Chiara Marletto | Universality of the Quantum Multiverse

Abstract: I will present some musings on recently proposed arguments for the universality of quantum theory, based on general information-theoretic principles.

About the speaker: Chiara Marletto is a phycisist working at the Physics Department, University of Oxford. She researches foundational issue in physics. In recent research, she has worked on a new fundamental theory of physics called Constructor Theory, which is a generalisation of quantum information theory.

[zombieinjeans]

Excellent presentation. I'm really looking forward to your future work Chiara!

[bloodyorphan]

Gravity is Newtonian in extent and compression level especially at the quantum, not infinite.

It's the visible C^3 weight expressed through the atomic aperture and moderated through compression skin.

I like your approach Chiara, a language of quantum and physical operators and the entanglement functions, nice B-)

Information field entanglement is all about ambient temperature and source particle weight.

[loveabuttersquash]

What we lack so consistently in physics is the evaluation of the self as the interest for connecting dynamics of universality, so that we understand intrinsically in the infinite but pretend not to notice it.

[BrynSCat]

You can have a finite multi-verse of charge."The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity" a static charge is its own CP inverse, avoiding singularities and infinities. Double copy Double particle Theory (A single static charge is a Eternal “ER-ER” bridge.(QG) )Hopf Fibration .Causality is compactification of R4 > R3.(S3 > S2).More like a Superfluid theory. A static charge is its own C.P. inverse.(Monopole Magnet)You first need a Field theory to describe mass without mass .

[sonarbangla]

There is one universe, however after eternal inflation there may be one big BH or many Bhs. Rovelli conjecture, with ample mathematics, that the final BH will bounce into a WH, or many WHs.

[ernesttilton]

Q alinements gives different higher or lower frequency s we can litterly here it

[epajarjestys]

I've listened to a number of talks of interviews with this woman now and I still have no idea what she is talking about.

[ernesttilton]

Cant open all systems all at once .that would cause way to much issues

[gualmicol]

A rose with any other name smells the same, the problem is, you call a rose with the name of a rose: if not, you are calling something else. With the transition from natural philosophy to modern science, "universe" has become "our observable physical universe", but then this restricted understanding has (using a sketchy oversimplification here) theoretically evolved to the idea of the multiverse (among other things), to proceed to the idea of the universality (and not universalities) of the multiverse. So, even before I watch this, it seems to me almost inevitable (due to the tautology: all=all) that we are actually going back to square one: the universe being one and manifold. Nevertheless, after being clickbaited and having made this comment on the, say, communicative/linguistic level of scientific theory, I think I should still find the time to watch this with attention. I would like to add that I'm not sure about "hard problem" and "easy problem", but I will say that for any totalizing explanation there will be a condition of truth whereby the explainer is being explained by the explanation: in other words, the explainers must themselves part of the totality they truthfully explain (regardless of the fact that they would still be part of the totality they untruthfully explain). If I change the word "totality" to (what is generally understood to be the) universe, I guess the general consensus should still be that I, and all of us, are part of it.

[ernesttilton]

I believe . higher frequency faster time .lower frequency slower time .