Did she just prove the multiverse and many worlds theory? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmpZdDkMo0

>youtube

Real science is published in the form of research papers, this is online entertainment for your amusement.

>>16721639
They're discussing a book she wrote and published

>>16721635 (OP)
i doubt that she proved MWT as for one it is unverifiable, and two it's the least likely and most complex multiverse theory.

>>16721671
She discusses point one in the video although I can't remember exactly how she found a way around it and for point two there's plenty of physics phds that disagree with you
I recommend you subscribe to him and call in next time he's live and debate him on the mwi
https://m.youtube.com/@blitzphd

Bump

>>16721635 (OP)
computer scientists already proved parallel universes

>>16721703
>phds
laughing my fucking ass off.

>>16721658
>book
>>16721639

>>16721671
>unverifiable
What if you and alternative you decided to send a letter to each other at the exact same time?

>>16722299
Nothing would be verified - we live in different universes.
Are you retarded?

>>16722251
How

>>16722303
Think about it. Imagine getting a letter from yourself at the same time you were about to send a letter to yourself. That would raise some questions, no?

>>16722251
How did they do that?
Was it through quantum computers?

Anthropic principle + fine tuning almost guarantees some sort of multiverse already (parallell or linear)

>>16722750
What about one universe God made?

>>16722750
Also does anthropic and fine tuning mean that multiverse is most likely a many worlds interpretation style one where observing a proton creates two new universes

Bump

Predicted it? Wasn't it discovered in 2001ish and later just confirmed by Planck? Also it could be explained by us being in a void which seems more and more likely.

>>16723258
It has been proven

Bump

>>16721639
Retarded academia gatekeeping lol.
I haven't watched the video but your take is smooth brained.

>>16724428
I wish someone would watch it and respond

a bunch of universes just flew over my house

>>16722750
>more stuff than the observable universe probably exists
This is fine and not controversial. I take no issue with it.
>Uncountably infinite fucking universes being sharted out every goddamn time a single quantum interaction occurs. But also they can never interact.
This (MWI) is retarded.

>>16724786
They kind of can interact actually

https://www.quatism.com/lottery.htm

https://www.quatism.com/theory.htm

>>16724734
Maybe later but I'm pretty busy and by the time i watched it the thread will probably be dead desu.

>>16722277
>Genetic fallacy
Still bullshit tho, but not for the retarded reasons you are spouting.

Bump

Bump

Bump

>>16722555
They built up speed for 12 hours.

>>16726013
How does that prove parallel worlds?

it's only a multiverse if you can meet someone in the other verse, why?

If you assume time travel to the past is real, then the many worlds theory is sort of unavoidable, IMO.

>>16726035
Was time travel to the past already proven? With that airplane with a atomic clock that went around the world or maybe there's better proof

Why does reverse time travel necessitate the many worlds theory

>>16726049
Really, REALLY think about it. You can’t actually change your past. It’s impossible. You can’t go back in time and save *your* Abraham Lincoln. His death was a critical requirement for your lead up.

If you went into the past to ensure that the Cuban missile crisis went bad, then you’re suddenly entering a hair of time that doesn’t support yours. You’re now in a completely different past-present-future.

There should be a separate consciousness of yourself for every millisecond in existence. If you go back in time a mere millisecond, you’re still staring a separate consciousness of yourself in the face.

To assume that you could even change the past to begin with presents you from going into the past to change anything.

It’s really that simple.

>>16726051
So the grandfather paradox?

Yes if I could go back in time and kill my grandfather that'd be impossible for obvious reasons but what if I went back in time to try to kill him and failed like the gun jammed or whatever

Bump

Bump

>>16726056

No, if you went back in time and killed him you'd be stuck in a timeline where your "present" didn't play out, but the "you" that killed your grandfather simply came from another timeline's future.
there's nothing in this (conceptual) system preventing a person from existing in a timeline that simply "came back" from a different branch in the future
IF you can go back into the past THEN you can't go into your original present
you're simply stuck there permanently and the universe would have to allow entities to do that

if the universe does not allow to do that, then travel to the past is impossible

>>16726486
Where's the proof time travel into the past is possible? I know travel into the future has been proven by experiments like atomic clock on airplane

>>16726501
>>16726486
Also please don't just say "closed timelike curves" elaborate please
What's the proof those exist and what's the proof if they exist they'd allow for backwards time travel

Bump

>>16726501
>Where's the proof time travel into the past is possible?

We don’t have any. In this hypothetical scenario we’re assuming that travel to the past is possible—and if it IS possible then this means it’s likely that the many worlds theory is the correct one.

Again, this is assuming that travelling to the past is possible. We don’t know. I’m of the opinion that it’s possibly possible.

>>16726752
If there's no good evidence travel to the past is possible then time travel to the past doesn't seem like good evidence for the MWI

What is best evidence for MWI

>>16726051
>>16726486
How do you go back in time "into another universe"? This violates conservation of energy locally. Your body would disappear in universe A and pop out into universe B. And if things can suddenly appear or disappear, then causality is as fucked as if you go back in time and kill your grandfather, because now things don't need causes or effects. If you argue that the universes are part of an interconnected medium and should be counted as a single system to conserve energy, then they functionally become the same universe and now you're traveling to the past in the same universe and violating causality once again, because there's a gap of time between universe A and universe B, like the 60 years before you killed your grandfather, that stretch of time must be passing in parallel in both universes, otherwise you're rewriting that universe's history and doing the same you would if you killed your own grandfather in universe A.

>>16726777
Nice trips I don't really understand everything you said

>>16726811
To simplify: if you go into another universe, then you're violating conservation of energy in both, unless they're part of a whole greater system which is just a bigger universe that contains both. But if you do that, you're traveling back in time within the same "bigger universe", because the notion that the sub-universes are parallel means time must pass in parallel between them so you can't just have a sub-universe that's 60 years late on schedule, what happened to that missing time?

>>16726730
stop asking for cocaine, we don't have any

>>16726824
I think I see

I guess the mwi can still be true if time travel to the past is impossible

>>16727279
Yes it essentially necessitates complete acausal disconnection between universes. But it also has another problem: explaining what the fuck the probabilities actually mean.
First, think of simple probabilities: 50/50. That's easy: you just need 2 universes. 60/20/20? Also easy, 3+1+1 universes. But wavefunctions hate your nice, easily countable probabilities. You're gonna get a shitload of irrational decimals that are completely incompatible with one another (so you can't like just use base pi, because another one is the square root of 2, another one is Euler's number etc). So you end up getting uncountably infinite universes. But what the fuck does that mean, physically? MWI adherents say that some branches are thicker "in Hilbert space", so you're more likely to find yourself in them. But that does nothing to explain what the fuck happens *in physics*. What does it mean for a universe to be "thicker"? The math is pretty, and tells you nothing about reality.

>>16726608
Have you ever done a "whip-it"? That is the most direct experience of a closed timelike curve you could ask for off the cuff. It's like going forward into a moment that has already happened.

>>16727339
I don't think so but I don't know

>>16727307
Isn't the MWI the only paradox-free method of merging the closed timelike curves (CTCs) allowed by the general theory of relativity with the effects of quantum mechanics without resorting to fudge factors or hacks?

>>16726766
t. Can't do hypotheticals like a baby ass bitch

>>16727476
>the only paradox-free method of merging the closed timelike curves (CTCs) allowed by the general theory of relativity
This is a merger of two things that are mathematically possible, but isn't real physics. Like I said, the math can be done logicaly, but what the fuck are the physical attributes of those pretty calculations?

>>16727663
I don't know

>bump

>>16726766
He’s saying IF it’s possible. IF it’s possible then I’m not sure how we can justify it without bringing in alternate universes / hairs of time.

>>16726051
>To assume that you could even change the past to begin with presents you from going into the past to change anything.
Nah, the timeline wil just restructure itself in a way that Lincoln lives but some guy still went into the past to save him. Past and future define the present. If you bent one part of a structure, it will bent entirely but still be unbroken.

>>16721639
Real science has never been tried