My biggest issue with the fine-tuning argument is that it seems to assume that life and intelligence are some kind of "goal" for the universe to create, rather than a byproduct. Life and consciousness are such nebulously-defined concepts that I have no problem believing it could be possible in a universe with drastically different physics. But the only life we have evidence of is our own, and since there's technically no evidence that it exists anywhere else in the universe, it's also hard to argue against fine-tuning as some sort of universal quantum immortality.
My main issue with the fine-tuning argument is that there is no evidence that the physics can bany different than what they are. Such as the strength of gravity or that of the weak or strong nuclear forces being weaker or stronger then what they actually are.
It is just a way for humans to make it so they are the pinnacle that they are meant to be and have "dominion". It's almost like religious thinking hidden in science. They want to mean something have a purpose and not face the possibility that no, were just here and only for now
@@ronabitz5156At the beginning of our iteration of the Universe, there was no strong or weak force. Nor was there any gravity. Nor the atoms with which they interact. So there is evidence they had different values in the past. And a googolplex years from now, after the last ultramassive black hole has evaporated and the last neutron has degenerated and the entire Universe goes through heat death, there will be no vectors upon which the forces can act, meaning they are then zero. So, unless a new bubble forms within our Universe (which might be able to happen and would definitely... unalive everything everywhere,) the fundamental forces of our Universe will become old and weak and dead, just like us, just like the Universe. Beautiful, really. Anyhow, don't worry, because there's gotta be a parallel universe where there actually was a benevolent and wise god who designed and created an *actual* perfect universe... by just not creating it. Just made all the human souls it wanted, plopped them down in Paradise/Heaven whatever, and got on with its glorious eternal retirement, no fuss, no muss.
I have a hard time with the fine tuning argument because earth is the only place known place where life exists and even on earth there are places that are inhospitable for many life forms. If the universe was fine tuned for life then we should be able to inhabit the entire universe with no issue. But we can’t. Earth just happens to be at the right spot.
Hey Tyler, comment here. Took me a few days for my brain to be at the right angle to absorb this one. Even though like a lot of these physics focused videos I usually have read into the background already (unlike the alien biology ones), I still knew it'd be interesting. One thing I do want to mention to start is the "computational universe", the "informational universe", and simulation theory are all distinct from each other. The script doesn't really conflate them, but the use of the Matrix B-roll for both "informational" and "simulated" does link the two in the viewer's mind. It's worth pointing out that the distinction between the "measurement" and the "measurer" isn't always so clear in the Copenhagen interpretation either. For instance there's a classic extension to Schroedinger's Cat which posits about the wave function of the scientist who looks in the box, from the perspective of another scientist who is waiting on the results. Where the scientist in the room with the box clearly knows the answer, but inside their OWN "box" of the test chamber the result is still unknown to their colleagues in the outside world and thus hasn't collapsed yet. It raises questions about the nature of causality, given quantum phenomena. (Of course many worlds also sidesteps that one.) Also, while your brief mention of an infinite universe repeating itself is basically an invocation of the "does a set of all sets contain itself?" question; there are ways for a universe to be spatially infinite but to never have enough time to actually repeat sections of itself. This is a quite different kind of infinity from the kind where Pi has infinite digits and therefore contains any arbitrary string SOMEWHERE within itself. Partly because the complexity of a region of space is not one dimensional like "the value of a digit", and even infinite space in 3 dimensions does not have enough room to hold all of the higher-order permutations of every single possible 3D space. To go deeper than that requires hella preamble about the different scales of infinity and Aleph numbers, so I've tried to focus more on the implications than the mechanism, but yeah. Another fun thing is there are technically experiments which COULD give scientific credence to the multiverse in their affirmative state, but where a null result is not conclusive. For instance the "quantum immortality" thought experiment where a researcher Schroedinger's Cats themselves via various methods, but never dies. As past a certain number of "death chances", even the best string of human luck shouldn't produce that outcome until long after the heat death of the universe. Of course, the problem (besides an ethics board) is for every confirmatory result, there will be truly astronomical quantities of universes created where the researcher does indeed kick the bucket. So the null result doesn't mean anything. Lastly, I love your application of the anthropic principle to this, because most of my research on the weak anthropic principle as explanation for the apparent "fine-tuning" has been on the non-many-worlds hypotheses. They also involve "universes" with different physical laws (such as in the inflaton field hypothesis), but physically very distant rather than in the exact same physical space but decohered. Which naturally make all the other deeper physics (and some philosophical) implications quite different, as they have no bearing on the closer-to-home questions about history and free will. So that's a definite fun wrinkle to this version, that the antimatter universe literally is "on top of" our universe very much like in that bonkers Trek episode! Anyway, I hope this wasn't too long, especially since it's been a few days since the video came out so I'm not sure how much effort you're giving to checking out comments on this video. But I figured I'd write this anyway in case even one other person finds it interesting!
Another dope video! The Multiverse for me is entertaining. I'm too busy in the Universe that I currently live in to even consider what is going on in another. Are gas prices lower? Are we all half bird-plant-dog people? Does the middle finger mean peace and love in another Universe? Things that make me go... hmmm.
Great upload. The best application of quantum physics I've heard is 'quantum accounting.' To help prevent fraud. Looking forward to next Livestream, whenever it is. Peace and live long and prosper ✌️🖖
02:50f: The main flaw of the thought experiment is the idea that only the human is an observer. Of course, the dead cat I no observer any more but it witnesses either nothing happening or the mechanism crushing the poison bottle.
Tbh the way I see it is that all of existence is everything that CAN happen, or has happened, existing in many parallel realities, but we can only experience it as a progression through linear time in a deterministic but unknown fixed timeline. We can recall the things that happened to us but we can’t know all of the things that could happen to us because it’s all happened and we only get to know the one we are destined to experience. That everything in existence emits energy and radiation and maybe these various wavelengths coincide with the the Big Bang of a new universe but like an everlasting big bang that continues to radiate out that never ended exploding into existence.
In all honesty, interpretations of quantum mechanics are rarely discussed in physics. If physicists discuss them, it is usually in populair science literature (i.e. a book they want to sell to the public).
Remember, even when quoting Tegmark and he "affirms" something, it's just his opinion. Since it's untestable,The guy doesn't know anymore than we do about this topic.
@OrangeRiver One reason to wish for alternate realities is death. When my husband died, imagining other worlds where he had not meant he was still alive in some. In some, I had died, and he was going through what I was going through, so in a sense, we were going through it together, but alone in our house, each haunting the other's home. I don't really feel like that now, but for a time, it was helpful, rather than just having to face that, whatever the case, in this world, he was gone, and I would never see him again. The part of me alive in his mind died with him, while the part of him alive in mine... There are good and bad parts of all relationships. Trying to argue with a dead person about why they did or didn't do things is problematic. At any rate, in a multiverse, if there should happen to be some form of afterlife, eventually all copies of an individual will end up dead, possibly "collapsing" into one experiential person, having to sort out everything that "individual" ever experienced, being reunited with everyone they ever encountered, in whatever worldline. Multiple spouses, variations on kids, variations on pets, etc.. That would be a lot to deal with.
@@LAJ-47FC9 not really, theres no observation to base a hypothesis like Many Worlds on that doesn't necessitate the imagining of many things that cant ever and wont ever be observed
I like the idea of parallel universes that are a little different, like the Mirror Dimension, or the Dark World from Zelda: A Link to the Past, or Termina from Zelda: Majora's Mask. I don't like the idea that every decision leads to a new universe being formed. Like, if I decide to cut my fingernails today instead of tomorrow, a new universe is created. I don't want that kind of power.
Any such worlds would not be created by your decision, but rather, freak coincidence across reality. Quantum interactions in particular are what causes a split in Many Worlds, and I'm pretty sure that clipping your toenails doesn't happen at a quantum level! You can clip your toenails - or not - and rest easy, friend.
If parallel universes have always existed, I don't understand the reasoning why we would have evolved in such a way as to not perceive them in the first place.
We kind of do, it's called foresight. Much of our daily thought is directed towards potential future events. In fact, most life evolves this way to strategize a way to survive, whether it's to catch a meal or prevent becoming the meal.
Many thanks for this insightful video - really appreciate your research and presentations of scientific concepts to provide contrast to sci-fi. Dlighted to discover your channel - been enjoying many of your videos!
I was under the impression that the idea of multiple parallels universes was used as an example of why there is something wrong with out current model of physics since its something that should be impossible.
Good write up as usual. Similar to simulation theory it's a cool idea but it isn't something I'll hang my philosophical hat on Even thoughI have written a couple of short stories based on the idea, mostly through the Lee Smolin framing of the conceit.
How can the multiverse work like in Star Trek or comic books without violating the conservation of energy? If the multiverse was real, it would have to be untestable. If you can cross between different universes, you'd be able to infinitely increase mass and energy. Also, observation is defined differently than what we casually mean. It doesn't just mean someone watching or looking at something. Observation means interaction. In order to see an object, light has to bounce off that object and hit your eyes or a sensor. But the light hitting the object is an interaction, it causes a slight change in the object.
This was a great video Tyler. I think we can still use the weak entropic principle to consider the nature of our own universe even if other universes are hypothetical. We can imagine that most other possible universes would not have the physical make up to support the particular beings we are, and we do not need to actually believe in other universes beyond our own to realize this. Anyway, I wanted to ask: how does a modal realist differ from someone who believes completely in the many worlds interpretation?
I'm actually hoping that some day someone creates a Sliders "remote" hee hee - but doesn't get lost on another Earth. There are a myriad of other "Earths" that I'd love to visit if I could!
The use, nay, overuse, of time travel and multiversing is burnt out. It’s not even close to unique or original anymore, and hasn’t been for at least 3 decades. Due to this overuse writers have to move into areas that are just downright absurd, and not even believable in an alternate reality run by Q.
The Copenhagen theory of quantum mechanics makes the most sense because it proves free will. Everything is a wave in reality until we act upon or observe it then it becomes physical and tangible. This is where faith and science intersect completely.
Yes, as I said in another comment, this actually discredits that theory because it assumes humans have the special state of being metaphysical observers who change the nature of reality by "observing" it despite the fact that we are ultimately just very complex objects.
There are good Philosophical reasons to deny the Many Worlds Hypothesis. Philosophy says, given an opportunity to make an alternate Choice at any given time; we always make the same choice. Ten out of ten times, if we chose blue socks once; we would make that same choice all ten times. Like rewinding a video ten times and playing it ten times; Moe would always slap Larry and Curly in that one instance of time. Therefore, no alternate choice can be generated, to produce an alternate Reality...
the multiverse hypothesis comes from the same place as the simulation hypothesis: people want them to be true. I find the popularity of these ideas interesting because they essentially devalue people's lives, but people seem to hope they exist. Why is this? Is it a yearning for freedom of some sort? An escape? What is the hope? Why do people want this to be the "true" reality?
I think one of my fascinations with the related field of alternate history has always been examining _why_ certain choices were made that led to where we are today, and how that could inform the way we proceed going forward. But yeah, I definitely find the multiverse hypothesis hard to believe...it honestly does seem like an escape for people
@@OrangeRiver don't get me wrong, I love alternate history and the multiverse esp in so far as it allows for so many great stories. I feel like I might have asked you this very early on but did you have any appreciation or interest in "The Man in the High Castle" because there are so many points in history, so many battles where you can imagine what would have happened had things gone differently and WW2 in the US is a really great setting/time to use alternate history.
@@OrangeRiver it's a very fun storytelling universe. It's very easy to imagine the what if in WW2 because it really could have gone the other direction. I love all this stuff because it offers such ripe storytelling opportunities which is fun as a reader and a viewer
I think there is a multiverse, but our notion that it somehow verges on us is ridiculous. It’s about universes with different forms, different quantum fields, different basic laws of physics, different dimensionality, etc. Universes such as those would not have another me. Nothing there would be like it is here. Observation is something I always have trouble with. I hardly think a human “observing” something changes it, but our tools used to observe them interferes with them and therefore changes them.
The universe is so fine tuned for life that 99.9% of the universe is inhospitable to life. It makes much more sense, to me at least, that universe selection bias is choosing for black holes. each black hole creates a new universe, so universes that propagate many black holes produce more. The apparent expansion of the universe is universes under ours stretching out like our own.
There's a fantastic little series of PBS Space Time episodes exactly about various black-hole evolutionary-universe hypotheses, I strongly urge you to check them out! (I won't spoil how much of your comment are said to be plausible under each specific hypothesis, I will say it's not 100% of it while still being a surprisingly high amount.)
I feel like we are fairly certain that there are various dimensions to explain lots of the stranger occurrences in science. Extrapolation isn't that hard to expand it to multiverse. The big bang happened but where did all of that information come from? How did it happen? Was it a clash of 2d universes that expressed itself in 3 dimensions.
If the universe was finetuned for life, then it wouldn't be so hostile to life. Life is fine tuned to it's environment because it dies any other way, hence why mass extinctions have been a thing.
@Pin Ky you can't say that, because you have never seen those other conditions. For all you know, there would still be life that fits those parameters instead of the ones we have now. It would just be different because it would have to survive in that environment.
@Pin Ky I mean, prove it. Show me a universe without atoms and then we can have a conversation. Until then, you're just making things up and expecting people to take your game of make believe as seriously as anything observable. Also, It had everything to do with the conversation and the fact that you claim that you don't see that is part of the problem(cognitively).
I've been reading the literature for years now. I'm definitely in the Copenhagen camp. Max Texmarck ( bad spelling sorry) theory that I've seen docs on are compelling. Too bad the LHC wasn't able to put it to rest when they confirmed the Higgs boson. It favours neither Symmetry or Super Symmetry. Awesome ep Tyler. My brain hurts 🤣 🖖😁🤘🇨🇦
05:40 Copenhagen interpretation is still dominant but if it really regards the observer as isolated from the quantum system (s)he observes, it states something obviously nonsensical. When it comes to testability: Is the Copenhagen interpretation testable against others such as many worlds? I think no.
Time is more than a concept , it holds the 4th dimension together , looking from outside in , you would see all possibilities, occurring future past and present , you know Omnipotent
How are you describe the Multiverse isn’t that just the principle of Choice every choice makes a difference Paulo timeline. I thought the Multiverse were the differences of the multiple Big Bang, theories, and each big band makes a difference, Multiverse?
Is the Universe fine tuned for life? For Human life? Yes and no, we are more fine tuned for it. However from our perspective its fine tuned for us, because its impossible for it to be any other way and for us to still be here to ask the question. If the universe was different, then their likely would be different life, and thus we wouldn't be here.
Great essay, Tyler! I love your Trek content, but stuff like this shows you can make most subjects within the nerdverse enjoyable. Great take home message as well 🖖
@7:35 "...have yielded nothing significant." Except that unimaginably vast portions of our Universe are comprised of gravitationally repulsive regions that otherwise don't interact with reality in any yet detectable way? That's... pretty significant, eh?
IMO, The MWI interpretation is "too neat" but it's also the Occam's razor. If it became possible to see into other timelines/world-lines/realities, and none of them contained life, it would be devastating. Like if someone who believes in a higher power suddenly was shown "heaven" and it's just this exact same world gain, except everyone wears a hat. We have no way to know if they exist, but if it were possible, it would probably give people no sense of purpose if it's shown that this is the only worldline where we haven't annihilated ourselves. Yet.
Ive always been interested in the possibility of the multiverse because im a history nerd. So many choices and battles were close to going another direction but because of a certain person our world exists.
I would say the multiverse has about the same credibility as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Basically the multiverse is a construct to answer a question that science does not have an answer for!
Multiverses in fiction are basically always bad. It always diminishes the stakes and makes you wonder why you should care about this iteration of an infinite iteration of the same characters. IRL, the multiverse is not science. It's cosmic speculation. We have a terrible habit of calling anything related to fields of scientific inquiry "science" when it's not. For that matter, a quantum superposition such Schrodinger's cat is not science. In fact it posits the metaphysical construct of "an observer." It's basically a religious claim; humans being special observers of reality is basically the same as saying we have souls. The cat is not both dead and alive until the mighty and divine human "collapses its superposition" by observing it. It is either only dead or alive, you just lack the knowledge of which it is.
Cosmology is absolutely a field of science, and often does make testable claims (even though this particular cosmological idea does not). Schroedinger's Cat is indeed not Science, it is a thought experiment used to explain some hard to grasp concepts using easier to grasp ones. Just as the "billiard ball model" of particle physics is not real, nor is the "planetary model" of an atom, yet they are extremely useful tools as an introduction to the core concepts. Also, quantum physics does not create a metaphysical "observer" as you detract. It is not solipsistic. (Though even Einstein interpreted it like that, as he said "the moon is still there even when I am not looking at it" as a rebuttal.) In quantum physics "observation" just means interaction. In fact, many influential people in the field hate that the OGs coined "observer" instead of "interacter", but the history is what it is. Sunlight bouncing off the moon is an "observation" (interaction). Air molecules hitting a leaf is an "observation" (interaction). Any chemical, well, interaction is an interaction. This is why a camera can capture a scene on photoreactive film even without a person present. Why an electron microscope can create images even in a room with no humans to operate it. So the cat of course could "observe" itself, as it's a macroscopic structure created by many many quantum-scale reactions. But as it is a thought experiment, it is not meant to be taken literally in that regard. Rather it, among other things, raises questions of how we can know a collapse has occurred without looking. Say if you run a double slit experiment overnight; the true physical superposition has already collapsed long ago, but your "superposition" in your own brain hasn't yet. And that's not just a fun artefact of being a thought experiment, there are real physical experiments with real detection equipment (rather than a metaphorical cat to represent an electron) such as the "delayed choice quantum eraser" which further raise questions of where and when autointerference and wavefunction collapse actually occurs.
Unless we can ever be able to find a way to escape this universe, we will never know if this is the only one or if there are other universes. There is always a chance that the theories for or against the existence a multiverse may be completely wrong and the correct version is so totally different from how humans currently think that we simply cannot conceive it.
Ask yourself what is another dimension and what is another universe? It's not the same right. And IF we have big bobbles around us they CAN BE different universes probably and not different dimensions. But if they are different to our universe they can be different from us. The question is how different. I don't believe in other dimensions or that there is Humans in another universe. We have to care about the problems we have now otherwise we will never even send people to live in "hell"(it doesn't exist but you get the idea) on Mars. And things like that are pretty fun for us that lives here.
Absolutely not fine tuned. That's a grift peddled by religious folk to convince people that God is scientific, like "intelligent design" which is also inherently not scientific.
But there are 20+ cosmological constants, each of which requires an incredibly precise degree of fine tuning, that the odds of all 20+ cosmological constants being as perfectly fine tuned as they are in such a way that permits life to exist is literally astronomical. This is one huge reason why I and many others are convinced that Intelligent Design is indeed the best possible explanation for why we exist.
@@derekatkins4800 and the universe is huge and has who knows how many -illions of planetary systems. It makes sense statistically that a planetary system like ours would pop up eventually.
@@nunya_bizniz Yes, there are countless galaxies, stars, and planets in our universe. But if there’s life on other worlds (especially other intelligent life), then we have to ask the question Enrico Fermi asked: Where is everyone? I have little doubt we will probably find simple life forms on other planets, but I highly doubt we will ever find other intelligent life out there.
Sometimes I wonder if we're experiencing time backwards, and the seeming deliberate nature of the universe's mechanics is due to it being emergent in the direction opposite to what we experience, and that our perception of time is a result of the universe's expansion and that it is actually looking towards the microscopic that we see the future and the macroscopic that we see the past, or vice versa, and that our idea of multicellular organisms being more complex is incorrect and that every human is really a cell of a being from the past leading back eventually to one organism that was the start of it all (God). But that's just a little thought experiment to keep my mind open to different perspectives
Has the multiverse Theory became controversial in science? Physics and quantum mechanics is not my things so I'm not up to date on anything related to this field.
@OrangeRiver what caused the multiverse theory to become controversial. I remember back in the early 2000s string theory was popular. Sorry for the vague reply.
I can't find exact numbers on its popularity over time (besides the polls I included in the video), but my best guess as to the reason is that 1) developments in these wackier theories caused a lot of media hype that has since died down and 2) more importantly, further experiments with different quantum theories and advances in our understanding of the universe have led to things like pilot wave theory becoming more popular.
@@druncle1977it's just a thought experiment. That's why noone has ever set a cat in a box with poison to test this experiment. I think you are missing some understanding.
It's a thought experiment, not a real one. Rather, the cat is a macro object we can analogously apply the concepts onto, just as we treat atoms or protons as billiard balls in many introductory mental models. Recreating the thought experiment as a real life experiment indeed wouldn't tell us anything.
@@kaitlyn__L I know, and it's a stupid thought experiment. whether or not the wave function collapses is completely dependent upon if there's a observer or not. Since the cat counts as a observer, the thought experiment is completely nonsensical and only proves that the author of it doesn't know what he's even talking about.
The multiverse apologists frame it as "oh, there's not a new universe created to align with every single possible wavefunction collapse!". If not that, then what precisely determines what makes a new universe? What difference does it make on the scale of infinity if it's every Earth Day that a new universe splits or it's infinite times every planck second? The idea isn't only insane (where would all the mass/energy come from to create these infinite universes?), it's completely untestable and therefore not science, but religion. It's worse than string hypothesis, and not even universities are falling for it this time.
The answers to both, starting with the first, are: Almost all minor changes cancel each other out, via destructive interference. Therefore their "branches" merge back together almost as quickly as they are "created". And; There is no extra mass/energy, it is the exact same mass/energy in different states of superposition with itself (autointerference being fact from the double slit experiment). They are not physically separate universes you could travel to while retaining yourself. They are just mutually decohered possibilities for the exact same set of matter. And I resolutely don't believe in the idea. But there are cohesive answers to those seemingly-intractable criticisms which don't just rely on pseudoreligious faith. For sure, most of the adherents among laypeople are doing it based on pseudoreligious fervour. But that doesn't reflect on the actual hypothesis.
@@jansenart0 personally, I reject locality over embracing superdeterminism :P but I agree many worlds is a poor way to square that circle, especially since it just shifts the responsibility of chance from “how the waveform collapses” to “which quantum world you find yourself in”.
How you have only 61k subscribers is beyond me. Your channel is on par with the best scify, star trek and philosophical channels out there
Thank you! Humbly, I agree, I should have more subscribers 😂
My biggest issue with the fine-tuning argument is that it seems to assume that life and intelligence are some kind of "goal" for the universe to create, rather than a byproduct. Life and consciousness are such nebulously-defined concepts that I have no problem believing it could be possible in a universe with drastically different physics. But the only life we have evidence of is our own, and since there's technically no evidence that it exists anywhere else in the universe, it's also hard to argue against fine-tuning as some sort of universal quantum immortality.
Agreed!
My main issue with the fine-tuning argument is that there is no evidence that the physics can bany different than what they are. Such as the strength of gravity or that of the weak or strong nuclear forces being weaker or stronger then what they actually are.
It is just a way for humans to make it so they are the pinnacle that they are meant to be and have "dominion". It's almost like religious thinking hidden in science. They want to mean something have a purpose and not face the possibility that no, were just here and only for now
@@ronabitz5156At the beginning of our iteration of the Universe, there was no strong or weak force. Nor was there any gravity. Nor the atoms with which they interact.
So there is evidence they had different values in the past.
And a googolplex years from now, after the last ultramassive black hole has evaporated and the last neutron has degenerated and the entire Universe goes through heat death, there will be no vectors upon which the forces can act, meaning they are then zero.
So, unless a new bubble forms within our Universe (which might be able to happen and would definitely... unalive everything everywhere,) the fundamental forces of our Universe will become old and weak and dead, just like us, just like the Universe.
Beautiful, really.
Anyhow, don't worry, because there's gotta be a parallel universe where there actually was a benevolent and wise god who designed and created an *actual* perfect universe... by just not creating it. Just made all the human souls it wanted, plopped them down in Paradise/Heaven whatever, and got on with its glorious eternal retirement, no fuss, no muss.
I have a hard time with the fine tuning argument because earth is the only place known place where life exists and even on earth there are places that are inhospitable for many life forms. If the universe was fine tuned for life then we should be able to inhabit the entire universe with no issue. But we can’t. Earth just happens to be at the right spot.
"This is the Worst Timeline." SnarkNSass
That old man river done uploaded been waiting all week!
Hey Tyler, comment here. Took me a few days for my brain to be at the right angle to absorb this one. Even though like a lot of these physics focused videos I usually have read into the background already (unlike the alien biology ones), I still knew it'd be interesting.
One thing I do want to mention to start is the "computational universe", the "informational universe", and simulation theory are all distinct from each other. The script doesn't really conflate them, but the use of the Matrix B-roll for both "informational" and "simulated" does link the two in the viewer's mind.
It's worth pointing out that the distinction between the "measurement" and the "measurer" isn't always so clear in the Copenhagen interpretation either. For instance there's a classic extension to Schroedinger's Cat which posits about the wave function of the scientist who looks in the box, from the perspective of another scientist who is waiting on the results. Where the scientist in the room with the box clearly knows the answer, but inside their OWN "box" of the test chamber the result is still unknown to their colleagues in the outside world and thus hasn't collapsed yet. It raises questions about the nature of causality, given quantum phenomena. (Of course many worlds also sidesteps that one.)
Also, while your brief mention of an infinite universe repeating itself is basically an invocation of the "does a set of all sets contain itself?" question; there are ways for a universe to be spatially infinite but to never have enough time to actually repeat sections of itself. This is a quite different kind of infinity from the kind where Pi has infinite digits and therefore contains any arbitrary string SOMEWHERE within itself. Partly because the complexity of a region of space is not one dimensional like "the value of a digit", and even infinite space in 3 dimensions does not have enough room to hold all of the higher-order permutations of every single possible 3D space. To go deeper than that requires hella preamble about the different scales of infinity and Aleph numbers, so I've tried to focus more on the implications than the mechanism, but yeah.
Another fun thing is there are technically experiments which COULD give scientific credence to the multiverse in their affirmative state, but where a null result is not conclusive. For instance the "quantum immortality" thought experiment where a researcher Schroedinger's Cats themselves via various methods, but never dies. As past a certain number of "death chances", even the best string of human luck shouldn't produce that outcome until long after the heat death of the universe. Of course, the problem (besides an ethics board) is for every confirmatory result, there will be truly astronomical quantities of universes created where the researcher does indeed kick the bucket. So the null result doesn't mean anything.
Lastly, I love your application of the anthropic principle to this, because most of my research on the weak anthropic principle as explanation for the apparent "fine-tuning" has been on the non-many-worlds hypotheses. They also involve "universes" with different physical laws (such as in the inflaton field hypothesis), but physically very distant rather than in the exact same physical space but decohered. Which naturally make all the other deeper physics (and some philosophical) implications quite different, as they have no bearing on the closer-to-home questions about history and free will. So that's a definite fun wrinkle to this version, that the antimatter universe literally is "on top of" our universe very much like in that bonkers Trek episode!
Anyway, I hope this wasn't too long, especially since it's been a few days since the video came out so I'm not sure how much effort you're giving to checking out comments on this video. But I figured I'd write this anyway in case even one other person finds it interesting!
Another dope video! The Multiverse for me is entertaining. I'm too busy in the Universe that I currently live in to even consider what is going on in another. Are gas prices lower? Are we all half bird-plant-dog people? Does the middle finger mean peace and love in another Universe? Things that make me go... hmmm.
Glad you enjoyed it Odari!
Anything is possible.
Nothing is absolute.
Great upload. The best application of quantum physics I've heard is 'quantum accounting.' To help prevent fraud.
Looking forward to next Livestream, whenever it is.
Peace and live long and prosper ✌️🖖
LLAP!
why does no one state the fact that schodinger made the theory as a mockery of just how ridiculous the entire concept was
12:59
Is there a universe where Riker doesn't put his leg up uncomfortably close to Data's face?
02:50f: The main flaw of the thought experiment is the idea that only the human is an observer. Of course, the dead cat I no observer any more but it witnesses either nothing happening or the mechanism crushing the poison bottle.
Tbh the way I see it is that all of existence is everything that CAN happen, or has happened, existing in many parallel realities, but we can only experience it as a progression through linear time in a deterministic but unknown fixed timeline. We can recall the things that happened to us but we can’t know all of the things that could happen to us because it’s all happened and we only get to know the one we are destined to experience. That everything in existence emits energy and radiation and maybe these various wavelengths coincide with the the Big Bang of a new universe but like an everlasting big bang that continues to radiate out that never ended exploding into existence.
I say we split the difference. The multiverse hypothesis is true in some parallel universes but not in others.
Many Worlds Seems Like Nonsense To Me.
This is certainly one of the best videos I've seen about this subject, very well and clearly explained, great job !
Thank you!
How did you learn all about this?
@Dog Pluto Me? Um, Internet research haha
Your sci-fi videos are the Best!! Keep up the great work!
Thank you angstony!
In all honesty, interpretations of quantum mechanics are rarely discussed in physics. If physicists discuss them, it is usually in populair science literature (i.e. a book they want to sell to the public).
I don't comment on videos usually but I found this hit home on a personal level...great video bro
Thank you so much!
I only understood about 1/137th of this!
Remember, even when quoting Tegmark and he "affirms" something, it's just his opinion. Since it's untestable,The guy doesn't know anymore than we do about this topic.
Our universe is fine tuned for death.
Your videos are awesome, and always a pleasure to watch
Honestly based Orangeriver perspective at the end there
@OrangeRiver One reason to wish for alternate realities is death. When my husband died, imagining other worlds where he had not meant he was still alive in some. In some, I had died, and he was going through what I was going through, so in a sense, we were going through it together, but alone in our house, each haunting the other's home. I don't really feel like that now, but for a time, it was helpful, rather than just having to face that, whatever the case, in this world, he was gone, and I would never see him again. The part of me alive in his mind died with him, while the part of him alive in mine... There are good and bad parts of all relationships. Trying to argue with a dead person about why they did or didn't do things is problematic. At any rate, in a multiverse, if there should happen to be some form of afterlife, eventually all copies of an individual will end up dead, possibly "collapsing" into one experiential person, having to sort out everything that "individual" ever experienced, being reunited with everyone they ever encountered, in whatever worldline. Multiple spouses, variations on kids, variations on pets, etc.. That would be a lot to deal with.
“Newton’s Flaming Laser Saber” always comes to mind when the Multiverse is mentioned.
Gay
@@nickdenton3633 quiet you
The worst part is, in quantum theory, the multiverse *is* the simplest solution when compared to the likes of the fucking Copenhagen interpretation.
@@LAJ-47FC9 not really, theres no observation to base a hypothesis like Many Worlds on that doesn't necessitate the imagining of many things that cant ever and wont ever be observed
@@arcaneinane still better than the Copenhagen Interpretation, which requires you to imagine some stupid shit.
Multiverse theory is cannon in Hinduism. You could say that Multiverse theory was adopted by Hinduism before it was cool.
Great video!
Thank you Oliver!
@@OrangeRiver You're welcome! Thanks for so many great videos!
I like the idea of parallel universes that are a little different, like the Mirror Dimension, or the Dark World from Zelda: A Link to the Past, or Termina from Zelda: Majora's Mask. I don't like the idea that every decision leads to a new universe being formed. Like, if I decide to cut my fingernails today instead of tomorrow, a new universe is created. I don't want that kind of power.
Any such worlds would not be created by your decision, but rather, freak coincidence across reality. Quantum interactions in particular are what causes a split in Many Worlds, and I'm pretty sure that clipping your toenails doesn't happen at a quantum level!
You can clip your toenails - or not - and rest easy, friend.
Well, you might not have a choice.
I wish I could fully understand what you are talking about.
If parallel universes have always existed, I don't understand the reasoning why we would have evolved in such a way as to not perceive them in the first place.
We kind of do, it's called foresight. Much of our daily thought is directed towards potential future events. In fact, most life evolves this way to strategize a way to survive, whether it's to catch a meal or prevent becoming the meal.
Many thanks for this insightful video - really appreciate your research and presentations of scientific concepts to provide contrast to sci-fi. Dlighted to discover your channel - been enjoying many of your videos!
Thank you so much!
I was under the impression that the idea of multiple parallels universes was used as an example of why there is something wrong with out current model of physics since its something that should be impossible.
Good write up as usual.
Similar to simulation theory it's a cool idea but it isn't something I'll hang my philosophical hat on
Even thoughI have written a couple of short stories based on the idea, mostly through the Lee Smolin framing of the conceit.
Superposition hints pretty strongly that multiple universes exist.
This was a fun way to spend my Saturday morning 😁😉
How can the multiverse work like in Star Trek or comic books without violating the conservation of energy? If the multiverse was real, it would have to be untestable. If you can cross between different universes, you'd be able to infinitely increase mass and energy.
Also, observation is defined differently than what we casually mean. It doesn't just mean someone watching or looking at something. Observation means interaction. In order to see an object, light has to bounce off that object and hit your eyes or a sensor. But the light hitting the object is an interaction, it causes a slight change in the object.
This was a great video Tyler. I think we can still use the weak entropic principle to consider the nature of our own universe even if other universes are hypothetical. We can imagine that most other possible universes would not have the physical make up to support the particular beings we are, and we do not need to actually believe in other universes beyond our own to realize this. Anyway, I wanted to ask: how does a modal realist differ from someone who believes completely in the many worlds interpretation?
I'm actually hoping that some day someone creates a Sliders "remote" hee hee - but doesn't get lost on another Earth. There are a myriad of other "Earths" that I'd love to visit if I could!
Rip good thumbnail
The use, nay, overuse, of time travel and multiversing is burnt out. It’s not even close to unique or original anymore, and hasn’t been for at least 3 decades. Due to this overuse writers have to move into areas that are just downright absurd, and not even believable in an alternate reality run by Q.
Whatever the case may be, we've still got to get up and go to work tomorrow.
Ps, I love your work. ♡
WHAT! 😳👍 No clips from SLIDERS!
I love ANY reference to 'The Alternative Factor.'
The Copenhagen theory of quantum mechanics makes the most sense because it proves free will. Everything is a wave in reality until we act upon or observe it then it becomes physical and tangible. This is where faith and science intersect completely.
Yes, as I said in another comment, this actually discredits that theory because it assumes humans have the special state of being metaphysical observers who change the nature of reality by "observing" it despite the fact that we are ultimately just very complex objects.
Awesome stuff :)
There are good Philosophical reasons to deny the Many Worlds Hypothesis. Philosophy says, given an opportunity to make an alternate Choice at any given time; we always make the same choice. Ten out of ten times, if we chose blue socks once; we would make that same choice all ten times. Like rewinding a video ten times and playing it ten times; Moe would always slap Larry and Curly in that one instance of time. Therefore, no alternate choice can be generated, to produce an alternate Reality...
"Time is a flat circle" is a more pessimistic way of looking at it.
the multiverse hypothesis comes from the same place as the simulation hypothesis: people want them to be true. I find the popularity of these ideas interesting because they essentially devalue people's lives, but people seem to hope they exist. Why is this? Is it a yearning for freedom of some sort? An escape? What is the hope? Why do people want this to be the "true" reality?
I think one of my fascinations with the related field of alternate history has always been examining _why_ certain choices were made that led to where we are today, and how that could inform the way we proceed going forward. But yeah, I definitely find the multiverse hypothesis hard to believe...it honestly does seem like an escape for people
@@OrangeRiver don't get me wrong, I love alternate history and the multiverse esp in so far as it allows for so many great stories. I feel like I might have asked you this very early on but did you have any appreciation or interest in "The Man in the High Castle" because there are so many points in history, so many battles where you can imagine what would have happened had things gone differently and WW2 in the US is a really great setting/time to use alternate history.
I haven't read or watched The Man in the High Castle but have read and heard things about it for years!
@@OrangeRiver it's a very fun storytelling universe. It's very easy to imagine the what if in WW2 because it really could have gone the other direction. I love all this stuff because it offers such ripe storytelling opportunities which is fun as a reader and a viewer
I think there is a multiverse, but our notion that it somehow verges on us is ridiculous. It’s about universes with different forms, different quantum fields, different basic laws of physics, different dimensionality, etc. Universes such as those would not have another me. Nothing there would be like it is here.
Observation is something I always have trouble with. I hardly think a human “observing” something changes it, but our tools used to observe them interferes with them and therefore changes them.
The universe is so fine tuned for life that 99.9% of the universe is inhospitable to life. It makes much more sense, to me at least, that universe selection bias is choosing for black holes. each black hole creates a new universe, so universes that propagate many black holes produce more. The apparent expansion of the universe is universes under ours stretching out like our own.
There's a fantastic little series of PBS Space Time episodes exactly about various black-hole evolutionary-universe hypotheses, I strongly urge you to check them out!
(I won't spoil how much of your comment are said to be plausible under each specific hypothesis, I will say it's not 100% of it while still being a surprisingly high amount.)
Another really easy way to explain the fine-tuning argument is that it is fine-tuned and was created by a supreme being the first uncaused cause
I feel like we are fairly certain that there are various dimensions to explain lots of the stranger occurrences in science. Extrapolation isn't that hard to expand it to multiverse. The big bang happened but where did all of that information come from? How did it happen? Was it a clash of 2d universes that expressed itself in 3 dimensions.
If the universe was finetuned for life, then it wouldn't be so hostile to life. Life is fine tuned to it's environment because it dies any other way, hence why mass extinctions have been a thing.
Yeah. It's a grift peddled by religious folk to convince people they're doing science. Like "intelligent design"
@Pin Ky you can't say that, because you have never seen those other conditions. For all you know, there would still be life that fits those parameters instead of the ones we have now. It would just be different because it would have to survive in that environment.
@Pin Ky Also, you need to brush up on your understanding of logical. That is a word that has a definition.
@Pin Ky your like a puddle that claims the impression in the dirt it sits in is perfectly designed because it fits so perfectly.
@Pin Ky I mean, prove it. Show me a universe without atoms and then we can have a conversation. Until then, you're just making things up and expecting people to take your game of make believe as seriously as anything observable. Also, It had everything to do with the conversation and the fact that you claim that you don't see that is part of the problem(cognitively).
Ooooh I would love to see you discuss Charlie Jade and it's take on the multiverse
Good video, but surprised you didn't mention 'The Grandfather Paradox' 🤷
Would be appropriate specifically for a time travel video :0
I'd like to know if Hugh Everett read Jorge Luis Borges's story, "The Garden of Forking Paths," published in 1941.
My answer with the video not seen yet: yes.
I've been reading the literature for years now. I'm definitely in the Copenhagen camp. Max Texmarck ( bad spelling sorry) theory that I've seen docs on are compelling. Too bad the LHC wasn't able to put it to rest when they confirmed the Higgs boson. It favours neither Symmetry or Super Symmetry. Awesome ep Tyler. My brain hurts 🤣 🖖😁🤘🇨🇦
Thanks Colin!
Hi Tyler, you might be interested in the Ruliad, as defined by Stephen Wolfram.
05:40
Copenhagen interpretation is still dominant but if it really regards the observer as isolated from the quantum system (s)he observes, it states something obviously nonsensical.
When it comes to testability: Is the Copenhagen interpretation testable against others such as many worlds? I think no.
Yes, i made it. Hi Tyler
Don't forget that we have a sample size of exactly 1 for life as we know it.
The anthropic principle has two solutions; yes, parallel universes, but also...serial universes, one after the other in time.
I long ago decided to approach having alternate universe versions of myself like Gabriel Yulaw approached his alternate versions: I will be the one!
Time is more than a concept , it holds the 4th dimension together , looking from outside in , you would see all possibilities, occurring future past and present , you know Omnipotent
How are you describe the Multiverse isn’t that just the principle of Choice every choice makes a difference Paulo timeline.
I thought the Multiverse were the differences of the multiple Big Bang, theories, and each big band makes a difference, Multiverse?
Is the Universe fine tuned for life? For Human life? Yes and no, we are more fine tuned for it. However from our perspective its fine tuned for us, because its impossible for it to be any other way and for us to still be here to ask the question. If the universe was different, then their likely would be different life, and thus we wouldn't be here.
Great essay, Tyler! I love your Trek content, but stuff like this shows you can make most subjects within the nerdverse enjoyable. Great take home message as well 🖖
Thanks Gary!
If there's all these alternate universes, where they at then?
Yup
Imma bet on us living in a black hole, in a universe, that's in another black hole, so on and so fourth.
@7:35
"...have yielded nothing significant."
Except that unimaginably vast portions of our Universe are comprised of gravitationally repulsive regions that otherwise don't interact with reality in any yet detectable way?
That's... pretty significant, eh?
Right but what does that prove? I mean, that just sounds like dark energy to me.
*Mister Mxyzptlk* begs to differ...
Love the video! I like to believe a pure scientist will not rule out any possibility no matter how outlandish.
IMO, The MWI interpretation is "too neat" but it's also the Occam's razor. If it became possible to see into other timelines/world-lines/realities, and none of them contained life, it would be devastating. Like if someone who believes in a higher power suddenly was shown "heaven" and it's just this exact same world gain, except everyone wears a hat. We have no way to know if they exist, but if it were possible, it would probably give people no sense of purpose if it's shown that this is the only worldline where we haven't annihilated ourselves. Yet.
Hello I love your videos
It is a bizarre theory. Urrerly bizarre. Even to speak of another Universe is far far out. However far out is now the norm in pop physics.
Ballsy topic
It takes just about as much faith to believe in a multiverse as it does to believe in God.
i believe in God first then i believe that he created all including other possible universes.😇🤔😎
Ive always been interested in the possibility of the multiverse because im a history nerd. So many choices and battles were close to going another direction but because of a certain person our world exists.
Crazy how many of histories most impactful wars were at least influenced, if not decided, by a storm or rampant disease.
I would say the multiverse has about the same credibility as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Basically the multiverse is a construct to answer a question that science does not have an answer for!
Multiverses in fiction are basically always bad. It always diminishes the stakes and makes you wonder why you should care about this iteration of an infinite iteration of the same characters.
IRL, the multiverse is not science. It's cosmic speculation. We have a terrible habit of calling anything related to fields of scientific inquiry "science" when it's not. For that matter, a quantum superposition such Schrodinger's cat is not science. In fact it posits the metaphysical construct of "an observer." It's basically a religious claim; humans being special observers of reality is basically the same as saying we have souls. The cat is not both dead and alive until the mighty and divine human "collapses its superposition" by observing it. It is either only dead or alive, you just lack the knowledge of which it is.
Cosmology is absolutely a field of science, and often does make testable claims (even though this particular cosmological idea does not).
Schroedinger's Cat is indeed not Science, it is a thought experiment used to explain some hard to grasp concepts using easier to grasp ones. Just as the "billiard ball model" of particle physics is not real, nor is the "planetary model" of an atom, yet they are extremely useful tools as an introduction to the core concepts.
Also, quantum physics does not create a metaphysical "observer" as you detract. It is not solipsistic. (Though even Einstein interpreted it like that, as he said "the moon is still there even when I am not looking at it" as a rebuttal.) In quantum physics "observation" just means interaction. In fact, many influential people in the field hate that the OGs coined "observer" instead of "interacter", but the history is what it is.
Sunlight bouncing off the moon is an "observation" (interaction). Air molecules hitting a leaf is an "observation" (interaction). Any chemical, well, interaction is an interaction. This is why a camera can capture a scene on photoreactive film even without a person present. Why an electron microscope can create images even in a room with no humans to operate it.
So the cat of course could "observe" itself, as it's a macroscopic structure created by many many quantum-scale reactions. But as it is a thought experiment, it is not meant to be taken literally in that regard. Rather it, among other things, raises questions of how we can know a collapse has occurred without looking. Say if you run a double slit experiment overnight; the true physical superposition has already collapsed long ago, but your "superposition" in your own brain hasn't yet.
And that's not just a fun artefact of being a thought experiment, there are real physical experiments with real detection equipment (rather than a metaphorical cat to represent an electron) such as the "delayed choice quantum eraser" which further raise questions of where and when autointerference and wavefunction collapse actually occurs.
Unless we can ever be able to find a way to escape this universe, we will never know if this is the only one or if there are other universes. There is always a chance that the theories for or against the existence a multiverse may be completely wrong and the correct version is so totally different from how humans currently think that we simply cannot conceive it.
I like Many Worlds better than the Copenhagen interpretation. Schroedinger's Cat was satirical, damnit!
Schroeder's cat is always a classic.
The Multiverse is a real theory but thats as far as it goes however thats all I know and my information is around 20 years old
its still Hypothetical, not a real Theory.
Ask yourself what is another dimension and what is another universe? It's not the same right. And IF we have big bobbles around us they CAN BE different universes probably and not different dimensions. But if they are different to our universe they can be different from us. The question is how different. I don't believe in other dimensions or that there is Humans in another universe. We have to care about the problems we have now otherwise we will never even send people to live in "hell"(it doesn't exist but you get the idea) on Mars. And things like that are pretty fun for us that lives here.
Two words - Roger Penrose. Comments?
Absolutely not fine tuned. That's a grift peddled by religious folk to convince people that God is scientific, like "intelligent design" which is also inherently not scientific.
That's definitely my biggest criticism of the fine-tuning argument, yep. Thinly veiled intelligent design.
Indeed, intelligent design but I choke on water because it went down the wrong tube...not very intelligently designed if you actually observe.
But there are 20+ cosmological constants, each of which requires an incredibly precise degree of fine tuning, that the odds of all 20+ cosmological constants being as perfectly fine tuned as they are in such a way that permits life to exist is literally astronomical. This is one huge reason why I and many others are convinced that Intelligent Design is indeed the best possible explanation for why we exist.
@@derekatkins4800 and the universe is huge and has who knows how many -illions of planetary systems. It makes sense statistically that a planetary system like ours would pop up eventually.
@@nunya_bizniz Yes, there are countless galaxies, stars, and planets in our universe. But if there’s life on other worlds (especially other intelligent life), then we have to ask the question Enrico Fermi asked: Where is everyone?
I have little doubt we will probably find simple life forms on other planets, but I highly doubt we will ever find other intelligent life out there.
Yuuuup!😅
Wow dude you're fucking smart
Sometimes I wonder if we're experiencing time backwards, and the seeming deliberate nature of the universe's mechanics is due to it being emergent in the direction opposite to what we experience, and that our perception of time is a result of the universe's expansion and that it is actually looking towards the microscopic that we see the future and the macroscopic that we see the past, or vice versa, and that our idea of multicellular organisms being more complex is incorrect and that every human is really a cell of a being from the past leading back eventually to one organism that was the start of it all (God). But that's just a little thought experiment to keep my mind open to different perspectives
I'm getting tired of mutliveses in science Fiction Because is being Overused fad In science fiction
I think it should be used less often.
Q would know
Has the multiverse Theory became controversial in science? Physics and quantum mechanics is not my things so I'm not up to date on anything related to this field.
I mean, hasn't it always been controversial? Lol
@OrangeRiver ?
What are you trying to ask me? Lmfao
@OrangeRiver what caused the multiverse theory to become controversial. I remember back in the early 2000s string theory was popular. Sorry for the vague reply.
I can't find exact numbers on its popularity over time (besides the polls I included in the video), but my best guess as to the reason is that 1) developments in these wackier theories caused a lot of media hype that has since died down and 2) more importantly, further experiments with different quantum theories and advances in our understanding of the universe have led to things like pilot wave theory becoming more popular.
Schrodinger's cat experiment is dumb. The cat is conscious, thus counts as a observer. Surely the cat is aware of it's own state of being.
Not if it's dead. 🙀
@@pluto9000 Well.. Excatly.. (sorry) If it's dead it's dead. Not dead and alive at the same time.
@@druncle1977it's just a thought experiment. That's why noone has ever set a cat in a box with poison to test this experiment. I think you are missing some understanding.
It's a thought experiment, not a real one. Rather, the cat is a macro object we can analogously apply the concepts onto, just as we treat atoms or protons as billiard balls in many introductory mental models. Recreating the thought experiment as a real life experiment indeed wouldn't tell us anything.
@@kaitlyn__L I know, and it's a stupid thought experiment. whether or not the wave function collapses is completely dependent upon if there's a observer or not. Since the cat counts as a observer, the thought experiment is completely nonsensical and only proves that the author of it doesn't know what he's even talking about.
Woo hoo hoo hooooo!
The multiverse apologists frame it as "oh, there's not a new universe created to align with every single possible wavefunction collapse!". If not that, then what precisely determines what makes a new universe? What difference does it make on the scale of infinity if it's every Earth Day that a new universe splits or it's infinite times every planck second?
The idea isn't only insane (where would all the mass/energy come from to create these infinite universes?), it's completely untestable and therefore not science, but religion. It's worse than string hypothesis, and not even universities are falling for it this time.
The answers to both, starting with the first, are:
Almost all minor changes cancel each other out, via destructive interference. Therefore their "branches" merge back together almost as quickly as they are "created".
And;
There is no extra mass/energy, it is the exact same mass/energy in different states of superposition with itself (autointerference being fact from the double slit experiment). They are not physically separate universes you could travel to while retaining yourself. They are just mutually decohered possibilities for the exact same set of matter.
And I resolutely don't believe in the idea. But there are cohesive answers to those seemingly-intractable criticisms which don't just rely on pseudoreligious faith. For sure, most of the adherents among laypeople are doing it based on pseudoreligious fervour. But that doesn't reflect on the actual hypothesis.
@@kaitlyn__L I find it just to be nonsensical cope over the alternative of superdeterminism.
@@jansenart0 personally, I reject locality over embracing superdeterminism :P but I agree many worlds is a poor way to square that circle, especially since it just shifts the responsibility of chance from “how the waveform collapses” to “which quantum world you find yourself in”.
Multiverse is not a new concept...Everett hypothesis'
Are you deaf?
The down vote was an accidental misclick lol
Its truly astounding the lengths people go to explain the Fine Tuning of our universe just so they can reject the existence of God
I mean, I reject both, but I do take your point...the fine-tuning argument is very similar to religious reasoning.
The Multiverse, FICTION?! YOU SHUT YOUR FACE, AND KEEP IT SHUT!!!
Nice commentary on this fan fictional science 😆 🤣