I hope that We would very much for your pilot introduction some of you young people here will have a chance to participate in this great adventure. Thank you Micro Okay Yes, I have my phone here most My gift flelassen energy I think that's a very interesting question. There have been the current theories that there were multiple big banks, and there were probably The problem with this whole point of view from my perspective is that these other universes are universes we cannot communicate with at all. There is no way that we can get any experiment information to be verified or existence or any property events. So while we can suppose that, it's getting somewhat out of the range of science. You see, science has to be really observational. And that's one of the great perplexing questions because if you talk to most theorists today, they will say, oh yes, there are many many student verses out there. Possibly, you know, you're talking about incredibly large numbers. But the problem is how you can verify any such assertion. That's the problem. And I want to say, and there are two reasons that people would like to have many many universes. In string theory, if you look at the possible solutions, there are possibly, you know, somebody said you had the number 10 to the 500 power solutions. Some people say infinite number of solutions. And so they say, well every solution. And these solutions all have different fundamental constants because there seems to be nothing to pin down the fundamental constants in an end in string theory. And so you take that point of view. And then the point of view has been taken. Well, in the inflationary model, which I didn't have a chance to discuss with you because I just didn't have time, there was a period of time when the very early universe, when the expansion was enormously great. And there was accelerating at that point. And there was sort of fraving at the edges. And these edges broke off and bubbles broke off. And they became sources of new universes. And so the combination of this sort of bubble in the fraving plus all these solutions have led theorists to say, well, there are probably all these universes out there, each of which has different fundamental constants. The fact that we exist is only because for our universe, the fundamental constants are such a nature that the atoms can exist. Now, yet if you change the fundamental constants, you get a situation where atoms can't exist. Because the forces are not right. And so this is called the anthropic principle. And there's a big debate about that. Some physicists say, well, the reason you have the anthropic principles, because you can't create, you can't calculate properly. Now they say, well, no, no, it seems to be more fundamental. And so there's a big controversy in that. But the bottom line from a short, manless point of view is that when you start talking about multiple universes that cannot communicate with each other, you are getting more into the realm of the metaphysics than physics. Because physics always should be something that allows you to get some observational information that can either verify or falsify an assertion. Is that? A view to have… Thank you! I'm talking about the heartless часть que al para escarquGOeeeeeeee cables edwhat? Hum podía striper a María de una persona Savio is just a brazilian Enough just the right question. Because it's all the process of the service. The question is, is that we're not the same? Are we a rational equation? Well, that's a very interesting question. I think the problem here is you might say that at the most basic level you have quirks and they form, they prompt you to do the trance and then they form new guy and then you form atoms and you put the atoms together and you form the molecules and then you produce more and more complicated molecules. If we had the universe's calculator, we could understand it from that point of view. But there is no way I think that we will probably ever be able to formulate this. This point of view into any kind of mathematical formulation that will produce the whole thing. We're just not smart enough and calculators and even the biggest computers are not powerful enough to do that. Because biology is so complex that you have to deal with these things at a biological level where you basically have another scale at which you try to understand things where quirks, electrons, protons, and neutrons play a virtually no role. And I think that's what we're faced with. In a certain sense it's the old business. At one point we thought there was something called the life force, the life force. And all living things have a life force. But now we know there is no such thing as a life force. The only forces we know of are the forces of physics. And they make a very complicated set of molecules. But how they are put together, in fact, VAR, you'll hear some lectures about how complicated things are. The idea that we could ever really understand it from a physics point of view. They're totally understanding, I think, is way out of the question. There are certain things that you can understand if you take a sub-paracate and you sort of say, well, you want to use thermodynamics to see what the rate of this or the rate of that or things of that nature. That's okay. But you'll never understand, for example, the idea that there could be even any equations of DNA and the way DNA is assembled and how it transfers information to make new proteins and so on and so forth. That's just too complicated. I would ask my biological friends to see if they either agree or disagree. You