Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • Okay, so this is on idea to explain very a strange coincidences by saying, Actually, there isn't just one universe out there.

  • There's a whole bunch of universes out there, and they all have different laws of physics.

  • And so, for example, in some some universes you might end up with laws of physics that basically mean the universe doesn't live for very long at all.

  • It just snapped into existence and snapped out of existence again.

  • In other universes.

  • It can expand through these processes, of course, make inflation.

  • And so once I went out with a nice big universe that lives for a long time.

  • And the idea is, if you wantto ask the question, you know, why did we end up with the universe, which is live for a nice long time and all those other things is that well, actually, the world loads and loads of universes got created, and this kind of this evolutionary process, this sort of survival of the fittest that the fittest universe expands and takes up more volume and lives for longer.

  • And so therefore, the fact we live in a universe like that is because it's just that's That's the universe that one in this multiverse competition that actually, yes, you create this whole long ensemble of universes.

  • And actually, the reason why we live in one that's so nice is just because, Well, that's because there were so many to choose from.

  • That's the one we were gettinto end up in that seems to have nice parallels with things like stars and planets and Galaxies.

  • And it does.

  • My problem with it is that it's completely untested below, as far as I can tell in that you know this idea that that the sun is just one star, for example, it's a hypothesis.

  • And then you learn little Maura, Maura about other stars out there by observing them by making observations on them and then you find you it's true.

  • Actually, the sun is no different from any other stuff.

  • So that kind of principle cosmological principle that says, you know, we're nothing special.

  • We contest physically.

  • The multi verse.

  • As far as I can tell, we can't test physically because the idea that there are other universes out there well, how do we communicate with them?

  • How do we find out?

  • How do we observe them?

  • We can only observe, sort of, by definition, our own universe.

  • And so at that level, I don't think it's physics.

  • I think it's philosophy is what you're doing there.

  • It's a philosophical way of thinking about things, because our physics something to be physics.

  • That has to be a testable hypothesis.

  • You have to be able to test whether it's real or not on bears.

  • No experiment you could do that will allow you to distinguish between an idea.

  • There are many, many universes out there all that.

  • This is the only universe.

  • Maybe, you know, maybe there are very subtle measurements you can make.

  • Maybe the reason universes in some way interact with each other.

  • If that's the case, then suddenly it becomes physics.

  • It ceases to be philosophy, because then this may be a measurement you could make that will determine that the really other one of the universe is out there.

  • But until someone comes up with that test actually tries it, it really stays in the realm of philosophy robber than physics.

  • Just because it's not physics as you distract, that doesn't mean it's not reality E.

  • I think you have to.

  • Well, you have to be very careful what you mean by reality, in that sense, Because again, reality to me at least, means that it has some testable consequences.

  • You know something?

  • For something to be rial, you have to be able to interact with it in some way even, you know, even things as bizarre as neutrinos, where they don't interact very much with things.

  • And so you could actually say, Well, are they really there or No, But actually, once in a while, they need direct.

  • And so you can say you'll get the really is in you, Trina.

  • So for something to be rial, I think it has to be interact with other things on.

  • There has to be some observable consequence of that interaction so that you're gonna say that's a real thing.

  • Whereas the multi verse.

  • I don't think if the reason their interaction between these different elements of the multi verse, then it's it's not even clear to me that the word really has any meaning to it, but doesn't.

  • Isn't that like may saying a person that you never meet in your lifetime wondering around in China doesn't exist because you never met him?

  • They don't exist to you, but they still exist.

  • But I could imagine phoning them.

  • I get, you know, the experiments I could do to confirm their existence, right?

  • I could phone them up and have a chat, whereas in the multi verse there isn't even an experiment I can think of doing that would allow me to interact.

  • But isn't that just because you're a weak mortal do isn't clever enough to think to go there or do the experiment?

  • It doesn't mean it's not there.

  • I knew that, I think is a semantic argument, right?

  • I don't think I really don't think you can.

  • It's a matter of opinion, right?

  • My my personal opinion is that that the reality of things requires there to be some test that somebody could do in order to actually show that there is a thing you've hypothesized actually has some consequences for other things.

  • Unless you could do that.

  • I think it really is not science and that's it, Yeah, except except that it's not scientifically provable that maybe at the moment, but it's an actor.

  • I mean, it's a faith, right?

  • It's a faith based thing.

  • It's like God, you, bye bye, sort of by construction.

  • You can't prove or disprove the existence of God, and it's the same as this and the reason why you can't do that, because there is no interaction.

  • So, you know, maybe God exists.

  • Maybe he or she doesn't.

  • But it's not something that's open toe scientific discussion.

  • It's certainly something which is open to a theological and philosophical discussion, and in that sense it's sort of a real thing to discuss.

  • But it's not something that sort of falls within the remit of physics, but to use your own words back in you Now, maybe in multi verses exist exactly, you know, But it's not E.

  • I mean on dhe.

  • If we're gonna have a philosophical discussion about it, I'm happy to discuss or three existence or nonexistence of More.

  • Diverse is just as I'm happy to discuss the existence or nonexistence of God.

  • If you want to talk about physics, neither God nor multi verse, it seemed to be open to any sort of sensible discussion as to whether or not they exist within the realms of physics.

  • It's sort of removes God, which I'm quite happy to push him as much of the way I hate the idea of metaphysics coming into physics.

  • So I'm rather attracted the multiverse scenario because it pushes those two things further apart.

  • This particular piece of Newton's apple tree And you can see it's genuine cause.

  • It says I n on it went up into space.

  • It went on the space shuttle Atlantis on into the International Space Station zero.

Okay, so this is on idea to explain very a strange coincidences by saying, Actually, there isn't just one universe out there.


動画の操作 ここで「動画」の調整と「字幕」の表示を設定することができます

B1 中級

多元宇宙は「現実」なのか?- 60のシンボル (Can a Multiverse ever be "real"? - Sixty Symbols)

  • 0 0
    林宜悉 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日