+Carlos Long surely Carlos...surely I am the one that hasn't read what I told you to read before getting back to me. You check those out? Thought not. Neophyte much? Happy 4th Carlos!! My pompous and uneducated friend!

+neighborhoods Dude! I'm good with my reading. If you can't articulate your argument, you have nothing of insight to provide. Again, I'm not a proponent of the many worlds theory but will suggest to you that it has as much support within the theoretical community as any current theory of reality. Meaning that it has not been falsified as you have erroneously stated. 

The many worlds interpretation has been proven to be incorrect..I'd consult Arvix. And who aside from Sean Carroll promotes this view popularly that the everettarian approach is in any way appropriate? I hear that the universe is a hologram or is a simulation which in a way means the same thing. Particles are pixels..the speed of light being constant sets our refresh rate ..massive programs like black holes slow down time..string theorists a few years ago found Claude shannons basis for computer code embedded in the equations of string theory.. an interesting thing how similar what we call our universe looks to an mmorpg

And specifically I'm speaking of the everettarian approach to quantum mechanics being debunked. Non locality has been shown to be what's going on here, which is very weird.. but has been shown to be objectively true.

+probablechoices You can't debunk non science. All of the postulations of the multiverse are speculation with all but a couple ever having the possibility of providing evidence. I'm not sure if non locality and many worlds are mutually exclusive. Entanglement has been proven as a real phenomenon but I'm not sure it precludes any or all of the variations of multiverse theory. Nevertheless, I do not personally believe that Everette's interpretation manifests at the macro and I have a problem in believing that I am part of an elaborate program. 

The Everettian (which you managed to spell incorrectly, not once but twice; doesn't exactly instil me with much confidence about your claims) interpretation of QM has been proven to be incorrect? This is news to me. There are many physicists and philosophers of science who stand by this interpretation. Try David Deutsch and David Wallace for a start.

+Monty Cantsin I'm sorry so you are telling me that the many worlds approach to the double slit has been objectively proven? Are you saying that non locality which has been shown to be what's happening has been disproven? Last I checked I was correct...and thanks for being the grammar police, it added greatly to your claims..are you familiar with the logical fallacies lol? 1 in particular..

+Monty Cantsin and yes I am specifically stating that the many worlds approach to QM has been Falsified...do you require citations or you've heard of Google? I can provide next time I check Yt. Non locality Is* what is going on. You cite the papers or articles falsifying non locality and I'll provide the juxtaposition but I don't see any papers on the many worlds approach being in any way correct or near correct...so good luck

I'm not saying that at all. I'm remaining neutral on the matter and acknowledging that there are still several formulations currently on the table. Unless you can link me to a peer-reviewed paper that conclusively shows that the MWI has been disproven and that Carroll, Deutsch, Tegmark, Wallace, et al. are entirely wrong to continue adhering to this position? As for your last point, if you are going to make such strong claims (i.e. that an entire branch of interpreting QM has been disproved), the very least you can do is get the terminology correct.

+probablechoices Dude! Many Worlds has not been falsified. Neither has any of the other 8 or so multiverse theories. There is no empirical evidence to either support or deny any of the multiverse iterations. What evidence do you have that refutes the many worlds interpretation?

+Carlos Long: I don't know who this guy thinks he is. Appears to be of the view that he knows more than most of the world's leading physicists...

+Monty Cantsin I have a problem with those who invent their own theories or suggest they are smarter than the brightest minds on the planet. I don't understand how he can suggest that entanglement falsifies any multiverse iteration when we have no concept of the underlying mechanics of how it works. My best guess is that non locality proves an underlying connection of wave function among all particles. I'm not sure why he believes that would exclude the multiverse. 

+Carlos Long ok start with a Google search of violation of the leggett-Garg inequalities with weak measurements of protons, 2011. Google experimental violations of bells inequalities. Google quantum entanglement experiment proves non locality.... Or don't..totally up to you. If you want to believe that many worlds is what is taking place in Qm that's ok with me..but do your research for gods sake first and you'll see it ain't. Do your own research, I've done mine and that's my world view, butit's only mine..reality is subjective my friend. If you are interested in learning about how similar this universe is to a "video game" Google Brian Whitworth there is a cool paper he put out many years ago directly relating aspects of our physics to aspects of computer science I think it's called "the physical world as a virtual reality". Good talk

+Monty Cantsin I'm no different from You friend..your assertions are just* as subjective as mine..or any "leading physicists"..like the priests of yore they are to you lol. Once they tell you you live in a Vr then you'll believe it..observation is apparently too difficult for some of us :) Have a nice day!

No no friend...for goodness sake we are on different planets apparently..as I posted my last comment I just read your last..clearly it is more than likely that other universes exist..duh..more than likely IMO. I'm talking about the many worlds approach to Quantum Mechanics...Are we clear on that? NON_Locality/MANY WORLDS I"m discussing QM...non locality/ and a multiverse are in no way mutually exclusive and I never said they were..I'm talking about Quantum Mechanics..The many worlds approach to QM is false..unless Monty says it isn't apparently lol... I think maybe we aren't even on the same book let alone page..but still check that stuff out I think you may like it friend. Take good care.

+probablechoices: We're quite aware that the issue at hand is the MWI of QM. No one has brought different kinds of multiverses into the discussion so I've no idea where this notion came from. Secondly, my assertions are not just as subjective as yours. In the sense that most physicists and philosophers of science accept the Everettian interpretation of QM, that should be something of an indication that given the mathematics we have, it's the most consisted theory that accords with the way reality actually works. I am simply reiterating that this interpretation (and others) are still valid. Nothing more. You are the one who seems to be in a minority. Probably of one.

Couple questions... Who is "we're"? How many are there in your head? Also yes he did just say that, I was speaking in response to the other fellow where he said quote: "My best guess is that non locality proves an underlying connection of wave function among all particles. I'm not sure why he believes that would exclude the multiverse." so I replied to him... And yes actually Your assertions are exactly** as subjective as mine and the fact that you don't get that means we unfortunately can never get anywhere in this discussion.. and I'm quoting You here: "most physicists and philosophers of science accept the Everettian interpretation of QM" That is complete and utter crap and the fact that you say something like that lends me to think I'm speaking to someone in maybeeee High School? You literally haven't a clue about what you are speaking about..You are very very good at telling me who and what I am while espousing lies about Modern Physics...So come on dude..use the internet connection you have and read something about this subject before you attempt* to discuss this with Me further. Because "most physicists" DO NOT believe the nonsense you aspire to believe..For god sakes man..where did you go to school..? Refund...Thanks friend.

+Monty... After taking a look at Your Channel I see that you are an "artist"... so ya this conversation is over. No Wonder why you think the MWI of QM is real...it's more poetic lol..I had a good laugh after seeing your channel :) I wouldn't have responded originally to an artist speaking about QM..lol. Aye Carumba..so ya, I'm done speaking with you. And How dare you claiming to be an artist not understand subjectivity even..I'm appalled honestly..hence the state of modern art tho I suppose...ok bye bye Monty..

The other person who has responded to your comments; Carlos Long. We seem to be in agreement. Make sense? In relation to the quote you selected, are the terms non locality, wave function, and particles not an indication that the discussion was still about QM and not another type of multiverse? Why you felt the need to go on an angry rant about someone 'not even being on the same page' as you is beyond me. Your points were being addressed directly. I'm not going to argue about the definition of words subjective and objective. You clearly have difficulty grasping either and cannot accept that when your views are placed alongside that of professional scientists, they really amount to nothing. Send your findings along to Sean Carroll and let me know what kind of response you get.

+Carlos Long Dude your cohort Monty deleted all of his comments here..LOL :) Nailed it on the head didn't I? I love YouTube..a proper free education

+probablechoices Dude! I have no cohorts on these threads. I'm dissing you because you don't know what you are fucking talking about. You have confused two phenomena, non locality and multiverse theory. I have consented that quantum entanglement has been proven in recent experiments. I stop short of the leap that this is the underlying mechanism for extra dimensions and or other universes. Stop trying to act like you are smarter than the theoretical physicists. We're not ready to award you a Nobel Prize. 

+probablechoices PS: I've been more cordial than I normally am with you but don't get it twisted. Don't even try to bully me as you will find me less malleable than these other nerds. 

+Carlos Long +Carlos Long +Carlos Long lol.. I've never claimed to want any prizes nor was I confusing anything..you were with your original statement.. I was merely contesting your bs Interpretation for the laymen out there who may stumble upon it, bs from my point of view, as I've expressed before..believe whatever you want to believe but don't say that the mworlds inter. Of Qm is true cause it isn't, that's what I was saying regardless of what you were saying. Know what I'm saying? And you or your pal asked for information and I gave it and you say nothing about that..interesting. If you can't stand being challenged on a friendly YouTube comment than well that's just sad friend..so to summarize your statement was misleading..I clarified it..some jackass tried to help you..you concurred..I retorted..now you're complaining..have a great night Carlos

+Carlos Long PS Annie: In the end she gave up. Chris: There's nothing wrong with that. Annie: Her husband didn't think so. Chris: He was a coward! Being strong, not giving up, it was just his place to hide. He pushed away the pain so hard he disconnected himself from the person he loved most. [pause] Sometimes when you win, you lose.

+probablechoices​ Apparently reading is a skill. You lack critical reading skills. Where did I suggest that many worlds was valid? You have stated that the many worlds interpretation "has been falsified". How do you falsify something that has no physical means of probing? You have stated that non locality is the thing now. Entanglement is an interpretation of physical reality but it does not preclude the postulates of multiverse theory that arise organically from space geometry, Superstring theory, Eternal Inflation and extra dimensions. You don't get to state unequivocally that suppositions are "falsified" and others are valid when there is not a scintilla of evidence to support your notions. You think you know, but you don't really know!

+probablechoices Dude! I have figured out your problem. You waste your fucking time with video games and you believe you can dictate reality. The bottom line is the fact that non locality is real. You don't know the underlying mechanism of how it operates, it's scope or how it might play a role in a potential multiverse. You have no evidence to support your egocentric notions that a many worlds theory is invalid just like you can't refute eternal inflation. Bubble universes, 3 D brane universes are postulated to have different laws of physics so your notions of non locality may be invalid in realms other than this universe. Don't reply with my name and spew gibberish. Respek my name!

+probablechoices To further reinforce that you are a neophyte and have no clue what you are talking about; The double slit experiments you alluded to were testing particle/wave duality. During those experiments deploying photons or electrons, the particles were not entangled prior to the experiment. This would refute your notions of non locality as that phenomenon is entanglement. Physicists have known of particle wave duality for decades and never have I understood an association with entanglement. Once again proving that despite your hubris, you don't know, what you don't know. 

+Carlos Long surely Carlos...surely I am the one that hasn't read what I told you to read before getting back to me. You check those out? Thought not. Neophyte much? Happy 4th Carlos!! My pompous and uneducated friend!

+neighborhoods Dude! I'm good with my reading. If you can't articulate your argument, you have nothing of insight to provide. Again, I'm not a proponent of the many worlds theory but will suggest to you that it has as much support within the theoretical community as any current theory of reality. Meaning that it has not been falsified as you have erroneously stated. 

No thumbs down from me. I found it interesting. Unlike religious people, I don't discount what people are saying just because they believe myths as truth.

+cato cato good...I just find it funny that every time the interview is about God everyone gives it a thumbs down despite the fact it's a deep philosophical question

its funny you say that. I had no idea who this man was but i noticed the way he explains his theory and pulled up that paper diagram was bit peculiar.

No thumbs down from me. I found it interesting. Unlike religious people, I don't discount what people are saying just because they believe myths as truth.

+cato cato good...I just find it funny that every time the interview is about God everyone gives it a thumbs down despite the fact it's a deep philosophical question

+Lis Ibraimi They're all guessing now because they have no explanation of how we were created.

Let me guess...God did it...didn't he? :-) (i've seen your comments before on youtube)

Sure

+Lis Ibraimi They're all guessing now because they have no explanation of how we were created.

Let me guess...God did it...didn't he? :-) (i've seen your comments before on youtube)

+nadjim73 You are welcome to  come to that conclusion but if it is not testable, which he admits is likely, then you have left the realm of science and entered some sort of math based philosophy.

+rehtorbF03 Well, we can at least rationally think about what the consequences of this interpretation would be. As I said under one video which was criticizing the MWI: "Very interesting topic and all the reasons given against the MW-interpretation like the problem of deriving the born rule or the problem of observers are very meaningful and logical. The basic idea behind it was that after the wave function of a particle collapsed, then ,what happens to the other properties and where are they. So, they took the location as a fixed and defined property and I guess that was maybe one mistake. There are also other theories with many worlds not derived from quantum mechanical reasons but more like the idea of parallel universes in higher dimensions etc. . Most of them should give us a reason why our universe is so "perfect" without the existence of god. Well, they have also good arguments with a high probability etc. but I always ask me how this multiverse structure can be sustaining,because when our universe gives us so many problems with the complexity and the perfection,then the multiverse must be much more complex and give us much more problems than now. And they also fail in other aspects. If for example the number of the parallel universes is infinite or very large,then it should have a 100 % probability for at least one of the universes having developed an advanced civilization inside it which should have the ability of creating wormholes and already have visited us. Professor Deutsch says in his theory that in the future computer power will increase rapidly and that time travel would be possible in this virtual reality which sounds possible but I have asked me that if the entire universe is virtual,then time travel should be possible there." I am not supporting the theory but it's implications on the way how we deal with the Quantum theory are well formulated and thought out. As one of the criticizers of the MWI, physicist Adrian Kent, wrote a book against it, he says: "I also point out some (I think insuperable) problems with recent attempts to describe how many-worlds theories can be confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence. And I explain why the attempt to reinterpret the Born weights as some form of "caring measure" in Everettian quantum theory aren't rationally compelling." or "When (...) many worlds interpretation is spelled out and analysed, it's problems turn out to be sufficiently serious to cause most physicists to look elsewhere." The Quantum MWI does not make any predictions and it is not a theory from which we get sufficient and beneficial results. But at least, it could be one possible option and we should take the possibility into account. I agree that getting entire worlds after each collapse is not very efficient, but efficiency does not directly mean it is wrong or right.

I think he was only implying that we shouldn't give up. There was a time when the sun revolving around the earth was a simple enough answer. Right now we can't think of a way to proceed in a verifiable manner. Doesn't mean there's no place for theoretical physics? we shouldn't ever say "well, this is good enough"

Well, the main idea of it is that if Quantum laws can be applied for atoms and since we are made out of atoms, features such as non-locality can be valid for us as well. The other probabilities simply exist in other Quantum worlds as Everett's Quantum Many Worlds Interpretation goes. Yes, it is only an interpretation and there is also many criticism and sceptics on that

+BigBad Wolfe I think you are missing my point. I never said we should give up, we should always pursue the boundaries of science and understanding. But at our current standing this is just a mathematical conjecture. It is a statement that is taken to be "true" but has not been proven. By his own admission it is likely impossible for an intelligent agent stuck inside one of the multiverses to prove that other multiverses exist. It just looks good on the whiteboard but he talks like it is proven fact and that is irresponsible for a scientist to do.

+rehtorbF03 Interesting. Thanks

Well, yes and no. One of the problems is that traditional forces that we associate with general relativity don't scale down to the quantum level (as we currently understand them, this could change). To then turn around and apply how quantum physics works to relativistic physics without experimentation is just a bridge too far.

+rehtorbF03 Is there any other way to bridge the two? In theory?

With verifiable experimentation. Until that happens this is just a mathematical conjecture.

+rehtorbF03 I meant is there any other conjecture besides multiple worlds? Any theories that aren't as far fetched

A mathematical conjecture is a statement that appears to be "true" but has yet to be proven. When it comes to science the starting point is that the new assumption or hypothesis is false and must be proven true. That can only be done by verifiable experiments and the rigorous scientific process. The burden of proof is on Frank Tipler, the person making a bold claim. Unfortunately 6 minutes doesn't seem to be enough and Ray is rather easy on the followup questions.

But he never claimed that it is proven or not proven, but it is a good idea

+nadjim73 Your statement "main idea of it is that if Quantum laws can be applied for atoms and since we are made out of atoms, features such as non-locality can be valid for us as well" falls apart because Newtonian physics breaks down at the quantum level so why would we expect quantum level physics to work at the macro level? The main laws of physics apply to atoms but not to quantums so why should quantum physics apply to anything above atoms?

+rehtorbF03 Because certain things above atoms are made out of many atoms. Quantum properties may not play a significant role at our scales but why should they disappear and the question is "where should they disappear" when information cannot. So, one came up to the assumption with the thesis that there are many worlds in which other Quantum states exist after the wave function collapsed.

+nadjim73 You are welcome to  come to that conclusion but if it is not testable, which he admits is likely, then you have left the realm of science and entered some sort of math based philosophy.

+rehtorbF03 Well, we can at least rationally think about what the consequences of this interpretation would be. As I said under one video which was criticizing the MWI: "Very interesting topic and all the reasons given against the MW-interpretation like the problem of deriving the born rule or the problem of observers are very meaningful and logical. The basic idea behind it was that after the wave function of a particle collapsed, then ,what happens to the other properties and where are they. So, they took the location as a fixed and defined property and I guess that was maybe one mistake. There are also other theories with many worlds not derived from quantum mechanical reasons but more like the idea of parallel universes in higher dimensions etc. . Most of them should give us a reason why our universe is so "perfect" without the existence of god. Well, they have also good arguments with a high probability etc. but I always ask me how this multiverse structure can be sustaining,because when our universe gives us so many problems with the complexity and the perfection,then the multiverse must be much more complex and give us much more problems than now. And they also fail in other aspects. If for example the number of the parallel universes is infinite or very large,then it should have a 100 % probability for at least one of the universes having developed an advanced civilization inside it which should have the ability of creating wormholes and already have visited us. Professor Deutsch says in his theory that in the future computer power will increase rapidly and that time travel would be possible in this virtual reality which sounds possible but I have asked me that if the entire universe is virtual,then time travel should be possible there." I am not supporting the theory but it's implications on the way how we deal with the Quantum theory are well formulated and thought out. As one of the criticizers of the MWI, physicist Adrian Kent, wrote a book against it, he says: "I also point out some (I think insuperable) problems with recent attempts to describe how many-worlds theories can be confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence. And I explain why the attempt to reinterpret the Born weights as some form of "caring measure" in Everettian quantum theory aren't rationally compelling." or "When (...) many worlds interpretation is spelled out and analysed, it's problems turn out to be sufficiently serious to cause most physicists to look elsewhere." The Quantum MWI does not make any predictions and it is not a theory from which we get sufficient and beneficial results. But at least, it could be one possible option and we should take the possibility into account. I agree that getting entire worlds after each collapse is not very efficient, but efficiency does not directly mean it is wrong or right.

There are a number of multiverse theories that arise organically from the math of disciplines of physics. The theory of an infinite universe would require duplications of you and me. Superstring theory spins off 3 D brane universes and models 10 to the 500 possible universe iterations. To put that number into perspective, that's more universes than atoms in our universe. Eternal inflation by postulation would generate infinite bubble universes in addition to our own. Your suggestion that multiverse theory was contrived solely based upon the Anthropic Principle is not supported the facts nor history.

There are a number of multiverse theories that arise organically from the math of disciplines of physics. The theory of an infinite universe would require duplications of you and me. Superstring theory spins off 3 D brane universes and models 10 to the 500 possible universe iterations. To put that number into perspective, that's more universes than atoms in our universe. Eternal inflation by postulation would generate infinite bubble universes in addition to our own. Your suggestion that multiverse theory was contrived solely based upon the Anthropic Principle is not supported the facts nor history.

Agreed, science appears so desperate to rescue materialism, it comes up with stuff more incredible than that which it tries to avoid.

There are a number of multiverse theories that arise organically from the math of disciplines of physics. The theory of an infinite universe would require duplications of you and me. Superstring theory spins off 3 D brane universes and models 10 to the 500 possible universe iterations. To put that number into perspective, that's more universes than atoms in our universe. Eternal inflation by postulation would generate infinite bubble universes in addition to our own. Your suggestion that multiverse theory was contrived solely based upon the Anthropic Principle is not supported the facts nor history.

There are a number of multiverse theories that arise organically from the math of disciplines of physics. The theory of an infinite universe would require duplications of you and me. Superstring theory spins off 3 D brane universes and models 10 to the 500 possible universe iterations. To put that number into perspective, that's more universes than atoms in our universe. Eternal inflation by postulation would generate infinite bubble universes in addition to our own. Your suggestion that multiverse theory was contrived solely based upon the Anthropic Principle is not supported the facts nor history.

There are a number of multiverse theories that arise organically from the math of disciplines of physics. The theory of an infinite universe would require duplications of you and me. Superstring theory spins off 3 D brane universes and models 10 to the 500 possible universe iterations. To put that number into perspective, that's more universes than atoms in our universe. Eternal inflation by postulation would generate infinite bubble universes in addition to our own. Your suggestion that multiverse theory was contrived solely based upon the Anthropic Principle is not supported the facts nor history.