Only one thousand views? My man Leonard is so much fun to watch, I love his sense of humour. Not to mention the awesome content.

Thankyou.

Another mind-blowing lecture by Susskind. The last few minutes were quite curious. Does that mean eternal inflation can provide a natural mechanism to generate the many worlds in Everettian quantum mechanics?

@paulespiritu4631

3 жыл бұрын

iiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiioiiiioiiioiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiyiipiiiiioiiiiiioyiioiiiiiii oki8iioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiioiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiipiiiioiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiuiiiiioiiiiiiioooioooiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipiiioiioiiiiioiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiioiipiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8o8 it 8888o is 8 in 88uoiiiiiiiiiiii8i88 isiioiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiioiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiii

@jespervalgreen6461

2 жыл бұрын

Okay, so it's been two years, but I still think you deserve a cogent reply. And the answer is that, no, eternal inflation in de Sitter spacetime does not provide a mechanism for an Everett multiverse. In fact, it contradicts it. In eternal inflation, horizons are everywhere, and as Susskind says, they provide the mechanism by which the wave function collapses, dead cats and dead vacua stay dead, and so on, and in general things that have happened stay happened. But the motivation for the Everettian is to avoid any and all collapse of the wave function; so these two accounts are incompatible: if one is true, then the other is necessarily false.

👏👏👏

In my mind without the work. It appearing as the picture of 69. So I am not sold.

Some people get lost on243.

aspects

These lectures really confuse me. I have been explicitly told that without math, nothing in physics makes any sense. But gedankenexperiments are used constantly and are extremely consistent. For example, I have almost no math skills, but the idea that drawing a box around something and calling it a system is functionally equivalent to defining a volume, and then simply seeing what crosses the boundary of that volume after an infinite time. It seems that if you can wait long enough, bothering to define any volume, can give you an enormous amount of information about everything both inside and outside. It seems the act of "defining a closed surface" is functionally equivalent to "defining a volume" except in the singular cases where there's lots and lots of stuff going on in that volume but it just happens to never leave that volume. In fact, I wonder if the "amount of stuff" in any volume is always constant? Do the random fluctuations of the vacuum serve to observe every particle traversing that vacuum? Etc etc etc. So, I know that hitting the books is the only way to move forward. But I also feel that I have some reasonable momentum despite not having good math skills. I thank people like susskind and Hawking for their strong desire to communicate to a broad audience. They certainly aren't fools... How do people really feel about this? I'd love to know.

@Tadesan

5 жыл бұрын

What I tried to say is that I'm confused about not being more confused...

@MARILYNANDERSON88

5 жыл бұрын

I feel wonderment, and see the relevance of this work, and the principles, also the analogies that can develop concepts with analogous help in understanding more about reality and the mind than just astrophysics.

@davidwilkie9551

4 жыл бұрын

"Familiarity breeds contempt", is an old saying from an era before extremes of delicacy and emotional fragility, and before cowardly trolls could attack honestly held constructive opinions such as the comment above. Instead of contempt, read expediency used so often in a particular context, that the meaning of words and symbolism is lost in history. At one time, all the abstractions Professor Susskind has disassembled from the peculiarities of some Physics experiments in order to measure the value of theoretical compositions of phenomena, ..have lost the Temporal terminology that identifies the Observable Universe is a Hologram of pure relative motion, time duration timing. So what you think you've understood, is "native intelligence", available through the style of presentation analogy. Same positioning everyone begins with.

As much as I'm fascinated by trying to understand ANY of this, I don't get what the end-goal is with all of this? What is meant to be achieved with this information? Lenny understands all of this stuff but, other than teach it to others, what does he do with all of this knowledge?