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

Damnn so many outcomes. One would say an infinite amount

Rick and Morty are right.

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... ?

They all happen. You just happen to be in the one you’re in. Think of it like a Plinko board. There are infinite paths. But you’re the ball that makes it to the bottom. All other paths happened, but those balls are not you.

@@masonb9788 so when there are two probabilities with the wave function, if they both happen, how is this entire new universe generated and where is it?

@@deanodebo I don’t have a better answer than Sean already gave in the video.

@@masonb9788 right so it magically just exponentially produces more and more universes full of mass and energy right and that’s perfectly believable

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.

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 😅

I am doing that literally. I get up every morning and listen to him until I go to bed.

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 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 😁

🤣

😂

You exist within a self simulation to evolve consciousness and lower entropy. You are God playing hide and seek🫣

It's absolute codswallop

Same 🤔

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.

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.

It's simulations all the way down

And now sit down and relax 😊

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.

Your demand to define it at the end is hilarious lol.

Infinite parallel universes. Permutations for observers for each die roll on earth.

infinite

To the infinity

lol

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..

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.

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

Uap

@InnerLuminosity lol i expected gibberish but man...

That’s rich coming from someone who is critiquing highly-specialised physicists with their high school science knowledge