Why Quantum Physics Says There's a Multiverse
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Who wins in a battle between General Relativity and Quantum Physics? The answer has pretty serious implications for our view of the universe. Do we live in a continuum across an infinite number of parallel universes? Neil deGrasse Tyson has got an answer that might surprise you.
What came before the Big Bang? Neil explains why such a question has no meaning. Was the singularity at the beginning of time embedded in a higher-dimension? And what does that mean for our ability to understand the universe?
Where did the ingredients for life come from? Neil explains why it takes so long to make said ingredients, and offers a perspective on areas of the universe that are teeming with life.
Why is everything round? Neil offers insight into the forces that shape our universe... into mostly round things. Why are there exceptions? Find out in this episode.
From the full episode, titled 'Cosmic Queries - The Deep, Part II': • StarTalk Podcast: Cosm...
Get the NEW StarTalk book, 'To Infinity and Beyond: A Journey of Cosmic Discovery' on Amazon: amzn.to/3PL0NFn
Support us on Patreon: / startalkradio
FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to StarTalk:
Twitter: / startalkradio
Facebook: / startalk
Instagram: / startalk
Timestamps:
0:00 - General Relativity vs Quantum Physics
1:10 - Multiverse Theory
2:46 - Before the Big Bang
3:44 - Higher Dimensions
4:31 - The Ingredients for Life
6:06 - Why is Everything Round?
7:10 - Weathermen are LYING
From a full episode, titled 'Cosmic Queries - The Deep, Par II': czcams.com/video/z04Xw5O8XiU/video.htmlsi=lvcKf6zKa_J-2HwR
This is a shit post video..😂😅😊 sorry neil..❤
I have a question that I've never heard asked before. We believe that black holes have a Schwarzschild radius, but would that mean that whatever center the universe began at also had a Schwarzschild radius? Would that even matter?
Neil, read my book, The Art of Dowsing - Separating Science from Superstition ($14.95), by Michael Fercik
Neil? In order to answer to this q you'll need to take psyhodelic substancesor you want me to give you short answer
Lose the stupid fuckin music. I came to hear the lesson, no the dumb fucking music in the background, like it's suppose to make me feel something? WTF would be the purpose, other than to annoy? LOSE THE FUCKING MUSIC.
Chuck's acting skills peaked. He already know all these concepts but acts as if he heard it for the first time and blown his mind 😂
Yeah he may not be a full-blown doctor. PhD but he is definitely a science researcher at this point..... You can't be around all of these brilliant scientists and doctors and not know something after all these years.. but his paycheck is in entertainment so he got to keep it gone😂😂😂😂
It's supposed to be interactive for those of us who don't know.
Honestly some of Chuck's "acting" is probably his ADHD. That problem we tend to have with "object permanence" doesn't just happen with physical items. It happens with people, emotions, & yes even knowledge, especially when that knowledge involves our "special interest" but we are limited in who we can discuss that special topic with.
I'd almost bet any time Chuck has had to go deal with other commitments, the first hour of their conversations are just both of them info dumping on each other, talking over each other & about 3-6 different topics at the same time until they get to anything that looks like a normal conversation between 2 neurotypical people about 1 topic.
Probably true , likely because he surrounds himself with info
I have heard it before but it excites me you learn to not be buzzkill 😅 maybe
When I was 10 years old, I was very interested in Cosmology and spent a lot of time thinking about it. One afternoon I was standing in my mothers kitchen and I noticed some drops of water on the kitchen bench. I wondered to myself, what if everything we knew about existed inside one of those many drops of water. I imagined each drop of water as representing a universe. Looking at the drops sepetated on the bench, I wondered about the possibility for an unlimited number of universes existing in an infinite void seperated my unimaginable distances. Now that I am 58, I enjoy hearing sceince slowly supporting the notion.
Is it me or Chuck sounds more and more like a real scientist for times?
No wonder, since he's been leveling up all this years with Neal AND he's pretty smart, on top of that.
I want both essays😭😂 "On Being Round"-Neil Tyson and "On Being On the Ground"-Mike Tyson🤣
7:44 - When they say 50% chance of rain in weather models, it usually means 50% of the area (usually a county by county basis) will get rain. Aviation has drilled this into my head.
Correct….but it still holds up…..for the joke.
Funny, when I hear a meteorologist say there's a 50% chance of rain, it usually means the east valley and the sun cities areas are going to get drowned and I might be lucky enough to get spat on by a passer-by. But such is the experience living in Phoenix.
There’s something about watching chuck & Neil that just doesn’t feel wrong.
Kudos
Let's officially nominate Chuck's new word "SOTHING" as the official StarTalk geek quantum codeword meaning nothing & something all at the same time.❤😆
This is the most mind bending episode yet.
Also mind bending is as fast as light travels, it can't escape a black hole. Light is the fastest known* thing in the universe, yet can be reversed or trapped? And time gets warped too.
I died 10 months ago of a brain tumour, you just happen to be in the universe which I survived.. lol.
8:20 it’s not a percentage of chance with the weather. When you see the 50% that means 50% of that area will have rain or 30% and so on
Don't try to outsmart an astrophysicist 😂
It's the same thing if you think about it
Was looking for this comment
Fantastic explaination... This stuff is fun to think about...
What if our dreams that we don't understand are a conscious connection between the other versions of us in the multiverse?
that's what i considered to be an option when i was growing up but the more i learned about the human subconscious and some of the impossible dreams i have had then i soon learned this isn't the case. Nice thought though :) plus ever since i was about 21 and heavily into science i strongly disagree with the possibility of a multiverse correlating with the other universes. For me there are 2 options for considering a multiverse - option 1, there is a multiverse but they don't relate to each other but the laws of physics are always the same. option 2, there is 1 opposite universe as anti matter (and 2 particles being in the same place at once [quantum physics] (in this case they would correspond with each other.). Ultimately i lean more in the direction of a Universe and no others, but there could easily be others that we would never know about (as i said in the options, if there is a multiverse then i don't believe they correspond with each other as in parallel universes with infinite possibilities). Multiverse wise - i am a believer that none of them relate just like the galaxies of our universe, and all their physical laws are the same, as i strongly believe the law of physics is the way it is because that's the only way it can be, it can only be 100% the way it is because that law is the basis for reality. Have a nice day and love your scientists :)
Stop that immediately. Now my brain hurts.
There are real theories based upon that thought.
I love this thought and have even made it a part of a story I'm working on. Really crazy thought, what if this is the dream and dreams are real?
@@questioningitall6856 Not theories, hypotheses. By definition a theory needs to be tested and appear to be true.
That's a fundamental difference you need to be aware of when discussing concepts like this. When talking science and actual possibility the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is huge.
The background music is fire!
3:42 - Chuck: "Say my name!"
I'm so glad there is a 2nd Startalk channel. Psyched! Subscribed
Omgosh I hadn’t even noticed it was a different one
This episode is soo good, Chuck was on point too.
The definition of universe: EVERYTHING. Therefore NO multiverses, just newly discovered parts of the universe.
this is a good point... i think what they were trynna get at is that a universe is everything to US. So it's possible that there could be multiverses, each functioning kinda like alternate parallel dimensions, so that out universe is OUR everything, but their universe is their everything. Think like we can't have two solar systems in the exact same place within our universe, but if there were to be a whole other universe, they could potentially be positioned the same. Your comment got me thinking though
the topics aside, really nice editing, especially at around 6:15 or so 🙏🏻🌌
glad i started watching, not just listening! 🙂 x
Cheers From your newest subscriber from California 😎 (startalk sent me)
Oxford Dictionary, special request to add “sothing” to the English language
It would be soothing, wouldn't it?
'Sothing' is actually a great word. Do we just have to use it a lot for it to become officially recognised?
This is something I think about often when I consider the notion of infinity and absolute opposites. Existence and Oblivion, 1's and 0's, Is and Is Not. I wish I was a part of this conversation to exchange thoughts with you two.
50% chance of rain means that the entire coverage area will or will not be rained on depending on slight but uncontrolable and unpredictable flucuations in the local atmosphere. Mostly its about the weight and spread of the water in the clouds and cloud coverage.
When the weight is over a certain limit and cloud cover is complete, the atmospheric flucuations will have minimal effect and the rain will push through. Thats 100 % coverage in the whole specific area. Even when you have 100% there are differences in the amount of water that falls in any specific spot. Who knows? Maybe one day they will be able to say, "it's going to rain everywhere except over NDT's house!"
but how come Neil doesnt understand that.😔
This was my favorite episode ever
What is North of the North Pole? South. It's like a Mobius Strip, once you're there you're on the other side of the there you were there to get to.
Or you could think of it like that movie Upside Down from 2012 where two Earths exist simultaneously in the same space and the people interact with each other, like in an office building some people are on the ceiling and others are on the floor, they can pass things back and forth, talk to each other etc, one Earth is poor and the other is rich, but from each Earth's perspective the other Earth is upside down and backwards.
I love the energy between these guys.
So happy I came across this tonight 😊💯💜
As Clouds move, they are in different projected operability regions in proximity to the water cloud solutions as lightning/vicious gas held in the mantle. Their constant resonance of decay from the clouds brings fourth operability in elevation away from as well as time spent in the region for induction as it is happening constantly as the time to the mantle held cloud solutions of water in its operable form
I was told that the "50% chance of rain" thing is not a statistical precision of the forecast but basically the territory's coverage of rain. So when it is 90% or rain it means 90% of the area subject to the forecast will get rain.
well that's the way the idiots think
Why would we expect the laws of physics to be different in another universe, especially if they are embedded in the same higher-dimensional space?
Because the universe does not have to follow any rules.
@@lombardo141 You answered a slightly different question. Your answer makes sense if I'd asked something about how they COULD be different, but that's not what I asked.
I am wondering why we SHOULD expect them to be different. As far as I know, there is no affirmative reason to think that they would be different other than the fact that we don't know either way.
For me, the default assumption would be that, if our universe is embedded in some higher-dimensional space, the physics of universes born within that space should be the same. Of course, there may be other mechanisms in play, but we don't know about any of those, either.
The knowledge and theories we have is the human model of reality, how it works, but reality is what is real,exact, we may not understand in detail how reality is and works, but it already is in the flow of time and space
I am loving the amount of excitement that space and cosmology offers. The things we don't know but will discover? I wish I were a theoretical physicist! I think in one of those other universes… There's a version of me who is that. ❤
awesome my guy
I like these more relaxed ones.
I really love these twos. ❤
5:55 hold up, I've always thought we were early to the party and it turns out its probably true. dang, I wish I had the math to go to school to learn the things Dr. Tyson knows.
The 50% chance of rain hit home 💀
The 50% chance means that in the cell that they calculated in -- usually 2-25 km^2 (they are usually pretty large areas due to the complexity of calculations and depend on the cubical cell sizes used for the air parcel calculations) -- will have rain over 50% of the area of that cell -- not 50% chance of rain at all. If you're in a city, there is likely a cell or grid that covers the whole city in the calculation and that if there is a 50% chance of rain, then rain is 100% expected to fall on 50% of that grid area. Hope that clarifies things.
@@maplion Thank you so much!!! I always thought it was the CHANCE of rain, I was really confused 😅 thanks for the explanation, now my life makes sense XD
Meteorologists are well aware of this and many of them will change that 50% to a 51% or 49%
@@maplion and as a person who goes outside that day, since I don't know where I stand in that "calculated cell", I suppose it basically mean I have 50% chance of occupying the area where it rains, right? Or because a chance of rain means it will happen at some point so it is as space AND time thing?
@@RottenMuLoT If the area is mostly flat with no bodies of water, then yes; but generally, there are additional factors that the calculation by itself doesn't offer. For example, if you're near hills or mountains and that is part of the cell, then the area where the hills are is more likely to be part of that 50% just because of the nature of moist air being pushed up higher in elevation increases the relative humidity, meaning that if rain is predicted, some areas are more likely to be part of the rain area than others. Bodies of water also increase the likelihood (e.g., lake effect). So while generally you can think of it as "50% chance I'll be in that area", if you think about it more in terms of your geography, you can probably make a more accurate determination for yourself (e.g., I live near foothills and if it is at least 12% chance, I'm getting rain -- but those deeper in the valley usually only get wet if it is 50% or more).
Why would other universes have any close specific relationships to ours? such as why would there be any further instances of Chuck? That would presume events down to a spectacularly minute level are replicated such as Chuck's parents meeting, and their parents meeting and so on. Would it not be more probable that there's an Earth that never got hit by the asteroid and still has dinosaurs etc.?
it is a spectrum from which the closer you are on that spectrum the more related you are. given that these other universes were brought into existence by the same phenomena. There is also a possibility that there are universes exactly like ours, and some with no resemblance at all.
Please, does anyone knows the sound track playing in the background from 4:30 - 5:00 ?
We must have the best weather people here in Orlando, then, at least on the channel I watch. When they give a percentage, it means the amount of coverage of the area, not the overall chance of it happening. They can even plot the timelines accurately to within a half hour.
hint: ABC
Can relativity be an emergent feature from quantum physics?
Thank Y'all
If multiverses were formed at the beginning of the universe inception. There is no guarantee that the host speaker is created similarily and living a similar life. Each universe existed a certain amount of time to go a different timeline paths. Unless you copy paste the history of 1 universe to another not at the inception but after some time has passed.
so could these multiple universes be a result of a giant bang that causes a serious of infinite bangs and the great attractor is energy moving along to a destiny meeting point to do it all again or go back dormant until it stirs up again?
I love it when Chuck confirms that Neil is correct about something Chuck knows nothing about 4:30
There should be no overlap if there is another universe because it was created in the same way our universe was & it is out side of our universe. If there is a connection or overlap, then it would mean some how our universe created a universe. I don't get why people think That me or you would exist in every universe or that earth would. We are not a critical component of the universe. We are only important to our planet. I don't see why anything based on me would need to exist in any other universe unless there is some connection or event that will happen in every universe. Something all universes need.
3:40 Script guy boss: "Oh, inventing unnecessary words is tight"
Can you explain conscience and comun experience in reality? How can tgat be connected with quantum physics
I just love Niel's ability to charismatically present complex concepts in a way that everyone can appreciate and understand without using complex algorithms, theorems, philosophies or concepts. God bless.
In one incarnation of the universe, Chuck is explaining the science to Neil.
I like to think my odds of winning the lottery are 50/50, either I will or I won't. When people try to tell me the actual odds of winning a lottery I can hear my inner Han Solo yelling "Never tell me the odds!"
Would love to see all scientists (theoretical or not) in one room . Imagine what ideas and or what would they invent / create in no time.😊
i need Neil's thoughts on Netflix's the 3 body problem, i know its fiction but i'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of a super sentient computer the size of a proton being folded in to itself several times in higher dimensions which in turn expands to cover the entire globe
"when the universe was the size of a particle." what's the reason we are sure there must have been such a tiny universe? expansion does not se em like an enough reason to assume this? was there ever a singularity to begin with?
Best duo ever
What if our consciousness (unbound to the concepts of linear time) travels to another dimension and is alive in another version of you, every time you go to sleep?
Your consciousness leaves your body and enters another version of yourself in another dimension. You live that day with the thoughts and memories of that person, then travel again to another person. This could happen infinitely before returning to THIS body since your consciousness is not bound to the concept of time.
So if the universe didn’t begin at the size of an atom, would it still be possible for a multiverse?
3:10 but can logic be outside of it? Is logic maybe something fundamental beyong the universe?
Chuck! "Niceee" 😂😂
3D and 5D soul searching to a whole new simulation of life 👁️👁️🙏🦋
Always illuminating and funny
If in the beginning there were no elements at the time of the big bang and the elements were fused/forged in the stars, what were the stars made of if there were no elements?
All atoms in the universe began as hydrogen.
If multiple universes were created, would they necessarily have different properties, or could each one inevitably lead to the same physics?
yes
Also can you explain why there is entropy but yet life is the opposite to entropy?
If you're at the equator walking due east at the speed the Earth is traveling due east can you go any other direction other than east
In Oregon, I interpret a 50% chance of rain to mean it is going to rain half the time. I know that is not the way it is supposed to be interpreted, but that is the way I plan my wardrobe for the day. It mostly works.
A weather forecast is made of maybe 20 separate predictions, if 10 of them suggest it will rain and 10 don’t, you get a 50% chance of rain
My own personal theory of why we might be the only planet at this time with life is if you calculate the time of the big bang and the life on our planet it gives a better understanding of why we maybe the only advanced life but not the 1st life on a planet. So many things had to happen right for us to be formed and evolve that other planets with life have only gotten to the micro'organism stage. Intelligent life is to curious for us not to have been knowingly visited by other life. The universe that we are in has not had enough time to continuously make intelligent life that can travel from other Solar systems. Earth is an original planet and our advanced life still has many Flaws like (Jealousy, Greed, Envy, selfishness, and uncontrollable death) that would have been solved before any other intelligent life could leave their planet. Meaning life has not yet advanced past the "Human Being"... Just because we can travel to the moon still isn't enough for our resources to go any further besides machines we build. Our universe is still to young to produce intelligence for interstellar travel. Even with a small chance their are creatures or Aliens and occurrences that are reported to have been seen, without direct actual proof their still considered "word of mouth".
We live in the midst of invisible forces whose effects alone we perceive.
~Dion Fortune
What is the definition of a Universe? Why do we talk about parallel or multi-universes if we don't have access to them or even know they are existing?
Multiverse has more to do with how "conceivability" can move a construct to the highest possible extremes than anything to do with particle physics. An *"Infinite Multiverse"* or an *"Infinite God"* are where you end up whenever you're dealing with missing data, and nothing is standing in the way of taking it to the max.
If there are an infinite amount of possible realities than somewhere out there the dark ages never happened and our tech is 800 years ahead of what it is now and someone has made an invention that made it so when we dream we "touch" another universe briefly. Also I'm wicked stoned right now. Could you tell?
I think it goes without saying that VR is to try and simulate real life. In real life, we do not drive in chase cam or in bumper view. Thus, it goes without saying that those viewpoints would be "cheat" in real life. Imagine being able to drive in real life in chase mode. You could see more on the road. VR places us inside the car similar to real life, and thus, as in real life, we do not have the ability to change viewpoints.
Multiverse: SPECULATION!!!
I think that's incorrect at the end about the weather folks. When they say 50% it's usually because the rain is scattered and will likely cover about 50% of the area they broadcast to. so your personal chances are 50%. When rain chances are over 80% they know it's a significant system and most of the area will see rain.
I think this is true You're right. But when they say 50% I think the accuracy of the models isn't perfect also. Like only 30% of the area talked about might actually rain in reality.
You're right in that I believe they refer to the models suggesting 50% of your area will have rain but I think the models aren't that precise although they're getting better every year and with AI I think weather prediction will match 90% accuracy with enough input data.
Great, now what about the branching multiverse?
Indian texts 5000 years old (Bhagvat Gita) has explained about existence of infinite multi-verses, interestingly it explains that our universe is a tiny one. People say it is a spiritual book, yes it is, but it explains about science explained 5000 years back. It says our universe is 25% material and 75% spiritual. It explains there is consciousness everywhere in universe/multiverse and that is God.
Ok so would ones energy go back to the universe or earth if they died or would it be like jet li movie the one would energy be dividend into the other ones
Hell yeah there is!
Two things: There is another physics that we haven't considered.
We cannot fully comprehend or be physically aware of quantum physics. Our perception isn't fully developed, or understanding..
2:46 I’m making “The question has no meaning” T-shirts. Like to pre-order
C’mon!! “Suthing” is brilliant!!!
a Center will Hold! ⭕
Asking what existed before the Big Bang is like asking what’s North of North? No way kiddo, I need a better answer than that…
Found a new drinking game: every time that guy says, “Wow!”👀🥃😵
On the nature of "black holes"
A "black hole" is an astrophysical object at the level of which the equations of general relativity give infinite values; he constitutes a gravitational singularity in the space-time.
So, why have some astrophysicists tried to study what is beyond the event horizon of "black holes" using unrealistic models of gravitationnal quantum physics, when the quantum physics study matter at the subatomic level, while a "black hole" is an astophysical object that belong to the univers which is a macroscopic physical system that is subject to the entropy and the arrow of time?
And why is an astronaut or an object that falls into a "black hole" always represented falling there vertically without passing through the accretion disk, when it should describe a spiral trajectory around the "black hole" and therefore necessarily pass by its accretion disk, like what happens to a comet before it is disintegrated by the Sun?
Indeed, as Albert Einstein postulated in 1905 that the speed of light in the vacuum is a fundamental constant of physics and that it is a limiting speed independent of the speed of the source that emits the light and that no massive body can reach the speed light ; so, I postulate that, all the shadow of a "black hole", whatever its mass, is a gravitational singularity and no massive body can reach the event horizon of a "black hole", and I assert that beyond the event horizon from each "black hole" there is a very large closed iron door which sits at the base of a tower of an enormous fort built using an extremely strong and compact material. This fort is more than 120,000 light years high, and it surrounds the entire First Heaven, while the solid ground of the First Heaven is the roof of the universe and there is no intergalactic void. And in the First Heaven there is the House of Glory , Hell, and great white palaces.
U. H.
Hmm, so what About thé temperature & absolute zero energy ? Does thé easyst way apply ? Or do those concepts at all exists at that so called 'White Palace' ?
Some parameters don't fit ' implicitely'. Maybe that made me lose 'tracks'. Still thanks For your viewpoint. FM, antwerp 12/3/24❤
@@user-ci9bg7rm3dComplement of relativity
Relativity was introduced in physics by the Galilean principle of relativity in the early 17th century, and Albert Einstein formulated the postulates of special relativity in 1905 ; and he developed special relativity using Lorentz transformations. Then Einstein formulated the equivance principle and developed general relativity using Riemannian geometry in 1915. After that, Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 and Roy Kerr in 1963 solved Einstein's equation of general relativity ; but their solutions proved the existence of gravitational singularities in the universe, and on these gravitational singularities, some terms of the Schwarzchild and Kerr metrics become infinite.
But, in recent decades, some astrophysicists have tried to circumvent the Schwarzschild and Kerr singularities by using Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates to allow massive particles to cross the event horizon of a "black hole." . If they were right, they should also have abandoned the Lorentz transformations in special relativity and looked for other transformations that would allow massive particles to exceed the speed of light in the vacuum while maintaining the invariance of the physics' laws in all inertial frames of reference.
Thus I complete Albert Einstein's general relativity by formulating the following postulate 《All the shadow of a "black hole", whatever its mass, is a gravitational singularity, and no massive body, which is not a "black hole", can reach the event horizon of a "black hole". And beyond the event horizon of each "black hole" there is a large closed iron door, which is one of the gates of the First Heaven, which is the first of the Seven Heavens.》.
U.H.
@@user-ci9bg7rm3dOn the begining of universe
The Big Bang theory, which is the standard cosmological model, is not realistic.
Accoding to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's theorem, the universe's expansion proves that the universe had a beginning. But the universe's expansion doesn't determine the initial conditions of the universe.
Because to determine the initial conditions of a physical system, someone must be present at the initial moment to know the initial state of the system.
Morever, the universe is a macroscopic physical system which is subject to entropy and the arrow of time; the origin of the universe cannot therefore be studied with quantum physics which studies matter at the subatomic level.
The universe was born 4.5 billion years ago.
At that time, a huge mass, extremely solid and compact, was formed. This mass - or hyper-ellipsoïdal primitive egg - contained icy water, rocks, and other elements. Then the mass was split in two with very high energy; this division released a huge amount of rocks, gas, dust and radiation. Afterwards, the Earth, the Sun and the Moon were formed first, then the other planets of the solar system, the other stars and planetary systems, the galaxies and the Seven Heavens. All this was achieved on six days.
And the universe was put into accelerated expansion 4.5 billion years ago.
U. H.
@@user-ci9bg7rm3dThe detailed deep-field observations from the James Webb Space Telescope have made the scientific community doubt the validity of the big bang theory.
Morever, the cosmic microwave background does not validate the big bang theory because in 1965, the German physicist Hans Bethe misinterpreted this background noise of the universe and some evolutionary and Darwinist physicists and astrophysicists who have the power to decision in the scientific community immediately considered that this false interpretation of Hans Bethe is an absolute truth.
Indeed, the cosmic microwave background has been caused by the cracking of the Heaven.
So, Heaven is cracking because the Seven Heavens are filled with angels who pray God and who are ready to carry out his orders - to recover the souls of human beings, jinn and animals who are in agony; make the Earth shake in certain places; throwing shooting stars at the devils sent by seers or sorcerers to listen to the information from Heaven transmitted by the angels who descend to Earth; make the rain fall... - until the Last Judgment Day.
Cf. Echevarría, Ana (2012). "Liber scalae Machometi". In David Thomas; Alex Mallett (eds.). Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Vol. 4 (1200-1350). Brill. pp. 425-428.
@@user-ci9bg7rm3dIf some astronomers and astrophysicists tell us: "With our observations, we can go back to 10^(-43) second after the big bang and we are very close to the beginning of the universe.", I then ask them next question: If an extraterrestrial craft in the shape of a tesseract hypercube lands on Earth and unfolds into a tesseract hypercube's net with a written message challenging you to return the tesseract hypercube's net to its original dimension 4 hypercube form, will you then be able to take up the challenge?
When we model dice rolls, we don't assume the whole universe split 6 ways, with each universe corresponding to a different face landing up.
What we do assume is a simplification of the physics involved.
Because we don't have a physics model sophisticated enough that predicts which face will land up, we simplify the problem into 6 potential relevant outcomes.
Which is to say, I'm not convinced multiverse theory is any different than probability theory.
QM contains similar assumptions (incomplete knowledge of measurement - Heisenberg), and is similarly probabilistic.
I'm not against multiverses, I just have a different interpretation.
Multiverses may be a product of incomplete knowledge, and a useful mathematical treatment of the problem simultaneously.
In this view, science can produce theories of arbitrary theoretical complexity, even beyond the actual complexity represented by the real universe.
Perhaps we live in a universe where one has to take as input 14 billion years of history in order to predict one particle collision perfectly. This would explain the difficulties in predicting supposedly simple phenomenon.
Who's to say this maximalist theoretical approach can't also be the most accurate?
😂chucks mike Tyson impression😂
What about deja vu? Is that considered intellectual connection?
maybe we are just early to life, would be a damn shame but beautiful that we are just the beginning
But from another perspective, we are all one and share one collective consciousness. Separateness is an illusion.
Dreams could be a way are consciousness is communicating together I don't know it's a thought
Can someone explain to me why some people think Chuck has two heads in another universe.
Nothing comes after something, in the context of life and death.
Perhaps perception
When we sleep our conscience Becomes thoughts in our own minds in on thoughts another alternate multiverse Us; then when us sleeps we becomes thoughts in ours wake state...
🤔
imo I swear when you have vivid dreams, these dreams are the windows to your other consciousness from random versions of yourself from other dimensions/multi-verse. ijs
Why should everything be about us in the possibility of a multiverse? Can't the multiverse exist with universes having creatures that have nothing to do with us and operate with no knowledge about us? Looks like any time the multiverse comes up we start thinking about different us in places and times not in our universe.
Particles within our universe pop into existence (in positive and negative charges that cancel each other out), therefore when our universe was the size of a particle, entire universes were popping into existence without one to cancel it out? This is confusing stuff!
I don't share this intuition. I don't believe that anything we observe about the laws of matter within the universe apply to the universe itself anymore than rules of a simulation apply to the simulation itself.
I believe there could only be multiverses, if we were able to travel to the past. And since we cannot travel to the past, there are no multiverses.