Many-worlds: Infinite number of parallel universes | Sean Carroll and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sean Carroll: General ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- HiddenLayer: hiddenlayer.com/lex
- Cloaked: cloaked.com/lex and use code LexPod to get 25% off
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
GUEST BIO:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/tdv7r2JSokI/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
I was a student at U of M Ann Arbor in 1964 and had Forrest Everett as an instructor in Engineering Mechanics. He had a small cubbty hole office unde the stairs
at the end of the 3rd floor of East Engineering. At this time the Many Worlds Interpretation was only the stuff of late night speculation. The author himself had a certain mystery
surrounding him. Forrest was Hugh's brother and had the now familiar picture of him over his desk. Before one 8 AM class I saw Edward Teller duck into the empty office to view
the picture. An incredible moment..
“These worlds don’t exist in space. Space exists in them.” This is how one would describe Virtual Realities. 🙀
nice analogy but only as long as you exist in one of them and cannot oversee them
We're in a simulation.
@@roynaidu2327 I agree
@@roynaidu2327 a self simulation
@@roynaidu2327ita a dream within a dream within a dream all the way down. The same as it's a simulation within a simulation within a simulation all the way down
Trying to comprehend this discussion involving quantum mechanics, time travel, Schroedinger, parrellel worlds, reminded me of when I tried to grasp what happened in Dark on Netflix, which also involved similar themes.
My poor brain could not cope... 😔
Lex's dry questioning and quizzical facial expressions complementing Sean's wonderful baritone voice while sharing their amazing knowledge with us.....what a gift. thank you.
They cannot explain how or why a particular probability actually happens rather than the alternative - so they explain it away by just having infinite universes. That’s a heavy cost
There is an infinite number of universes but only ONE OBSERVER !
Every time I think Sean has explained something real well, Lex throws out a question that I have that makes Sean half explain and then I'm left wondering the same thing when I started the video... Still, I can't get enough of these discussions.
In one outcome, Lex is wearing a bandana around his head in the Amazon. In another outcome he's interviewing Putin in Russia. In another outcome Putin is wearing a bandana in the Amazon. In another outcome Lex is sipping vodka on 6th Street.
Damnn so many outcomes. One would say an infinite amount
Rick and Morty are right.
Your interviews with scientists are so interesting. Thank you
Feel like bingo in the bluey episode where parents explaining stuff just sounds like gibberish.
"Existence is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced."
~ Somebody.
Synchronistic Mathematics is a truth system that reveals, through direct personal experience, true reality. Not theoretical or academic, but a true experience with reality. The intellect is slow, so people are allowed many decades of pontification.
Alan Watts... ?
Thank you Seán, could listen to you all day, greetings from Ireland 🇮🇪.
Thanks Lex..
I am doing that literally. I get up every morning and listen to him until I go to bed.
I just want some French fries. That’s a super position
Long story short from this entire podcast; we don't know wtf is happening
But what about quantum computing!? 😅 It's real right? It's totally not a funding scam lol.. Like we know so little about the quantum world we can build entire hardware structures to manipulate it 😂
I am a firm believer that quantum computing is an industry run by people who fundamentally cannot comprehend quantum physics. Just like how the majority of people who develop cryptocurrency fundamentally Don't understand what crypto must be.. God's jokes have the best cosmic punchlines lol.
Bro there's so much information being said lol what do you mean?
One must be a Bot to figure it out.
Lmao, some folks didn't listen in physics class. 😅
@@kimockman1 someone can't comprehend what The lessons were in their physics class 😅
So measuring the spin of an electron is akin to JavaScript CallBack functions 😉
Lex always surprises me with his intelligent questions being not a physicst. He always has that enough intelligence to dig out real information out of his guests.
So much packed in this podcast.
Scientists either use the magic of time or the magic of infinite possibilities to explain the miracle of human existence and the existence of the universe.
There is data a fingertip away from you and you resolutely refuse to look at it or make any effort to understand it. To me thats some kind of magic.
The new Apple TV show called Dark Marter deals with this exact topic.
I heard this entire podcast before and just was hearing this part again, but at 5:18 I started to say "whoa whoa whoa." To prove this idea, wouldn't you simply have to have two people observing the same trajectory to outcome, yet they both end up seeing something different from the other...? If not, shouldn't there be conditions where this could be made possible? And if not, why not?
The second you observe it, you are entangled. In this "world" we are entangled with that same electron.
@@WhyiLikeLife What if one day, the other observer sees something different. Must mean they are from another world 😁
I’m way too high for this
He said no extra baggage, yet he is saying there are an uncountable number of other copies…. If that ain’t extra!?
He was referring to the clarity and objectivity of equations that do not need artifices to adapt to a specific result.
Yeah he's referring to the clarity of the questions. Like when you get to brass tax as to what are the implications of these equations, the many worlds interpretation is the most straightforward interpretation of the data. No extra assumptions, just straight up what does the data infer/predict.
And as Sean mentioned, it's all predicted by the equations, and the many worlds interpretation doesn't haven't empirical evidence to support it beyond the data implications. Whether or not our technology advances enough to potentially probe beyond is the unknown, but essentially with the many worlds interpretation, the real science ends once empirical observation ends and philsophy begins once science ends. And we move into pure theoretical frameworks, which is where we are on such questions.
We're literally interpreting "effects" of our equations beyond empiricial support. This is why he's a theoretical physicist and not an experimentalist.
Sean will tell you more than anyone that theoretical physics and philosophy share so so so so much more than people think. Because they are philosophizing beyond the equations in order to infer/predict grander phenomenon.
Theoretical physics is wrestling with the philosophical implications of these equations.
Quantum Mechanics completely changed physics as we know it, and we are still wrestling with the philosophical implications of such a theory because we've pushed well beyond what observations can satisfy right now.
We very easily could sit debating "interpretations" of the data for centuries. Only until observation advances, I think we are going to be stuck here in this philosophical limbo for our lifetimes, and potentially many more.
Because at the end of the day, what we are trying to solve is the breakdown of general relativity. We need a better theory to explain beyond a singularity (I.e. general relativity breaking down). So, in that sense, we are waiting on another Einstein.
Could be centuries before we make even the slightest improvement in terms of observation. Meaning we're gonna need something more than just a revised telescope every couple of decades. We're gonna need something fundamentally different.
@@John-vm2sq I get what you are saying, but one has to admit that must be the most LITERAL baggage possible...
The thumbnail looks a lot like logic gates for a pc... isn't that curious.
Isn’t this the weirdest thing we know? Busted up laughing there thanks Lex 😂
3:24 3 digit combination lock - wheel of samsara - what outcome for what purpose- for specific combination formula. The no plan - plan. 😊
Time is only equivalent to distance in speed relative of course to basic laws
Can anyone explain to me how the electron knows it's being measured thus choosing which direction to spin
He doesn't want us to ask what's beyond the ice wall
🤣
😂
5:42 sounds like you are describing super heroes 🦸🏻
Some theories in advanced physics, like string theory and the theory of multiverses, propose the existence of other dimensions and universes beyond our observable spacetime continuum. In such frameworks, a singularity could theoretically exist in a state not governed by our universe's specific rules.
Many worlds and string theory cannot be experimentally verified. Math does not require experimental proofs, but physics does. Physicists supporting experimentally unproven theories have never came in contact with a real world and therefore have no evidence their theories reflect the real world outside mathematical gymnastics.
According to our own localized physics a singularity does not obey our own localized physics.
This is the craziest shit I’ve ever heard, and I live on planet Earth in 2024!
Ok so as I understand it. Everything exists, all at once, as a simultaneous static thing. The "perceiver", or "exister" or whatever is actually space, which traverses the block from point to like a playhead on a record... for some reason.
What I'm curious about is how are we able to "reach into" this uncertainty thing with our little wiggly probey science fingers and detect that multiple possibilities exist when we are confined in collapsed spaces exclusively?
It will keep me awake for who knows how long.
You exist within a self simulation to evolve consciousness and lower entropy. You are God playing hide and seek🫣
😂😂😂 if I hear one more counterclockwise clockwise my brain will explode 😵💫😵💫😵💫
I didn't understand jack shite for the whole 20mins but I still enjoyed listening to this. Very interesting 😅😅
Same 🤔
Hugh Everett classic ladies man
I think we are just observing the tip of the iceburg. A lot simultaneously exists but there is some kind of deciding constant that chooses which Universe of outcomes wins out overall pertaining to each individual person observing. When I think of "God" I think of an intelligent life form outside our space time dimensions that would see my life from beginning to end in one solid picture as I would see a picture on the wall. I only see pieces at a time and often the picture ends up looking very different in the end then it did half way thru. Things like the double slit, quantum entanglement, and super-position all seem to indicate that something very supernatural is going on compared to our limited understanding of science.
So if matter is in 2 places at once until we measure them this would mean that consciousness effects matter and each physical being with consciousness has an effect on matter. Therefore each person is creating their own world by their perception so to say. hence, the many worlds are coexisting on one plane.
I’ve always visualized them as “layered” on top of each other, but you’re also basically correct.
Just so you’re aware, this idea that “quantum mechanics implies that consciousness is special and somehow shapes our reality” is utterly bogus and is not supported by any trained physicist.
In quantum mechanics an “observation” (or measurement, as you put it) is simply when one quantum system comes into contact with another. That’s it, nothing to do with consciousness. When we make a measurement, we “split” the wave function not because we have consciousness, but because we too are inherently quantum systems.
Two electrons interacting with each-other across the other side of the Universe, devoid of any conscious observer, will split the wave function in exactly the same manner as making a measurement would.
@@user-pu6bo6qo4c you seem to think that only humans have consciousness? Where do you think consciousness came from? It came from the universe...
@@user-pu6bo6qo4c if we as a "quantum system" are not conscious, how can we observe something? Your statement is a hypocrisy.
@@user-pu6bo6qo4c well if we do ever manage to pin down or find the “origin” of consciousness, it for sure won’t be because of physics. So it’s kind of foolish to assume it could. Not saying you as an individual are foolish, just that those who look for physical evidence in something metaphysical.
At moments the way Sean Carroll rolls his tong and time his speech it sounds like Carl Sagan to me!
The good thing about this interpretation is that it is deterministic and closer to Einstein's relativity.
It's absolute codswallop
Circling , spinning and vibrating?
And now sit down and relax 😊
There's such things as a paradox
Maybe a way to phrase the question of what is outside the universe is what is the universe expanding into
The Hidden Variables Theory (Bohmian Mechanics) seems to me to be a "better" theory than the Many Worlds theory (even though it has spawned a 1000 great sci-fi stories).
I am no Bot, I am Vengeance, I am The Night!!!
Everybody knows why there is something instead of nothing. If there was nothing, we wouldn't be here to see it !
Hopefully in a parallel universe I don't live as horrible a life as I do in this one
My takeaway...
"My life is asking pothead questions" -Sean Carroll-
“It can just be” sounds familiar
accidents are reportedly witnessed as happening in slow motion.. why? perhaps because the likelihood of such events is slim, and their appearance as slow-occurring is likely due to transpiring within a fraction of the instances of the Universe...
objects and events we see as static and stable are likely existing across the majority of instances of the Universe
Or our brain’s recognition of a trauma event taking place and the need for a more careful neurological and physiological documentation of the event. Slow motion = the awareness of more detail.
Our brains manipulate time all the time if you really think about it. So why place extra meaning on "accidents". I got crazy stoned as a kid and spent "hours" walking down a ten yard boardwalk on the beach. 30 years later and that was one of the strangest experiences i have ever had. Just regular crappy pot but it was definitely wilder experience than any other drug i have done.
fascinating. wonder if we could orchestrate low probability multiverse events to communicate with the beings running the simulation.
Assuming humans can get to the level of creating a reality simulation the odds that our existence is not a simulation is astronomically low.
Yeap… beyond me
Still don't fricking get it 😢😢😢
I have no idea how this is going to help me with my final I have tomorrow
"Infinite expansion rate?" That doesn't seem possible. If the expansion were infinite for any period at all, the universe would have achieved infinite size and would not be able to continue expanding.
Smh 🤦♂️ i am so lost.
But so fascinated.
The Chef John of quantum mechanics
It's possible that quantum waves exist solely without observation. When observed waveforms collapse thus creating electrons and what I observe. Creating various implications, but big bang theory doesn't work for several reasons. 1. The further we view into space the more systems arise. Many systems shouldn't exist at such distance. Also the speed of light and expansion of the universe and our observations cannot be accurate because taking into account the speed of light only not including the speed of the expansion means what we observe is merely something that should be very close next door. Workaround. Cosmos are reflected image of earthly microcosms. A good hypothesis for creation would be all the stuff in our solar system was flat and hot and embedded with fire and light and sun and earth was one and separated to become the center of our universe 🌌.
What?
Crackpot blueprint:
Step 1 - loosely string together some sciency words you know you don’t actually understand
Step 2 - proceed to word vomit how everything is connected and our mind shapes reality and the Universe is actually our soul yada yada yada
Infinity is the answer
Im so late the YT algo already took effect and my comment will never be found
And that is why I do not believe in that :)
If something actually was in a parallel universe, how would you start thinking that there is something with wich you absolutely have no interaction with??? You could then by definition come up with a different Formula of the universe :) You see? You do not get Information from something that is in another universe, right? So why do you use it to describe yours?
7:10 I can draw a picture
I’d need to be stoned beyond?, to understand this
Many worlds sounds like science backing into “everything is potentially relative” due to super position being determined by the viewer.
However, why couldn’t it just be that the determining aspect reveals the reality we should consider the truth and it’s the path by which God has designed for us to experience, including a mechanism for for free will in that system.
Sean offers an alternative viewpoint that we are "extrapolating the Schrodinger equation beyond what we can observe.." and then suggests we have to accept Many Worlds if we can't come up with a better explanation. I disagree. Adopting a non-sensical Many Worlds approach is the cop out. Why not just say "we don't really know"? That approach seems to work for dark matter....
Sean’s position on this topic has always been: “if we think about it for long enough, we should arrive at the conclusion that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is incorrect”. While he does favour the many worlds interpretation, he has never claimed that it is THE correct one or that we should be blindly accepting it.
As for many worlds being a cop out - why? The very premise of this interpretation is to take the Schrodinger equation - and equation whose predictions have been rigorously tested and verified - and interpret its predictions at face value, no matter how uncomfortable they may feel. Is it an extrapolation? Of course. But cop-out? Quite the opposite..
If we can't define outside of the universe, we need more math or physics. It makes no sense. Define it.
Your demand to define it at the end is hilarious lol.
O universo é mental.
We are living in a simulation of simulation and so on...
It's simulations all the way down
Wow, I see there is a great number of theoretical physicists weighing in here in the comments.
Hi Lex, When you gonna Interview ANDREAS KALCKER. It could save millions of lives.
Watchers - the colored orbs wete seeing with greater and greater frequency these days are certainly not "typical" observers
As there is no evidence of multi worlds, Sean, a good Bayesian I believe, presumably has his 'priors' at less than 50% that multi worlds is true. (I vaguely remember him putting it at 40%, but I could be wrong about that.) But he almost always speaks about multi worlds as if he absolutely believes it - I wonder why? Is it to get his own head into that weird space?
I think it’s funny that humans just do shit everyday, working, living, dieing, and we just barely understand what’s going on 😅
hey guys
Here I have one six-sided die: Is it six parallel universes?
Infinite parallel universes. Permutations for observers for each die roll on earth.
infinite
To the infinity
Saying there are infinite worlds is like saying there is infinite possibilities. It's too "sure yea ok but not ""really"" really" 😅
Spacetime is doomed
Just astral project and apply for an akashic library card 😆🍻
lol
Saying there may be nothing “outside” of our universe feels like saying there is nothing past the edge of the flat earth 😂 there has to be some missing information
Deus Vult!
so,.. you never die, you keep existing in universes where you didnt die, or,.. its bullshit
According to the rules of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics don't actually work.
A thinking of a comfortable life in a wheelchair
Alternate dimensions? Where is the evidence?
Uap
@InnerLuminosity lol i expected gibberish but man...
Almost
i'm so early there are only bots here
Something a bot would say
Affirmative
I am a robot robot a robot
How do you know bots? True question
Greatful to be a Bot - Not a liberal supporter.
No, that's wrong. There is inly 7 parallel worlds .
Time doesn't exist
How do you know its both if youre not measuring it ?
Reality is procedurally generated
Real infinites don’t exist… that’s for coming to my TedTalk
Bro what
our universe is so big that the solar system close to us is around more than a hundred thousand years journey with present technology which is infinitesimal to our galaxy center ( roughly more than 10,000,000,000 years journey). And we have to EGO to speak of a multi-universe just because of faulty mathematical equations. I think man's ego is bigger than the universe
That’s rich coming from someone who is critiquing highly-specialised physicists with their high school science knowledge
i've been told by my benefactor to
If you think of the universe as God then there can be nothing outside of it. God is space and time. The creative force where all matter, energy, laws of physics and forms of life can thank for its existence. We are all one, each and every one of us humans, animals, plants, planets, stars.
This is probably a dumbass question. But what happens if you continue to look at an electron. If it continually stays in one state, why would it? Why does it lose its probability, or at least, why would it do something that would be very unlikely if the probability still existed? It still doesn’t seem to remove the issue of observing.
I get that a human observing seems arbitrary and unlikely to be significant in determining the electron’s spin. But isn’t an electron spinning also arbitrary?
Also, why can an electron only spin one of two ways? Surely that’s relic of oversimplification not actually what’s happening. I wonder if a false dichotomy is causing the issues. It was the only premise that was assumed in the argument, it is probably the only one that is backed heavily empirically but still.
Neo-platonic ideas nothing new here, 'The Theory of forms'.
Sean, “Trust me. You’re dumb.”
Me, “Trust me. I’m not.”
Where do they come up with the BULLSHIT???