians are talking about

[@asdfqwerty-u9n]

maybe "hidden" dimesion has he same problem as particals you cant know thier location and the other thing at the same time as you researhers what - you can only knew one -you know there are hidden dimension and thats all you will ever know -not where

[@vincewatkins8439]

The universe is NOT a math problem. Math is a model. You may as well be a numerologist.

[@MorisHenline]

The universe is all about how its part relate to each other. Math describes those relationships and how those actions are governed. That is Math, get an education

[@vincewatkins8439]

@ how fortunate that you’ve figured out “what the universe is all about.” I’m sure the JWST’s discoveries have been no surprise to you as they have bullied other mathematicians. And that clever ad hominem at the end… pure arithmetical bliss. Since the universe is a math problem, why do you even need the JWST. You’ve got enough data to solve it all. Now how old is the cosmos again? How many parts we talkin? Governed how? And by what? Infinite? Or just big? Other life? Or just us? Where’s the math on that? Or do you call the increasingly stupid Drake equation math? “Our Universe?” Doesn’t he mean “The Universe?” The many worlds theory has mere counting wrong in its efforts at numerology. I mean “math.”

[@donaldkasper8346]

We describe what we see with math but that does not prove the universe runs on our math.

[@sapien6230]

If reality is a "structure" does that imply free will is an illusion?

[@esorse]

Doesn't 'of indefinite duration' confound either infinity, a finitely bound sequence with an infimum and supremum, or both, with relativistic time as the duration of the motion between items ; ini true that nothing can be confirmed, mereley not falsified so far?

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I will say in defense of Elon Musk and the starlink constellation he is also creating the starship which will be reusable and will be able to launch space based telescopes for incredibly cheap... So yes he is creating a obstruction with the starlink constellation but it also creates connectivity and trackability for multiple military purposes and Elon Musk is giving giving scientists lower cost to better technology aka the space telescopes that will be able to be launched on a starship just imagine a James Webb design launched on a starship... Also they are talking about being able to launch a thin membrane and use lasers like actuators to deform and deflect the membrane to make a perfect massive differential telescope.

[@gastronic]

Now don't you guys start feeling stupid after the landings in 2027, cuz there's no way you could have suspected anything. 🙈

[@ricke6854]

The entire world started feeling stupid after Nov 5th

[@ronsykes5035]

Only the dielectric vortex technology by Ronald Frederick Sykes has the fastest rate of induction delivering superior levitation for your personal spacecraft Understanding the dielectric vortex technology by Ronald Frederick Sykes open s the doorway to understanding the universe 😊