Why the multiverse is religion, not science.

Today I want to explain why the multiverse
is religion. This is not a polemical argument and it is
not meant as an insult. But believing in the multiverse is logically
equivalent to believing in god, therefore it’s religion, not science. To see why, let me pull together what I laid
out in my previous videos. Scientists say that something exists if it
is useful to describe observations. By “useful” I mean it is simpler than
just collecting data. You can postulate the existence of things
that are not useful to describe observations, such as gods, but this is no longer science. Universes besides our own are logically equivalent
to gods. They are unobservable by assumption, therefore
they can exist only in a religious sense. You can believe in them if you want to, but
they are not part of science. I know that this is not a particularly remarkable
argument. But physicists seem to have a hard time following
it, especially those who happen to work on the multiverse. Therefore, let me sort out some common misunderstandings. First. The major misunderstanding is that I am saying
the multiverse does not exist. But this is not what I am saying. I am saying science does not tell us anything
about universes we cannot observe, therefore claiming they exist is not science. Second. They will argue the multiverse is simple. Most physicists who are in favor of the multiverse
say it’s scientific because it’s simpler to assume that all universes of a certain
type exist than it is to assume that only one of them exist. That’s a questionable claim. But more importantly, it’s beside the point. The simplest assumption is no assumption. And you do not need to make any statement
about the existence of the multiverse to explain our observations. Therefore, science says, you should not. As I said, it’s the same with the multiverse
as with god. It’s an unnecessary assumption. Not wrong, but superfluous. You also do not need to postulate the existence
of our universe, of course. No scientist ever does that. That would be totally ridiculous. Third. They’ll claim the existence of the multiverse
is a prediction of their theory. It’s not. That’s just wrong. Theories don’t predict what does and does
not exist. We determine that something exists, in the
scientific sense, if it is useful to describe observation. That’s exactly what the multiverse is not. Fourth. But then you are saying that discussing what’s
inside a black hole is also not science That’s equally wrong. Other universes are not science because you
cannot observe them. But you can totally observe what’s inside
a black hole. You just cannot come back and tell us about
it. Besides, no one really thinks that the inside
of a black hole will remain inaccessible forever. For reasons, the situation is entirely different
for black holes. If it was correct that the inside of black
holes cannot be observed, this would indeed mean that postulating its existence is not
scientific. Fifth. But there are types of multiverses that have
observable consequences. That’s right. Physicists have come up with certain types
of multiverses that can be falsified. The problem with these ideas is conceptually
entirely different. It’s that there is no reason to think we
live in such multiverses to begin with. The requirement that a hypothesis must be
falsifiable is certainly necessary to make the hypothesis scientific, but not sufficient. We will talk about this some other time. To sum it. The multiverse is certainly an interesting
idea and it attracts a lot of public attention. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. Entertainment has a value and so has thought-stimulating
discussion. But do not confuse the multiverse with science,
because it is not.

  1. Great video. It really frustrates me that so many popularizers of string theory and the multiverse are banging on about them as though they are on the verge of taking our understanding of reality to the next level. Michio Kaku was on NPR last week just gushing about the multiverse so enthusiastically that he really did sound like a religious fanatic. (For laughs, do a little mental exercise of replacing the word "multiverse" with the word "Jesus" every time you hear him say it.)

  2. Universe is by definition the set of all existence, it makes no sense to expect a multitude. Since nothing exists outside of this set, nothing could separate subset A from subset B, even if one was our sensible environment, and god the other. Both subsets would have no choice but to interact in a way or another, hence being one and the same thing… the universe. If the universe was self-destructive, nothing would remain to impede its existence. By extension, if the universe was splitting in two parts, those would have to gather next so that splitting could happen in the first place. Because the existence has always existed and will always exist, when there's no begining, consequences become their own causes.

  3. As if an ancient tribe has no reason to assume the ground extends beyond the limit of their vision 200miles from the hill at center of the village.
    Unless the tribe actually observes a barrier or a limit, the rational thing to assume is that the ground is infinite. Similarly, unless earthlings observe an actual limitation to the big-Bang, the natural assumption is for it repeat infinitely. To prove the big bang is a unique event is to provide evidence of its barriers and no such barriers are known to exist.

    There are two schools of thought:
    A) You assume the NULL and then expand it based on observation, or
    B) You assume a fractalized infinity and trim it based on observation.

  4. Scientist say that something does not exist unless it can describe observations? This is a silly definition for many reasons.
    Science helps us know things about repeatable natural phenomenon, just because you can’t make a prediction does not mean it does not exist. This is a logical fallacy.

    The multiverse is an attempt to describe reality and observed phenomenon. This theory is a bad one because it is not testable in the eyes of science. That does not mean it does not exist, even though it violates Occam’s razor really badly.

    People believe in God because of its explanatory power quite often. God is the source of morality, without the existence of God human life is absurd and there is no such thing as objective good and bad, only mere opinion. So then hitler was not morally wrong for killing the Jews?

    But if God exists, the God theory, then it explains why humans feel like they have moral standards and duties, because God exists, the only source of objective morality. Also, if God exists it fixes lots of problems with a universe that begins to exists, ie Big Bang. Also the second law of thermodynamics implies a beginning and an end, (heat death) Any theory you come up with to explain this by definition CANNOT be a theory based on the natural world. The theory needs to be supernatural, or “beyond the universe”, this is because the universe cannot cause it’s self to exist, that would be illogical.

    Anyway, every theory to explain the universe has to be a supernatural one because the cause of the universe is not the universe, therefore it is beyond the universe so therefore it is supernatural.

    This definition of science is just arguing in a circle from a bias. In other words a philosophical bias against anything that is not in the universe, ie materialism, or the belief that only the universe exists and nothing else. This is circular reasoning, and is a logical fallacy.

    Anyway, if your method of discovering truth rules out the existence of anything outside or beyond the universe, then your method is the wrong one or incomplete or not being used properly or should not be used to answer whatever questions you are asking.

    Finally, using science to describe where the universe came from is not possible with this definition. It’s like saying “if you give me enough time to do the scientific research, I’ll be able to prove that I gave birth to my own mother”

    It is simply not the correct definition of science if you want to know how the universe came to exist.

  5. To say that anything that's not science is equivalent to religion is nonsense. Religion has no basis in plausibility, multiverse theory (even if unprovable) does – it's more easily explained than the alternative, the single-universe theory (which is also unprovable, and does not really even have a conceivable explanation).

  6. Using the same argument, one could likewise claim that String Theory, too, is a religion (or at best a philosophical outlook on the physical world); at least for the time being. Yes, it maybe a mathematically elegant theory with an internally coherent structure, but without any observational evidence and verifiable predictions it is all but unfalsifiable and hence little more than a glorified mental gymnastics (some might even refer to it as an intellectual masturbation). A great video, btw.

  7. You are a BRILLIANT woman, but incorrect here.
    The multiverse is not completely baseless. It stems from very real and very testable science. Its just slightly out of reach, using rules we use every day. Its a tool of discovery.
    Religion has NO basis at all. That bible has more holes than swiss cheese and there is nothing in science to indicate anything supernatural. Only debunks.
    We have indicators for a multiverse, even if those indicators end up being incorrect. If found, it would be very natural in nature. Not created from a being.
    We have NOTHING to indicate anything supernatural and science has a 360 degree wrap on anything you as a human could ever see, touch or experience, including the stars at a fundamental level.
    multiverse != religion

  8. Same argument for the center of black holes. Thank for proving that black holes are not scientific.
    Once you put it out there you can not take it back.

  9. Because I was trained in science I have to agree with everything you said here.
    However, since I've had Direct experience with three different species of beings other than human I have to disagree also.
    That said, as far as I know they came from our universe, not a Multiverse

  10. Dear Dr. Hossenfelder. Please give insights. A multiverse may or may not be. Yet our one universe has many dimensions. Please elucidate and enlighten us. You rock!

  11. Dr. H.
    Can you comment please upon the difference between a singularity and a supermassive black hole the expanse of our solar system to Ort cloud. I am fully confused by the sizes of singularities. Are they all singularities no matter what the size scale is? It that just an illusion created by relative gravities. Please clarify my thinking. You are so good at clarification. I've shared you with many. Thank you!

  12. Professor Sabine, I liked the videos you made on this topic. You objectively presented things nicely. So, that encouraged me to write this to you because I think you're an open-minded person and I hope you consider my opinions.

    First, I think Christianity was a bad example of what a religion should be. Christianity had many issues that make many people hate religions and never give them chances anymore. While this seems a little bit hard to ask you to give religion a second chance, I think I have good reasons for that.

    The Quran talked about many scientific discoveries that we only came to know recently, It's scientifically consistent as well.

    That fact is enough for me to believe in the Quran as the word of God, although Islam has a bad reputation in media.

    Since you like cosmology let me give you little insight into what does the Quran say about it:
    Quran described the beginning of the universe (big bang)
    Quran said that the universe is expanding.
    Quran interestingly described the relativity of time.
    Quran predicts that the big crunch will be how the universe ends.
    Some physicists' descriptions of world demise match the Quran.

    Furthermore, the Quran describes our world as just a mere simulation for testing humans. This means that God intentionally made himself out of science so the test will be fair for all people at all times.

    The idea of us being simulations made by an intelligent being is found in the Quran but in a much-sophisticated manner.

    Quran also described a lot of other scientific things which is impossible unless if it was the words of God himself.

    Last but not least, Although adding God into physics won't change much as you said, I think God will still inspire physicists and will help them develop physics better by his words (the Quran).

    just remember how the Quran inspired many Muslim scholars and scientists and not only that, the Quran also attracts open-minded and knowledgeable people.

    In conclusion, I think Islam is a religion that is suitable for the modern age unlike religions like Christianity.
    Islam inspires good people to be better in all kinds of life aspects (including being a good scientist that doesn't need to scam people for money or something)

    I hope you consider this and wish best of lucks 😀 (also notice that I left Islamic sociology because I think it's a broad topic and surely will need a lot of explanation)


  14. The multiverse is a way of trying to avoid theological explanations. It seems to me that if I follow this line of logic, I would also say that the Macroevolution hypothesis is also religious because no one has observed any blind upward process occurring in biology or anything else. The only evolution observed fundamentally is the law of increasing entropy which is the exact opposite. No one has ever proven this wrong, and as bold a statement that this may seem it is nonetheless true, demonstrated as true by countless experiments and observations. Even if a multiverse is true how did things start out more ordered? This is the elephant in the room that requires an explanation and beyond the scope of science as some define it. The past-eternal Judeo-Christian-God seems to be the best explanation even if humans cannot understand how God exists.

  15. But when Einstein came up with the concept of black holes he had never observed one in fact he did not even think they were possible should everyone that have stopped looking for black holes because by your definition at the time of first conception it was not science

  16. Infinite transformational synthesis and multiplicity; creates infinite relativism. This causes an infinite number of universes to exist and not exist. This macrocosm is illusion, because everything in it is only real in relationship to all else, get rid of self and other creation in this relative matrix and isolate everything in itself and nothing is there. No Thing is real in itself; but Nothing is real in itself. Nothing is all that's left when all else is gone. It is the only real thing yet it has no attributes so its existence in illusory. This somehow manifests an illusory existence. I.e. Multiverse. I'm aware that this is philosophy, but there is some sense to it. If you take Infinity X 0=0 It is not endless indeterminacy because quantity plays no role, it is a qualitative equation that must end in Zero. A hundred quadrillion X O=O as well. The multiverse has an illusory existence as an efflorescence of Nothingness, but it really is just permutations of nothingness that have only relative existence: isolate everything in itself and nothing is there because its nothing really. If your an illusory being like the rest of us this state of things us totally real to us. But without everything being defined by infinite permutation nothing is there.

  17. What I like most about your videos is all of the different clothes you wear. At first glance this appears to be a fitness video but then you start talking science haha. Love it.

  18. Hmm,, as a scientist you must keep your mind open for the unimaginable without "strings" attached to it. 😉
    Anyhow, search for GUT will continue despite of any person's belief.

  19. Postulating something we haven't observed to help explain things we do observe doesn't necessarily imply 'religion' surely? Afterall it is this process that gave us many elements of the periodic table, the Higgs boson, the atom and so on. I'm not of course saying that we should simply accept the multiverse as a given, just that we shouldn't necessarily treat a hypothesis as religion. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the multiverse hypothesis as an idea that might help explain certain aspects of the universe. The issue is in how you treat that idea. Treating it as an unconfirmed proposition is fine at this juncture IMO. Some people might argue that that is all it could ever be, but I think that's a pretty extreme position too.

  20. Is it true that most patterns are endless? And if this is true isn't it a safe assumption to say that universal scales keep getting bigger? Or keep multiplying? I'm very curious about physics but highly uneducated.

  21. Finally a real Physicist is talking about Physics! Thanks a lot Sabine Hossenfelder! This is a huge contribution to YouTube!

  22. Thats stupid thats like saying before we did not know of mars back in the day , but its not science cause we did not know at one point in the past? But now we know and its science!

  23. So… why am I under the impression that the Copenhagen interpretation referred to "multiverse" as the 10^500 possible universes that collapse under the sum of their own weight when observed from within?
    When did these all become unobserved sovereign entities in a lateral matrix?
    nerd tantrum lol

  24. I don't think "religion" is the right term. Beliefs – yes, but religion? Unless they are really praying to the multiverse 😀

  25. It really does work for me to post my old post.

    You’re also a Very Correct type!


  26. What about the eternal inflation theory? I mean, "regular" inflation right after the big bang has nothing to do with a religious belief, my opinion. If we come to understand inflation process in the future, maybe it turns out inflation has to be eternal and therefore the multiverse must be true. QED, right?

  27. The danger of the false doctrine that the simplest solution is the correct solution. That would be the one that says "The apple is drawn toward the Earth" when the complicated reality is "The apple is squeezed away from space time towards the Earth".

  28. So … is simulation-theory religion as well?
    I mean, if the universe is a computational simulation, it's programmer/creator must be regarded as an omnipotent being, in our frame of reference.
    in other words; A God, in the traditional monotheistic sense. Or perhaps multiple gods, if the simulation is a team effort.

  29. I Totally agree, I’m not a physicist, but I made the augment once when having a discussion about God, I compared the belief of god to the belief in a multiverse….but I you compared this to religion, is religion the same as the belief in god ? Thank you

  30. you can also never prove the existence of infinity.

    and yet, the thought that there might be a highest number is even more absurd.

  31. So just for the record are you a globe denier? Somebody just tried to use your video to push flat earth! LOL

    They also used ken Wheeler's video, and we all know he laughs at the thought of a flat earth.

  32. Well there's a difference between "believing in" something and considering something a strong possibility. There's SOME explanation for the universe and why it is the way it is and how it got to be that way. Right? Now I have a low regard for those that have high confidence in fruit loops theories like the simulation hypothesis, the god hypothesis, the many worlds hypothesis and the more adventurous interpretation of the holographic principle that everything is just a 2-d object embedded into the edge of the universe. But it's not religion if you just say "I think there's a 20% chance of such and such thing, based on what I know about it" or "I think there's a strong possibility of such and such thing". That doesn't make it religion. It only becomes religion when you start having unreasonably high confidence in things for the amount of evidence they have for them.

  33. Well, to be fair cosmic inflation and String Theory are hard to formulate without other universes falling out of them.

    There's a reason people think worm holes exist even nobody has ever seen one, it simply falls out of relativity.

    It's the same for other universes, they simply fall out of certain theories. Predictions of inflation have matched up for example, since it predicts other universes, its hard to see how that doesn't scientifically imply other universes.

    I know you mentioned this objection in the video, but I feel it deserves more attention.

  34. Most students I'm surrounded with don't claim that the Multiverse is "the answer" BECAUSE most Inflation models point towards a Multiverse.

  35. We are living in a universe wich Science is ran by militant secularist who have built for themselves a colosseum of ideals on wich to feed the lions so they may jeer!

  36. I always tought that multiverse is forced under many aspect.
    Finally I can say that with scientific support.
    In my ignorance I always tought that if the universe duplicate it self on every event that mean that the entire energy of the universe is duplicated infinite time.
    Even if that happen on another realm it seems to me a dumb conclusion.
    A lot easier to me is to take in account the holographic universe.
    Super luminal seems to be a demon in physics tough.
    I'll never thank you enough for that.

  37. Wait a minute. Doesn't the standard model of quantum theory predict the existence of the Higgs Boson? And isn't string theory useful to describe observations like the properties of subatomic particles?

    You seem to be saying that something that can't be observed in practice is still science as long as it can be observed in principle. Practically speaking, we have no way to observe the inside of a black hole, but because we could, hypothetically, observe a black hole, then speculating about the inside of black holes is still doing science. But since multiverse can't be observed even in principle, then it's not science. Am I understanding you right? If so, could you explain why you divide science and non-science this way? Why isn't it enough to dismiss something as scientific as long as we have no way in practice of observing it? Whether in practice or in principle, if we can't observe something, the result is the same–we're still speculating about something that simply can't be observed.

  38. Along time ago, in this very galaxy, I started out working on a physics degree and switched to an engineering discipline for increased job opportunities. I miss being around smart people like Sabine and those writing some of these comments.

  39. Do NOT confuse multiverse with science? So they spent over billion dollars on LHC CERN to do non-science stuff……LOL? She seems to have memory lapse on scientific event on July 4, 2012 called revelation of Higgs Boson at 125 Gev. She fails to mention the TWO schools of thought (Naturalness vs. Multiverse) in theoretical science. He're excerpts from 2013 Scientific American article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

    The spectacular discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirmed a nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass, which enables them to form big structures such as galaxies and humans.

    However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.

    In peril is the notion of “naturalness,” Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained.

    The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural.

    “Ten or 20 years ago, I was a firm believer in naturalness,” said Nathan Seiberg, a theoretical physicist at the Institute, where Einstein taught from 1933 until his death in 1955. “Now I’m not so sure. My hope is there’s still something we haven’t thought about, some other mechanism that would explain all these things. But I don’t see what it could be.”

    Edward Witten, a string theorist at the Institute, said by email, “I would be happy personally if the multiverse interpretation is not correct, in part because it potentially limits our ability to understand the laws of physics. But none of us were consulted when the universe was created.”

    “Some people hate it,” said Raphael Bousso, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who helped develop the multiverse scenario. “But I just don’t think we can analyze it on an emotional basis. It’s a logical possibility that is increasingly favored in the absence of naturalness at the LHC.”

  40. I tend to agree but all that tells you is that science is inherently limited when you start trying to discuss concepts of ultimate truth. Science is a powerful tool, but it will never answer questions of ultimate truth, that is where philosophy comes in yes? So for example you can speculate that you live within some sort of simulation, you might even be able to show there is some mathematical probability to this idea. However, if you are in a simulation you can never observe anything that is not the simulation, therefore you can never prove or disprove the simulation because there is no frame of reference to observe from outside of the simulation itself. So while it might be a fun idea to ponder, it is ultimately meaningless.

    As for the multiverse, what about the question 'is the universe infinite or finite? If it is finite what is the limit and what exists beyond these limits? If you say no it must be infinite, then regardless of how improbable, all of the interactions or patterns that occurred to create us and our observable universe will inevitably repeat themselves no? So if the universe is infinite, then these patterns will repeat an infinite number of times with an endless number of variations. Does the law of probability imply that in an infinite universe that this will happen?

    Again I know this is philosophy not science, but when you want to explore possibilities that are beyond science… Besides if you can postulate that we may someday develop technology that will allow us to visit the inside of a black hole. Who is to say that we won't one day develop technology that will one day allow us to travel beyond our visible universe, or say to these other dimensions which could perhaps amount to being the same thing. If within a black hole space time is compressed to some sort of singularity, if you could travel within in it perhaps you could also travel to places beyond our imagination? Now we are having fun! 🙂

    So this idea that the pattern of our localized reality inevitably does repeat itself, isn't that basically similar to imagining some infinite number of parallel dimensions?

    BTW this is also why I think it is absurd for scientists to try and use science to advocate for or against the idea of god. Science talks about what is observable so it has nothing to say for or against god. I mention this because a lot of the same folks who will claim to use science to argue for or against god, are the same ones that will claim these other ideas are scientific.

    Although i do have to wonder when the qubits of a quantum computer appear to instantly perform vast computations while in superposition, where or how are those calculations being done? Some believe that is in a way proof of harnessing the power of the multiverse . Which you have to admit is a fascinating idea.

  41. We out to learn everything we can about our own universe before assuming there are others in shared space. I would say the multiverse is completly fake, much like religion itself. I'm sure they have some truth to share but it dosent help anyone or anything.

  42. Hi Sabine.. Is this specifically aimed at the multiverse as a consequence of multiple worlds theories.. Or would you also class ideas such as bubble universes in an inflaton field, cyclic universes, etc. All in the same vein. The same criticisms seem to apply for all, but I didn't want to assume!!

  43. Universe–one thing turning–all that exists–existence–the all–the whole. We live in a universe–by definition.

  44. As for multiverses and religion: When Stephen Hawking together with Leonard Mlodinow first published the book The Grand Design, a popular science view of the universe it was soon critisized by four British religious leaders, the British Cheif Rabbi, the Protestant and Cathoilic Archbishops and the leader of The Muslim Council in a co-written article in the Times.
    Their main complaint ( from a religious perspective) : the speculation on the existence of a multiverse. The problem for them: their existance wouldn't make "our" universe unique, not a unique, special creation for us human beings.
    A bit like he then church's reaction to the Heliocentric view of our solar system , putting us humans out of the centre of the by God created solar system.
    Steven Hawking did not in any way respons to this article.
    Religion and Science make poor bed fellows, since Religion always want to kick Science out.

  45. Believing there is a god is not a religion. Religion is a complex system of beliefs, usually including belief in god/s, and prescribing certain behavior. Just believing that god/s exist without the rest of beliefs that make a religion isn't going to affect you much.

  46. …better to believe in the truth, even if you can't prove it all… multiverse is what lies beyond the CMB which shows no cooler-side yet, or resides in the mathematicians' octonion both-handed numbers…

  47. Believing in the multiverse might be akin to religious thought. But saying what happens in a blackhole is observable as opposed to observing the multiverse seems, to my admittedly inferior mind, to be equivocating on the definition of observable.

  48. Sorry Sabine I think you are (almost) completely wrong. You may say it's not "real" physics, just some possible logical and mathematical extension of what we know today. Unlike any religion there are no priests, no rituals for "believers" to perform, it has no ethics to adhere to, no sacred texts (which by definition must not be doubted), nothing about supernatural beings determining what happens and the list goes on.

    Yes it is not a testable or falsifiable theory – at least at the moment, it is not – therefore it is not physics in the classical sense. It is more akin to philosophy. It is an intriguing idea, which may help physics to remain popular (or to become popular for others), it stimulates the imagination, therefore it is good to have, IMO unlike to any religion I know about. I don't really think that it even takes money away from other areas of physics.

  49. I am not a representative of multiple-universe interpretation, and it is a naiv realistic interpretation, but a position that at least is a necessary point of view. All interpretations are important, they are like scaffolds, so they can be removed later. So 10% of physics prefer multiverse, that's too much, there are better theories, but some has to build and represent that scaffold. In media it is big, because science fiction and so on, but then maybe there is a deeper fictional idea in it. The more of interpretations you look through, the more you understand quantum world and its special problems in a deeper way. In every interpretation the problem is simply moved to another position. But yes multiverse theory is like to believe in the greek gods as real persons and not as deep and true world-psychological principles, but you can only understand these principles if you in a way understand them as persons.

  50. The only reason you are calling the multiverse a religion is because it will fuck up every religion. Mathematics can not prove that a god exists as god does not exist.

  51. Isn't it a hypothesis? If big bang pops up out of nothing then there should be multiple universes, even billion trillion. Or science should explain why it is the only one. An assumption comes first then people search for proof. You can call it pseudoscience but then dark energy, dark matter even string theory all are assumptions or mathematical models, you can't prove anything. Claudius Ptolemy had made a mathematical geocentric modal of the universe. Now we know he was wrong.

  52. I still think the idea that there is an inside of a black hole is not science. It has not, and cannot, be verified or falsified. Back to religion.

  53. The Multiverse is poetry, at best, not science.

    Personally, I prefer Arya-Vedic science, but Genesis is helpful in referring to the Firmament, showing Mediaeval Scholastics had some idea of Field theory!

  54. Ok, but the multiverse is not much of a religion. Where do I go to participate on Saturday or Sunday? 
    I guess I stay right here in my own sub-universe and just think it over. 
    As usual.

  55. Sadly there are PhD researchers for whom this didn't make perfect sense.
    Even worse there are popularized science writers who skip the bits about statements being carefully qualified in favor of sensational headlines…

    "US Navy Patents Compact Low Temperature Fusion Reactor!"
    Soooo much wrong with that sentence, but thanks GOOGLE.

  56. I like the track suit look, like she just came from a workout. Sure Multiverse is just pure conjecture but how many physicists actually state that they have proof of it?

  57. I love this lady! I do believe in God, but not in the multiverse. I agree that neither is scientific and belief or disbelief in either is a personal choice which cannot be directly observed in this universe. And our senses and current technology is restricted to this universe.

  58. Everett's multiverse theory has been around about twice as long as the theory of dark matter. In all that time there has been no proof of it, not a smidgen. I appreciate someone in physics acknowledging that.

  59. It's niether physics nor religion because the discussion is irrelevant to the facts of a temporal holographic QM-TIMESPACE Principle.

  60. The multiverse may not be science, but it is not used for social control or as an excuse for genocide either. It is not scientific but it is not also malignantly anti scientific.

    To me it is just in that pool of interesting ideas, good and bad, from where useful hypothesis occasionally spring. Science needs that pool. Religion and Harry Potter novels also come from that pool. If ever there is persecution for not accepting a specific unprovable hypothesis, that is religion.
    ..I have heard some interesting speculations based on the anthropic principle however, that do seem to derive some interesting hints about the shape of the larger universe based on the particular sample of it we find ourselves in.

  61. Atheist and nihilist point of view, the evil of our civilization.
    The statement "God is useless", even from a practical point of view, is fake.
    Without religion, no human civilization would have existed….so…

  62. If our Universe is infinite, as many scientists believe, you could subdivide it into an infinite number of cubes, having each an edge of, say, 100 trillions light years.. this system is roughly equivalent to a Multiverse.. Is it still religion?.. well … Physics is not precisely an exact science.. not even formal Mathematics.. (Check the Goedel Theorem).

  63. It is like religion only if you understand the multiverse on a metaphysical level. And some of them are doing that, they believe their theory of multiverse can explain the question why anything exists.

  64. Basically it’s all theory and conjecture; proof is something you can sense with your five senses; otherwise it is just a belief.

  65. I believe multiverse are real. I use the presence of multiverse to explain the expansion of our universe sphere. Inflation is partly caused by the infinite mass beyond our sphere by infinite multiverse. Haha

  66. To believe in the multiverse is a false religion. The true religion is known and knowable if one cares to spend time and effort, at least equal to what one spends on other things, to find the answer to the most important question of reality.

  67. Without a definition of the multi-verse to test her assumptions, does this video self define itself as pseudo entertainment?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *