Multiverse = Bad Science?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 07. 2023
- Win a meteorite briankeating.com/list What is the multiverse? Is it bad not only for science but for society ? Find out in this fun chat with my Friend Robert Kuhn of @CloserToTruthTV
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
Eric Weinstein vs. Stephen Wolfram • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Sir Roger Penrose: • Nobel Prize in Physics...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • “I Don’t Care About Yo...
Avi Loeb: • UFOs & UAPs: The Situa...
Follow me to ask questions of my guests:
🏄♂️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 Subscribe czcams.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list; just click here briankeating.com/mailing_list
✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.com/blog.php
🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: briankeating.com/podcast
#universe #podcast #briankeating #intotheimpossible #science #astronomy #cosmology #cosmicmicrowavebackground
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - Věda a technologie
![Adam Frank: Are We About To Discover Aliens? [Ep. 425]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajSz9ljfsFc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
*_Is the Multiverse real science? Or is it pseudoscience? Let me know 👇_*
What about some of both, as many science has been until really proven? 🤘
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Any claim of expansion has to involve a supernatural realm.
@@John777Revelation Here, let us help you. Fine tuning does not require a material or immaterial fine tuner.
What other alternative is there, that also couldn't be considered the same?
I live by the rule "If it doesn't have any measurable effects, then it makes no difference one way or the other." Therefore, I wouldn't waste my time on it. When someone has an experiment that can measure something, then it's worth paying attention to.
not just time being wasted, but a whole lot of money paying people who are proposing things which can not ever be tested.
@@rayw7960 They sell LOTS of books and sound smarter than the average academic to the laymen.
Dr. B we’re at a “Rosetta Stone” discovery level moment in time regarding other dimensions and their inhabitants - Movies still mean things.
@@JustinLanier Nah, it's totally unnecessary speculation. Gravity is already unified with QM, they just don't understand it yet. It doesn't require strings, extra dimensions, or multiverses to work, and since there is no evidence of such things, believing in them just slows down progress.
I think it's bad science specifically our inability to deal with infinite sets and an example of Occam's new academic razor response to fine-tuning
wonderful exchange. i enjoyed the eloquence
Glad you enjoyed it!
I suppose it's the same question about "are we living in a simulation"
Love Brian. Great channel with amazing guest interviews.
More to come!
"Shut up and calculate" has now been superseded by "shut up and build stuff".
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks there is a bias in the physics community I call it Occam's academic razor😊 you understand what you're saying isn't very elegant
A chat got Convo i had
I just can't understand whatsoever how anyone thinks that all of this was a mistake I'm guessing it's mostly just people pissed off at some event in their life that made them hate religion or simply don't want to feel like there are any consequences so they can do what they want
“Shut up and calculate” had as a consequence about a 100 years of very little amount of questioning the foundations of qm. So instead of “shut up and measure” science should say: “keep questioning the foundations of theories that end up in multiverses”.
The origin of life is a more serious problem to biologists than the origin of the Universe is to physicists.
The multiverse and origin of life. This is the god question rounded. Reclining in a dimension before dimension was a thought. In the beginning was a static, recline did it as it dreamed; it's dream was restricted by nothing, it dreamed of an escape, no thing dreamed in no thing. There was nothing. Consciousness a sum that creates more out of nothing aroused the creature that escaped from no thing. The battle began.
It's an unfalsifiable idea. Maybe gravitational wave astronomy may play a part one day. The 'hum' of the multiverse lol.
So is god. This is fun. We're having fun.
4:11 RLK: _“Some would say … we should discard the multiverse because we cannot … know whether it exists.”_ The hidden assumption in this line of reasoning is that multiverses reside in an encompassing space much like the xyzt space that one inertial frame observer sees in _our_ universe. Given that local xyzt frames lack universality even within our universe, why should multiverses be that parochial?
A simpler view is that multiverses stay co-located until they develop enough structure to make separations meaningful. This does not forbid universe-to-universe collisions, but it does require co-located universes first to build complexity in layers. Far from being experimentally inaccessible, these co-located multiverses would be so visible to each other that we would interpret them as parts of a single unit.
For over a century, broken symmetries have played a major role in physics theory, but are these many perplexing similarities and occasional sharp contrasts trying to tell us a deeper story? Are they fragments of a co-located multiverse whose layered complexity finally reached the point of enabling the separation of concepts we know as space and time?
(added a title, "Broken Symmetries as Evidence of Co-Located Multiverses," and 2 figures)
That moment in time is when we observe our singularity in the continuity we try so hard to keep far from our view. We live in a singularity, a block in the chain that has the potential of the observer of it's environment.
I never miss an upload from 'Closer To Truth' CZcams channel!
Thanks for watching!
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
Time taken in stocking energy to build an energy system, adding to it the time taken in building the system will always be longer than the entire useful lifetime of the system.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
Interesting conversation. I'm still perplexed with plank time, Plank length, etc. These seem to indicate a limit in the micro world, logic dictates (my logic at least) then that there must be an upper limit in the macro world, an inverse Plank length or maximum size in any direction. Then what happens when the universe hits this limit in all directions? Does that spawn a new universe perhaps? One with a new timeline as well (because there's also a maximum time length too?) ?
Yes,if you imagine that in 1 attosecond light would be able to cross 3 hydrogen atoms,yet you have zepto,yocto ten planck each orders of magnitude shorter and I'm not sure about the Planck,imho,here our physics break down.
Just watched Joe Rogans most recent podcast with Stephen C Meyer, they talked a bit about some of the weird think behind multiverse theory, good listen as well.
Something was off with Meyer. We need Matt Dillahunty to go on and debate this guy. It’s Christian BS
@@patrickl6932 RIGHT?? I loved seeing Joe call him out, someone has to do it.
@@patrickl6932 u mean Matt " i don't know there for u don't know either " dillahunty
The significance of the question of multi dimensions lay in the single information environment of a singularity. Schrodinger's cat. The presents of an observer and the potential of that observed.
This is the longest countdown to a premiere I've ever seen, better be good 🤔
Been here since last week 😆
@@HouseJawn I gnore you. Dr. Brian Keating - stare into the abyss. That's one of ten comments. I would venture a thought, were I you
Aren't there infinite n=0 scenarios we can imagine?.. So what are we accomplishing by entertaining any of them? Other than an exercise in open-mindedness and exploration of analogy?
Thank you for this.
It's an ad infinitum proposal in that why not think of Meta universes of universes and then meta of meta universes. If it just means Island universes separated due to inflation then it just refers to an infinite universe in another form as one cannot posit a specific no of universes in. Multiverse. If it refers to ones with differing constants then question is what mechanism permits generation of multiple universes with diff constants. But a cosmological multiverse is still palatable compared to the Everett all worlds! (Don't tell Sean 😅)
Multiple universes depend on the state of the observer. A singularity is a state of potential absent of an observer. When observers enter the singularity multiples become reality. Multiple dimensions depend on what the observer makes of what it sees. We see multi dimension, That doesn't mean reality.
They have been discussing string theory for many years why not the Multiverse?
Right up there with the usage of infinity in mathematics. A convenient fiction.
It's not bad science. It's not science.
You’re not real
Constant energy is a nice law.
I think all theories are good if you can extract learning from a model, or you discover something entirely different,maybe completely unrelated. From my casual observations everything from micro to macro has patterns that repeat, it’s only the variables that make them distinguishable. So study whatever beings you joy! Or do something else more fun.
I think it’s incorrect to call it pseudoscience because it’s philosophy - the root of all our sciences.
Science didn’t exactly exist until what was philosophy was able to shown by experiment and prediction.
The end- yeah, you guys are SO smart and well educated- that just going intellectually off-roading or free-ranging (like that Sweet faced Lex Fridman). The whole planet is a science adventure retreat 😂
"Is the Multiverse Bad Science?!" No!
It's a very interesting idea, but at some point, if you can't prove the existence of that Multiverse, you'll have to move on! 🤔
📍7:02
Yes
lol bing AI wouldn't give me eric weinstein's multiverse take. I can only assume generating his answer via the original 1 trillion parameter LLM, is like trying to render crysis on an atari 2600
Even bing knows it's limits 😆😆
@@ScreamingatWhispers sparks of super intelligence in my browser then lol?
Be careful you might accidentally create another universe 😆😆
@@ScreamingatWhispers Is eric's full name so powerful that can cause uncontrolled positive feedback loops in a neural net's latent space like an out of control nuclear chain reaction lol?
Brian is not answering the questions Robert is asking
Yeah, he's trying hard to stay politically correct, which compromises the quality of this answers.
Thanks it’s part of a two hour interview stay tuned
Sabine Hossenfelder is the best of all possible worlds.
she's coming back in a few weeks!
@@DrBrianKeating Looking forward to seeing the dynamic duo 🙂
YES - just follow the 9 Guidelines of Problacism and eventually you will get to wherever you want to go. Trust in the universe and be relentless.
An ambiguous state until observed. Information states of single environments. Our solar system has evolved us to see it's reality. It's all about discrete structure in a continuity and the observer. Rhetoric of a standard view gives a pass in our observed singularity. Until AI. Now we have created a 3rd party.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
It is *academic* to the point that it may as well be Philosophy.
A natural philosophy?
@@pbp6741 I mean it is to science what Pure Mathematics is to Applied Mathematics.
@@ExtraCheeseProject I was just tongue-in-cheek referencing the fact that early physics was called natural philosophy, as in Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
@@pbp6741 Oh fair enough I completely missed that 😆
"Is the multiverse bad science?" Yes
All definitions? Is Eric Weinstein's "Theory of Geometric Unity", an attempt by Weinstein to produce a unified field theory by recovering the different, seemingly incompatible geometries of fundamental physics from a general structure with minimal assumptions also bad science? (For some reason, Keating seems enamored with it but not me.)
The only solution, Brian, is you and Robert must go where no man has gone before. You must make a Star Trek. This is what is known as Exploratory Science.
But he is religious so how he can be closer to truth? Eli Wiesel was closer to truth.
Even Ed whitten jokingly said that whoever made this must be a mathematician
Eli Wiesel and his STOOPID museum of the shoes of holocaust victims. Eff that guy.
God has hiccups 🤪
More like a fart.
Kuhn keeps making the same mistaken assertion he's made for decades: "The multiverse is a prediction of our best physical theories...". I have no idea where he gets that. You'd think that after all those years of interviewing people and thinking about the subject, he should have realized that this is completely false...
We've had the same fundamental physical theories for a century now: quantum mechanics and general relativity. None of which predicts any multiverse whatsoever.
Inflation and the string landscape are both completely speculative ideas that are physically unnecessary, superfluous and motivated by philosophical dogmatic prejudices in the case of inflation, and a complete failure of string theory in the case of the landscape. This is as far as one can get from "our best physical theories" ! No established physical theory predicts any multiverse. None.
I'm sorry to say but you talk too much. As an interviewer your role is to make your guest speaks.
I was the guest
@@DrBrianKeating Really!? My apologies then. As it is your channel I thought you were the interviewer. 😮 I will keep on looking at your channel.
Not science. You believe in funny stuff, being mostly - yourself. And your anonymous co-author.
All legit scientists don't have time for CZcams videos to be honest .
I think the term "multidimensional" is being overloaded just like the term "frequency". These are just terms that we use to attempt to describe things that we do not truly understand.
Also Angels vs Demons vs ETs. It's all the same thing.
Psuedo_ if U_d | U_e / U_m^2 = G
How can the Universe expand time in an egg shaped Universe?