Multiverses and Constants - Sixty Symbols
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 01. 2015
- A lengthy chat with Professor Laurence Eaves.
See our simultaneously reeled shorter video about Multiverses at: • Can a Multiverse ever ...
Sean Carroll videos: bit.ly/115AVqa
Cosmic and Super Strings: • Cosmic Superstrings - ...
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbols.com/
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at #!/periodicvideos
This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
bit.ly/NottsPhysics
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran - Věda a technologie
Professor Eaves's obsession with the fine structure constant has caused me to perk up every time I see the number 137 ever since the first video in which he mentioned it.
What's going on with that white board? xD
Science
Brady, please ask him to expand on his take on renewable energy.
Pretty sure he’s being sarcastic lol
Yea I doubt he was serious about that lol
It would be very surprising that he would be against wind turbines given that he is a physicist. (and one who researches semi-conductors nonetheless!)
Looolll
It's conceivable that a physicist who presumably understands the concepts of efficiency and energy density, would favour nuclear power over wind turbines
I could spend hours listening to Prof Eaves talk about his hobbies. He makes the insane seem plausible, which just makes it more exciting.
"Ordinary matter like us..."
Brilliant!
Great video!! Really like the way it was laid out and explained
I love how excited he is getting about constants
The fine-structure constant! Just awesome!!
Yes, more and more longer videos please :D I love to just sit back and watch hours of your videos Brady. By all means release shorter videos for the ADD people, or whatever the "marketing" people call them; but you MUST create longer videos with more and in depth content!
Highly impressive he can cross fields of physics like this :O
Specialists in one field often have a difficult time being proficient in others.
No matter where you specialize in science you're going to be able to cover mostly any other area in science for at least 20 minutes... at least if it's in the same discipline (biology, chemistry or physics) as you study.
Shkotay D Sure, a geneticist couldn't describe immunology very well at all on a detailed scale (and that's within white biology) but surely chat about it with non-scientists for 20 minutes.
You two are disagreeing about scale more than meaning.
It's not highly impressive. It's nice, at best, to have a physicist that's a bit of a polymath but they are not exactly rare. A lot of scientists are better at bridging than pushing a specific field.
How about a quote?
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein
***** Great quote!
Nice quote, but I'm afraid a lot is still missing in there... ;-)
Brady, you just keep getting better at this. This is a NICE series.
You can clearly see the equation that explains everything on the white board behind Pr Eaves. ^^
This was a real treat, thanks.
Stop spending money on wind turbines. Did he say that?
Nuclear Fusion is the answer
ammettheyellingfrog1 Even if ITER achieves everything it has set out to do, fusion is still at the very least a half a century away from becoming mainstream. Any TWh of coal we can substitute in the meantime is money well spent.
ammettheyellingfrog1
On earth we don't know yet whether that can work out well (if it does it's awesome). But we already have a huge fusion reactor 8 light-minutes away which already powers all life and our climate (wind included) and gives us more than enough additional energy to cover our electric needs for the upcoming billion years. And it's easy to capture with solar panels and wind turbines. Plus it's decentralized energy production which gives us greater energy security over all. Why this would be 'stupid' I have no idea.
Malaclypse The Elder if the worlds governments and rich people (ie oil tycoons) got their priorities straight we could have commercial fusion reactors by 2030
Or you could just build fission reactors that we already know how to build and are much cleaner and efficient than any competing technology, compared to solar and wind, its much much cheaper and space efficient. Even if we get fusion, it would have to be more efficient than a fission reactor to be usable. Even in a H-bomb, most of the energy released is from the fission reaction and the fusion reaction is only there as a sort of energy catalyst.
I´ve got a question to the part mentioned at about 11:40 (and discussed in length before that).
With the current Multiverse model, is it possible for the mentioned constants (completely aside from their value being different) to be *dynamic* (either over time or position) and not actually be constants???
It´s a question that´s been bugging me ever since I began to think about the Multiverse model, and i haven´t yet gotten around to ask anyone.
I agree. The 137 prime number is universal in that it generates its own unified field. Sound crazy? It's flawless. Especially at behaving as if it is in many places at the same time (if time can even be entertained in this context). What a beautiful thing!
The number 137 is drastically chaotic.
@@MichaelOfRohan Well apparently i've had it pasted at the back of my username for some reason cause i felt it was a nice number. This is sort of interesting to see it's one of the most fundamental numbers in our universe
Man what a privilege. Thank you so much Brady.
Great Video! Try learning and applying CIG Theory today!
Hey Brady, have you got a new camera? It seems this film is in higer resolution than your former videos
Brady you should do a video or maybe multiple videos about string theroy.
I would love to see, and understand, that 'back of an envelope' equation. I've heard a few times about the discrepancy, but not about the logic behind how it's calculated.
What is the Theory of Everything and is it on sale on Thursday?
Graphene transistors? Hope those come out in a couple years, I would like to use them.
what is the most fundamental constant? and what will happened to the others constants if we put that fundamental constant = 1?
Nice Brady
wind turbines got rekt.
"hitmarkers, hitmarkers"!
Joji-chan OH BABY A TRIPLE! MOM GET THE CAMERA!
Stinky 500kg vlokken!!!!
Wow. *Winks*
Could the back of the envelope be gravity even bigger than big G on a different scale we can't comprehend of other universes pulling on our universe.?
Is it possible to make a spaceship which travel with speed of light with the help of two different object which will interact with spacetime to give a force by which spaceship can move?
I am not so sure we will not be able to detect other universes. True the challenge is fundamentally different than just refining measurement as in olden days. But as our understanding gets better and our theoties improve, there may well be avenues that open up to allow this.
Make a video about Planck Units, please!
I think in order to get values that let me think the values became what they became, maybe in other universes theirs values that other biengs formed that did not need to "think" say for example a universe formed with static matter in a certain configuration, and thats it. Its there but no one can experieince it because theres is no such thing as experieince, so it doesnt exits and this gets into the circular thing about this where its on there but it is, the fact htat we can imagine it, makes it so, at some level. Even though we cant observe universes with different values yet, imagining them is almost putting them into some kind of existance. The existance of our minds thinking about it. Like a dream, could be an example of where the constants are different and even change on the fly. But in order for us to have this consiousness (maybe theres other ways) we had to have a certain structure that were based on certain laws. On the other hand maybe life consiousness, adapted to survive these constants, like we really are a product of this finely tuned evironment. During the years when oxygen levels were at an all time high bugs were feets long, which means our existance is really dependant on our environemnt, and in the millions of years ahead that could change. Maybe life adapts different ways and we are one that found a way on a water planet.
6:50 You're talking about _falsifiability_ of the Multiverse here (which is not ruled out entirely...), but pass by asking the same question of the (generally) accepted view of _Inflation._ Now I'm convinced about Inflation after watching Alan Guth's lecture series a couple of times. However, *_Inflation_** is also currently **_unfalsifiable._*
_Edit =_ Unrelated... I wonder why the Moon stays in the Earth's Gravity Well and isn't pulled into the Sun, if the Earth is so much larger than the Moon. You'd think the pull on the Moon by the Sun's Gravity Well would be greater than the Earth's Gravity well. It must be a fine line...
physics is amazing. unlocking the secrets of the universe!
You got me with "Hardcore physicists". These guys must be like gods. Know way more shit than we do
Great vid. Overall! But what about the Planck temperature. Which theoretically is a temperature hot enough to melt or warp time and space itself. Which hypothetically will allow to escape to another universe. Would love to see a video on this topic though.
c, Planck and Bolzman constants - could they be different ? Could there other universes where the rules of maths change - were x^2=-1 is not an imaginary number ?
great video but i didn't quite get why a multiversum, quote: 'sorta removes god..'. could someone explain?
I wonder if we can change some constants locally within our universe.
haha. As soon as I heard the wind turbine comment there would be a shitstorm.
Ha, yeah. It shows the kind of audience when he throws God in the bin and people are too busy protecting wwind farms to notice.
You forgot "I knew"
Gio Best Maybe he meant there wouldn't be a shitstorm until he heard about it?
Gio Best is right, I'm a dumb.
Skeletor Jopko
Deep.
4:37 holy shit that's Farsi kinda makes me proud!!
Would the absolute zero also be one of those constants? In other universe could he be at another temperature?
+skasso12 lol no. Absolute zero means that the molecules arent vibrating.
If our universe started with the big bang. How did the multivers started. Or did it even have a start? What are the laws of fisicts outside the univers.(between univers).
Exactly!
Or if the the Universe is defined as all space time and matter, then how can there be space time or energy or anything between Universes?
How can you ask something to "start" if there is no time? I mean, assuming there is no time from the perspective of being outside of our universe. Everything may be static.
antiHUMANDesigns but maby the multivers hasits own physix and time.
and the universe is time within another time.
antiHUMANDesigns Well i think our limited brains are completly unable to understand that, no words or concept can describe what could it be. But there is still a possibility such things exist. But it doesn't mean our universe has been created on purpose, it's more likely an inevitable accident.
Wow, Rudy Giuliani is smarter than I thought.
And more British
Bart Geerts 🤣
They have the value they have because if they didn't we wouldn't be here to ask why they have the value they have.
With all the discussion of constants, I'm surprised that Prof. Eaves didn't mention the fact that there are theories going around now that suggest that the values of the constants today are *not* what they were in the early universe.
Wonder if the gradual expansion of the universe over millions of years will have an effect on the values of any of the universal "constants", such as the ones concerning gravity. Universal size could be a factor in defining one of these values and weve not noticed due to the relative changes being so gradual! ten to the power of 20 bajillion change each week!
I like the Kilroy Was Here guy on the whiteboard.
ty #sixtysymbols & Professor Laurence Eaves
'parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.' -wikipedia
I like the stuff on the whiteboard behind him.
What an achievement it would be to be considered a hardcore physicist
That's not aversion therapy, that's exposure therapy.
What? What did he mean by calling wind turbines useless? Can somebody explain why they're a waste of money?
I think it's this weird thing called a joke
AppleAssassin I highly doubt he was joking
Perhaps he is taking shots at the university spending money on "underwater energy bags" (search youtube) or perhaps he believes that understanding our universe is the number one priority and that wind turbines aren't practical.
They are a waste of money, solar is better in every single way.
***** nuclear fusion is the best by far. any money spent on wind is a waste of money, it would be far better spent on nuclear. wind is extremely expensive, extremely weak, and extremely impractical. its funded because its a "feel good" energy that appeases the ignorant public
Does the String Theory get rid of (or at least explain) those strange properties of quantum mechanics, like uncertainity, superposition, and entanglement? And if it does, then how?
And by the way, this is an awesome video, thank you :)
It does handle all of that through complex multidimensional mathematics, but each variation of string theory has its different theorems and formulas. The biggest issue with string theory is akin to the problems with the multiverse: the capability to be proven. Discoveries at the LHC in the last 10 years have seemingly worked against string theory's postulates, particularly the Higgs boson and its weight as parts of disproving supersymmetry.
*****
Supersymmetry isn't required in string theory. Its just 1 proposed solution to the cosmological constant problem. Most modern string theory don't use supersymmetry.
I see that the answer to my second question is "mathematically". But what about ST explaining quantum mechanics? I mean.. There can't be any hidden parametres.. So what's the point (except unifying it with relativity) ?
hi to czech republic
Prof Eaves has a pronounced difference in the way he talks about these issues from Prof Merrifeld; entertaining his method of thinking, it seems to me that at some point the question "why" in Physics becomes something of a dog chasing its tail. Why are constants the way they are? Well, we think it's because of these strings. Why are strings the way they are? well, it's because there is this vacuum energy from which the universe sprang. Why is there vacuum energy...
I wonder if there is an attempt to close the system off such that ultimately "There is A because of B and there is B such that it can only come about because of A" in order to stem the tide of "Earth on the back of Atlas on the back of a turtle on the back of a turtle on the back of a..." Still, even if the system could be closed off by showing that the explanation of it feeds back into itself, this model still does not explain existence. For example, it's been said that the universe we see is "everything" and that concept is being questioned with sound, scientific reasoning.
At some level I don't think philosophy can be divorced from Physics when you're probing the big questions; this is way too compartmentalized thinking to be satisfactory or useful. If you want to limit your understanding to what you can see and what you can test in the immediate, you are missing out on all the stuff you might be able to test or are ignorant of being able to test and observe. In this way, I continue to believe science and religion, while advertised so hotly as being at odds by both sides, are really compatible, have very different yet resonating goals of questioning and discovery.
Carl Sagan NAILED it in "Contact" which, though is not my favorite film, does great work treating this very issue albeit in a glitzy, Hollywood setting.
I also see the problem with other multiverse universes that we are not able to measure and detect them directly, but there are many things we can only measure indirectly. Noone can see an atom, only the reflected or absorbed photons. But no one thinks anymore that they don't exist, because our theories of atoms and the visible photons describe the measurements perfectly. If we manage to find a theory that decribes our universe on all scales and times, but needs the multiverse theory to work, we would accept it as fact. We also accept that the force we feel pressing us to the ground originates from the curvature of spacetime the mass of earth produces. But no one can "see" that. The problem is the flimsy definition of the words in our language, not a theoretical problem. (I hope my english was understandable.)
6:50 There may not be a way to directly observe other universes in a multiverse, but at least one formulation of the multiverse idea can still be falsified. If we can find a simple theory which derives all of the values for these constants, which,until now seem unrelated, then the idea that there are zillions of other universes with different values for them will be harder to entertain.
On the other hand, if we can come up with a theory that explains a great deal of what is left to explain in physics in a parsimonious way and an incidental prediction of this theory is that there are multiple universes, then we will have a fairly compelling reason to accept that they exist.
Basically we could detect another universe if it happened to collide with ours. That would show in the cosmic microwave background. (But of course if it would happen for an example now, We may not even be able to detect that, due to the rapid expansion of the universe.)
The mysterious 137 constant is 'resolved' in Chapter 21 of my new book - "The TYCHOS, Our Geoaxial Binary System (2022)" - 2nd Edition.
I LOVE this channel. Have been an avid watcher for years, and I am all for advancing our knowledge and science. But to say that wind turbines are useless is a bit too much. How can anyone say that telescopes are more important than renewable energy sources? Yeah, build your huge telescope... what use is it on a planet that can't support life?
The thing is, wind and solar aren't making the cut right now, and they're kind of unconvinient to set up, but they're so popular no one is funding research on other renewables.
The only one who's winning with solar and wind is the coal industry.
Sixty Symbols Brady Haran Could you please point me to the source of the Hubble videos ( 1:10 ) or let me know where to find more? Was the hi res panning shot a render or can I find a longer original shot?
Dark matter & energy is Consciousness reacting to itself. The Universe is Neurocentric . This is why the cosmological constant and the fine structure constant hold just about the right values to be "Observed". The Universe is alive, aware, and Neurocentric; like us all.
Who else was thinking about Bioshock Infinite while watching this?
***** You must be fun at parties.
GamerFollower Wait a minute, that card...
if dark energy repels energy and mass ... does it repel itself ? or does it attract itself ?
Well if we think of it as a cosmological constant then the questions make no sense. But if the universe expansion is acceleration then a it's kinetic energy is increasing. Now energy is conserved so that energy is coming from what ? If dark energy is the source can it be considered as a cosmological constant ?
if you say that the universe is expanding, i'm asking you this: in what is it expandding. or where. or in which direction? and if we think at the theory of BIG BANG in what did that appeared? shortly:what is beyond universe?
memo liviu Nobody knows. And it's quite probable that no one will ever know.
All the talk about never observing other universes where constants and whatnot are all different seems to overlook the future possibility of simulating exactly that just to see what happens when you tweak the numbers.
nice tie
I don't understand multiverses. Are the universes literally seperated and if so what are they seperated by? Like is there space between 2 universes, could i be inbetween 2 universes?
Calm down your going to hurt yourself
Justin Beiber songs I listen to have more than one verse so I think that gives proof of the multiverse hypothesis.
Has anyone discussed how multiverse can be practically applied to time travel? The caveat being, travelling back in time actually involves a displacement into a multiverse almost identical to your original one, but you can never arrive back exactly in the same one you started in. So I can return from a time journey and report to you that it worked, but the you I'm speaking to won't be the same you I saw when I departed.
When talking about larger telescopes. He said we would have to wait for the light to reach us in order to see the distant stars. We would never see the light from it if we waited because dark energy is expanding us further away. Hence the light would never reach us.
True only when the amount of space created between the earth and that star equals or exceeds the speed of the light attempting to pass through it.
I will leave a like despite disagreeing with you regarding metaphysics
Artwork.
Dear Professor, your telescopes won't work without those "useless" wind turbines.
Interesting how Brady is playing Devil's Advocate and switching arguments between this video and the other one.
The Multiverse is metaphysics by definition.
He just said change funding on wind turbine power because indirectly, without sound like a jerk he is saying that the science community is being short-changed and would like a little more financial support. Public and private funding is being determine on what we can now, in the present. Truly, both works are important. Wind to power this research and this research can tell us what is the relation between stars and their planet's weather to the quantum activity underway within a star. And finally what determines the values of the universe. The multiverse for all we know might have an effect in ensuring all values are filled so there are no “gaps” since nature seems to favor homogeneity, smoothness and uniformity. Proof in point, work on quantum mechanics help unlock secrets into microelectronics that we have now. Neither, theoretical work nor practical applications of science like wind turbine power are inconsequential.
Universe means everything, so if a multiverse exists would the definition of universe change, or would the universe's name change? If other universes have different laws of physics, then the name universe should stay, but if each universe has the same physical laws then the the multiverse should be called universe and universe be called a whole new term.
It's like the word atom, which is Greek for indivisible... we found out that it is divisible after we named it but stuck with the name. We could stick with our observable universe as 'the universe' and go with 'cosmos' for everything that is, ever was and ever will be (definition by Carl Sagan in his Cosmos tv series) (-> which includes the multiverse)
Thulyblu I personally like the idea of the Omniverse... Everything that is, has been, will be, isn't, hasn't been, won't be, nothing, all the things that could be and all those that couldn't, the things that don't even make sense and everything else as well... You name it, it's in the Omniverse and same goes if you couldn't possibly name it or think of it.
Where do you get the definition that Universe means everything? I think your argument may be based on YOUR definition of Universe here, not THE definition of universe.
wazzmastermax He said it in the video. Glossed over, perhaps, but it was there. 2:53
***** Fair enough. I suppose then, as cortster12 says, the definition will possibly need to be amended. We can probably say that it already has, at least informally. We use terms like 'multiverse' to signify the set of space-times, whereas the 'universe' tends to refer to our own.
Let's face it, it 'amazeballs' can find its way into the Oxford English Dictionary (I weep for the future) then I think a minor tweak to 'Universe' will be okay.
I just like how it says "Big G"
14:55 We don't know why they are how they are, but the reason we exist in a universe that has constants that allow our kind of life is because the constants are how they are. If the multiverse is correct we would only have formed in this universe because the constants are how they are.
Why are the constants?
*GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD*
If we dont know why these constants have the value that they have, how do we know that they are not changing.
If we make sure that the experiments recreates the constants to say 'n' significant figures, how do we know that the n+1th digit is not changing in the 100 years that we have started to measure these constants
We don't know that but why would we assume it if we've measured them in exacting detail for a hundred years without seeing any change?
Why should other universes have constants or anything like that at all. How can we postulate what other universes will be like (even if their are any) without experiencing them. We live in this universe and can make laws about this universe only. You say their constants would be different and all that malarkey, but why should they have constants at all. I can imagine other bubbles (universes) but I would not take them as separate if they exist, why should we call them separate simply because they are different, we have got into the habit of making laws which we believe must apply everywhere
What about another pi?
Great Video!
About the why think about something that can never be tested: because imagining a different universe helps understand our own better.
Does the state of our own universe not give us some idea about a multiverse through deducations? I thought that our constants, and the problem of them appearing fine-tuned, implied the existence of a mulltiverse. This might not be much but it seams like a type of interaction.
chailfield Is the appearance of fine-tuning *Really* better explained by postulating an infinite (or practically infinite) number of universes then simply saying the obvious, the universe really *is* fine-tuned?
If I flip heads 10 times in a row that implies that I've been flipping coins for a day or so before getting that result, not that I was just super lucky.
chailfield Except in this case, it is like flipping heads 1,000,000,000 times in a row. A far better explanation is that the coin is designed to only give you heads. (A coin with two head sides)
When faced with such extreme probabilities, the most simple explanation (via occam's razor) is not that there are a practically infinite number of coins (or universes). The conclusion is that the game is rigged.
Simplicity is not what it seems.
All that theorizing about Multiverses and yet it actually doesn't matter at the end to us, even if we suddenly knew everything about other Universes, what does it change?
knowledge
Much can be said about a lot of science until we explore it. What would studying microbes that we first saw under a microscope, in what would we learn of animals that are too small to see, what could come from something so small and insignificant then us? Disease is caused by what? Oh dear...
Wind turbines comment blew me away :)
When scientists talk about unifying gravity with the other forces I always wonder why is gravity labeled as a force? According to Einstein it is not an "attracting" force but the bending of spacetime, so I can imagine that massive objects like planets behave like a train on a railway. And when the rail is curved than the train follows it because it has no options. Therefore it is not a force but the inevitable byproduct of mass. I must be stupid as hell so could someone tell me why is it in the opposite way?
when he mentioned the earth not being the center of the universe, it kind of is,, technically ANYWHERE is the center. If you think of the universe as an inflating ball, any one location can be the center
That chair needs oil. ;)
1/4*pi*e0 is Coulomb's constant
For some reason this video got me thinking about the people who follow numberphile/sixty symbols,
whats the community like? mathematicians, physics enthousiasts,mainly students perhaps?
I'd like to know some approximation x)
and keep the uploads coming, doing a great job!
Do you think there could be a universe without wind turbines, in which there are people who know a lot more about it?
"Hardcore Physicist"
ERROR in the video!
Starting at about 5:00, Professor Eaves mentions how ever larger telescopes let us see further, and by 6:00 he mentions that light from extremely distant parts of the universe hasn't had time to reach us, so if we wait we will see more.
This is incorrect in an expanding universe: At some point, the recessional velocity becomes exceeds the speed of light, so there are parts of the universe that will forever be outside our light cone. No amount of waiting will let photons from those universes ever reach us.
But it gets worse! In an expanding universe whose rate of expansion is increasing (which appears to be the case for our universe), distant galaxies we presently CAN see will eventually be outside our light cone. That is, we will see LESS with time, NOT more.
Eventually, no galaxies other than the Milky Way will be visible, and civilizations arising in that era will have no notion that there is more than just a single galaxy in the visible universe.
-----------------
But to get back to the main discussion, many are bothered by the exquisitely precise values of the fundamental constants that "seem" uniquely suited to permitting life forms such as ourselves to exist. The "Anthropic Principle" simply states that, given that we are here to observe them, the values have to be what they are: Any other values simply wouldn't have us as observers! But many think this feels like a cop-out, and there are only two main ways out of the situation:
1. The constants aren't "fine tuned" in any way: We will find that their values derive directly from a unified Theory of Everything. We just don't have any idea what the ToE looks like (it isn't String Theory, at least not yet). In fact, we don't even know if a ToE exists or not. But we hope it does, if only to keep physics and cosmologists employed!
2. Other universes exist in infinite numbers, and many (most?) will not be suited to life. We just happen to be in one that does support life. That's the Multiverse Theory: Instead of exquisite tuning, we just got the luck of the draw.
Which of the above alternatives has a stronger foundation? Don't be too quick to assume theToE is most likely: There is reason to believe that the Multiverse is on much stronger foundations than one might think!
Quantum theory has a problem with the notion of an "observation" of an "event" causing "the wave function to collapse". The various "interpretations" of quantum theory (over a dozen of them) all add forms of hand-waving to make sense of this. All but one, that is.
Everett's "Many Worlds" approach says that every possible event outcome actually exists, but we see only the outcome that occurs in our universe. The other outcomes cause the universe to branch into a (possibly infinite) number of other universes, each with its own outcome (instead of the outcome we observed in our universe).
So, we could be in one of an infinite number of universes, each of which is continuously branching into infinitely more universes! And our universe is nothing more than simply the one we happen to be in (the one we inhabit and observe).
Says he doesn't like metaphysics, then says he likes the idea of multiverses. In the same sentence. Wat.
+Shiny Rayquazza Metaphysics means that nothing can be shown to prove it. The multiverse can be shown using mathematical equations, and hence is not technically metaphysics.
Mathematics is not a verifiable experimental evidence...therefore it is still in the world of metaphysics..
@@krishyyfan5153 mathematics does not need verification! It's itself about certainty!
@@ameerhamza4816 mathematics is abstract representation of something...you still need to verify it with experiment...
That is why theories start out as mathematics...until it is proven by experimental evidence...
@@krishyyfan5153 no! theories also have some axioms they can be wrong! So mathematics itself can't be wrong if axioms are correct then your proof is correct!
genius
In the background, on the white board, is there a mouse riding a rocket? :D)))
If the theory of multiverse is true there will be a parallel universe where the piece of "Art Work" stands properly behind this man.